Atomic nuclei are tetrahedral nodes, with wavefunctions that spin as the superpositions of frequencies yield a standing wave with rotation. The nested packing of these tetrahedrons naturally gives the electron shell model, without the arbitrary corrections taught in undergraduate courses. The particle quality is the result of framing experiments to extract quanta along the vertices, and wave qualities emerge extracting quanta about the edges of the atomic nucleus

Atomic nuclei are tetrahedral nodes, with wavefunctions that spin as the superpositions of frequencies yield a standing wave with rotation. The nested packing of these tetrahedrons naturally gives the electron shell model, without the arbitrary corrections taught in undergraduate courses. The particle quality is the result of framing experiments to extract quanta along the vertices, and wave qualities emerge extracting quanta about the edges of the atomic nucleus

Like this link.

,... is it that communist physics is just now catching up to Kepler? :)

Sometimes I really wish they could rearrange data in articles so that they could simply state that "Given that our setup is not flawed we learned this: ..." rather than forcing everyone to read the whole article to understand the context of any one statement. Specifically the statements at the end that say what they learned.

I'm talking not only about this but also it's source material.

Anyways, since I'm not in a position right now for deep reading, I got the impression that they are stating that their experiments demonstrate that there is no such thing as a definite states, like particle or a wave, and that it is either more complex than that or that there are varying level between those two states?

Can someone who had the time to read the whole thing confirm this and/or expand on it if necessary? Sorry for what might seem like laziness.

Or at its most basic:- Anything is just a root probability distribution until it "happens" to meet with another root probability at the detector. The product of these two roots is a probability event and happening implies a probability of one- where we call it a particle.

Am I too assume the vibrational analysis of particles to waves verifies that no purely radiating particle can ever have a purely defined set of properties without any variance; hence noise ala dirtiness in the signal?

I got the impression that [..] their experiments demonstrate that there is no such thing as a definite states, like particle or a wave, and that it is either more complex

You got it right. There is no actual particle or wave,... the underlying reality, apart from observation, is neither.

To make an observation requires the use of concepts at our scale, in constructing apparatus and interpreting results, and this adds the form to the underlying reality, a particle or a wave. In other words the act of 'conceptualizing' reality adds something artificial, which is not existent apart from an observer.

The non-intuitive nature of qm means that it is not possible to conform reality within our conceptual framework consistently, demonstrating that some of our concepts are artifacts of thought, and so dependent upon mind, rather than something intrinsic to Reality itself.

wave-particle duality is an irreducible feature of quantum systems with no naïve realistic explanation

Whole the experimental physics of the last forty years indicates, such a naive but realistic explanation exists: the water surface analogy based on dense aether model. In recent years, this analogy was even confirmed directly with Couder's and Unruh experiments.

I already explained wave-particle duality here many times. The vacuum is behaving like the elastic foam, which gets more dense under shaking and it forms a less or more dense blob of vacuum foam at the place, where the energy is just spreading. The more dense place is behaving like both wave, both particle after then.

quantum eraser experiments – in which wave-like behavior can be restored by erasing path information

This is reversed version of double slit experiment, in which the flabelliform wave-like patterns gets erased, when we follow the particle travel along whole it's path. I usually explaining it with the mechanical analogy of entanglement.
Try to imagine, you're a sailor, who is staying at night on the end of floating wharf, to which some boat is attached. Because night sea is stormy, everything (both sailor, wharf and boat) are wobbling up and down, but in different phases. From the perspective of sailor this boat sways randomly.

The observation of particle is analogous to situation, when sailor touches the boat for a moment, thus exchanging some kinetic energy with it. The wharf and boat will begin to oscillate at phase and the sailor will not detect any boat wobbling anymore.

I already explained wave-particle duality here many times.

Agree with that Zephyr, you have never posted truer words.

The vacuum is behaving like the elastic foam, which gets more dense under shaking and it forms a less or more dense blob of vacuum foam at the place, where the energy is just spreading. The more dense place is behaving like both wave, both particle after then.

And I'm afraid you might have to explain it here many more times before there will be any hope that I will understand what might be going on in that head of yours. It's way beyond my meager abilities.

The same just reversed action may happen, when sailor will get some mechanical impulse from neighboring environment, so that his motion will get desynchronized with the motion of boat again. It means, the quantum wave function of object not only can be "collapsed" with observation of object, but it can be restored again with observation of another object and this process can be done repeatedly.

The observation of particle is analogous to situation, when sailor touches the boat for a moment, thus exchanging some kinetic energy with it. The wharf and boat will begin to oscillate at phase and the sailor will not detect any boat wobbling anymore.

Have you conducted this experiment yourself? And you didn't detect any boat wobbling anymore? Were you the drunken sailor? Or the outside particle?

..will be any hope that I will understand what might be going on in that head of yours..

It's not in my head only. Here you can read about mechanical analogy of double slit experiment. If you can explain, what happens there, then you can explain the double slit experiment in vacuum as well. And the explanation of this experiment is described in Couder's articles and at many other places of the web. It's not abstract thing, existing in my head only.

Have you conducted this experiment yourself?

This is so-called thought experiment. Don't worry, it's dedicated for clever people only, capable of abstract thinking.

It's not in my head only. Don't worry, it's dedicated for clever people only, capable of abstract thinking only.

Oh, well if it's dedicated to clever people only, I'll have to forgo my great desire to understand you Zeph,,,

But do keep trying to show us the way, maybe some of it will finally sink in one day.

The particle wave duality manifests itself even at the water surface, albeit in minute extent. In this picture we can see, that the surface ripples penetrate like the light waves, i.e. like the ghosts without mutual interaction. But some minute interaction still must exist there, because the speed of surface ripples depends on the surface area. If we expand the surface, then all waves will spread more slowly above it. And the undulating surface has a larger specific area, than the flat one - so it must behave like less or more dense surface area for another ripples. The conclusion is, every wave makes the environment slightly more dense (dilated into extradimensions) - so it behaves like less or more sparse particle. Which is why, after all, why Couder's experiment do work.

It's not in my head only. Don't worry, it's dedicated for clever people only, capable of abstract thinking only.

Oh, well if it's dedicated to clever people only, I'll have to forgo my great desire to understand you Zeph,,,

But do keep trying to show us the way, maybe some of it will finally sink in one day.

LOL @Q-Star

m(%)m

Sometimes I really wish they could rearrange data in articles so that they could simply state that "Given that our setup is not flawed we learned this: ..." rather than forcing everyone to read the whole article to understand the context of any one statement. Specifically the statements at the end that say what they learned.

I'm talking not only about this but also it's source material.

Anyways, since I'm not in a position right now for deep reading, I got the impression that they are stating that their experiments demonstrate that there is no such thing as a definite states, like particle or a wave, and that it is either more complex than that or that there are varying level between those two states?

Can someone who had the time to read the whole thing confirm this and/or expand on it if necessary? Sorry for what might seem like laziness.

How else are they gonna get you to read the whole article...

To those who insist on explaining quantum mechanics with metaphorical macroscopic analogies: It's wrong, so give it up. Moreover, quantum phenomena, while counterintuitive, are really not that difficult to understand...Just remember Amanda Gefter's beautiful quote: "Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."

(Phys.org)—Quantum physics presents several counterintuitive features, including entanglement, tunneling and – as demonstrated in double-slit experiments – wave-particle duality. ….

This seems not just counterintuitive, it is more like magic because we do not know how it works! Actually in playing a real magic, the magician do know how it works, maybe this paper could show us the mechanism behind the quantum physics features.
http://www.vacuum...17〈=en

To those who insist on explaining quantum mechanics with metaphorical macroscopic analogies: It's wrong, so give it up. Moreover, quantum phenomena, while counterintuitive, are really not that difficult to understand...Just remember Amanda Gefter's beautiful quote: "Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."

Interestingly enough, you just explained it using a MICROscopic metaphor...
Is it wrong?

To those who insist on explaining quantum mechanics with metaphorical macroscopic analogies: It's wrong, so give it up. Moreover, quantum phenomena, while counterintuitive, are really not that difficult to understand...Just remember Amanda Gefter's beautiful quote: "Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."

Interestingly enough, you just explained it using a MICROscopic metaphor...
Is it wrong?

No, I most certainly didn't. I in no way employed a visual metaphor based on perceptual physiology that has evolved to function within a narrow macroscopic level of scale. Moreover, saying that QM is the math is not a metaphor - it's description articulated within the bounds of a purely symbolic language.

To those who insist on explaining quantum mechanics with metaphorical macroscopic analogies: It's wrong, so give it up.

So far we modeled the Hawking radiation, double slit experiment, atom orbitals and their energy quantization or Zeeman effect with water surface. Is it all just an accident? Actually the only limit of these analogies is their scale only.

Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures.

I'm not talking about some abstract theory, but about real physical phenomena. Mathematical structures have no inertia and they're atemporal. As Einstein one said: "Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact." We are living in the universe incalculable with science.

Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves

Atoms were such a stories before some time and today we are observing them directly like the marbles. This is electron beam - it's pretty divergent, so it's apparent, it's being composed of mutually repulsing particles. The beam of waves wouldn't behave in this way. The collisions of electrons with glass of apparatus are well observable - the beam is bouncing from obstacles in sequence of elastic jumps with very high, but still observable speed like the stream of tiny marbles. I don't think that the electrons are abstract concepts only.

Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves

Atoms were such a stories before some time and today we are observing them directly in sequence of elastic jumps with very high, but still observable speed like the stream of tiny marbles. I don't think that the electrons are abstract concepts only.

Firstly, electron beam tomography (EBT) is a noninvasive method used to detect coronary artery
calcium (CAC). The images you've apparently seen were acquired using atomic force microscopy (AFM), which can be used to image and manipulate atoms on a variety of surfaces. The atom at the apex of the AFM tip detects individual atoms on the underlying surface when it forms chemical bonds with each atom. The "marbles" you saw are energy distributions. Each species of atom has a characteristic bonding energy, so the images allow atoms to be visually identified.

Unverified ideas are not explanations. Have you heard of the scientific method?

Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."

What is that? Math? No they're not - they are fields of energy.
And I noticed you requalified your metaphor to "visual" which was not in the comment I quoted.
I rather believe you've been hoisted by your own petard.
Don't use a metaphor (not talking bout your QM is math" statement) to denigrate someone elses. It's disengenuous.
By the way. Math IS a metaphor used to interpret physical parameters we observe and visualize those we CANNOT observe.
Now, do you accept wave/particle duality as a state of matter?

@ Noumenon

You got it right. There is no actual particle or wave,... the underlying reality, apart from observation, is neither.

You run away when I challenge you and thencomes back with the same superstitious, paranormal BS.

What you all call a "particle" is a localized wave: As in the case of ALL waves ever discovered the size and shape is determined by the boundary conditions. When you make a measurement you change the boundary conditions and the wave morphs into another shape and size. The new shape might require the same wave to form different parts, as in the case where it moves through both slits. When you measure "which path" the wave has followed, you change the boundary conditions so that the wave morphs again in order to be detected as a localized wave. If you want to be superstitious, like Zeilinger is, you conclude that you have determined "which path" a "particle has followed. The wave, consisting of two fractions has followed BOTH PATHS until it is collapsed.

Can this be used to transmit information faster than light speed? I know the usual answer is 'no' but this experiment seems different.

I can imagine the sender deciding to either record which-way (0) or not (1) and firing lots of photons off. If the receiver can figure out which choice the sender made based on the interference pattern they see (or not) then they can figure out if a 0/1 was transmitted.

I must be missing something but what?

Can this be used to transmit information faster than light speed?

No.

If the sender already decided it and THEN fired photons will reach the receiver with the speed of light. So it's not FTL (but just regular communication).

And the article states it quite plainly

The world view that a photon always behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication, and should therefore be abandoned as a description of quantum behavior.

Encryption is possible, though (as mentioned in the last paragraph) as encryption does not add information in a information-theory sense.

All entanglement experiments can be explained if we assume that we live inside one of the TWO (or more) entangled multiverses.
only then we are able to explain entangled CATS and human and even material consciousness.

Wavefunction Collapse and Human Choice-Making Inside an Entangled Mirror Symmetrical Multiverse

Isn't the trajectory of any (even infinite in number) path(s) taken, lost when the principle of uncertainty kicks in?

Yes! BUT IT IS NOT paths which are simultaneously followed by a "particle". According to definition a "particle" can only have a single trajectory. Only a wave can remain a coherent wave by splitting up in parts that can follow different paths. But such a wave can ALSO follow a SINGLE trajectory just like only a "particle" supposedly does.

Thus a wave that follows a SINGLE trajectory encounters two slits, split in two lobes which move simultaneously through the slits. The parts interfere.

If the wave is a single photon-wave, it can ONLY be observed as a single wave (No coherent wave can have less energy). Thus if you do not disturb the two lobes of the wave, you have a diffracted wave-front reaching the detection screen. There it can only be observed by an atomic sized detector. So it collapses and leaves a spot. (proceed below)

Each photon impinging on the screen, resonates with another atomic sized detector and collapses to leave its OWN spot. Resonance occurs more easily where the wave-front has it highest intensity. Eventually the spots give a picture of the identical wave-front of each diffracted photon wave which reached the screen.

If you are stupid, you try and detect through which slit the wave has come. Since you can only detect a single photon at a time, the two lobes of the wave collapse, so that the collapsed wave now again follows a single trajectory: Since all the photon-waves which now reach the screen are collapsed waves, the spots do not give the intensity of a diffracted wave-front.

What the HELL is the problem with you guys? It is simple wave-behavior all the way!!! The two parts of the photon are entangled while they exist. You can have a SINGLE coherent wave with more energy: It can also move through both slits and its two parts will be entangled even though the wave is not a photon.

@johanfprins,

I don't "run away", its just that you're so insulting, that I interpret it as you asking me to leave the conversation.

You have some vagaries in your theory of realism (interpreting the wavefunction as a real wave entity). Your use of the term collapse is not clear. Yes, I know about absorption and resonance,... I'm speaking about how an extended wave (photon) much larger than an atom, since it interferes with itself, can collapse into a specific atom. You attribute a varying intensity to a single photon wave,... but experimentally electromagnetic intensity is found to be proportional to the number of photons, which is why M.Born had to inform Schrodinger of the need for probability interpretation of his wave.

Your statement that "Resonance occurs more easily where the wave-front has it highest intensity" is vague. Why? What do you mean "more easily"? The definition of a photon is that it is of a specific frequency and lowest possible intensity.

,... do you mean the wavefront is more refined as a given frequency?

Your use of the term collapse is not clear.

Why is it not clear? We know that a wave changes in shape and size when you change the boundary conditions: And when the change in boundary conditions is instantaneous the change in size and shape of the wave must be instantaneous. If you are not very bright you will call this a quantum jump of a "particle".

Thus if the boundary conditions are such that the volume of the wave has to become smaller, it has to collapse. If the boundary-conditions are such that the wave must become larger, it inflates: The latter happens when a localized photon-wave reaches double-slits. The boundary-conditions cause it to inflate and to move through both slits. On the other side it expands further until it reaches an atomic-absorber with which it resonates: It then has to again collapse to be absorbed. This is what waves do!

It is less Voodoo than the collapse of a probability; is it not?

You attribute a varying intensity to a single photon wave,... but electromagnetic intensity is found to be proportional to the number of photons,

Although a higher energy coherent wave can disentangle into photons, it does not consist of separate photons: Its energy is determined by the intensity of its electric- and magnetic field components; as can be proved from Maxwell's magnificent equations. This is also the case for the minimum-energy coherent wave, which is the photon.

Your statement that "Resonance occurs more easily where the wave-front has it highest intensity" is vague.

If you tune your radio within a region where the emitted carrier wave-intensity is low, you will get a weaker resonance and signal. This is how waves behave.

The definition of a photon is that it is of a specific frequency

That is why it can only be absorbed by an atomic absorber that matches this frequency: It has to resonate in order to be detected: This is what waves do!

The definition of a photon is that it is of a specific frequency and lowest possible intensity.

Its integrated intensity is equal to h*nu, but this intensity can be distributed within a smaller or larger volume as determined by the boundary conditions. When it moves through two slits the photon diffracts in exactly the same manner as any other coherent wave like a laser beam, and it thus forms regions in space where its intensity is higher and regions in space where its intensity is lower. It has a higher probability to resonate with an absorber situated within the regions which have higher intensities. What the hell has this got to do with probability "built into nature". The latter idea is completely insane!

Notice that in Scale Relativity QM particles are identified with fractal geodesics, from which the internal global geometric properties (as symmetry breakings in scale space) determine the properties as mass, spin, charge etc. Measuring a particle then selects the set of geodesics corresponding to the actual state.

Notice that in Scale Relativity QM particles are identified with fractal geodesics, from which the internal global geometric properties (as symmetry breakings in scale space) determine the properties as mass, spin, charge etc. Measuring a particle then selects the set of geodesics corresponding to the actual state.

Interesting but far too complicated to be physics! All of 20th century physics can be derived from Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations. Even Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is just a better interpretation of Maxwell's equations; which led to a fix in Newton's laws at high speed.

Einstein then tripped over his own feet by deriving length contraction and time dilation. Both these concepts violate his postulate of the constancy of light speed. In fact when using the Lorentz transformation correctly to determine the properties of a moving rod, one obtains de Broglie's wave-momentum relationship. Everything fits beautifully and very simply together.

Math IS a metaphor used to interpret physical parameters we observe and visualize those we CANNOT observe.
Now, do you accept wave/particle duality as a state of matter?

Petard? How 19th century. Also, to correct what you wrote: I used the term metaphorical to describe the type of analogy that particles and waves represent.

Math is a precise symbolic language for describing and predicting processes and behavior. Natural language, on the other hand, is largely metaphorical and imprecise in which those metaphors are derived from our sensory experiences, which in this discussion of particles, waves, marbles and the like are visual (which I added for clarification, Mr. Sensitive).

In any case, to answer your question: No, because w/p duality is a measurement artifact, not a feature of the quantum world. Many physicists acknowledge this, but employ this language as a non-mathematical way of describing QM to non-physicists. More astute physicists are abandoning this practice.

By entanglement space itself is a direct,immediate information medium. Space is made out of quanta of space scale of Planck. At the scale of Planck information transfer is immediate.
At the scale of a photon information transfer has light speed C.

By entanglement space itself is a direct,immediate information medium.

Immediate transfer of info occurs WITHIN a single holistic wave which has boundaries to space. Outside these boundaries separate wave-entities can ONLY communicate with the speed of light! Just like Einstein claimed when he formulated the EPR paradox. The fact that there is instantaneous communication between two "particles" proves that the two parts that communicate are NOT separate "particles". This proves that Einstein was correct.

Space is made out of quanta of space scale of Planck. At the scale of Planck information transfer is immediate.

BS! BS!

At the scale of a photon information transfer has light speed C.

Not when two photons have entangled to form a SINGLE holistic wave which is in immediate contact with itself within the whole region of space that it occupies! Two separate photons or electrons cannot communicate faster than the speed of light. This has been proved.

Okay, to move on...

Math is a precise symbolic language for describing and predicting processes and behavior. Natural language, on the other hand, is largely metaphorical and imprecise in which those metaphors are derived from our sensory experiences, which in this discussion of particles, waves, marbles and the like are visual.

It is still a visualization process (abstract), no matter how precise you make it. Thereby (from my own perspective to better my own methodology of understanding the concept), metaphorical at its basic nature.
Okay, enough of the semantics square dancing. Onto the next;
(cont)

...to answer your question: No, because w/p duality is a measurement artifact, not a feature of the quantum world. Many physicists acknowledge this, but employ this language as a non-mathematical way of describing QM to non-physicists. More astute physicists are abandoning this practice.

I am only translating, here, using my own meager "metaphorical method". As simple as I am capable of putting it words, I hope.
A photon (a defined "particle" of energy at rest) can not be parsed further. It either exists or does not. It's most basic "quantum" state. What makes it "exist" is it's potential to take an action.
One question - in a vacuum, will that quantum do ANYthing, besides exist, unless it "entangles" with some other quantum "particle" and/or basic quantum force? (Or mirrors)
And lastly - is at rest relative to the experimentor or is it rest relative to (inclusively) all other observable kinetic actions in the Universe?

A photon (a defined "particle" of energy at rest) can not be parsed further. It either exists or does not. It's most basic "quantum" state. What makes it "exist" is it's potential to take an action.

A photon has the attributes of a particle. Sometimes. It also displays attributes of a wave. At other times. That is what the particle/wave duality is about. It's why we are forced to use TWO completely different models to work with the photon. It depends on the observation,,,,, Sometimes it's one, and sometimes it's the other. It's not both at the same time,,,, hence the great quandary in quantum physics of p/w duality. Don't confuse the speculations in these articles as being solved physics or tested theories. That are no more than speculations.

One question - in a vacuum, will that quantum do ANYthing, besides exist, unless it "entangles" with some other quantum "particle" and/or basic quantum force? (Or mirrors)
And lastly - is at rest relative to the experimentor or is it rest relative to (inclusively) all other observable kinetic actions in the Universe?

A photon as a waveform travels at "c". It doesn't speed up or slow down, acceleration. It just IS moving at "c". It is never at rest. All reference frames are the same,,, it moves at "c"

As a particle it pops into existence traveling at "c". It pops out of existence moving at "c". It does not accelerate, speed up or slow down.

It all depends on what you are looking at whether it is a waveform or a particle.

Sub: Help line to Four-flow-mode Concepts -Space Time Energy Studies- derived from cosmology vedas Interlinks
See: abstract illustration shows four particles of light can be produced and manipulated in such a way that one can later decide in which quantum state two of the particles have been.
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Thank you,Q. You answered my questions succinctly and fully. You also helped me understand a question that I did not quite realize I was asking - what were the relative modifers defining that rest state of a photon. Which turns out to be the REAL question I wanted answered.
Thanks, again.

So, what are the "relative modifiers defining that rest state of a photon"? Try to reproduce this newly acquired understanding by your own words for me..

So, what are the "relative modifiers defining that rest state of a photon"? Try to reproduce this newly acquired understanding by your own words for me..

The particular aspect of the rest state was - dead stop or moving. 0 or 1. Yhat understanding is of course, only relative to me/us as the observer(s). We would have to be observing from OUTSIDE our current universe to see any other aspect of it's motion. We can suspect it, imagine it, even calculate it. But we can not actually observe it until our "vantage point" changes.
Unless we come up with some really clever way of inferring it...

Q, I am a bit confused! Ha my constant state.

No worries, Larry... Imagine what that photon must be thinking.
"I travel at C, so therefore I am..."

Yes I agree that EM velocity is c but what about the individual electro and magnetic propogations which cause the movement in the first place, might they move at slightly >c and the resulting (apparent)momentum slowing EM to c?

Valid question. The only answer (for me) might be as a result of tiny variations in c at other points within this universal existence. I am slowly beginning to suspect that ALL photons are entangled, but a change in one is happening in an interconnecting sequence to all others. This is the point when a better understanding of physics math would come in handy, I'll bet.
You are right, it's all about the numbers. But even more importantly, how those numbers interconnect(relate).
If only I had more time...

Don't confuse the speculations in these articles as being solved physics or tested theories.

I don't. Hence, the simple seeming questions from MY relative reference point...:-)

Thanks Whydening Gyre. Ok lets assume that an electron (wave or particle state) absorbs energy enough to excite to the next quantum level. When it quickly returns to it's ground state it releases that aborbed energy by propagating a photon. My qestion is, does that photon propagate from the whole of the spherical electron surface or from a dS on that surface? (Here I am referring to the Divergence theorem.) However the ambiguity here is, well for me at any rate; is the STATE (eigenstate)of the electron different and separate from the electron or would it be the recently recognised combination 'quasi-particle'? ...but I'm sure you'll see the point.

Larry, not a physics or calculus guy,so I have no applicable observations to share except what I have read here. Under that proviso, what I say, may or not be observationally verified, already.You have to be the judge (along with "more informed" contributors).
cont.

Not quite sure, but I believe an electron is considered in a wave state when moving between energy levels,with absorption occurring as result of energy increase and photonic release when going to a lower energy state.I will gladly accept correction if wrong.
As to where on the electron a photon might makes it exit from, well - you're now trying to visualize in it's particle state.
The exit point should logically be perpendicular to the spin, but I have a suspicion it might actually be 30 degrees (or less) above or below that point.. No observational data to support this, so merely conjecture.
What I would REALLY like to know for myself is - do electrons change levels on a regularly timed basis (when surrounding a nucleus)or only if in conjuction with proximity to another "matching situation" electron.
Logic tells me it should have a synchronous change when in "orbit" around a nucleus (except for Hydrogen). But - no observation support.
Q, Noum, or smd might be able to field that one.

Sheesh... that Lite guy needs to quit stalking me and get some sleep...

A photon has the attributes of a particle. Sometimes. It also displays attributes of a wave. At other times.

When does a photon act like a particle? It NEVER does: It ALWAYS ACTS in the manner one expects that an electromagnetic coherent wave MUST act. ALL its interactions can be modeled in terms of Maxwell's equations.

In space, it is a coherent EM wave moving with speed c relative to all bodies as determined by Maxwell's waves. Its EM energy has no rest-mass component; because it does not have an inertial reference frame within which it can be at rest.

When trapped within a cavity, for example a laser cavity, or a black-body cavity, or by an electron-orbital around the nucleus, it forms a stationary wave, which can also be modeled by Maxwell's equations: Its EM energy is now stationary and is therefore rest-mass energy. No Higg's "particle" required. The concept of "particles" is Voodoo. Why call a localized wave a "particle" when a light wave also has a center of mass?

My qestion is, does that photon propagate from the whole of the spherical electron surface or from a dS on that surface? (Here I am referring to the Divergence theorem.)

Hello LarryD, looking at the problem from a different perspective,... the divergence of an electric field is proportional to the electric charge (inside the volume integrated),... while the divergence of a magnetic field would reasonably be the magnetic charge. But there are no magnetic 'charges' (i.e. monopoles are not known to exist), ... so the divergence of the magnetic field is zero, the "north" and "south" poles "canceling out".

Since photons, quantized electromagnetic field, imply both electric and magnetic components,... one cannot state the release of a photon from an electron in those terms (as a div),.... not to mention there really is no electron surface per say,... in any case no one knows about the electron apart from observation, and we can't observer it before it releases a photon of energy!

P.S. See the empirically verified phenomenon known as "the photoelectric effect" or Compton scattering to see in what sense it is valid to use the qualifier "particle" of light.

johannfprins seems to think that metaphysical statements are being made there wrt the use of "particle" of light terminology,... all the while making clear his metaphysical belief in waves existing independent of observation!

This is why there is the wave/particle duality,... we can't observe directly the actual entity we call electron or photon,... so its form (as I mentioned above) is dependent upon experimental arrangement and conceptual circumstance.

johannfprins seems to think that metaphysical statements are being made there wrt the use of "particle" of light terminology,... all the while making clear his metaphysical belief in waves existing independent of observation!

How in God's name can such a "belief" be metaphysics?!

Anybody who believes that waves cannot exist independent of observation actually believes in metaphysics and is also a superstitious person. What can be more metaphysical BS than to believe that nothing exists unless it is observed? A person who believes this should be locked up in the Cuckoo's nest.

That a measurement, and thus an interaction with what IS out there can change what IS out there into something else is clearly so: To conclude from this that there is only probabilities before "observation", proves a demented mindset!

Waves change in shape and size depending upon the experimental arrangement: This means there IS a wave before "observation". No Voodoo is required!!

@ LarryD

Sorry if I am just another 'mindless' idiot.

You are not! Noumenon is the 'mindless" idiot in this case.

A light wave cannot be stationary when it travels through space with a speed c; since there is no inertial reference frame within which it can be stationary. But a light-wave can be trapped by boundary conditions to form a stationary wave; for example, within a laser cavity. Its EM energy is then REST MASS. It thus becomes a matter-wave. An electron within its inertial reference frame is a stationary light-wave: The boundary conditions which trap this EM energy manifest as gravity around the electron.

Thus the mass of the electron is stationary light energy within a volume defined by gravity. There is NO EM energy outside the electron's volume. It is thus absurd to claim that there is an electric-field energy in space around a solitary electron; as is assumed in QED, which is then "renormalized" away!. This electric-field doses not exist!

johannfprins seems to think that metaphysical statements are being made there wrt the use of "particle" of light terminology,... all the while making clear his metaphysical belief in waves existing independent of observation---Noumenon

Anybody who believes that waves cannot exist independent of observation actually believes in metaphysics and is also a superstitious person. What can be more metaphysical BS than to believe that nothing exists unless it is observed?

No one I know thinks that. Of course there is reality independent of observation,... its just that the act of observation, conceptually changes the form in which the underlying reality can be known.

That a measurement, and thus an interaction with what IS out there can change what IS out there into something else is clearly so:

That is all that is being said here,... that the form wave or particle is dependent upon an interaction,... so that it is meaningless (metaphysical in imo) to state that the underlying reality IS a wave.

To conclude from this that there is only probabilities before "observation", proves a demented mindset!

It's only about probabilities once normalized, when all possibilities are taken into consideration,... so not so much "probabilities" as "amplitudes" that combine in ways dependent upon the type of entity (fermion or boson) before one squares to determine "probabilities".

No one I know thinks that. Of course there is reality independent of observation,... its just that the act of observation, conceptually changes the form in which the underlying reality can be known.

That is sooooo EFFEN obvious that any MORON already knew this LOOOONG before 1900 when Planck discovered that it is impossible to have an emitter or an absorber-detector that can emit or detect LESS EM energy than h*nu. So why are you babbling superstitious NONSENSE and VOODOO? You are living in the 1500's when people believed that God does not allow you to understand how the universe functions. Wake up man: We are in then 21st Century!

That is all that is being said here,... that the form wave or particle is dependent upon an interaction,... so that it is meaningless (metaphysical in imo) to state that the underlying reality IS a wave.

Obviously, in your case: Since you are a bloody fool! What is IYO changing when you make a measurement? God decides, and should not be questioned why (as Bohr stated without ANY proof whatsoever) to change a wave into a "particle" which a wave can NEVER be!

It's only about probabilities once normalized,

BULLSHIT: If there are different probable outcomes, these are determined by the measuring apparatus NOT by a "normalized probability wave" whatever the latter BS means.

when all possibilities are taken into consideration,... so not so much "probabilities" as "amplitudes" that combine in ways dependent upon the type of entity (fermion or boson) before one squares to determine "probabilities".

I wish you would go out and buy yourself a brain!

So why are you babbling superstitious NONSENSE and VOODOO? You are living in the 1500's when people believed that God does not allow you to understand how the universe functions. Wake up man: We are in then 21st Century!

You're the who rejects maInstream physics here, not I.

You're the who rejects mainstream physics here, not I.

You're right, johanfprins takes his "all is the wave" theory a way too consequentially. Actually in real life the waves are rather rare artifact for to consider them a universal solution. Even the ripples at the water surface are quite different from harmonic waves. And his outright denial of particle-wave duality is just plain silly - it's actually one of bests insights of classical quantum field theory. Even my Aether Wave Theory has this duality in its name.

You're the who rejects maInstream physics here, not I.

Since Bohr Heisenberg and Born decided in 1927 that mainstream physics MUST be Voodoo, and this superstition was cemented by buffoons like Pauli, Dirac Feynman etc., it is my duty to reject it!

@ Tausc,

For God's sake stop being such a pedantic MORON; You are too stupid to contribute anything to a robust debate. Your arguments are all ad hominen! Try and think; or join Noumenon shopping for a brain! I think a transplant is urgently needed for both of you!

Or try and live without ANY BRAIN like ValeriaT is doing quite well.

Before I turn in: The following question:

CAN ONE MEASURE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES WHEN YOUR MEASURING APPARATUS DOES NOT ALLOW DIFFERENT OUTCOMES?

A simple question: YES or NO?

Before I turn in: The following question:

CAN ONE MEASURE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES WHEN YOUR MEASURING APPARATUS DOES NOT ALLOW DIFFERENT OUTCOMES?

A simple question: YES or NO?

Well, a simple answer would be yes. If ya had two apparatuses. But then ya might have a problem with which apparatus to use first. Will the first change something for the second apparatus? If so, you might switch them. Will the new first one change something for the new second one? Oops we still have a problem.

It would have been nice if one other person in the world had thought to do that in the last 100 years. Oh they have,,,, well have them do it again. And again. And again.

Before I turn in: The following question:

CAN ONE MEASURE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES WHEN YOUR MEASURING APPARATUS DOES NOT ALLOW DIFFERENT OUTCOMES?

A simple question: YES or NO?

Well, a simple answer would be yes.

You should not have used the term "simple" when you should have used "idiotic".

My sincere apologies for becoming insulting last night: especially to Tausch who usually post more sense than nonsense. It is just becoming exasperating to try and argue logic with people like Noumenon and ValeriaT (aka Natello, aka,aka,aka,etc.!)

I have asked Noumenon many times to tell us when an entity that passes one by is acting like a wave and when is it acting like a "particle"; but he or she is not willing to define the difference.

ValeriaT does not realize that we all know since 1905 that electromagnetic waves do NOT move within an aether! A photon is light which moves with speed c, and is thus not moving within an aether. For God's sake!

CAN ONE MEASURE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES WHEN YOUR MEASURING APPARATUS DOES NOT ALLOW DIFFERENT OUTCOMES?

A simple question: YES or NO?

Well, a simple answer would be yes.

You should not have used the term "simple" when you should have used "idiotic".

Pardon, I should have said idiotic. An idiotic answer,,,, to an idiotic question. Is that better?

My sincere apologies for becoming insulting last night

Sincere? I doubt it. Otherwise ya'd be writing apologies about 20 or 30 times a day. Ya seem to be in a bad mood much more often than not.

CAN ONE MEASURE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES WHEN YOUR MEASURING APPARATUS DOES NOT ALLOW DIFFERENT OUTCOMES?

A simple question: YES or NO?

Well, a simple answer would be yes.

You should not have used the term "simple" when you should have used "idiotic".

Pardon, I should have said idiotic. An idiotic answer,,,, to an idiotic question. Is that better?

Really! What is idiotic about the question? It is obvious that when you send in an ensemble of photons or electrons you can only get different measurements for different entities IF the measuring apparatus allows this. Anybody with common sense, which you do not have, will realize that this must be so. Have you ever had a catscan done of your empty skull?

My sincere apologies for becoming insulting last night

Sincere? I doubt it. Otherwise ya'd be writing apologies about 20 or 30 times a day. Ya seem to be in a bad mood much more often than not..

Sincere in the case of Tausch. Morons like you Noumenon and ValeriaT deserve the grossest insults. You are just useless entities. If there were not so many morons like you around in the world I would have been in a much better mood. But I agree that I must make peace with it: God must like morons since he created so many of you!

Have you ever had a catscan done of your empty skull?

Is that a simple question? If so the simple answer is yes.

But if it is another idiotic question, the idiotic answer is yes.

Now I have a smart, genius lever question for ya... Have you ever considered meds for your condition? Living in a hyper-excited state day-in and day-out will take years off your life.

Morons like you Noumenon and ValeriaT deserve the grossest insults. You are just useless entities. If there were not so many morons like you around in the world I would have been in a much better mood. But I agree that I must make peace with it: God must like morons since he created so many of you!

Can you say "DELUSIONS OF GRANDIOSITY"?

You really must be more moronic than me and all the others if you let us control your moods.

With something as simple (eer, excuse me, I mean moronic) as a few words on an internet forum, I might add.

For God's sake stop being such a pedantic MORON; You are too stupid to contribute anything to a robust debate. Your arguments are all ad hominen! Try and think; or join Noumenon shopping for a brain! I think a transplant is urgently needed for both of you! - johanfprins

Here we see psychosis typical of the internet crank, displayed wonderfully in inability to refrain from ad hominem attacks even while accusing others of ad hominem attacks.

You really must be more moronic than me and all the others if you let us control your moods. With something as simple [..] as a few words on an internet forum, I might add.

As he was rejected from the mainstream physics community, and now being rejected by the physics news site for amatuers,... soon he will be spit out the bottom of the porn industry still clutching his failed and irrelevant theories.

As he was rejected from the mainstream physics community,

I'm thinking rejected from the human community and doesn't have a clue as to why. I'm sure he is the type of super-genius that knows it can't have anything to do with his charming self.

I have asked Noumenon many times to tell us when an entity that passes one by is acting like a wave and when is it acting like a "particle"; but he or she is not willing to define the difference.

Actually I have explained this multiple times, and even referred to two experiments in this thread.

If an entity "passes one by" he is not in a position to say anything at all about it. He must interact with it using some classical apparatus of his design, ...using concepts borrowed from the macroscopic realm in which he lives and in which forms his intuition.

He can only arrange to observe in one of various complementary basis at a time. He can not acquire a full description of a particular aspect of the quantum entity without observing it in the conjugate basis as well....

...The full description of the quantum entity can not be explained in such singular classical concepts as "wave" OR "particle", ...but only by casting out multiple such concepts like a intellectual net.

Our minds have not evolved to order 'quantum experience', so we don't have the intellectual faculties, or conceptual framework, that will encapsulate full quantum reality, in singular intuitive concepts like that.

The salient lesson of the Copenhagen interpretation was that the non-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics is an epistemological issue, and not one of physical theory.

but only by casting out multiple such concepts like a intellectual net

Because the quantum particles are actually a net - a less or more dense blobs of foam, traveling like the waves across that foam. You can imagine it like the protosimplex.

You can imagine it like the protosimplex.

No Zeph, YOU can imagine it like the protosimplex,,,, I don't even know what a protosimplex means. Does it have anything to do with transverse water waves traveling at super-luminarial speeds?

Oh, yeah,,,, it IS a pretty picture, I would hang in it on my wall.

I don't even know what a protosimplex means

It's the basic concept of Heim's theory (simplex is polyhedral mesh). It's something like the swirling cluster of vortices. The physicists can actually model the quantum particles already - they just don't know about it. During condensation of supercritical gas the system of nested density fluctuations is temporarily formed. Something like the fluid composed of density fluctuations of another fluid. These nested density fluctuations can serve as a direct analogy of quantum foam. If we would create a solitons spreading through such a mixture with ultrasound, then we would create a mechanical analogy of quantum wave packets. The more compressed supercritical fluid and the higher energy density of ultrasound we would use, the more faithful this analogy of quantum vacuum will be

It's the basic concept of Heim's theory

Aren't just being a little hyperbolic in calling it a theory?

The physicists can actually model the quantum particles already - they just don't know about it

After all the many posts ya've made here, they still don't know about it? How can that be?

Something like the fluid composed of density fluctuations of another fluid.

You mean to tell me that I already had enough when I finished fluid mechanics? Quantum Mechanics was a waste of my time? Now you tell me.

The more compressed supercritical fluid and the higher energy density of ultrasound we would use, the more faithful this analogy of quantum vacuum will be.

compressed supercritical energy density ultrasound quantum vacuum,,,, Zeph, that might be a record for ya,,, the most non-connected jargon in one sentence yet.

Aren't just being a little hyperbolic in calling it a theory?

Heim's theory can predict the properties (rest mass, charge and decay time) of nearly one hundred of particles just from six physical constants. And these numbers are pretty easy to measure, which makes whole this model perfectly falsifiable. It's not about blind drawing of equations on the table under hope, someone else will succeed in their solving. It leads into real computer algorithms and real numbers. If this formal engine isn't a scientific theory, then I really don't know, what else we should call a scientific theory.

With compare to Heim's theory, the string theory doesn't lead into any testable predictions - so it's merely just a natural Vedian philosophy, only dressed into pile of math. It's predictability and comprehensibility is roughly corresponding the mysticism of natural philosophers. With compare to it, Heim's theory provides robust numbers and it was converted into computer programs already.

With compare to it, the Heim's theory provides robust numbers.

I can see why you would wish it so,,,, it explains all those aether waves on the transverse water waves with a flat surface moving with superluminal speed in the vacuum. Heim does indeed predict that. No question about it.

Oops, I left out the dense vacuum,,, put that in there too.

Quantum Mechanics was a waste of my time? Now you tell me.

Of course not. But it's time to move forward. We should understand, how the quantum mechanics and general relativity theories are working on background - not just to blindly use them for description of phenomena. We should disassemble these theories and rebuild them from more basic principles - not just combine them like the black boxes under hope, something interesting will happen during this. It's futile approach, as we know already, these theories are mutually inconsistent: the do lead into different predictions, so they cannot be never reconciled at the rigorous level as such.

Prof. Burkhard Heim was a first guy, who constructed the theory of elementary particles and gravity independently to existing theories from scratch. Because his theory works pretty well in most of important aspects, we should understand first, why/how his theory is working so well.

But it's time to move forward.

Move forward to aether, does forward mean something different in the Czech Republic than it does in North Carolina?

We should understand, how the quantum mechanics and general relativity theories are working on background -

Silly me, I had thought that was exactly what were doing.

not just to blindly use them for description of phenomena.

As opposed to using your protosimplex pictures?

Because his theory works pretty well in most of important aspects, we should understand first, why/how his theory is working so well.

It's working so well that everyone is using it?

Zeph, I must head home now,,,, I'll come back tomorrow for some more edifying exchanges with you. Can you find some more pictures for me? I really did like that protosimplex thingy.

It's working so well that everyone is using it?

It's very complex, which is the dark side of every ingenious work: it's so difficult to understand it, so that only few people can continue in it. Which is one of reasons, why I did choose the exactly the opposite bottom-up approach: the simplification of reality.

I'd like to do the reality modeling ingeniously simple, instead of ingeniously difficult. In computational fluid dynamics we have two approaches - one is based on rigorous solving of Navier-Stokes equations with complex solvers - whereas the another one doesn't bother with some complexity of math at all and it's using the random particle models. The first approach is using in technical engineering, the later one rather in film industry - but both they lead into the similar results, which are visually indistinguishable each other. The later approach simply transfers all complexity of physical model to the computer, but we have lower control over its parameters. But the particle models are very flexible and they can simulate even the physical situations, where the differential equation solvers remain unstable or even unusable.

Actually I have explained this multiple times, and even referred to two experiments in this thread.

You have not!

If an entity "passes one by" he is not in a position to say anything at all about it.

Passes you by means it follows a path and a path can be measured. So I ask you again: When is this entity following this path acting like a "particle" and when is it acting like a wave?

He must interact with it using some classical apparatus of his design, ...using concepts borrowed from the macroscopic realm in which he lives and in which forms his intuition.

So?

He can only arrange to observe in one of various complementary basis at a time.

What complementary basis? He only lives in a SINGLE world: What is complementary to it? You are insane you know!

He can not acquire a full description of a particular aspect of the quantum entity without observing it in the conjugate basis as well..

BS and gobbledegook! But the latter is, of course your forte

"The fact that particles can be identical has important consequences in statistical mechanics.

Wrong! "Identical" has nothing to do with it. Argon atoms are identical and the statistics of a macro-state of argon (a argon-gas)is Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.

The so-called "statistics" only changes when the "particles" are "indistinguishable". The latter is NOT the same as "identical". Indistinguishable means that within the Macro-state formed by these "identical particles", these "particles" are NOT separate entities anymore. If they remain separate entities, they will follow Boltzmann statistics: Not Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics.

When the latter statistics apply, the macro-state does NOT exist of separate entities: It is a single continuous field (wave) which has formed from smaller entities each of which is also a single continuous field (wave). There are NO separate "particles" within such a macro-state. This is why quantum field theory is hogwash.

If an entity "passes one by" he is not in a position to say anything at all about it.

Passes you by means it follows a path and a path can be measured. So I ask you again: When is this entity following this path acting like a "particle" and when is it acting like a wave?

I answered this question already, why do you continue to ask it? The phrase "Passes you by" is not experimentally meaningful. You must interact with the entity, which then takes a form that is in fundamental ways dependent upon the experimental arrangement.

He can only arrange to observe in one of various complementary basis at a time.

What complementary basis? He only lives in a SINGLE world: What is complementary to it? You are insane you know!

My apologies, I thought you were familiar with the Hilbert Space formulation of qm, since you so obstinately reject aspects of it, and tried to confine my philosophical musing within that framework.

There is an analogy with vector space in that the wavefunction can be represented as a linear combination of all possible observables, each of which is taken as a basis ("axis") in Hilbert Space. The Momentum space representation, has a Fourier transform space (i.e. interchanging coefficients and basis), where its conjugate variable, Position is represented. If a given apparatus is designed to measure precisely its momentum, this precludes knowing anything about its position.

Wrong! "Identical" has nothing to do with it. Argon atoms are identical and the statistics of a macro-state of argon (a argon-gas)is Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. The so-called "statistics" only changes when the "particles" are "indistinguishable". The latter is NOT the same as "identical". Indistinguishable means that within the Macro-state formed by these "identical particles", these "particles" are NOT separate entities anymore. If they remain separate entities, they will follow Boltzmann statistics: Not Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics. When the latter statistics apply, the macro-state does NOT exist of separate entities: It is a single continuous field (wave) which has formed from smaller entities each of which is also a single continuous field (wave). There are NO separate "particles" within such a macro-state. This is why quantum field theory is hogwash

This would have been a good post if you had only left off the last sentence!

understand the distinction you make between the words identical and indistinguishable - each arising from different contexts.

'Entity' 'loss' appears misleading under superposition because the information superposition represents, represents the doubling of information.

Nonsense! If you have two coherent waves, each a different entity, and you coherently superpose them you have a single coherent wave afterwards. What the HELL has this got to do with "information".

Passes you by means it follows a path and a path can be measured. So I ask you again: When is this entity following this path acting like a "particle" and when is it acting like a wave?

I answered this question already, why do you continue to ask it? The phrase "Passes you by" is not experimentally meaningful. You must interact with the entity, which then takes a form that is in fundamental ways dependent upon the experimental arrangement.

To know that it passes you by you must measure or observe the path: Or do YOU believe this is NOT an interaction? So I am asking you again to answer the question! When an entity passes you by, is it "acting" as a "particle" or as a wave? Stop posting nonsense claptrap!

My apologies, I thought you were familiar with the http://en.wikiped...echanics formulation of qm,

I am more familiar with it than you will ever be even if you have another million lifetimes!

since you so obstinately reject aspects of it, and tried to confine my philosophical musing within that framework.

I believe in PHYSICS NOT in mathematical constructs; no matter how useful!

There is an analogy with vector space in that the wavefunction can be represented as a linear combination of all possible observables,

An assumption that has NEVER been proved experimentally anywhere! Any function can be represented in terms of infinite sets of basis-functions which have no physical meaning or reality!

If a given apparatus is designed to measure precisely its momentum, this precludes knowing anything about its position.

BULLSHIT! This violates Galileo's principle of inertia which is the MOST fundamental law in physics!

There are NO separate "particles" within such a macro-state. This is why quantum field theory is hogwash

This would have been a good post if you had only left off the last sentence!

Why? If a macro-wave is a continuous entity without being simultaneously a statistical ensemble of separate "particles", as is accepted in Quantum Field Theory, QFT MUST be hogwash! It is simple common sense!

If a given apparatus is designed to measure precisely its momentum, this precludes knowing anything about its position. BULLSHIT! This violates Galileo's principle of inertia which is the MOST fundamental law in physics

Are you learning physics first day? The relativity has been introduced just because the Newton inertia law doesn't hold at the large distances/high speeds. Why the hell the Galileo's principle should hold the truth at the quantum scale? You completely misunderstood the role of modern physics - that physics has been introduced just because the laws/principles of classical mechanics doesn't fit the observations at the very large and small scales. All physical laws are of limited scope.

@ ValeriaT:

You have proved OVER and OVER and OVER again on this forum that you cannot even understand Kindergarten physics. Galileo's inertia is THE MOST important concept in physics and this demands that the position and momentum of ANY entity, MUST manifest simultaneously with 100% accuracy. Or else ALL equations in physics will be wrong! Also Schroedinger's equation.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be demonstrated just with Schroedinger equation applied to single slit experiment. Every child in kindergarten can replicate it. In our country we even maintain on-line experiment for its demonstration.

As I explained here, in dense aether model the uncertainty principle applies to the observable reality at the water surface, when Brownian noise is considered. This noise will blur all waves at the small distance scale, so you can never get the 1oo% accurate product of momentum and speed of any object. The trick is, the Galilean principle is maintained globally in extradimensions of space-time (in molecular collisions of underwater at the above example) - but these extradimensions aren't directly observable. You cannot observe the underwater density fluctuations with surface waves - portion of information will be always lost. The dense aether model is quite illustrative in it.

You cannot observe the underwater density fluctuations with surface waves - portion of information will be always lost. The dense aether model is quite illustrative in it.

I'm being truthful and not my usually smarty alex self when I tell ya,,, Zeph I would much rather read what ya post than that johan misanthrope.

In quantum mechanics it's quite normal, that not only momentum and speed aren't observable with 100% precision, but even the mass-energy conservation law gets violated locally. The particle manage to simply disappear and emerge somewhere else (Gif snapshot). If we would live as a water striders at the water surface covered with Brownian noise, such an artifacts would be quite normal for us, because our space-time wouldn't be homogeneous - it would fluctuate. Why our space-time should be immovable, when everything in our universe is in motion, after all? If we admit, our vacuum is moving and fluctuating in small extent, then all that quantum uncertainty will arise from such insight quite naturally.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be demonstrated just with Schroedinger equation applied to single slit experiment. Every child in kindergarten http://www.youtub...Tr2qMutA for its demonstration.

Bullshit as usual. That a wave has a spread in position x and k has been known LOOONG before Heisenberg was born! This has nothing to do with the position and momentum of an entity with a center-of-mass. Heisenberg's father told him he was too stupid to be a physicist. He should have listened!

Willie Wien agreed and wanted to fail him when he did his doctorate: What a pity that this did not happen!

This has nothing to do with the position and momentum of an entity with a center-of-mass

Why not? It's explained in that video quite clearly. The fact some phenomena were known before many years and/or even interpreted differently doesn't means, than the QM interpretations are wrong.

This has nothing to do with the position and momentum of an entity with a center-of-mass

Why not? It's explained in that video http://www.aether...nim.gif.

The video CLEARLY shows that the energy-distribution of each photon-wave (i.e. its dynamic mass-distribution) has a center-of-mass which at ANY instant in time has NO UNCERTAINTY in its position, neither in its momentum. Your video proves my point with 100% clarity.

has a center-of-mass which at ANY instant in time has NO UNCERTAINTY in its position

This is just the point. In reality no phenomena can be observed "INSTANTLY" because of finite speed of light. So, maybe the speed and momentum of photons really follows the Galileo principle in their hypothetical hyperdimensional reference frame - but when the quantum fluctuations become sufficiently wild, we simply cannot observe it due the lag caused with finite speed of light.
Don't forget, the quantum mechanics is about physics of observable indeterminism, not about physics of hypothetical determinism, which may - or may not - exist behind all of it. It describes what we will really observe - not what we could think about it: which makes whole this theory experimentally testable with compare to your speculations.

has a center-of-mass which at ANY instant in time has NO UNCERTAINTY in its position

This is just the point. In reality no phenomena can be observed "INSTANTLY" because of finite speed of light. So, maybe the speed and momentum of photons really follows the Galileo principle in their hypothetical hyperdimensional reference frame

Motion is a continuous process which is modeled by calculus which gives the speed and position of the center-of-mas instantaneously IN REAL SPACE!-

but when the quantum fluctuations become sufficiently wild

Please define "quantum fluctuations" in this experiment: When do they occur?

Don't forget, the quantum mechanics is about physics of observable indeterminism, not about physics of hypothetical determinism,

Please define what you mean by "observable indeterminism"

which may - or may not - exist behind all of it.

BULLSHIT AGAIN! You should stop throwing terms around which you do not understand!

Please define "quantum fluctuations" in this experiment:

The density changes of space time.

what you mean by "observable indeterminism"

observable effects of quantum fluctuations

Please define "quantum fluctuations" in this experiment:

The density changes of space time.

There are NO density changes in space-time as such. You can have a fluctuation (delta)E in the energy of a wave for a time (delta)t when the wave resonates: But this has NOTHING to do with space time: Which space-time? If you mean Minkowski's space-time: It does not exist since the coordinates x,y,z and ict are not linearly independent as the coordinates of a four-dimensional space MUST ALWAYS be!

what you mean by "observable indeterminism"

observable effects of quantum fluctuations

Give me an example please. As far as I know observable effects caused by quantum fluctuations have NOTHING in common with indeterminism being built into the laws of nature.

Which space-time?

The space-time formed with vacuum of course. I'm talking about physical objects, not about models. In AWT the space-time is physical object, similar to density gradient forming the water surface. Or even better, the density gradient forming the phase boundary inside of supercritical fluid, which is chemically homogeneous stuff. The motion of physical object is constrained to such a boundary, they cannot move along it (in spatial dimensions) but not across it (in temporal dimensions).

observable effects of quantum fluctuations Give me an example please

For example this picture. What you can see schematically is this.

Which space-time?

The space-time formed with vacuum of course. I'm talking about physical objects, not about models. In AWT the space-time is physical object, similar to density gradient forming the water surface.

AWT only exists within your demented mind!

observable effects of quantum fluctuations Give me an example please

For example http://www.youtub...hsb7MrQ.

A moving electron is a wave and therefore this picture is nothing strange since a moving wave undulates. It has nothing to do with quantum fluctuations in space-time.

When you Lorentz-transform a stationary electron so that it moves past, the Lorentz-transformation elongates the electron and in addition causes a phase angle along its length (giving a time-change along its length; as is present within in any coherent wave) This change in phase-angle DEFINES the de Broglie wavelength.

Einstein missed this in 1905, since he incorrectly derived length-contraction of a moving rod.

So.. johanfprins. Big troll?

I direct you to the following:
- Aspect Experiments 1981-82
- Grangier et al, 1986
- Anything published by Zeilinger
- The book "The Quantum Challenge" is a great introduction for people who are not well versed in physics (read: you) to the EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of quantum mechanical concepts including wave particle duality.

You should probably also look up a book on Optics and Electromagnetic waves, because your knowledge of the classical picture of light is laughable.

Now go sit in a corner and start reading, you're embarrassing everyone.

So.. johanfprins. Big troll?

I direct you to the following:
- Aspect Experiments 1981-82
- Grangier et al, 1986
- Anything published by Zeilinger
- The book "The Quantum Challenge" is a great introduction for people who are not well versed in physics (read: you) to the EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of quantum mechanical concepts including wave particle duality.

You should probably also look up a book on Optics and Electromagnetic waves, because your knowledge of the classical picture of light is laughable.

I am well versed in all the literature that you are recommending. Not in one of these experiments is there ANY proof of wave-particle duality whatsoever. They can all be simply explained and modeled in terms of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves: A subject in which I am extremely well-versed. The results measured by Aspect, Grangier and Zeilinger are exactly what one expects how a wave will react when you change its boundary conditions.

"Dere ist NOT a condratiction in tere!"

Im curious - Have they tried transmitting to more than one "receiving" station at a time? Like 2 or 3...?
The Einstein quote about telegraphs and cats and radio is knocking around in my head...

Im curious - Have they tried transmitting to more than one "receiving" station at a time? Like 2 or 3...?

They will first have to find a material that emits a single EM wave-entity with energy n*h*(nu) where n is 3, etc. A measurement at one of the stations will then instantaneously correlate with the states of the other part of the wave.

You can, of course, send a single photon wave (n=1) to different stations, but once you make a measurement it collapses to be only observed at one of these detectors. This is so because it is physically impossible to emit or absorb a coherent EM-wave which has less energy than h*(nu). There are NO "particles" involved; also not in the case of an electron-wave.

de Broglie's wavelength of an electron results from the Lorentz transformation. If Einstein did not incorrectly derive "length-contraction" he could have predicted this wavelength in 1905.

Johan, I'm a little confused. Don't they perform a "halt or reverse spin" on one isolated photon and watch if it affects(entangles) another isolated photon somewhere else? Why does the "acted upon" photon need to be of a higher energy value?I mean, they're not actually taking any energy from that photon, right?
Seems to me there should be no problem adding 2 or 3 more isolated photons, sunchronize their watches - and see what happens...
Of course, I'm just speculating here...

.. as I understand you, is that waves do not get lost. Ever. Whether one wave or an infinite number of waves.

In essence correct: In summary my deduction is that our universe (and most probably outside also) consists of electromagnetic energy. Thus any object, be it a light wave, or an object with rest mass following a linear path with constant speed past you, is a coherent electromagnetic wave. One can derive this directly from Maxwell's equations (plus the Special Theory of Relativity which is also a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations). A moving electron is thus a coherent EM-wave that moves with a speed v less than the speed of light and therefore has a de Broglie wavelength. As I have posted before: If Einstein did not violate his own postulate of the constancy of the speed of light by deriving "length contraction", he would have found that any entity with mass (for example a meter stick which he used) elongates and in this process acquires a de Broglie wavelength.

You object to 'virtue particles'.... Is this the reason you call QFT 'hogwash'?

I call it hogwash because it is based on the Voodoo concepts of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity".

You are a proponent of a this useful description use in physics(!)

Not the same concept! An existing wave can have a quantum fluctuation in its energy (delta)E for a limited time (delta)t. This fluctuation will not occur in the "vacuum" if the wave does not exist. Such a fluctuation IS NOT a "virtual particle". Such a fluctuation can allow a wave-entity to move from one position to another without generating kinetic-energy that has to be dissipated. This happens when "tunneling" occurs through an insulating layer: The energy fluctuation allows the "electron" to have enough kinetic energy for a limited time to scale the energy barrier. The explanation in text books that tunneling occurs by motion through the insulating barrier is wrong, since it violates the conservation of ener

You need this description......for your pet theory of superconductivity.

I can see why you could come to this conclusion, and commend you on thinking about the problem without shooting from the hip. That is why your posts are usually good!

However, as outlined above, my theory, although also using (delta)E*(delta)t, has nothing to do with "virtual particles". It has to do with resonance-interactions between localized waves when they are near enough to one another so that an EXISTING localized wave can gain enough energy (delta)E to replace the next localized wave within the allowed time (delta)t, which then moves on to replace the next wave etc. The kinetic-energy for each motion of a charge-carrier does not remain behind to be dissipated, and therefore charge is conveyed without encountering any electrical resistance. This motion does not mandate that the charge-carriers must be bosons.

I hope this is now clear?

Johan, I'm a little confused. Don't they perform a "halt or reverse spin" on one isolated photon and watch if it affects(entangles) another isolated photon somewhere else?

If they did it on isolated photons, they would not measure ANY entanglement. The "two-photon" wave is a SINGLE coherent entity in its own right which is in immediate contact with itself no matter what volume it occupies. If you do a measurement on one side, to measure the spin for a single photon, the SINGLE "two-photon" wave disentangles into two SEPARATE photons. But since just before disentanglement the SINGLE "two-photon" wave is in immediate contact with itself, the two photons which disentangle must correlate their spins. After you have disentangled them, a measurement one one photon will not affect the other one.

Why does the "acted upon" photon need to be of a higher energy value?

Who has said this?

I mean, they're not actually taking any energy from that photon, right?

Correct!

It's like to say, that the water consists of energy of transverse waves, which are spreading along its surface.. Of course, there are many other sources of energy, including energy of gravity, gluons and W/Z bosons. You're simply adopting the reality to your theory, not vice-versa, because you're too old for to do the opposite.

AG! ValeriaT, Natello, AKAK! Stop posting KAK!! You might be young, but having been born a moron your youth cannot change this fact!

]q]Why does the "acted upon" photon need to be of a higher energy value?
Who has said this?
On first look, I thought you did. However on closer inspection, I think you were saying it would require as many "single" photons (collected together to create a "wave")as monitering stations in order to make them all LOOK like they were entangled. Electro-magnetism is the boundary setting mechanic by which they collect to become that new single wave. THus making a single photon the smallest possible parsing of whatever energy that we can "see". Meaning there has to be a new seperate constant to control THAT... Leading me to the deduction that complete scientific examination of our current "locality" is the only way to determine that. And so on...
Leading us back to numbers - the only way our little Phi minds can make sense of it all.
Interesting loop...

in order to make them all LOOK like they were entangled.

It has NOTHING to do with LOOK! When photon-waves are entangled they do not exist as separate photons anymore, since they will then be distinguishable: Photons condensing to form a "photon-condensate" CAN according to QM cannot be distinguishable afterwards: So how the hell can such a wave be "granular". Only a moron will claim this!

Leading us back to numbers - the only way our little Phi minds can make sense of it all.

Numbers help but a working brain with enough synapses is more important! Such a pity that most modern theoretical physicists are walking around with empty craniums; and wasting billions of dollars searching for "particles" which cannot do what they claim that they are doing!

If something works it works, we can't impose on nature our own desires. The predictions associated with QFT's have been our most accurate to date, the QED prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron requires that it be taken seriously, simply calling it "hogwash" makes you look ignorant.

No one likes the inherent uncertainty at small scales. However we have yet to show that it isn't a reality. No experiment has ever beaten the uncertainty limit (one could argue that this is a technological issue, but LIGO is currently approaching the uncertainty limit and they are finding ways to "trick" it).

The problem with internet "theoretical physicists" is that they are touting their theories on forums. Go publish if you have some breakthrough. The mere fact that you discuss your theory on forums instead of publishing is worrying.

And no, there is no conspiracy trying to uphold the current state of physics, if science is good at one thing it is accepting that it is wrong.

The problem with Internet "theoretical physicists" is that they are touting their theories on forums. Go publish if you have some breakthrough.

At first, you're threatening the freedom of speech. At second, if you oppose the mainstream science, you shouldn't use its own publication channels. It's like forcing the Galileo in publishing his theories in theological treatises of Holy Church - which is apparent nonsense. Actually the moment, when the Galileo was allowed to present his idea at Church council was just the beginning of his end. Anyway, if someone was still so stupid to publish his ideas in mainstream journal, he was ignored reliably and closed behind paywall in this way. Mainstream physics has a strategy, how to handle such a people and their ideas developed and published many years already. You probably don't quite understand, what the contemporary community of physicists is all about.

we can't impose on nature our own desires.

This is what I cannot understand about persons like you: You understand how physics should be approached but when this approach starts to prove that "the holy dogma" that YOU WANT to believe in might be wrong, you have no qualms to impose your own desires on nature. Can you not see that YOU are part of the problem?

If something works it works,..

The most scared principle in physics is that any model which "works" can be proved not to be correct tomorrow (remember epicycles?). If you do not accept this GOLDEN RULE you should get the hell out of physics and stop sabotaging new paradigm shifts!

the QED prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron requires that it be taken seriously, simply calling it "hogwash" makes you look ignorant.

By choosing other renormalisation-routes different values can be calculated for the anomalous magnetic moment. Raping math in order to get the result you want, is NOT PHYSICS!

No one likes the inherent uncertainty at small scales.

What uncertainty? The inability to measure to 100% accuracy, which is valid at all scales; or the Voodoo concept that uncertainty is an inherent aspect of nature!

However we have yet to show that it isn't a reality.

Why do you not first prove that it IS a reality. To date this has NEVER been done!

No experiment has ever beaten the uncertainty limit (one could argue that this is a technological issue, but LIGO is currently approaching the uncertainty limit and they are finding ways to "trick" it).

LIGO is like CERN a massive waste of taxpayers money! At least CERN is more obviously a circus since it has the biggest ring in the world and the highest density of clowns in one location.

if science is good at one thing it is accepting that it is wrong.

The biggest LIE EVER: History proves that only a demented FOOL will believe this. Even in the time of Newton this was not totally true!

The problem with Internet "theoretical physicists" is that they are touting their theories on forums. Go publish if you have some breakthrough.

At first, you're threatening the freedom of speech. At second, if you oppose the mainstream science, you shouldn't use its own publication channels. It's like forcing the Galileo in publishing his theories in theological treatises of Holy Church - which is apparent nonsense. Actually the moment, when the Galileo was allowed to present his idea at Church council was just the beginning of his end. Anyway, if someone was still so stupid to publish his ideas in mainstream journal, he was ignored reliably and closed behind paywall in this way. Mainstream physics has a strategy, how to handle such a people and their ideas http://www.datapa...IC~1.HTM many years already. You probably don't quite understand, what the contemporary community of physicists is all about.

BRAVO! For once I agree with you!

Why do you not first prove that it IS a reality. To date this has NEVER been done!

Have you even heard of the scientific method? "Proof" is an impossibility in science. That is the nature of the beast. There is only "well this works right now and explains what happens in our experiments".

The biggest LIE EVER: History proves that only a demented FOOL will believe this. Even in the time of Newton this was not totally true!

Only a fool would believe that we would be where we are in any scientific field if the community at large could not accept being shown that something is wrong. There may be the occasional person who gets too connected to their own personal work, but by and large (as history has shown us well) the entire community will always allow for new discovery. Science is based on falsifiable statements. We try to falsify them, then accept when they have been shown that they are wrong and move on.

This is what I cannot understand about persons like you: You understand how physics should be approached but when this approach starts to prove that "the holy dogma" that YOU WANT to believe in might be wrong, you have no qualms to impose your own desires on nature. Can you not see that YOU are part of the problem?

Ad hominem is the sign of a weak argument. I accept what is currently working, no more no less. There is no imposition. Our experiments (the ones you claim familiarity with) are showing me that we have been doing a pretty good job. When it is proven wrong (note the when, not if) I will gladly move along and learn the new physics. I surely don't want to believe quantum mechanics, classical mechanics is so much more my world.

I await your papers on arxiv. Quoting Galileo vs the Church as your excuse for not publishing anything is pretty bad reasoning. David Bohm published his work challenging quantum mechanics and is still to this day celebrated for it

By choosing other renormalisation-routes different values can be calculated for the anomalous magnetic moment. Raping math in order to get the result you want, is NOT PHYSICS!

I think you have missed the fact the the physicists of old that you claim were dumb and totally comfortable with sweeping infinities under the rug were the most outspoken about the issue that was renormalization. However it was later put on actual firm mathematical footing (I believe this was done by Dyson). Please cite the other methods of calculating the anomalous magnetic moment to within 10 significant figures, I'd be interested in reading.

Can we, as a supposedly rational species, move away from the "my (insert noun) wasn't good enough for (insert group of people) so said group is part of a conspiracy to stop me" mentality?

Have you even heard of the scientific method? "Proof" is an impossibility in science.

I know it FAAAAR better than you will ever do:

That is the nature of the beast. There is only "well this works right now and explains what happens in our experiments".

You are repeating what I already told you above: That a real physicist will be willing to let go of outdated ideas, especially those which has NO experimental basis whatsoever: Like the concept of "built-in uncertainty" in the laws of nature.

Only a fool would believe that we would be where we are in any scientific field if the community at large could not accept being shown that something is wrong.

This still happened sporadically from Newton until about at the end of the 19th century. Since 1927 this practice became very rare indeed. That is why at present theoretical physics is in a Voodoo morass based on concepts like "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" for which there is no experimental evidence.

@ YouAreProbablyDumb

You state:

If something works it works,

And then you state:

Have you even heard of the scientific method? "Proof" is an impossibility in science

If you cannot "prove" it works, how the BLOODY HELL can you claim that "If something works it works"?

You are just as muddled in your thinking and logic as Noumenon, who claims that a person who who does not want to accept irrationality in physics is practicing "metaphysics". Are you sure you are not Noumenon who is stubbornly defending the accepted dogma and refusing to answer questions with logic?

Your style and lack of intelligence is very much the same!

Ad hominem is the sign of a weak argument.

Where was my argument ad hominem?

I accept what is currently working, no more no less.

Sorry to tell you that it is NOT working since it is not based on rational mathematics.

There is no imposition. Our experiments (the ones you claim familiarity with)

Name them please! And please do not name the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron: It is obtained in QED by fudging fields which do not even exist. For example, there is NO experimental proof that there exists an electric field-energy around the charge of a solitary electron!

are showing me that we have been doing a pretty good job.

If you want to believe that QFT is "doing a pretty good job" it is your right to be a stupid fool!

When it is proven wrong

It has NEVER been proven right or wrong by any falsifiable experiment yet! I do not think such experiments are even possible! In fact QFT perfectly fits Pauli's saying: "It is not even wrong!"

I await your papers on arxiv.

AWAIT? You are sooo stupid not to know that I have posted papers on arxiv! Just further proof that you are an incompetent fool.

I decided not to post on arxiv anymore since it is obviously a sop behind which the mainstream idiots hide in order to censor new ideas in physics.

Quoting Galileo vs the Church as your excuse for not publishing anything is pretty bad reasoning.

I am not quoting the case of Galileao "for not publishing" I am quoting them to show that we are back in those times where it has become impossible to get new ideas published in the so-called "mainstream peer reviewed journals". I have irrefutable proof that this is so.

David Bohm published his work challenging quantum mechanics and is still to this day celebrated for it

I have his book and I have also written two books: BUT you are typically a person who jumps into a discussion with prejudice without first doing your bloody homework.

You are a bigot and a fool!

I think you have missed the fact ...

I do not miss any facts in physics: I am not a certifiable idiot like you are!

However, it was later put on actual firm mathematical footing (I believe this was done by Dyson).

Another lie! Dyson just found a way to make the fudging of mathematics more palatable: Just like 'tHooft and Veltman expanded on it later. It is all bullshit mathematics!

Please cite the other methods of calculating the anomalous magnetic moment to within 10 significant figures, I'd be interested in reading.

It is impossible to cite these since the mainstream "peer reviewed" physics journals do not allow such heresies to be published. But maybe you can start with Chris Oakley who received his PhD in QFT, and who (I now believe) works in a post office because he tried to publish his calculations which prove that "renormalization" is bullshit!

http://www.cgoakl...dex.html

Johan, circuses are for kids.
Kids of all ages.

Correct! When watching a circus you do not mind irrationality! But not in science please! CERN should be closed down. It is a massive waste of public money to chase after the hallucinations of mentally disturbed people!

If you cannot "prove" it works, how the BLOODY HELL can you claim that "If something works it works"?

I don't need to prove that something works to see it working. Maybe I slipped in trying to speak colloquially. "Something works" means simply that if I make a calculation and then perform an experiment, the two results match to a reasonable degree of uncertainty.

It has NEVER been proven right or wrong by any falsifiable experiment yet! I do not think such experiments are even possible! In fact QFT perfectly fits Pauli's saying: "It is not even wrong!"

I don't know how to respond to this. You choose to clearly ignore evidence so as to prove your point. I have already cited experiments to you that are very basic in the foundations of quantum mechanics. The theory in its entirely led to the predictions those experiments tested.

One can't have a discussion with someone who just resorts to ad hominem and syntactical critique instead of the meat of the point.

I will stop responding to you now, I simply came on here to let the people know that they should probably not take you as an expert by any means. Regardless of any previous study you have, you seem to ignore the methods that we cling to dearly in science (the importance of observation and experiment that is), which serves only to hurt the curious readers of this website.
Good day :)

Anybody here know if qyantum mechanics is any where like fluid mechanics, math wise?

I don't need to prove that something works to see it working. Maybe I slipped in trying to speak colloquially. "Something works" means simply that if I make a calculation and then perform an experiment, the two results match to a reasonable degree of uncertainty.

You do not consider this as "proof"? You are slipping because you are just plain dumb!

I don't know how to respond to this. You choose to clearly ignore evidence so as to prove your point.

Which evidence?

I have already cited experiments to you that are very basic in the foundations of quantum mechanics.

You have not. Is it necessary to blatantly lie to make your point?

The theory in its entirely led to the predictions those experiments tested.

Bullshit! As Einstein stated it takes only one small fact to prove that a theory is wrong!

.. to ad hominem and syntactical critique instead of the meat of the point.

I agree: That is why it is impossible to discuss anything with you!

I will stop responding to you now, I simply came on here to let the people know that they should probably not take you as an expert by any means.

If you have any integrity you will do this by posting your own expertise so that the people can judge whether you are competent to judge me! Have you got no shame?

Regardless of any previous study you have, you seem to ignore the methods that we cling to dearly in science (the importance of observation and experiment that is)

My God! This is exactly what YOU are doing. I am thus going to ask you to prove experimentally the following which you obviously accept without any experimental verification to date:

1. Give me the experiment that proves (with the possibility of falsification) that the Higgs boson gives "other "particles" their mass.

2. Give me experiment that proves (with the possibility of falsification) that there is an electric field-energy in free space around the charge of a solitary electron.

Anybody here know if qyantum mechanics is any where like fluid mechanics, math wise?

Waves are fields. A flowing fluid is a field. The vector (and tensor) calculus of fields use the same operators and mathematics. So there are similarities math.-wise. But this does not mean that the field that models an electron-wave is physically in all respects the same as the field that models fluid mechanics.

Anybody here know if qyantum mechanics is any where like fluid mechanics, math wise?

You're kidding, right? Assuming that ya aren't, the answer is no.

Anybody here know if qyantum mechanics is any where like fluid mechanics, math wise?

Waves are fields. A flowing fluid is a field. The vector (and tensor) calculus of fields use the same operators and mathematics. So there are similarities math.-wise. But this does not mean that the field that models an electron-wave is physically in all respects the same as the field that models fluid mechanics.

I thought ya were some kind of genius who makes Einstein and Feynman look like dolts,,,,

The only similarity in the maths are the fact ya might stick 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and my personal favorite, 9 in there somewhere,,,,

Ya would do any contortion possible to try to get people to jump on your "there is no particle" wagon.

lol

AROUND the charge of a SOLITARY electron. - J

O.k. There is none (electric field-energy.)
Can we agree to call this a particle now?

NOTE: I said IN SPACE AROUND the electron. If there were such a field one would have been justified to call an electron a "point-particle" as is stupidly done in QFT.

This does not mean that there is not any EM field-energy involved. This energy is a stationary EM-wave within a localized volume that contains this EM energy, just like a perfectly reflecting laser cavity does. This trapped EM-energy gives the rest-mass energy of the electron. Therefore the electron is not a particle but an EM wave which is stationary within its own inertial reference frame (IRF), AND moves with a dBroglie wavelength within the other IRF's!

The field around a stationary electron is obviously, and must obviously be gravity, and it is probably gravity which supplies the boundary conditions that keeps the trapped EM field stationary.

From the mouth of the Master:

Quoting Einstein 1952:

" The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality of nature (corpuscular and wave structure) can be realized ONLY by a weakening of the concept of reality. I think that such a far-reaching renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should NOT desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory."

In addition we now know that entanglement proves that two photons (or electrons) CANNOT be separate corpuscular entities which has to communicate with the speed of light: This further supports Einstein's assertion above!

Consider a steel ball with radius R passing by with speed v. The Lorentz transformation from the IRF within which the steel ball is stationary into the IRF relative to which it is moving, gives a length increase to L:

L=(gamma)*(2R)

And it also gives a change in time T along the length L, given by:

T=(v/c^2)*L

These relationships are valid at any SINGLE instant in time. There is only one entity that can at the same instant in time have a definite length L and a time-difference across it: This entity is a moving coherent wave having a change in phase angle along the direction it is moving along.

For n wavelengths (lam) and frequency (nu) one has that:

n=L/(lam) AND

T=n/(nu)

Combining these equations:

(lam)*(nu)=(c^2)/v=(m*c^2)/(m*v)

where m is the total mass of the steel ball. Setting m*c^2=h*(nu):

(lam)=h/(m*v)=h/p !!!

The moving steel ball is a coherent wave having a dBroglie wavelength. Note this result is valid for a body of any size: From an electron to Jupiter!

Consider a steel ball

I'll consider it as long as I can call it a particle. A particle larger than an electron, but not as large as Jupiter.

The field around a stationary electron is obviously, and must obviously be gravity, and it is probably gravity which supplies the boundary conditions that keeps the trapped EM field stationary.

Now wait just a minute here,,,, on the other thread of comments, the Einstein's Theory of Everything, ya were singing the praises of the guy who told us that there was no such thing as gravity. (He wasn't able to tell much more than that, "there is no gravity", but he was sure of that much. Ya did pat him on the head for it.)

Now over here ya're throwing in all this gravity nonsense. Make up your mind Sir.

Consider a steel ball

I'll consider it as long as I can call it a particle. A particle larger than an electron, but not as large as Jupiter.

What is according to YOU the cut-off radius?

Did you find anything wrong with the mathematics? Probably NOT because YOU are too stupid to even understand Kindergarten arithmetic. If you want to criticize PLEASE do it in terms of the physics and a associated mathematics.

I have used the Lorentz-transformation, which all physicists accept is correct, to prove that a steel ball (or any other ball) WITH ANY RADIUS (so it can even be a black hole) is a coherent wave when it moves past an observer. Prove me wrong in terms of logic and mathematics!

According to the supreme master mouth JohanFPrinz a solitary, isolated, electron in free space has no such field. Which leaves only a point particle as a solution which must be denied.

Only a certifiable complete MORON like you will make this deduction: I have stated very clearly that ONLY if there is an electric-field-energy filling all space right up to infinity,around an electron can the actual electron be a point=particle. In fact this is exactly what the QFT theorists also argue! Stop being such an arrogant idiot and fool!

Now wait just a minute here,,,, on the other thread of comments, the Einstein's Theory of Everything, ya were singing the praises of the guy who told us that there was no such thing as gravity.

YOU are the biggest schizophrenic, psychopathic liar in the universe: Where did I defend the physics of this guy: I ma not able to do this before I have read what he has written. I am not a criminal who jumps to conclusions before having all the facts; like you are doing!

Ya did pat him on the head for it.

I did not: I only expressed sympathy with him that he stumbled across a piece of stinking excrement like you!

What is according to YOU the cut-off radius?

According to me, it would depend upon what attributes of it's behavior I was observing or describing. The actual radius in not something I consider.

May I call a steel ball a particle? If ya will permit me to call it a particle sometimes, I'll meet ya half-way and admit there are times when the said steel ball are better modeled as a wave.

May I call a steel ball a particle? If ya will permit me to call it a particle sometimes, I'll meet ya half-way and admit there are times when the said steel ball are better modeled as a wave.

Bullshit; as you usually post. According to the history of physics a "particle" is an entity which does not have a wavelength and is therefore NOT a wave-field. Only a moron like YOU will call a wave-field, even a stationary wave, which is also determined by a wavelength a "particle".

I only expressed sympathy with him that he stumbled across a piece of stinking excrement like you!

More of that scientific jargon, eh?

Well any way, he is using YOU, by name, by address, specifically as an endorsement in review comments. He has even quoted ya as supporting his work. He even listed all your wondrous accomplishments to bolster your ringing endorsement of his theory. (Ya know, his theory of expanding matter with gravity being a fiction.)

YOU are the biggest schizophrenic, psychopathic liar in the universe:

After ya read his comments in the review section of his "book" at Amazon, ya might want to demote me to 2nd biggest.

I am not a criminal who jumps to conclusions before having all the facts; like you are doing!

Considering I'm in my 50's and never been even questioned by the police, I'm either a master-criminal, or YOUR "conclusions" are jumping about frantically.

Well any way, he is using YOU, by name, by address, specifically as an endorsement in review comments. He has even quoted ya as supporting his work. He even listed all your wondrous accomplishments to bolster your ringing endorsement of his theory. (Ya know, his theory of expanding matter with gravity being a fiction.

Where? I have not seen this! If he quoted my work as any scientist quotes another scientist when he argues his case, I have no problem even when I disagree with his deduction. If, however, he quotes me as if I have endorsed his work without ever having read it; that is another matter.

Since I have found YOU, Q-Star a pathological liar which is so bad that it can be called criminality, I would first like to see proof of what you are claiming above!

In fact this is exactly what the QFT theorists also argue! - J[/q ]
For QFTists the answer is yes then. And for Johan do the words "also argue" imply your answer is yes?

Only a MORON like you will reach this deduction! If you have ANY brains in your hollow (or is it bone-filled skull) you will know thar I do NOT agree with the Voodoo concept of "wave-particle" duality! Thus, the point I make is that there is NOT a charged "particle" with an electric energy-field around it stretching to infinity; and there is NO experiment that can prove that there is such a "particle".

Just say a field is more fundamental than a wave/particle.
No one has a problem with that. Not even you.

I do have a problem with that since, although nobody has ever defined what a "particle" is, we know for sure what is NOT: It is NOT an entity with a wavelength. And since the Lorentz transformation proves that EVERY entity MUST have a wavelength there are NO "PARTICLES" whatsoever in nature!

Since I have found YOU, Q-Star a pathological liar which is so bad that it can be called criminality, I would first like to see proof of what you are claiming above!

Well I'm not Amazon, so asking me for proof is not very astute scientific inquiry. Maybe ya should stroll over to the Amazon site and read it for ya self.

Pssst, might I offer ya some tips on scientific research? Of course it's not a problem, I'd be glad to help ya.

Okeee Dokeee,

Google: Amazon. Click on any of the dozen hits that comes back, any of the hundred or so at the top will get ya there.

Ya might notice a thingy at the top which is a search box. Yes, that's it,,, now type in "The Situation With Gravity, Reg Mundy". Now push the "enter" button (or return button.)

Ya will find your endorsement in the comments section of the bad review.

That wasn't hard, was it? Next time ya are on your own for the proof.

By the By: How much time in the gaol am looking forward to for my criminal shenanigans?

And since the Lorentz transformation proves that EVERY entity MUST have a wavelength there are NO "PARTICLES" whatsoever in nature!

Sir I commend ya. And congratulate ya on your forthcoming Nobel. Ya are the first (and only) person in the history of persons to have proved a negative.

No Sir, we'll just skip over the verifying and falsifying, and get right to the proving. (And ya call yourself a person who is picky about using scientifically singular definitions in pontifications on science and stupid people.)

By the By: Where does this Lorentz fellow come down on the Pink Unicorn question? I suppose his proof is that they are actually fields, and not particles (unless they have a Leprechaun in Green Top Hat and Tails riding on it, then it is a dual particle & wave.)

Ya will find your endorsement in the comments section of the bad review.

That wasn't hard, was it? Next time ya are on your own for the proof.

Thanks: At least you have posted something useful: Which is totally out of character for you. I needed the information since you are such a blatant, pathological liar that I am not willing to waste my time independently researching your claims.

By the By: How much time in the gaol am looking forward to for my criminal shenanigans?

I hope at least life: Death by legal injection (slow hanging is even better) will the best for the future of physics and thus for humankind!

By the By: Where does this Lorentz fellow come down on the Pink Unicorn question? I suppose his proof is that they are actually fields, and not particles (unless they have a Leprechaun in Green Top H

If you were not such an idiot, you might have been funny: However, you are not!

Did you say you are in your 50's? I would think you are barely 15 years old: A typical teenager who are on dope!

By the By: How much time in the gaol am looking forward to for my criminal shenanigans?

I hope at least life: Death by legal injection (slow hanging is even better) will the best for the future of physics and thus for humankind!

Sir, I know ya are a smart fellow, so I beg ya, will ya please post some smarter insults to me. Ya keep telling us how smart ya are, and dumb we are, so I know ya can do better.

I mean really?

Stink Breath?
Slime?
Pathological?
Criminal?
Rapist?
Excrement?
Moron (ad nausium)
Idiot (ad nausium)
Stupid (ad infinitum)

To be sure someone as smart as ya can give us "genius" level insults. Just as I helped with that Amazon thingy, I'd be glad to help find a wider variety of insults to use, and smarter.

One of the truly stupid people, almost as stupid as ya keep saying I am, came up with "oafishness" the other day. Ya can do at least as good as that. Right?

Now don't reply right away, spend some time thinking about some better insults.

@ Q-Star,

I am just judging you on your posts which have NOTHING to do with physics: Probably because you are far too stupid to argue physics and mathematics. All you are trying to do is to be a smart-ass like a delinquent teenager of about 15.

You will note that I have never insulted people who are not patronizing, insulting my knowledge, and who are really interested to argue physics. You are not such a person.

Yes I will appreciate more insults since there are not enough insults in this world to describe your sick mentality! Only a criminal will hide behind anonymity and post the insults you are posting. A person who is not a criminal and with self respect will not act in this manner.

You will note that I have never insulted people who are not patronizing,,

NO, I do note is that YOU are insulting & patronizing.

insulting my knowledge,

Which is anyone who has the temerity to disagree with ya.

and who are really interested to argue physics.

Only people who are stupid, fools, idiots, morons, brain dead, or ignorant are the ones ya choose to argue physics with,,, I wonder how many ways that might interpreted? Is there a pattern? Especially when only one out 100 of your posts has someone agree with ya.

Only a criminal will hide behind anonymity and post the insults you are posting. A person who is not a criminal and with self respect will not act in this manner.

I thought ya said ya were smart? Nay, genius on the level of Einstein & above the level of Heisenberg or Feynman? Maybe it is your charming personality that drew my attention? Maybe ya began a conversation with me with "idiot", "moron" or "stupid"?? All three in one reply???

Yes I will appreciate more insults since there are not enough insults in this world to describe your sick mentality! Only a criminal will hide behind anonymity and post the insults you are posting. A person who is not a criminal and with self respect will not act in this manner.

If ya aren't smart enough to understand what I wrote above. Let me dumb it down so ya won't get confused,,,

I made one comment to another poster, that didn't even involve ya,,, YOU SAW FIT TO JUMP IN WITH "STUPID", "IDIOT" AND "MORON" RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.

Sir, ya may not like my attention, but ya went out of your way to attract it. Simple, eh? Even a genius like ya should understand it.

@ Q-Star,

I might not be smart, but I have integrity which you will never have. I will NEVER EVER criticize or judge any person from a position of anonymity since this is the trademark of a criminal mind; like yours! Obviously it does not worry you and that is why this world will be better off if you get then death penalty. In fact this should be applied to all people who hide behind anonymity when the judge other people. But, of course, a scumbag like you will never understand this!

NO insult is, nor all insults in the universe are, sufficient to expose how despicable you really are!

If ya aren't smart enough to understand what I wrote above. Let me dumb it down so ya won't get confused,,,

I made one comment to another poster, that didn't even involve ya,,, YOU SAW FIT TO JUMP IN WITH "STUPID", "IDIOT" AND "MORON" RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.

You see what a blatant distorter of then truth you are? You are now intimating that you made no comments on my posts until you "innocently" made a comment on a post that does not concern me: And then, my oh my, I stepped in to insult little "innocent" you. You are the most despicable cretin in the universe you know. I only stepped in since I have been a constant victim of your invective before you commented on the post "that did not involve me".

Sir, ya may not like my attention, but ya went out of your way to attract it. Simple, eh? Even a genius like ya should understand it.

Where did I do this. Stop being such a blatant and pathological liar: And please stop using teenager slang! You are not funny.

I made one comment to another poster, that didn't even involve ya,,, YOU SAW FIT TO JUMP IN WITH "STUPID", "IDIOT" AND "MORON" RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.

You see what a blatant distorter of then truth you are?

I realize ya are an old man, angry old man, but surely ya can remember butting into a "conversation" I was having with one "rubberman" about two, maybe three months ago? Probably not, since 9 out of 10 of your posts contain "idiot", "moron", and/or "stupid" in them.

Sir, ya may not like my attention, but ya went out of your way to attract it. Simple, eh?

Where did I do this.

I just told ya, about two or three months ago.

And please stop using teenager slang!

What teenager slang?

You are not funny.

From your perspective I'd think not, but still am I getting many pats on the back in my PM box. Be that as it may Sir, I'll let ya have the last word (one post). But remember me before ya "stupid", "moron" or "idiot" me in another post

I might not be smart

At least he finally admits the primary issue here.

Now if someone would get it through his head that "particle" is merely a way to try to put into words what we are talking about and most of us agree there is no such thing as a point particle.

Now if someone would get it through his head that "particle" is merely a way to try to put into words what we are talking about and most of us agree there is no such thing as a point particle.

There ya go, Sir ya are now the smartest guy in the class,,,

WAVES, PARTICLES, OR FIELDS,,,, they are ALL only models. Some work well in this situation, some better in that. (And some that we hear too much of on this site, don't work anywhere but in the mind of modeller. Yes I'm speaking of the expanding matter, aether waves, vacuum mechanics, Electric Universe, and my least favorite, the Plasma Cosmology.)

Oops, I left the "fingers of God" theory,,,,, put that in there with the ones that won't work anywhere.

@ Q-Star

What teenager slang?

Ya are clearly too stupid to understand that ya are acting your delinquent teenager role: Please grow up! You claim you are in your fifties and have no tenure. Why does this not surprise me?

I might not be smart

At least he finally admits the primary issue here.

I should have completed the sentence: I might not be smart but compared to a certifiable moron like you I am a genius!

... that "particle" is merely a way to try to put into words what we are talking about and most of us agree there is no such thing as a point particle.

Neither is there a point-charge RIGHT? So why do they use the latter Voodoo concept in QFT?

You are really stupid if you do not know that the term "particle" has certain connotations. The most important one is that a "particle" cannot have a wavelength: If it could have had a wavelength NOBODY would have been surprised when Thomas Young showed that light diffracts.

In QFT it is assumed that a "particle" does not have a real wavelength: According to Feynman's of paths-over-history approach it has a Voodoo "probability amplitude". If you want to call a photon-wave a "particle", you are just confusing the issue, since it has been accepted that a "particle" cannot diffract (since it does not have a wavelength); while we know that a single photon can split and interfere with itself; thus proving that it is a wave.

What happens to a photon when the photon's self-interference is no longer constructive and is destructive?

Thank you for a civilized request which means we can stick to discussing physics. No wave can interfere to destroy itself completely.

Take for example a single coherent laser-wave moving through two slits and thus forming two lobes according to Huygens' principle: These two "separate" lobes interfere to create regions in space in which the intensity cancels, AND regions in space in which the intensity is enhanced. The total integrated intensity stays the same.

A single photon is nothing else than the lowest energy laser light-wave that can be emitted or detected. It also moves through both slits and interfere to form the intensity-distribution of a diffracted wave: However when it reaches the screen it can ONLY be detected as single entity by an atomic-sized detector: It is thus forced to collapse and is thus observed as a spot that corresponds.....

to the size of the detector. It has then incorrectly been concluded that the photon-wave is a particle before it resonates with the detector to be absorbed. This is wrong!

When you send many photons through, each one forms a diffracted wave-front,but each one is not detected by the same detector, of which there are billions within the screen. Each photon resonates with another detector and the resonance is the highest where the intensity of the incoming photon-wave is the highest. Thus after many photons have passed through the spots form the intensity of the diffracted photon wave which is the same for each photon.

If you try and see through which slit the photon has moved, you are changing the boundary conditions, and the two lobes collapse into a more localized wave. Since the lobes are no existing anymore, they cannot interfere and therefore the diffraction pattern is not formed.

The surprising aspect of this is that the two lobes, if not disturbed by another measurement.....

constitutes a single wave so that they are in instantaneous contact with one another, even though they form separate volumes in three-dimensional space: i.e they are entangled since they are a single wave. The collapse of the lobes when measuring has NOTHING to do with "which path" the photon has followed.

If you entangle two photons, and send the two-photon wave through the slits, the two-photon wave also form two lobes: BUT these lobes are NOT separate photon-waves; they are still part of a single coherent wave and are therefore in instantaneous contact with one another, unless another measurement forces them to disentangle. If the measurement is that of the polarization of one of the photons that disentangle, the polarization of the other photon MUST correlate since, just before disentanglement, the two photons have been a single wave-entity in immediate contact with itself.

All Zeilinger's experiments can be explained in in this strictly causal manner. Nature is NOT Voodoo!

What remains from a wave when destructive interference can never be complete? What is the difference between zero displacement and destructive interference?

What do you mean by "can never be complete"? What do you mean by "zero displacement". What is being displaced?

Destructive interference means that within the regions of space in which it occurs the wave-amplitudes of the two waves that interfere add to be zero. In order to maintain the conservation of energy, there are also regions in space in which the amplitudes add to increase the intensity. Thus although the wave consists of regions in space with high intensity separated by regions in space with low intensity, it is still a single coherent wave.

In acoustics, if sounds, (this includes 'music' and 'noise' as well) - audible to human hearing - have random phases assigned to the waves, the result is 'silence' - from a human standpoint. Otherwise thermal noise becomes audible - the 'music' of phonons.

A sound wave is a wave moving through a medium: Lets call it the acoustic-ether. The speed of sound is caused by the restoring forces between the air molecules: That is why you talk funny when you breath helium. This also means that when you move relative to the air the speed of sound changes relative to your ear, and therefore you also hear a change in pitch!

Can there be an optical counterpart to this acoustical physiology?

No! We know from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that there is not an ether for light and therefore, no matter with what speed you move, the speed of light relative to your eye is the same. It is not determined by restoring forces within an ether.... continued

Obviously you do not see the absence of perceptible light when the phases of all visible optical waves (for humans) are random.

Further evidence that light is not a disturbance in an ether.

Is there an optical counterpart to the random phase acoustical wave's 'silence'?

Not what I know of. Unless the intensity of the white light is so intense that it blinds you.

If there is no optical counterpart can eyesight insensitive to the phase of an optical wave be offered as an explanation?

Explanation for what?

What can taking consideration for the phase velocity for a particle -

What "particle"? There are NO "PARTICLES" whatsoever! A moving photon-wave is a coherent wave: phase velocity does not feature! The same is true for an electron which is a coherent wave moving with the dBroglie wavelength: No phase velocity is involved anywhere.

Zero displacement is when the wave-amplitudes of the waves that interfere add to be zero.
Non zero displacement is when the wave-amplitudes of the waves the interfere add to be any value greater than zero.

hank you: Now I know what you are talking about. If you equate "displacement" to the magnitude of the wave-amplitude at a point, and two amplitudes sum to cancel and thus cause destructive interference, then there is no NET zero displacement. It is, however, still an enigmatic situation since the two waves are moving through one another and one can thus claim that the two separate, opposite amplitudes are still there since they are moving relative to one another.

Zero displacement is when the wave-amplitudes of the waves that interfere add to be zero.
Non zero displacement is when the wave-amplitudes of the waves the interfere add to be any value greater than zero.

Thank you: Now I know what you are talking about. If you equate "displacement" to the magnitude of the wave-amplitude at a point, and two amplitudes sum to cancel and thus cause destructive interference, then there is no NET zero displacement. It is, however, still an enigmatic situation since the two waves are moving through one another and one can thus claim that the two separate, opposite amplitudes are still there since they are moving relative to one another.

That the phase shift of light is not detectable from eyesight alone.

I still do not know whether I am answering your question? But yes as far as I know our eyes can only discern intensity, and if we are not color blind frequency also.

The group velocity of a quantum of light has everything to do with the phase shift of frequencies within the group velocity of light.

There is NO group velocity for a quantum of light energy since this light-quantum (photon) is a SINGLE FREQUENCY coherent wave that moves with the phase velocity c through space: The same for a free electron-wave which moves with speed v and the de Broglie wavelength.

Electrons only form wave-packets with group velocities WITHIN a conducting material. For this reason it is wrong to call a charge-carrier within a metal a "free electron". It is not a "free electron" since each wave-packet is a superposition of all the originally separate, valence electron-waves; and therefore the each packet must now move with a group velocity.

There is NO group velocity... - J

What is frequency spectrum shift of light or 'laser' light?
Think of all those Fermi absentees shining their laser lights at us from a distance...the greater the distance, the greater the shift.

Laser light has a single frequency and there is NO shift in it, no matter from how far it comes. Only when the laser source moves relative to you will there be a shift in frequency owing to the EM Doppler effect.

A photon-wave is exactly the same!

...there [will] be a shift in frequency owing to the EM Doppler effect

What is a single frequency suppose to shift to that moves relative to us?

In the case of sound a single frequency shifts when the source comes toward us and move away from us since the speed of the sound increases when the source comes towards us and decreases when the source moves away from us.

For light the speed of light stays the same whether the source is moving towards you and when it moves away from you. But you still have the same effect owing to the non-simultaneity of events when the Lorentz-transformation applies. For example, when the source moves away from you and emits a wave-front at time t, the wave-front only appears within your reference frame later than t. So the explanation is different but the effect is essentially the same.

As the source approaches the frequency becomes higher and when it recedes the frequency becomes lower.

If two identical photon-waves approach and recede from each other, ignoring what happens when they pass through each other, what happens to their frequencies?

This is an excellent question: What is their relative speed to one another? c, ot 2c? It is possible that the latter question has no meaning since neither electron has an inertial reference frame in which it is stationary. This indicates that there will not be any change in their frequencies.

In fact, I have for the past three months been pondering this same problem; and am still uncertain of what the answer must be! I could not find it in standard text books.

The chance is small that I will find it in standard text books since standard text books advocate time-dilation and length-contraction: Both of which are physically impossible!

The energy of photons will suffer with mutual scattering, albeit quite minute one. In AWT the photons of longer wavelength than the CMBR wavelength will gain energy during it, the photons of shorter wavelength will lose their energy (Hubble red shift as an example).

The energy of photons will suffer http://en.wikiped..._physics will gain energy during it, the photons of shorter wavelength will lose their energy (Hubble red shift as an example).

ValeriaT's bullshit as usual: Even if you want to believe (like an idiot) that a photon is a "particle", the photon is a boson for which the Pauli exclusion principle is not valid. Two photons will thus move through one another WITHOUT any scattering AT ALL. Even the mentally retarded QFT theorists will tell you this!

"A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks. Thus, two-photon physics experiments can be used as ways to study the photon structure, or what is "inside" the photon."

This is the type of model that is "not even wrong" since it is impossible to devise an experiment that can either confirm or falsify it. This is a good illustration of why QFT is utter bullshit and a complete waste of money. It is nothing more that just the biggest Higgs'up EVER!

Does entanglement exist?

Yes, it does BUT after entanglement there are not separate entities! Only a moron will state that two separate photons are entangled. To entangle they must lose their separate existences so that they are not distinguishable anymore (after entanglement)!

Matter creation and pair production exist.

Correct. In the case of an electron-positron pair this only happens when the light wave has an energy more than h*(nu)=2*m*(e0)*c^2; where m(e0) is the rest-mass energy of an electron. NOT when it has less energy as is assumed that it can happen "virtually" by the knuckleheads who formulated QFT. Like I have posted, there is NO experimental evidence possible that the latter can happen! Thus such an assumption is most probably just plain wrong!

Even if you want to believe (like an idiot) that a photon is a "particle", the photon is a boson for which the Pauli exclusion principle is not valid. - J

lol

Pauli needed 34 attempts to pass a drivers licenses test.
When asked why he retorted:
"I know nothing about experimental physics!"

So on this ad hominem evidence you conclude that the Pauli's Exclusion Principle is not valid for electrons? You are a fool and a certifiable idiot!

What other principle ensures that electrons follow Fermi-Dirac Statistics? I am always ready to be swayed if you can explain this in another manner, instead of just trying to be a smart-ass like Q-Star. Where are all you ass-holes coming from?

.. "You? A horseshoe? Do you believe that?!" To this Bohr replied, "Of course not! But you know, Herr Pauli, it's suppose to help as well when one doesn't believe in it!"

The first time I heard this anecdote I laughed so much that my dummy fell out of my mouth. That was 70 years ago. Can you not come up with something new?

Bohr's atom was a breakthrough, but once it was found that it is wrong and that the Bohr atom is unstable, they should have stopped teaching it since there are idiots like you who might think that the model is real.

Pauli was a funny guy, but was too stupid to realize that "identical" does not mean "indistinguishable". Thus it should not have been taught that identical "particles" require special statistics, given by Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein. Argon atoms are identical and they follow Boltzmann statistics.

And on top of it I cannot figure out what the hell you want to argue about. PLEASE get your brains unscrambled!

1. Give me the experiment that proves (with the possibility of falsification) that the Higgs boson gives "other "particles" their mass.

Sadly I will not be winning a noble prize any time soon it seems:(

I must say I agree that we are running into a problem of the mathematics in physics running ahead of the experimental capabilities. I once heard it said that something like string theory is a "22nd century theory sadly discovered in the 20th". One could say similar things about the Higgs mechanism. The reason it is so widely accepted is because there is experimental verification for the theory it saves, and that is important and good enough reason to say "OK this Higgs thing could be legitimate".

And if one day later down the line we get (in my lifetime hopefully) experimental results going with or against the mechanism, you can be sure that the entire community will accept them in due time. Hence the reason science works.

I once heard it said that something like string theory is a "22nd century theory sadly discovered in the 20th"

For me it's rather analogy of Higgs model or Hawking radiation theory, which are getting obsolete way before they can be even proved experimentally. It's not about the fact, that these models are conceptually wrong, but because they're getting diminished and broken with another effects (the Hawking radiation is the least significant mechanism, in which the black holes can lose their energy, the Higgs mechanism is the least significant mechanism, in which ordinary matter gets its mass and the extradimensions and supersymmetry of string theory are getting broken heavily with even way higher number of extradimensions).
That is to say, these models have all their rational core - but their effectiveness and predictability cannot keep the pace with experimental findings. Another aspect of these models is, they're misunderstood heavily.

For example the string theorists are trying to detect the extradimensions, which would prove their theory, whereas they're ignoring myriads of extradimensional effects common in real life. One of reason is, if they would accept it, they would be forced to admit, that these effects are violating another postulates of their theory (the Lorentz invariance in particular).

In dense aether model such a schizoid approach is analogous to attempts to detect the presence of (extradimensions of) underwater at the water surface without violation of background independent approach of relativity theory. Sorry - but you cannot detect the underwater without violation of absence of its reference frame. At the moment, when we admit the existence of extra-dimensions, then we're forced to admit their reference frame (dragging) effects. Because the string theory is based on both Lorentz symmetry, both extradimensions at the same moment, it cannot prove one postulate without violation of another one...

...the mathematics in physics running ahead of the experimental capabilities.

This statement violates all that physics stands for!

I once heard it said that something like string theory is a "22nd century theory sadly discovered in the 20th".

No it is only ancient superstition!

... the Higgs mechanism. The reason it is so widely accepted is because there is experimental verification for the theory it saves,

What experimental verification? I know of NO falsifiable experiments of the tenets!

..good enough reason to say "OK this Higgs thing could be legitimate".

No it is NOT! And the "could be" drops out of the claims being made.

you can be sure that the entire community will accept them in due time. Hence the reason science works.

You are talking about the 17th and 18th centuries: The Spec. Theory Relativity proves incontrovertibly that any moving entity must be a coherent wave, and NOTHING else! Why has this fact NOT been accepted since 1927?

@Johan
Find the flaw or fly .. of a simply interview/dialogue:
Post your findings/views.

Although I am not an expert on Einstein's GTR, I am absolutely gobsmacked by this interview: The arguments on the mathematical inconsistencies are compelling.

I have been working towards Einstein's GTR and suspected that it might be deeply flawed. My reasons are that, Einstein's derivations of time-dilation and length-contraction are both incorrect: The difference in time on a moving and stationary clock, are not simultaneously present on the clocks as Einstein had assumed; and the LT of the coordinates of moving rod from the IRF within which it is stationary into the IRF relative to which its is moving shows that the rod becomes longer to accommodate its deBroglie wavelength.

More compellingly, the coordinates of Minkowski space are not linearly independent: This 4D-space cannot define unique space-time distances s.

M-space, t-dil. and L-con. were all used by Einstein in arguing GTR.

There is no reason to hide. You are a closet von Neumann fanboy.
In fact no thought you think is without von Neumann's blessing.
Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik.

It is late here. I will look at it tomorrow!

I am absolutely gobsmacked by this interview: The arguments on the mathematical inconsistencies are compelling

Five proofs, four of which each prove that General Relativity DOES NOT predict the black hole. BTW Story of Stephen J Crother - so similar to many others...

We should realize, that the argumentation that the black holes cannot exist, because general relativity actually doesn't predict them is somewhat confused from the moment, when the same author says, that the general relativity is flawed too. Why the black holes couldn't exist, after then? This is my high-level feeling from the whole discussion.

Quack... Quack... Quack...

"My reasons are that, Einstein's derivations of time-dilation and length-contraction are both incorrect" - Johanfprins

Look. It is a duck.

There is no reason to hide.

I am NOT hiding!

You are a closet von Neumann fanboy.

I am not one: von Neumann (like Paul Dirac) were brilliant mathematicians but appalling physicists. Just Look at the following on the web you directed me to:

" ...the uncertainty principle, according to which the determination of the position of a particle prevents the determination of its momentum and vice versa, is translated into the non-commutativity of the two corresponding operators."

That there is a reciprocal relationship between position-space and its reciprocal for electromagnetic waves has been known looong before von Neuman formulated his mathematically beautiful, but physically misleading "grundlagen". Non-commutativity has NOTHING to do with a "particle" since the latter concept is undefined. Furthermore, nc has NOTHING to do with the measurement of pos. and mom. to 100% accuracy: The latter is NOT privy to quantum mechanics but also occurs in classical physics

Further from the website:

..the proof inaugurated a line of research that ultimately led, through the work of Bell in 1964 on Bell's theorem, and the experiments of Alain Aspect in 1982, to the demonstration that quantum physics requires a notion of reality substantially different from that of classical physics.

The latter conclusion is wrong and typical of the superstitious Voodoo that has taken hold since 1927 in theoretical physics. In fact the entanglement experiments proved Einstein correct when he claimed that two "particles" cannot communicate faster than the speed of light and therefore the Copenhagen interpretation of "wave-particle duality" must be wrong. If the two parts of the SINGLE coherent wave in Aspects experiment were two separate "particles" as "wave-particle" duality claims, they would not have been able to be in instant contact with one another.

These experiments are the best proof EVER that "wave-particle duality" is bullshit!

Further:

Since something "outside the calculation" was needed to collapse the wave function, von Neumann concluded that the collapse was caused by the consciousness of the experimenter...

Can you see the Voodoo? Obviously, in this case it is correct to claim that "something outside the calculation" is needed to collapse the wave function. To claim that it is a human being's "mind" is something coming from a mentally disturbed person suffering from hallucinations!

It is the interaction with the measuring apparatus which collapses the wave, not the mind of a moron observing the collapse.

It happens everyday that a radio-wave resonates with an antenna to collapse some of its energy so that it is absorbed by the antenna. Obviously your radio is not only working when you listen to it!

A photon-wave encountering an atomic sized detector in a screen will collapse to the size of the detector: A moron seeing the spot will conclude that the wave collapsed to be a "particle".

..a moron will conclude that the wave collapsed to be a "particle"

Look,I explained many times, how the collapse of wave functionis working. It could be actually interpreted just with your "all is the wave" model like the process of synchronization of deBroglie waves of observer and observed object - if only such a process wouldn't result just to the particle aspects of quantum wave behavior, which you're denying so obstinately.

In dense aether model all objects are formed with both undulating wave packet, both less or more dense blob of vacuum foam, which surrounds them. During the act of observation these undulating blobs exchange the portion of their energy in such a way, they will undulate in synchrony (just with random phase shift) - so that from their own perspective the undulation of their peer literally disappears - just the density gradient around them (particle aspect) will remain.

The actual dense aether model of entanglement is substantially more complex-as I explained, that every quantum particle is actually formed with at least pair of two independently undulating quantum waves inside and outside, which do penetrate and interact mutually up to certain level (and hadrons are composed from even higher number of such nested levels). So we can distinguish so called "weak" and "strong" entanglement here. But in the first approximation the processes inside of particles can be neglected, so we can consider the process of quantum wave collapse as the matter of the deBroglie wake wave of undulating vacuum, which surrounds all particles even at their rest state (due the quantum fluctuations no particle can be actually at the absolute rest). The interior of particles remain unaffected with entanglement in such way. Which is logical, if we realize, that inside of boson condensate of atoms the electron orbitals and indeed whole atom nuclei still undulate independently.

The quantum entanglement in vacuum is quite weak effect, which requires the heavy cooling for massive particles up to temperatures or absolute zero, whereas the energy density inside of atom orbitals - not to say inside of atom nuclei - remains way higher in many orders of magnitude. If you imagine this, then you realize, that existing models of quantum entanglement which do rely on single wave function are still terribly schematic and simplified. The quantum entanglement can be hierarchical process, involving many levels of nested structure of elementary particles or atoms, each at which could be affected independently.

"My reasons are that, Einstein's derivations of time-dilation and length-contraction are both incorrect" - Johanfprins
Look. It is a duck.

Two clocks passing and synchronized t(s)=t(m)=0

After time t(m)>0 on the moving clock it is a distance

D(m)=v*t(m) from the stationary clock.

Lorentz transform (LT) t(m)>0 into IRF of stat. clock to get t(Ls):

t(Ls)=(gamma)*t(m)

Thus t(Ls)>t(m): According to Einstein this is because clock m keeps slower time than clock s.

But the LT also gives the distance between the clocks when the time on clock s is t(Ls) as:

D(Ls)=(gamma)*(v*t(m))=(gamma)*D(m), so that D(Ls)>D(m)

Thus, when the time on the stationary clock is LT time t(Ls)>t(m), the distance between the clocks is D(Ls)>D(m). Thus the moving clock has moved further BEFORE the stationary clock registers t(Ls). t(Ls) is thus not simultaneous on clock s when the time on clock m is t(m).

The clocks MUST keep exactly the same time! I hope this will now penetrate your THICK SKULL!

@ ValeriaT

..a moron will conclude that the wave collapsed to be a "particle"

Look,I explained many times, how the collapse of the wave function is working..

You have NEVER "explained" anything in physics in your life. All you have been consistently doing is to post garbage and to ignore any physics which compellingly proves that you are posting garbage.

You say single photon-waves do not scatter when 'passing through' each other. Are their relative velocities 2c during their 'transition' through each other? And then 'return' to c relative to each other once 'transition' is 'complete'?

Who is saying that? Is this question directed to me?

Meaningless.

"Thus the moving clock has moved further BEFORE the stationary clock registers t(Ls)." - Johanfprins

You are confusing the reference frames.

Quack.... Quack... Quack..

Meaningless.

"Thus the moving clock has moved further BEFORE the stationary clock registers t(Ls)." - Johanfprins

You are confusing the reference frames.

I am not: I will again refer you to the correct derivation, even though I realize that you cannot read or comprehend anything!
http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

You replace the 'measurement problem' with the 'boundary problem'.

So when you make a measurement you do not change the boundary conditions to be different from what they are before you make the measurement? Why would "what is out there" then change when you make the measurement; as we know from quantum mechanics that it usually does in most cases? And it even happens in many cases on the macro "classical" scale!

You are a positivist and platonic.
A dualist. Like the duelists you accuse of dualism.
Their dualism from measure. Your dualism from boundary.

Platonic:
Physics describes reality.
In quantum theory, the "wave function of the universe" is a complete description of physical reality.

Positivist:
Physics describes our perceptions.. The wave function encodes our state of knowledge, and the task of quantum theory is to make the best possible predictions about the future, given our current state of knowledge.

Racism and Nazism are based on the categorization of other people in order to avoid logic and decency. I am not a "positivist" or a "platonic" or whatever you want to call me. I am an open-minded researcher of Nature, who knows that everything we believe in today might be proved wrong tomorrow!

And therefore I am willing to explore alternative, experimentally and logically, more feasible interpretations of Nature than accepted mainstream dogma! This is my job description!