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
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
wave-particle duality is an irreducible feature of quantum systems with no naïve realistic explanationWhole 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.
quantum eraser experiments – in which wave-like behavior can be restored by erasing path informationThis 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.
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.
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.
..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.
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.
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.
(Phys.org)—Quantum physics presents several counterintuitive features, including entanglement, tunneling and – as demonstrated in double-slit experiments – wave-particle duality. ….
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."
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.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 ourselvesAtoms 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 ourselvesAtoms 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.
Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."
You got it right. There is no actual particle or wave,... the underlying reality, apart from observation, is neither.
Can this be used to transmit information faster than light speed?
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.
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.
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".
You attribute a varying intensity to a single photon wave,... but electromagnetic intensity is found to be proportional to the number of photons,
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
The definition of a photon is that it is of a specific frequency and lowest possible intensity.
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.
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?
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.
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.
...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.
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?
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..
Q, I am a bit confused! Ha my constant state.
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?
Don't confuse the speculations in these articles as being solved physics or tested theories.
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.
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.
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.)
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!
Sorry if I am just another 'mindless' idiot.
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?
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!
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 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 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.
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?
You should not have used the term "simple" when you should have used "idiotic".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".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.
My sincere apologies for becoming insulting last night
You should not have used the term "simple" when you should have used "idiotic".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.
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..
Have you ever had a catscan done of your empty skull?
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!
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
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,
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.
but only by casting out multiple such concepts like a intellectual netBecause 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.
I don't even know what a protosimplex meansIt'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
The physicists can actually model the quantum particles already - they just don't know about it
Something like the fluid composed of density fluctuations of another fluid.
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.
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 it, the Heim's theory provides robust numbers.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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
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.
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.
My apologies, I thought you were familiar with the http://en.wikiped...echanics 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,
If a given apparatus is designed to measure precisely its momentum, this precludes knowing anything about its position.
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!
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 physicsAre 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.
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.
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.
This has nothing to do with the position and momentum of an entity with a center-of-massWhy 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-massWhy not? It's explained in that video http://www.aether...nim.gif.
has a center-of-mass which at ANY instant in time has NO UNCERTAINTY in its positionThis 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.
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!-has a center-of-mass which at ANY instant in time has NO UNCERTAINTY in its positionThis 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 wildPlease 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.
what you mean by "observable indeterminism"observable effects of quantum fluctuations
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 pleaseFor 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.
observable effects of quantum fluctuations Give me an example pleaseFor example http://www.youtub...hsb7MrQ.
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.
Im curious - Have they tried transmitting to more than one "receiving" station at a time? Like 2 or 3...?
.. as I understand you, is that waves do not get lost. Ever. Whether one wave or an infinite number of waves.
You object to 'virtue particles'.... Is this the reason you call QFT 'hogwash'?
You are a proponent of a this useful description use in physics(!)
You need this description......for your pet theory of superconductivity.
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?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.
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!
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).
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.
Why do you not first prove that it IS a reality. To date this has NEVER been done!
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!
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?
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!
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.
If something works it works,
Have you even heard of the scientific method? "Proof" is an impossibility in science
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)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.
When it is proven 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.
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 itI 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.
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!
Johan, circuses are for kids.
Kids of all ages.
If you cannot "prove" it works, how the BLOODY HELL can you claim that "If something works it works"?
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 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.
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.
The theory in its entirely led to the predictions those experiments tested.
.. 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.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)
Anybody here know if qyantum mechanics is any where like fluid mechanics, math wise?
Anybody here know if qyantum mechanics is any where like fluid mechanics, math wise?
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.
lolAROUND the charge of a SOLITARY electron. - J
O.k. There is none (electric field-energy.)
Can we agree to call this a particle now?
Consider a steel ball
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I only expressed sympathy with him that he stumbled across a piece of stinking excrement like you!
YOU are the biggest schizophrenic, psychopathic liar in the universe:
I am not a criminal who jumps to conclusions before having all the facts; like you are doing!
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.
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?
Just say a field is more fundamental than a wave/particle.
No one has a problem with that. Not even you.
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!
And since the Lorentz transformation proves that EVERY entity MUST have a wavelength there are NO "PARTICLES" whatsoever in nature!
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?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
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!
You will note that I have never insulted people who are not patronizing,,
insulting my knowledge,
and who are really interested to argue physics.
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.
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.
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?
Sir, ya may not like my attention, but ya went out of your way to attract it. Simple, eh?
Where did I do this.
And please stop using teenager slang!
You are not funny.
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.
What teenager slang?
I might not be smart
At least he finally admits the primary issue here.
... 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.
What happens to a photon when the photon's self-interference is no longer constructive and is destructive?
What remains from a wave when destructive interference can never be complete? What is the difference between zero displacement and destructive interference?
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.
Can there be an optical counterpart to this acoustical physiology?
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.
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.
That the phase shift of light is not detectable from eyesight alone.
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... - 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.
...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?
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?
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).
"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."
Does entanglement exist?
Matter creation and pair production exist.
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!"
.. "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!"
1. Give me the experiment that proves (with the possibility of falsification) that the Higgs boson gives "other "particles" their mass.
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).
...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.
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.
I am absolutely gobsmacked by this interview: The arguments on the mathematical inconsistencies are compellingFive 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...
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."
..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.
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...
..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.
"My reasons are that, Einstein's derivations of time-dilation and length-contraction are both incorrect" - Johanfprins
Look. It is a duck.
..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 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'?
Meaningless.
"Thus the moving clock has moved further BEFORE the stationary clock registers t(Ls)." - Johanfprins
You are confusing the reference frames.
You replace the 'measurement problem' with the 'boundary problem'.
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.
kochevnik
Jan 29, 2013