It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 310
74
<< 307  308  309    311  312  313 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I would worry more about experiments than theory.

Consider the recent diphoton hump. Two lhc experiments showed a potential excess of events. Over a year, theorists wrote 700 papers on this, with perhaps 250 varying theoretical proposals, of which maybe 50 could be quite theoretically plausible. (Just a guess).

So they took more data, and after a year, the bump went away, it was just an unusual coincidence. Theorists were plenty creative.

Theory is not going to provide much of the road to new physics, thats the lesson. Mathematical consistency and beauty is not enough.




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I would worry more about experiments than theory.



Theory is not going to provide much of the road to new physics, thats the lesson. Mathematical consistency and beauty is not enough.

exactly right



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I would worry more about experiments than theory.



Theory is not going to provide much of the road to new physics, thats the lesson. Mathematical consistency and beauty is not enough.

exactly right



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson

I believe we can take much of our classical thinking into the quantum realm.


What would it mean for it to be possible, for reality/the universe (lets assume the universe is all that exists in realty; the universe being what we know of as fundamental particles and the way they interact to form macro structures like stars, planets, galaxies) to be real, and not classical?

Lets imagine your mind was all that existed surrounded by infinite 3 dimensional nothingness, and there was a large pallet of real material (the fundamental underlying quantitative substantial essence of which could not be created or destroyed) also by your side at your disposal, and you can separate this material in various ways, imparting on parts of it various qualities etc. Can you fathom one example, in which you could theoretically, hypothetically, formulate various types of real material into a system, in which a 'non classical' event could occur? How can non classical be real? I can understand 'quantum' being code word for 'the underlyingly classical which appears non classical because we do not know the underlying classical mechanisms which rule these observations, but according to these observations which do not allow us to fully observe the actual underlying substances and mechanics, it appears actions occur which appear physically, realistically impossible', but I do not know how the universe could be real; something exists (not only nothing), different parts of the total something interacts; and also have unreal, illogical, ignorant occurrences and propositions.



Spin was handled by putting spin matrices into the formalism as a new degree of freedom. However, I believe one can include it just as easily by assuming that there is an internal spinning of the electron cloud, as we can then include the spin effects in the potential energy term of the Hamiltonian. If you look at my other thread you can see that I have done this. It is rather straight forward to do.



I thought the main concept of spin, was that if a particle was physically rotated varying degrees, it would have various effects in relation to different degrees of rotation. For instance if you made 4 marks equal distance apart on the equator of a bowling ball, and had experiments relating to an objects interaction with those different points, there might be no variable; however it is believed certain smaller particles, are not so isomorphic, that electrons, quarks, protons, photon etc are not all perfect spheres; Is that the correct thinking on spin?

Also what the heck is up with charge? The who idea of charge is that, take particle a (electron), wave it up and down and you can detect photons of a corresponding energy to the force of your waving; take particle b (no charge, even such a thing, or just different charge from electron?); and wave it up and down the same way and you will not detect photons, or detect different number and/or different energy?



The Pauli exclusion rule is essentially equivalent to allowing only anti-symmetric states under a particle exchange operator, and this too is something a bit different than in the classical realm. However, no two billiard balls can occupy the same space either. So really even this quantum phenomenon is not to difficult to reconcile with classical thought either, at least for fermions. More problematic are entities that obey Bose-Einstein statistics, where two particles can occupy the same state. (That, I believe has no classical counterpart.)


I have always had trouble with the proposition that it could be possible for any real quantity of something occupying the same exact point of space as a real quantity of something else, at the same time. The claim that one can literally have a million real photons occupying the physical volume of a single photon seems like it can not possibly make sense, if a photon is something, how can two separate somethings occupying a volume equal to only 1 of the somethings (of course the idea of density comes into mind, the idea of packing, for example a sponge being crunched to fit multiple in a single uncrunched space, but the stated to be possible real breaking of pauli exclusion does not appear to be speaking of this). Again, how can a real physical reality, suggest that such a phenomenon could be possible.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson





So which is it? Electron clouds within a Lorentzian space time reality? Or point-like interactions and a probabilistic QM interpretation within an Einsteinian space time reality? Or do we go with the many-worlds interpretation where we keep both Einstein and cloud-like QM reality at the expense of a new universe created for every interaction? Or do we just give up on the concept of objective reality itself?



What I found early on in the, at least, unprofessional discussions of this stuff, have no evidence of professional discussions, quantum talks, is this apparent action of taking information which itself suggests in a certain area of detection a fundamental human ignorance, on the basis of the fact of for example scale (or just the concept of uncertainty principle), and then claiming that this example of human struggle in relation to perfectly knowing the deep far scale and small scale exact details, that the difficulty of this, that a human cannot know exact details of the tiniest scales of reality, equals that reality cannot possibly really have tiniest scales of reality. There are multiple examples of these circular logic conclusions which end up choosing the most illogical conclusion. Like even the thought of many worlds interpretation. Well, its difficult to know a particles momentum and location at the same time for perfectly valid, understandable reasons, this must mean a new universe is born every pico second. Every time I look in this area of fundamental particles, their arrangement is different, guess reality isnt objective.

I cannot track both an electrons momentum and location over the course of time, because when I measure the momentum the electron flies away and I lose the location, when I measure the location I stop the momentum... guess an electron has no location or momentum, I guess the electron is no an object, I guess a single electron exists in multiple places at the same time, heck, why not just say a single electron, say in your computer, exists any where in the universe at any time, and call it a day.



There is no giving up on objective reality, objectivity reality is what exists and is what is true, objective reality is all that exists, subjective reality is the perception of objective reality from the mind (minds move themselves and substance of reality, minds can attempt to know truths, but can be false, reality cannot be false, it equals itself, it is true. However, subjectivity, allows for things to happen that could not happen without subjectivity, subjectivity can comprehend multiple potentials, and choose, creating objectivity) subjective reality is the realm of minds gathering information (perfect and/or imperfect to whatever possible degrees) and mixing information to create new information. Some minds have attempted to and are attempting to collect information that appears to correlate to reality, hopefully increasingly approaching more accurate. I think it is objective fact to say 'there exists something rather than only nothing', a more difficult objective territory is to say 'this apple is objectively traveling 27 mph'.








Einstein's enormous breakthrough was to boldly propose that spatial intervals in one frame will become partly spatial and partly temporal intervals when observed by someone moving with respect to the original frame. In Einstein's view, space becomes time, and time becomes space.


Is the issue of simultaneity, solely an issue of the potential of the mechanisms of a clock to function differently in different physical circumstances? (and/or, the fact a physical quanta/signal is required to move through (a potentially unbalanced space), light, unless the experiment of simultaneity is one of sound (or something) and connect with individuals who themselves are potentially moving differently (speed, rotation, through a potentially unbalanced space)?




It isn't just that clocks and sticks change when they move through a fixed space and time - it is that space and time themselves change.


The physicality of space, I think was the big thing. Or, the source of gravity, being that black stuff we call space, must be as physical (in the sense that, jello, water, air, is physical). That physicality was referred to as geometry, the geometry of space in relation to object, as we know, if a spatially massive object (ocean, jello pit, atmosphere, space) is interacted with by a smaller object, that massive objects geometry will be altered.

Time is the measurement of movements, rates of movements, change etc. So if a swimmer is swimming from A to B, and they do this in a pool 100 times and get a median time; and then take that same A to B distance to the ocean, and encounter themselves swimming into a 40 ft wave, one maybe could say the spatial geometry of the water field altered the bodies time?

With space time, it seems, it was simply being said, one cannot imagine space as pure nothingness; because due to thought and experimentation and observation, it appears that space is not pure nothingness, but closer to pure somethingness, if things like (the Earth continuously staying in similar proximity to the sun, and the sun to the central black hole) is possible.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

it depends if you look at the whole picture , I was thinking, does time require space. What would it mean, 1d or no d, existing, and then experiencing time or time existing 'there'. If there needs to be a there, there needs to be a space. Does time need a there. Or when we speak of time, absolutely what is time, fundamentally, or totally, what does the word mean, how is it used physically, and otherwise, can it be used otherwise, do you ignore, can you ignore, the attachment to realm, the biggest picture, how we know time exists, what time means and can mean, repetition, consistent measurement, the successive potential for eventness, or just the existence of anything at all eventless or not, is still related to time, the same type of time, is there only one ultimate time, which all other possible types of time fit under, any theoretical, in which what we say and mean and experience fits under; or do we use the term as if it existed as an eternal trophy, an absolute pure concept which can conceptually, and platonically really, exist; I am trying to ask, does the concept of time have any 'physical independent' truths/meanings/potential 'existence'? I know I say things like, 'its based on movement'; and I realize, measurement, of movement is how we compare and contrast and use time; and this is similar to the idea of does math exist, but different in ways, as I have used my example of, if something eternally existed but absolutely nothing about it ever changed, would 'time exist' or have meaning; and now I am asking, is that a bad question, because, the fact just being, the concept of time, includes, that concept of an equal tool of measurement, that is like the math number line, and/or the distance ruler, and here we see, for movement to occur, must space exist? For movement to occur, in space, is that time? And/or is time, the ever potential, of perfect 'beats'? The beats which exist in eternal but real theory, such as math, and our attempt to create a system of time, of beats, only ever approximates the perfection of theory, but in cases of keeping time, such as with stop watches or in music, and certainly in our abilities to measure distance, we get pretty close, I suppose because the ability of creating limits, and then working inwards, such as creating ends of a ruler, and then evenly marking it; Also, the ruler, it is made of material, and material itself is all measured, it has to be, for it to be put together to allow the measured length of the ruler to exist as it does. Regardless, as long as the system is self consistent, and the theory is usually self consistent, but that is the question, and I should stop being so broad, as I am specifically talking about time here; Is time more than the theoretical potential that movement could happen, and if it could happen, it could happen in regular intervals? Which could be 'diced/sliced/marked' up (as a ruler could be), so is time one characteristic of energy, well energy is the physically realized (and seemingly necessary, and this is what I mean about looking at the whole picture, if it was not for energy and its characteristics these conversations could not happen, could time ever be realized, and if not, I would say would it fully exist, and I am forced to say yes, especially something so fundamental as this concept, it seems I should say, in any possible reality or none, the concept of time would exist (which you maybe could say the same about anything ever which s not too helpful);

I know there is the physics relation of time to thermodynamics, but ultimately, I d'ont know it proper or not of me, I put that under, movement, but yes that is getting into details, of the types of time, the types of categories of movements, relations of matters and their different movements related to complex environmental circumstances and qualities of momentum, energy etc.

So yes, I think 100 bpm, 200 bpm, 300 bpm. 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds. 1 day, 2 day.

I think these are real intervals, the system is pure as its based off the purity of math, and the activity of reality, if those bpm were a drum, or clap, and the seconds were a microwave timer,

the mechanical system of attempting to produce the theoretical concept, of the perfect intervals of math, into the recognition that movement is possible, and forthmore, different rates of movements in different relations to time (but in order to measure movements, you need space... and there we see, in order to measure space, you need time... maybe, well definitely from at least making and computation of observation); the theoretical concept of intervals of repetition; Do you need distance for time to exist, well this is the difference between concepts and potential and real realities; we need distance and time to even know the concepts of distance or time, but distance and time would exist without us, all of our representations of time might require distance to exist;

so I know that concepts are beyond existence, because even if nothing existed for ever, all of the possibilities of 'but if this existed, it would be like this' would still theoretically exist, I do not know if I believe this, but it seems like something that can be said; all possible possibilities exist in theory, realized or not; and there potentially are these grand fundamental concepts, like space, time, matter, causality, math, geometry, etc. that are these ultimate, concepts, that are the background facts, of any other possibility; any possible possibility might require the concept of maybe space and/or time, maybe matter,

But regardless, what is time, it is the fact change occurs, the theory change can occur, movement; fundamentally, what else, is it beyond movement; we may need movement, clocks for seconds, hands for clapping, in any possible real reality, to say, time is possible, to make, measure; but even if there was something, and it was eternally promised to be motionless, would time actually exist, and would the theory actually exist. And does theory actually or not existing ever matter, well if it occurs in reality, it occurs in theory, because theory is every possible possibility, and reality is only some of those, and our theory is only some of theory, and some of reality, and we use it to on various levels to various degrees attempt to create our reality.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

well then measure the electrons location and momentum at the same instant in time



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Never mind all the philosophical turnabouts.

Get to the bottom line: Einsteinian relativity predicted real physical effects distinct from that which was previously expected. Einstein unified the theory of Maxwellian electrodynamics and post-Newton mechanics, showing that the Lorentz transformative properties are fundamental to this unification. Applying the Lorentz transformations not just to mechanics but to electrodynamics: showing how magnetic fields and electric fields mix and transform, and furthermore, even explaining magnetism as an inevitable consequence of electrostatics and the mechanical transforms, meaning that the electromagnetic field as a combination is intrinsic and of one unified nature. Lorentz didn't do that.

Einstein also put forth an axiom about the laws of Nature: all true physics is relativistically invariant when expressed properly, as he had just done so with seemingly distinct mechanics and electromagnetics.

There is no confirmed violation of any of these principles and predictions.

Lorentz himself at the time recognized that Einstein went beyond what he had done. Lorentz was a well established scientist, Einstein a young newcomer. If Lorentz had done everything Einstein did, then everybody at the time would have attributed it to Lorentz. But they didn't.
edit on 6-9-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

The concept of time is the concept of sequence, and the potential differences between sequences and the velocities of sequences. Universal time, is the fact that, whether we know the details or not, exact things exactly exist simultaneously, and things change, so if one could view everything continuously, they would see different stages, states, of the form and relation of the quality of the things that exist, and so the fact that that which exists exists, universal time is always simply 'real time'; one quality of universal time is that it is infinite, but this is just one aspect of it, just the fact that the totality of something cannot be destroyed, so the potential fact of sequence will always exist;

The concept of the arrow of time, and entropy, is the observation that the mechanics of the system which is the organization of various quantities and qualities of substance, does not appear to be eternally stable;

The potential velocity of sequence, attempting to determine how fast an event can occur, how fast can a something move, how time seems so attached to physicality and its potential to move;

I mean, if we try to envision time separate from physicality, we can kind of do like with numbers, 1, 2, 3 (think of how they make sense in a pure, abstract, timeless, way, though always would need any kind of physicality, the concept of the various orderly potential for perfect self consistent measure transcends the style of physicality; so time, potential sequences of time have have different sizes, so as something could be twice as large as something, the concept of sequence of time, is a sequence could be twice as large as a sequence;

We make and find physical relationships that produce self consistent sequences; it is quite awesome that they can be so regular, and it seems they are quite objectively regular, stop watches, clocks, calender, etc.

Now away from matter, can it be thought, there is an eternal 'fastest possible time', that is the kind of absolute 1 of time. I know the idea of sequence, and units, second, micro second, mili second, etc. pico,

And would that eventually boil into 'real time', the fact that a single object, electron, can continuously exist, for any span of time, meaning the fastest rate of time is '0' (continuos), any movement at all, during the course of movement, is 'pure time' (there is only pure time, and then the infinite potential to split it up, and the actual needs, of recording regularities and entropy); the longest time is infinity, the overarching fact of the eternal existence of quanta; But like the fact that everything big is made of small, the concept that every large 'span' or sequence of time, is really made of only the smallest sequence; well that is difficult to say, like, does a week in any physical way actually exist as a unit of time, or is the only true unit of time the first possible unit after 0, and then all time is really composed of that most micro unit, the way we use the concept time, and understand it, is the comparing of all possible types of objects their relative motions, so a week is only 7 (?) days, but days are only; so we use units of time to organize sequences of events and movements, and those events and sequences and movements actually exist, Its comparing the potential velocity of sequences, how slow a sequence can happen is infinitely slow, how fast a sequence can happen cannot be infinitely fast (continuos movement is not infinitely fast movement, and that is we see, movement takes place over distance, and like other examples, large distance is composed of smaller distances and ultimately a smallest real and maybe theoretically possible, so the fastest physical time would be the smallest amount of sequence needed for an object to move a distance, but it seems it would be thought there could, would, be faster times, that when the second was the fastest declared time that this did not mean there were no faster theoretical times, but I suppose part of the trouble of my wondering is can time be thought of as separate from physical, as math pretty well can, the units of time measurement are marks on a ruler, the ultimate ruler of all sequences of time, these are benchmarks, that smallest unit of time, is so fine grain, that it is quite a real distance from one to the other, just a fact of the hierarchy of scale, ; Our measurements, use consistent velocity of a size to compare the movement of another, using the regular velocity of a much smaller distance to measure an objects velocity over a much larger distance;



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


You have given me quite a few lengthy responses, and within them I see three themes I can respond to.

Spin is presently treated as an internal degree of freedom - essentially like a new dimension, but it is a dimension we don't see with our normal senses. My view is that we can think of it more classically, like a spinning of the wave-function itself. However, when thinking of it as something that is actually spinning we do run into questions about the gyromagnetic ratio, and we must admit that the present quantum theory does give us some encouraging answers in that area. So the status quo theory does have something going for it, and it may be quite a hurdle for any alternative to describe things as well as does the status quo. But no matter what we think about the underlying reality (or lack of reality) we can use the same magnetic dipole mathematics when we do our calculations.

The uncertainty principle. My view of the uncertainty principle is that it is a representation of the spread of things, not a representation of an uncertainty. If we have a wave packet of light, within that packet we will have a spread of frequencies. This is well known classically by doing a Fourier analysis of the packet. That spread of frequencies is equivalent to a spread of momenta, and there is also a spread in the spatial size of the wave packet. There is nothing really uncertain about it. The idea of an uncertainty principle, in my opinion, only arose from the philosophy of believing in a point-like electron residing probabilistically within the wave-function. But if we instead view the wave-function as the square root of the density of an electron cloud, then there is no uncertainty at all. It is just a description of the elemental size of things.

Time. I have long referred to time as the independent parameter that orders events. This is an intuitive viewpoint, in my opinion, and it is in keeping with everyday experience. One can imagine that God for His amusement totally stops everything for 1000 years, freezing things in place, and then lets them start again. Were God to do that we would not know that anything actually happened. What we would see instead is that if we use any type of observation that can record time they would all seem to agree with each other up to some multiplicative constant. We can count the crests of light waves, count the oscillations of a pendulum, look at the decay time of a very large number of muons, or consider any other of many examples, and they all seem to show us the same advance that we've experienced since our consciousness arose in early childhood. I haven't myself dwelt on trying to go deeper than that, and just consider my intuitive notion as a starting point for further development of physics. It is, I think, a fundamental starting axiom most people would agree with. Any of the things I mention can be considered "a clock" and from there we can go on to look at the transformations of Einstein or Lorentz as we see fit. I prefer the Lorentz view, where there is some fixed "preferred frame" within which time is truly represented by clocks, while anyone moving with respect to that preferred frame will have their clocks retarded due to their motion. Einstein's more radical approach stipulates that time itself changes as an observer moves, and I've never believed that made much sense. However, as physicists, we must set aside what we think is sensible and reduce any theory to experimental tests. And on that score there are very few tests that can separate the Einstein and Lorentz theories.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the response - I just saw it - watching the video now.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Phantom423
Nima Arkani-Hamed is championing a campaign to build the world’s largest particle collider . . .

Is a particle collider really the way to go for future understanding of the laws of nature?


I guess that's all we have at the moment. Do you have another idea? I know something about instruments - scientists, including theoretical physicists, rely on instruments like the LHC to investigate and confirm their theories. It's about data acquisition on a large scale. Without data, there's nothing to work with. But if you have another way of validating their theories, I'm sure there will be people interested in your model.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Never mind all the philosophical turnabouts.


I don't believe it was a waste of my time to find the flaw in the paper referenced. I, like you, believed there was approximately zero chance that the Einstein and Lorentz theories had been proven to be equivalent. But unless the flaw is found, as scientists we can't really be certain that any new claim is erroneous. If we are to say that we know the answer before any study then we should simply become historians. (Note that there is nothing wrong with historians, it is just a different field of study than science.) I think we should always admit the possibility that someone might have done something new and important, even if the chances are next to nil.




Get to the bottom line: Einsteinian relativity predicted real physical effects distinct from that which was previously expected. Einstein unified the theory of Maxwellian electrodynamics and post-Newton mechanics, showing that the Lorentz transformative properties are fundamental to this unification. Applying the Lorentz transformations not just to mechanics but to electrodynamics: showing how magnetic fields and electric fields mix and transform, and furthermore, even explaining magnetism as an inevitable consequence of electrostatics and the mechanical transforms, meaning that the electromagnetic field as a combination is intrinsic and of one unified nature. Lorentz didn't do that.

Einstein also put forth an axiom about the laws of Nature: all true physics is relativistically invariant when expressed properly, as he had just done so with seemingly distinct mechanics and electromagnetics.

There is no confirmed violation of any of these principles and predictions.

Lorentz himself at the time recognized that Einstein went beyond what he had done. Lorentz was a well established scientist, Einstein a young newcomer. If Lorentz had done everything Einstein did, then everybody at the time would have attributed it to Lorentz. But they didn't.


At least as it pertains to the special theory, Einstein proposed only one new experiment I am aware of, and that was EPR. Lorentz in 1904 derived the transformations of the electromagnetic fields prior to Einstein. In fact, he also used the erroneous terms "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" prior to Einstein. Einstein's 1905 paper has enormous similarities to Lorentz's 1904 paper, and in situations such as these it was long believed proper to give credit to the first author. Dover has a nice book with both papers included among many others. A rather poor reproduction of the Lorentz 1904 paper can be found at the following link:

panteltje.com...

Einstein does indeed deserve substantial credit for the formulation of the relativity postulates (although Poincare also played a role). As far as I know, Einstein deserves full credit for showing that Lorentz's work can be derived from the relativity postulates rather than the ad hoc proposals of a physical length contraction and a time dilation.

Also, Lorentz does not deserve full credit for the ad hoc length contraction and time dilation proposals, as Poincare, Fitzgerald and Larmor played important roles. I learned recently that Heaviside may also have had a part, and it is likely several others may have had important roles who never received the credit due. Science typically advances with individuals building upon the works of others, and arguing constructively to achieve a consensus view.

The one experiment proposed by Einstein that can differentiate the special theory from Lorentz was put forth in the paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen, or EPR. John Bell refined the EPR arguments, and Aspect, Dalibard and Roger found experimental refutation of EPR. I am well aware that present dogma has attempted to dodge this fact by "philosophical turnabouts" (in your excellent phrase) but the fact is that if we simply return to Lorentz we can (for the most part, see my QM comments in posts above) return to simple classical foundations for space and time that are in full agreement with both experiment and a concept of an objective reality. Relativity cannot do this.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson

Spin is presently treated as an internal degree of freedom - essentially like a new dimension, but it is a dimension we don't see with our normal senses. My view is that we can think of it more classically, like a spinning of the wave-function itself. However, when thinking of it as something that is actually spinning we do run into questions about the gyromagnetic ratio, and we must admit that the present quantum theory does give us some encouraging answers in that area. So the status quo theory does have something going for it, and it may be quite a hurdle for any alternative to describe things as well as does the status quo. But no matter what we think about the underlying reality (or lack of reality) we can use the same magnetic dipole mathematics when we do our calculations.


So is it pretty much entirely used to explain why when you approach magnet from side A result x happens and when you result magnet from side B result y happens; while if you approach bowling ball side A and side B result z happens?

That is explained by charge (I rambled some random questions below responding to these, about the physical explanation of charge; wondering about what the nature of aether would mean; and what it means if magnetism is entirely done by photons, well, photons and material, but if there is anything else besides, if photons always exist everywhere, and maybe magnet repulsion, is trapping photons, and bouncing them back and forth, and not allowing them to squeeze out, could that be? Its crazy magnetic repulsion over such a distance, yet atoms can attract at such small distances and remain so close and stable);

Of what I saw of explanation of spin, it did not say about actual angular momentum, but more about, how if you do rotate a particle, there can be different effects from the particles side A to side B, and the novel point, further more, some particles after rotating 360 degrees returning to what classically would be side A, the original results of particle and perhaps environmental effects, were not equal to after the 360 rotation; this is why there is the assumption of extra dimensions or something; extra degrees of freedom;

But I have not thought a great deal about this, though I would be more cautious, in saying the reason for the results of that; maybe it is because rotating the particle alters the environment, so 360 degrees rotation alters things about the fields which surround it, which detection of the particle might depend on, or which experiment might depend on, if not what could the explanation be?; and this is one reason why people jump to conclusions, when you cannot think of any normal, logical analog, classical example, of a particle, or a object, rotating actually 360 degrees, and not being presented with its face, and/or having different experimental results as prior to the face being turned 360 degrees; which leaves one to conclude the potential, that the particles cannot properly be rotated; that it is an error of experiment in that case, that you cannot do an experiment on an electron, and then assuredly rotate it 360 degrees, do another experiment, on it, or as I mentioned, the experiments depend on the field environment of the electron, and when the electron is rotated, the field environment is altered, so when 360 degrees, the experiment results differently; or as the particle is rotated, it may experience some effects from the field, environment, rotation, and this could simply be an aspect of the concept of spin.







The uncertainty principle. My view of the uncertainty principle is that it is a representation of the spread of things, not a representation of an uncertainty. If we have a wave packet of light, within that packet we will have a spread of frequencies. This is well known classically by doing a Fourier analysis of the packet. That spread of frequencies is equivalent to a spread of momenta, and there is also a spread in the spatial size of the wave packet. There is nothing really uncertain about it. The idea of an uncertainty principle, in my opinion, only arose from the philosophy of believing in a point-like electron residing probabilistically within the wave-function. But if we instead view the wave-function as the square root of the density of an electron cloud, then there is no uncertainty at all. It is just a description of the elemental size of things.



What does square root of the density mean? How do you define, electron cloud? is it a cloud of electrons, or is it that the electron is a cloud, and what does the latter mean? It means the electron is made of multiple particles? I think the wave function is one of those terms and concepts, which may have only been an attempt to make a and a, tool to organize the observational data of the universe, and somewhere along the progression of physics, people started to say, the wave function is the universe, potentially mistaking a tool with what the tool is measuring; I could be wrong about that, but I just dont know what the concept wave function is actually referring too, is the wave function just saying, I know an electron exists, given these environments and these momentums and these velocities the electron has a probability function of traveling this route over time and space? Again as I originally said, I thought the concept of uncertainty principle, is in regards to knowing both a particles position and momentum at once, due to necessarily disturbing the one or the other in experiment. Below I ask you what you think the major problems with and for theoretical physics, fundamental physics, etc, what are the major problems in physics, that you and others and your theory tries to solve, and what does your theory fail to solve potentially; I do not think uncertainty principle is a problem, just have seen some people mistakenly use it, which I guess is one problem we might have been mentioning with qm, is all the false things people claim its claims mean the universe is like.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson


Time. Any of the things I mention can be considered "a clock" and from there we can go on to look at the transformations of Einstein or Lorentz as we see fit. I prefer the Lorentz view, where there is some fixed "preferred frame" within which time is truly represented by clocks, while anyone moving with respect to that preferred frame will have their clocks retarded due to their motion. Einstein's more radical approach stipulates that time itself changes as an observer moves, and I've never believed that made much sense. However, as physicists, we must set aside what we think is sensible and reduce any theory to experimental tests. And on that score there are very few tests that can separate the Einstein and Lorentz theories.




I guess the main reason to bring up time when discussing fundamental physics potential problems etc. is because I guess I also so time dilation being discussed; and discussing space time etc. so I tried to give some thoughts. I suppose the major potential for troubles, are the fact that clocks can potentially be imperfect, time is only ultimately, the fact of all potential beats, or maybe only need to say the smallest beat; and then all other concepts of time, are the ways in which we use the making of beats, to organize the data of the world; so with the moving, and clocks retarding; the ultimate concepts of time, of a perfectly repeating sequence, requiring the same motions, in the same beats, beats per beats; there is the problem of perfectly calibrating, and remaining perfectly calibrated;

So yea, when it is said 'time changes' (in anyway); it can only be referring to, the potential for clocks to be imperfect, due to being complex mechanisms made of matter of which can alter in ways due to different characteristics of the environment including motion;

and yeah, I tried to think of what else could be referring to but had trouble, I thought when using the concepts of time to organize data of the universe, to recognize that potential unseen aspects of the environment, ie space curvature, may make your time predication fail, so it is to account for, the terrain in the environment, and that may be what 'time being able to be changed' refers to.

If somehow, a massive star, came flying near our star, and etc. and caused the Earth to start spinning faster, so that what is now a day, is half a day; this would not change ultimate time, this would not change what a second was, and how many seconds fit into the word day, which describes the seconds it takes the earth to rotate,



random, messy questions:


what does charge physically mean? are there fundamental particles without charge?

What do you think the major problems of, in, for theoretical physics are? What if any potential problems does your theory fail to tackle, or are with your theory?

blackholes

how does light move a to b, where and what form is light in prior to being propagated when a charge is accelerated? A single photon is relatively not that powerful, many photons can potentially not be that powerful (for sometime we can withstand the sun), and a photon alway travels from a to b in the same time, and all photons are the same physical size right? so what makes an even in which soley photons are too powerful to stand in front of; the proximity the photons are to one another in space, and over time

How is the Em field connected to itself (how is the gravity field connected...)? The water field is connected by electron bonds between molecules right, and strong weak force, the air field is connected by electron bonds, (whatever molecule atmosphere is composed of, where there is space between molecules, is that vacuum, even the air near the ground here? How tightly packed is the matter, and where there is no neutron, proton, electron, what percentage of the volume of total air, roughly, is strong weak force field, what percentage is gravity field material, what percentage is EM field material, what percentage is pure absolute nothing (does even the smallest possible volume of pure absolute true real nothing exist in the universe, if so, on Earth, can all fields be scraped aside in a volume, and I mean, is this the meaning of a black hole?

The gravity field is composed of particles like the air and like the water is, just of a different type? the gravity field is not composed of neutrons, electron, protons, etc. but the gravity field behaves physically, classically, like water in ways;

For particle a to be able to influence particle b, like in any connected material, in Em field, it was thought that, a force carrier particle, was created at point a, and traveled like a bullet to point b, not needing any idea of a material of connection, the photon in this case is like the electron, in that you cannot grab a bunch of them and put them together and make material that can connect, though the gravity field does not seem very much like it is the type of material that can have many novel types of connections (like we see with baryonic) it is connected at least in the simple sense, like water, or air, in that a similar type of material structure, we think necessarily starting from particulates of quanta sharing the same fundamental quantity and quality, creating a medium, in which if particle a is moved, because particle a is touching particle b, and particle a cannot occupy the same space at the same time of particle b, then when particle a is moved, particle b is moved, which moves particle c, which moves particle d, and because particle a was moved particle e was moved;

so this type of possibility is made possible, due to the fact of similar structure of the material, the types of elements and molecules that make up air, that do not combine in such a way like concrete or certain types of metal in certain conditions,
but have the ability to absorb blows of energy, propagate it, and remain relatively stable; I do not know, I do not know if 'we' know, if the gravity field can be pierced, or interacted with fundamentally in some novel way; it seemed like the EM field was thought of, as for time wave for time particle for time both, dont want to get into that aspect of history and debate, but maybe I am; it seemed like the EM field was different from that gravity field description, different from water or air, different from the concept of a type of particulate quanta that exists among self similar types which can semi stable-ly remain existing, and when particle A is hit, it moves particle b which ultimate moves particle e;



but it was also maybe thought, this photon particle, was more rare than that, it was not so absolutely everywhere, like gravity field, there were only truly separate from all else, truly singularly alone sole particles like bullets, that were tossed back and forth from point A to Z, from electron to electron, atoms trading the rare photons, causing different molecule structures,


basically, one thing I am wondering, is how the EM field, seems potentially so similar to gravity field; in that, for starters, it does not appear to be a type of material like electron, proton, neutron; well there was debate about that;



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

But, electron, proton, neutron, seems to be more like sole particles, that push around and are pushed around in the mediums; it seems we think of them as the meat and potatoes of material; gravity and EM, while necessary and pervasive, seem to be background or setting; though EM does play a large role in what molecules are possible and stuff,

Oh here is a question then it seems, it is not as if the EM field is static is it, that there is a staticness to it, and that is the concept of rest mass, the concept of in theory could something be stationary;

The thing is it is important to know truly how expansive and pervasive the EM field physically materially is; if we imagine the total volume, lets imagine we zoomed out in every direction and found the edges of the universe, pressed paused, and made an imaginary fence, just to express the total 3d volume of the universe; what percentage of that volume, is really actually physically occupied by EM material (photon): Is EM field, only, exactly only what a photon is? So is the EM field only photons that are like bullets, or waves or slinkies, that are traveling A to B, a finite amount, and then it is a whole another set of questioning if we consider the potential for photons to be created or destroyed, or if other material can potentially turn into photon;

So the total volume is nothing but different types of fundamental objects, that can stable-ly exist as their own for some time (like electron can, photon); the thing that confuses; is supposedly that a photon can be introduced from anywhere in that volume at any time, and theorized that at any point in that volume, one can warp the gravity medium; which might give credence to your mentions of your theory gravity and light aether; which just makes things confusing to think about; because that might necessitate a closed universe, that it cannot expand, because than these aethers could be stretched, because what would happen out near the edges could effect what happened toward the center, or just the thing that confuses me is how you can manifest infinite photons from the same point in space, in theory, you can go to any point in the universe, and propagate photons away from that point with a mechanism that contains a technique for doing so, theory says, photons are generated when a charged particle is accelerated; so a device which accelerates charged particle in some way, (I have also, for a while, questioned whether that is a true comprehension, that the assertively true absolute statement, is not a mistake; that the entire picture is that an accelerated charged particle produces photon from the aether, a flashlight for instance, though even yes, it is thought, infrared vision and such, a persons body heat, the movement of charged particles, where do the photons come from originally; a flashlight, the energy is stored in a battery, chemical energy, I dont know, molecules losing electrons? Does it mean all the photons are contained in the battery? In the molecules, all the photons are collected and stored near the neutron and protons, and the electron cycles around keeping the photons guarded; but then when you hit the flashlight on button, a movement is triggered, which moves the electrons, allowing the photons to escape, and that is the statement accelerated charged particle produces photon;

but can that statement be taken to the pure aether, with just electrons in a hypothetical hand, that shakes them up and down, and produces photons?

Or are photons only produced originally particular way/s; and then everything else is trading the existing particles;

So either; like water, where you can make a wave anywhere; that is aether theory, that requires the entire universe to maybe be prepared with this network of medium; or I suppose somehow there can be theory of aethers here and there, ponds and lakes of EM field;

So maybe a particle is not itself traveling from A to B, but because particle A is attached to particle b that is attached to particle c, particle A is hit, and a photon is, the waving movement, of vibration caused down the chain; it is thought gravity is like this;

it is not sure if EM field is like this; or if a photon is like a marble, or if a photon is like h20 (1) is hit and the movement of this hit transfers to h20 (2) to (3) to (4)

In one case, the sun, would be, electron, proton...neutron... quarks...? a ... lot

and they are moving so much, they are, really tearin the aether up? Why I originally asked about potential EM being static;

Was because imagine this mass of electron and quark (and maybe other particles); a giant ball, traveling 'through' a 'water'/'air'/'solidish' like material, and thats gravity, and that maybe helps keep it a ball;

but there is also the material medium of EM; and that 'leaves a trail?' or, shockwaves constantly out in all directions, a propagation 4d of 'shaken' light aether?

Or, there are photons unattached to one another at all places, and the material of the sun is just slamming into them and always sending them everywhere;

I mean, it gives credence to aether, because otherwise what, it is that, a long time ago, every molecule that is now in the sun, was in a position, to capture photons?

Is that true; what is the timeline, as to when photons were originally created, if they still now are originally created, how are they originally created, and where and what is their material prior to creation?


And it is thought many or all of the complex molecules and elements are made by stars? That things get stripped to a more fundamental state, and occasionally material of the star is ejected out, or the star loses heat, does it lose is store of photons, and/or molecular motion temperature? why does it cool, why does the motion of molecules over time slow down, I know, objects in motion stay in motion, it takes energy to continue their irregular movements, the ground state is less motion, because each motion is fighting gravity;


so eventually gravity cools it and/or lose photons (if there is no aether)

well, I guess it comes down to, if solely the material, electron, quarks, etc. that makes up the sun obtained and contained prior to being a part of the sun (which how does that happen, to begin with, the creation of stars was even a chain reaction, galaxies are the engines of star creation, or galaxies are result of stars creation or both at relatively different and same time; (what is the original source of photons, and do the first photons ever made still exist? how do new photons come into existence?)


the material of sun contained photons prior to being a part of the sun, and since the sun began every photon that left the sun was a photon accounted for by being released by a molecule; or

the EM field, is like the ocean or air; and the material of the sun, moving against this em field, causes the field to move out of the way; like wakes, waves in way, like sound like wind;



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I read through your lengthy posts and prepared some responses as I went. Here are the responses:

For questions on the aether, please use a search engine on the term "larson aether youtube" and you can find a series of videos explaining it from some very basic axioms. Light is just a transverse wave on the solid aether, a photon just a wave packet in the aether, and the aether is essentially just two infinite seas of charge interacting with each other. (Note that Dirac proposed a single sea; it turns out there are two.) Static electric force results from a bit of the sea being separated out, which then displaces the like charges making up the sea, and forces on charged particles result from such displacements. Magnetism is more complicated, and is best explained through the vector potential in the model. I will warn you that the videos are mathematically rigorous, but Physics of course should be. For a very high level overview of things this paragraph will have to suffice.

Spin is presently a simple concept. The status quo represents it by a matrix quantum mechanically, and it is an "intrinsic" angular momentum that comes with quantized values of hbar/2 and has an associated magnetic moment. In the status quo there is no classical modeling of it, and it is a very simple (although not intuitively obvious) concept. See my earlier post for additional thoughts on how spin might be thought of more classically.

An electron cloud is an idea of a single electron being an extended entity, in contrast to it being a point-like entitiy. For an extended entity you can think of a block of iron. You can keep getting smaller and smaller chunks of iron, but the material is the same. However, for iron the density of each chunk is usually uniform, while for an electron the density will change depending on the forces existing nearby. If you multiply the equation for the wave-function by itself (squaring the wave-function), you will get the equation for the density.

I cannot answer any of your questions on gravity, as I have not studied it in detail.

For a good overview on my theories, go to a search engine and search for "larsonism physics". From there you should be able to find my website wherein you can find most of my best works. There are videos there on my ABC Preon Model and on my Aether Model, as well as reprints of my original peer-reviewed papers and some other materials.


What do you think the major problems of, in, for theoretical physics are? What if any potential problems does your theory fail to tackle, or are with your theory?


I believe the major problem in physics is relativity. It leads to a requirement of point-like particles, which in turn leads to infinities which cannot be handled well. The concept of relative simultaneity also presents problems with regard to understanding Bell's theorem results. Other problems are the abandonment of objective reality and the abandonment of underlying physical modelling by modern physics, which has been replaced by a search for terms in a Lagrangian. (Physics is devolving into pure math, with no physical modeling anymore.) These abandonments have also come about because of relativity, in order to save relativity from Bell's theorem tests. As for my own challenges: 1) My theorizing at the moment does not handle gravity at all - I have never studied it; 2) My ABC Preon Model so far has not calculated lepton masses, nor quark masses, nor does it have a sufficiently strong theoretical underpinning (it is just a good high level model at this point); 3) I have not derived the Lorentz force equation from my aetherial model, I have "only" derived Maxwell's equations from it; 4) My theories make many predictions that have yet to be verified experimentally. (The last aspect is a "potential problem" that any good theory should have, as any sound theory should make quantitative predictions that separate it from competing theories. It is my belief that when proper experiments are done my predictions will be shown to be correct, since my theories are already consistent with a vast amount of experimental data. However, item 4 is a "potential problem" because I believe that my own theories, like any other theories, do have a potential to be wrong.)



edit on 11-9-2016 by delbertlarson because: Typo

edit on 11-9-2016 by delbertlarson because: grammar



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson



so it seems, electrons are physical quanta that exist, that you cannot take a quantity of them and place them together to build up into more complex material (though it is true I think, qualitative variance occurs due to quantitative altering of only electron number in a particular element?) Though now it does seem, the quantity of proton, neutron, and electron, all play a qualitative role in the phenomenon of chemical objects and actions; I do not know if material can exist that is solely protons and neutrons no electrons, I guess one thing I was wondering, the difference ways and physical reasons why and how the differently charged fundamental particles connect and interact with the EM field. Im wondering what lava is, how it relates to the sun and fire in general, I guess, Im wondering why physically electrons cannot be pressed together to form objectness material, but why electron and proton, neutron (but proton itself not, neutron itself not), what physically, do they do to each other, and the immediately surrounding environment, how much does the immediate surrounding environment effect the ability for electron, proton and neutron to remain together; the answer would be strong and weak force and magnetism and those things would be said to be aspects of some physical environment separate from just the electron itself the neutron itself the proton itself, just neutrons just protons and just electrons could not form the atoms, or can they? Is the strong and weak force physical productions that are entirely contained in the physical entity of electron and neutron and proton, or is there physical material besides electron, neutron, proton, that exists, that the physicality and traits of that physicality (such as inherent spin, which is just a crazy fundamental quality if it is true, for an object to actually have fundamental continual rotation, a fundamental particle that inherently is actually rotating and even if this particle is moved or anything, it continues that same rotation, or is it thought fundamental particles actually rotate, and what type of axial degrees of freedom do the particles have, and how much of a role does fundamental particle actual spin (like billiard ball top spin etc.), play in the motions and characteristics of matter?)

exist amidst 'that which along with electrons, neutrons, protons causes the strong and weak force'? How can something physically exist, that allows electrons neutrons and protons to remain together, and in such a way to allow the variety, but 100 electrons, cannot create matter, what about the physicality just of the 2 types of particle, what are the physical characteristics, how is charge a physical characteristic, what is charge; The EM field is a real material field, and electrons, protons, and neutrons, all warp the EM field in a particular way due to their movements, and this warping alters the movements (like wakes and buoys, but (3d/4d medium, not 2d/4d surface) or it is not the EM field, but there is an actual other real physical material, called the strong force material, and the weak force material, and just electrons cannot move these force materials in the proper way to remain the electrons together; so maybe the gravity material medium is embedded with these, and maybe they are all embedded, strong force, weak force, gravity, EM, are all entwined in some fundamental 4d medium, in which particulates of matter, electron, proton, neutron, quark, etc. maybe, interacting with different forces, momentums, proximity's, pressures of environment, are compelled to remain in relative cases quite strongly connected, what causes that tight fusion; charge, gravity, pressure, strong weak force, magnetism;

Oh, and at some point, I was trying to ask your thoughts on how entanglement could possibly be real; do you think there is a real material energy field that moves faster than light that is responsible for distributing the physical information which registers the phenomenon of entanglement has occurred, or do you think the concept of entanglement is a groundless concept? First there is making particle pairs, beam splitting; how are particles said to be entangled, what are the requirements? They just have to interact with each other at all, and since they interacted, they had physical details individually before their interaction, so after the interaction they have physical details, and they share some details they might have imparted on the other, rotations, momentum etc, relating to mass and everything else, but yea I dont know, what the requirements and how particles are entangled, and the theory as to what is going on, what could possibly allow it, the true understanding of the phenomenon if it even is one, because it may be just a misinterpretation of ignorance.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


Much of your most recent post involves things I've already commented on above, but entanglement is new so I will address it below. One thing I would like to suggest in the future is that you write things down in an editor (Notepad or Word or whatever) and then re-read and edit it down to more of its essence rather than rambling so much, as some of your postings got quite long yet didn't have a lot of content. Then after you get something that is more to the point, cut and paste it in. I work on my posts that way, and it can allow the written exchange to be more concise and have less errors for others who might wish to read.

And now to the reply itself:

As an example of entanglement we can consider a wave-function that contains two photon wave packets within. One photon goes one way, the other the opposite way. But the wave-function encapsulates both, and, for this example, we will say that the total spin is zero. Within the individual packets the spin is unmeasured, and by my philosophy the spin has a spread of values within each packet. Upon measurement of one packet the spread of the spin is reduced by the measurement, and at that instant the spin of the other packet is also collapsed due to the constraint of zero total spin. At that point the two wave packets are now almost completely separate and independent entities, since momentum has also been transferred in the detection process and this collapses the position spread of each photon such that there is essentially zero overlap between the two photons. They are no longer entangled after the measurement.

The above description is viable in a world where we have an underlying objective reality and an absolute simultaneity. However, it is not viable if we accept relativity. The above description is a simple and clear way to model the quantum world, it is consistent with all known experiments, and it can appeal to our common sense. We need only set aside relativity and return to an absolute theory of space and time to make sense of these things.

The collapse itself is something that is different from physics in the classical realm. Essentially, a portion of the wave-function disappears and the remainder is increased in its magnitude. And the process must happen at speeds much faster than the speed of light. It would be fascinating if we could arrange for experiments internal to the wave-function, but at the present time such efforts are beyond what we can do. While it may be fun to speculate about the internal goings-on, it isn't really science unless our speculations lead to tests we can do.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
If the big bang occurred at a singular point in … what every existed before the big bang; and all mater emerged from that spot and has expanding outward ever since…

where exactly does our galaxy sit in that expanding sphere of our universe?

For example are we at the exact center (where the big bang occurred)? … I would imagine not. Or are we at the outer most shell of the universe? … again I would imagine not. So where between the center and the outer shell are we?

For example If we were to take a 2 dimensional slice out of the universe that both bisects the center of the universe and our current location in the universe; how far away from the center are we?


This leads me to my real question. Assuming we are at some determinant distance between the center and the outer shell; And assuming…

www.popularmechanics.com...

… that we can see light from galaxies that left their galaxies 13.1 billion years ago (700 million years after the big bang); shouldn’t we be able to look in the exact opposite direction and see the end of the universe?

With the age of the universe being around 13.82 billion years; there can’t be 13.82 billion years of distance in all directions from our current location.

edit on 13-9-2016 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 307  308  309    311  312  313 >>

log in

join