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.
exactly right
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
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.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
I believe we can take much of our classical thinking into the quantum realm.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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?
originally posted by: mbkennel
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?