"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Baloney. I've asked lots of questions right here on this thread, haven't I?

reply to post by Mary Rose

I seem to recall that most of the questions you asked in this thread are based on materials from people who think modern science has it all wrong.

In some rare cases that may be true but usually the way we find out about that is when a scientist publishes a new paper pointing out the error and provides a newer, better theory with newer, better evidence, and it's independently confirmed, and so on.

The dual slit experiment and its results is one of the better studied experiments in science, since 1801 when Young first performed it. If Hill is right that we are interpreting the experiment wrong, he should get a peer-reviewed paper published to correct our error.

However, he seems to be completely ignoring all the evidence of how the behavior of photons and electrons change when he declares:

The Dual-Slit Experiment Myth

No evidence is apparent here of particles/photons or of wave/ particle duality.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall you mentioning any legitimate sources for interpretation of the double-slit experiment to compare and contrast with Colin Hill's interpretation.

If you had, you'd see there's ample evidence of wave/particle duality mentioned in other sources, which Colin Hill completely ignores when he declares that only wave-like behavior is observed.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What technology did the Egyptians use to transport these blocks?

Hmmmm. Arb and BS have not weighed in on this.


Why not?

a) Because I didn't volunteer to tutor you in Internet and your local library usage.
b) Because Rodin's donut has zelch, zero, nada to do with Egypt, pyramids or common sense
c) Because I've visited Egypt and saw at least one example of how they did it in Luxor, where the ancient Egyptians left behind a huge mound of clay they used to hoist massive blocks up, to build a huge wall at Karnak, and there are other techniques that can supplement that.

reply to post by buddhasystem

So you believe our technology today could transport 200+ tons?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yes, there are major problems with modern science and yes I’ve pointed them out on this thread.

I would not say “some rare cases.” Suppression of dissenting views and discoveries is real; however, you reject this information.

I have done lots of checking of Wikipedia, which is mainstream, on subjects like the double-slit experiment. There is no reason to post about the information gleaned. The subjects that need discussing are: What needs to change.

I don’t know that Hill is ignoring all the evidence. It could be he interprets the “evidence” differently. Interpretation is key. He also may be focusing on physicists whose information has been pushed aside by the mainstream.

I have asked him the question about the issue of observation causing the wave function to collapse.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So you believe our technology today could transport 200+ tons?

200 ton moves were routinely done in the 19th century.

Our technology today can transport structures weighing at least 2,500 tons over significant distances, in one intact piece.

As a reference point to weight, we have airplanes with 150 ton payload capacity. There are plans for airplanes that can carry 1,400 tons.

You really need to start reading materials other than the New Age anti-science cr@p. I keep seeing "0" on your knowledge meter.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So you believe our technology today could transport 200+ tons?

200 ton moves were routinely done in the 19th century.

Our technology today can transport structures weighing at least 2,500 tons over significant distances, in one intact piece.

This video is of a 1200 ton generator that started out in Tokyo, being moved in South Carolina. That's nearly halfway around the world which means you could probably move it anywhere. So yes I'd call that a significant distance.

The Stator Generator....biggest object ever moved on South Carolina roads.

Started in Tokyo, barged over to Charleston, SC. 750 ft. long, 14 ft. wide, 2.4 million lbs....

reply to post by Arbitrageur


If I may comment, it moves at a pretty brisk pace, too!

reply to post by buddhasystem

That's true. The space shuttle weighed something over 100 tons and they only moved less than 1 mph when being carried out to the launch pad, so that 1200 ton generator is not only a lot heavier but it's going a lot faster at around 5mph, but it's a much more stable load.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

That's true. The space shuttle weighed something over 100 tons

I hope Mary takes notice that our current tech can not only "move" objects in hundreds of tons, but hurl them in outer space at 5 miles per second.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


From the wiki you quoted:

the virtual particles are themselves space

So, what is going on here? Are the virtual particles 'real'? In what sense do we use the term 'particles' in this context?

Are regular particles 'themselves space' also? Or are there two different 'substances', one for virtual particles(of spacetime?) and one for regular ones(in spacetime?)?

What does it mean for them to come 'into existence'? Were they 'out of existence' before that? And what does that mean?

What do you think yourself?

reply to post by beebs

I think we don't really know what happens at that scale because we lack a proven theory of quantum gravity. We've been able to confirm as much as the Casimir effect but some of those other predictions have yet to be confirmed with observation as the source says.

This may partly answer your question about the "reality" of virtual particles:

Vacuum energy

the Casimir effect is no certain proof for vacuum energy since it can also be explained without this theory.[4]

Other predictions are harder to verify. Vacuum fluctuations are always created as particle/antiparticle pairs. The creation of these virtual particles near the event horizon of a black hole has been hypothesized by physicist Stephen Hawking to be a mechanism for the eventual "evaporation" of black holes. The net energy of the Universe remains zero so long as the particle pairs annihilate each other within Planck time. If one of the pair is pulled into the black hole before this, then the other particle becomes "real" and energy/mass is essentially radiated into space from the black hole.

That is an explanation of one possible way a virtual particle might become "real".

Mary said Feynmann's statement that we need to let nature reveal to us how it behaves was painfully obvious but I think it bears repeating because some people want to know the answer before we have an answer. And at times I sense that you'd like to see nature behave the way you want it to. I want to understand nature as it is, not as I'd like it to be. That doesn't mean I don't have some guesses and some predictions about what future experiments might show, but these could easily be wrong.

I did give you my prediction though about which of the 5 calculations of vacuum energy will turn out to be correct, it's the same as the author's opinion I cited back on page 43 and my opinion hasn't changed since then:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In other words, I don't have a problem with his estimate of vacuum energy possibly having a positive energy density of about 6 × 10^-10 joules per cubic meter since there is some data to support this but it's not yet proven. And I think it's obvious the naive calculation of infinite vacuum energy using quantum field theory is wrong. As Michio Kaku says, when we calculate infinity in physics, we are usually pretty sure that's not the right answer. It probably means we did something wrong in making our assumptions or are using a model outside its useful range, or something along those lines. I'm not sure if renormalization is really the correct fix for that infinity:

the vacuum energy is mathematically infinite without renormalization, which is based on the assumption that we can only measure energy in a relative sense, which is not true if we can observe it indirectly via the cosmological constant.

I think the idea that we can observe it via the cosmological constant needs more evidence but it seems like a rational question to investigate further and until we confirm a correct answer, that's what I base my best guess on.

Even a ridiculously large value for vacuum energy like 10^113 joules per cubic meter obtained using quantum electrodynamics etc, is probably inconsistent with cosmological observations.

Regarding taking energy out of the vacuum, I believe experiments will eventually show we might be able to temporarily extract quantum amounts of energy before the vacuum will just take them right back. This is because we define the zero point as the lowest possible energy state and I just don't see how a system go below the lowest possible energy state and stay there on a sustained basis, because if it did that, then it wasn't really at the lowest possible energy state to begin with; do you see the paradox? Temporary quantum fluctuations might achieve this for brief transient periods, sort of like we observe with rare, small, and short-lived temporary violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some transient, quantum level fluctuations are about all we are going to get when we attempt to extract energy from the vacuum, is my prediction.

Of course my predictions could be wrong and experimental evidence is still king in my book, so I'll go with that as soon as it's available.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Regarding taking energy out of the vacuum, I believe experiments will eventually show we might be able to temporarily extract quantum amounts of energy before the vacuum will just take them right back

To me, the issue is similar to Maxwell's demon. It's a pretty deep subject.

Fluctuations of vacuum energy and their effect on observables have been discovered a long time ago, in experiments such as measurement of the Lamb shift

Originally posted by buddhasystem
To me, the issue is similar to Maxwell's demon. It's a pretty deep subject.

It's interesting you should mention that because I was thinking of experiments where we've "gotten something for nothing" on small scales, even without Maxwell's demon, like this:

Second Law of Thermodynamics Violated

The team found that, on occasion, the water molecules interacted with the bead in such a way that energy was transferred from the liquid to the bead. These additional kicks used the random thermal motion of the water to do the work of moving the bead, in effect yielding something for nothing.

So that's not just a thought experiment like Maxwell's demon, it's an actual experimental result, so it can happen on small enough scales even without the demon. It's actually not surprising at all and can be predicted statistically as an expected result at small scales and short time frames.

So when I said you can't get something for nothing, I should really qualify that....you can, but not for long enough to run your car with it. That does have interesting implications for nanomachines though and how they might "malfunction" when they occasionally run backwards.

Regarding whether Maxwell's demon can be constructed to decrease entropy on a sustained basis, while I have to agree with the source you cited that the arguments saying it can't be done seem circular, it's inconceivable to me how a shutter could be constructed to produce the desired result of not creating more entropy in the process of selecting which particles can pass, and in opening and closing the shutter, than will be reduced by selectively allowing the particles to pass.

Just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean it can't be done; maybe someday someone will construct a Maxwell's demon and prove that the arguments about why it was impossible really were circular arguments. But after reviewing the long list of perpetual motion machines people have worked on, I have to conclude that the fact that nobody's built one yet isn't from a lack of trying! Circular arguments or not, the people arguing about why it can't be done seem to be right so far.

I can't really say it's impossible, but I can say it seems highly improbable to me. But like the NASA scientists Nelson and House, I try to keep an open mind, though I suspect they are probably more optimistic about the chances of success in getting something for nothing on a sustained basis, than I am.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You see, second law of thermodynamics is intrinsically statistical in its nature. When you go to a small number of particles, fluctuations do become bigger and deviations from apparent equilibrium do likewise.

As to Maxwell's demon -- I think the most fascinating part of the Wiki source is about the theory of information aspect. There are extremely subtle things that are very, very counter intuitive. The very issue of what the demon would do with the information is one of those.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I too would like to know how nature is, and not how you would like it to be.

Why does one interpretation automatically get a higher status than another, seemingly a priori?

Why do we use Born's solutions and interpretations of the wavefunction, and not Schrödinger's original interpretation of his equations?

Why don't we use Bohm's mechanics and interpretations?

Why do we have to adhere to contradictory particle interpretations to wave behavior - which results in the kind of exotic science that you yourself wish to avoid?

To me, it seems illogical and totally arbitrary to name our (apparently unproven) speculations as 'virtual particles'.

That is the type of irrational language that plagues the Copenhagen establishment - which is overwhelmingly evident in Hawking and Mlodinow's recent book. That type of thing is what leads to 'What the Bleep do we Know?' religiosity.

Instead, if we use the interpretations proposed by Schrödinger and Wolff - we can refer to VDF and ZPE as completely rational 'real waves' OF spacetime.

We could play all day long with semantic definitions of 'virtual' and 'particles'... or we could think critically about the concepts and the phenomena we are dealing with, and come to a logical explanation. Rather than applying our theoretical presuppositions onto the phenomenon, we should let the phenomenon stand on its own. We are supposed to be involved in the project of describing, not prescribing.

VDF and ZPE can be simply described as the interactions between all of the spherical quantum waves in the universe.

A simple analogy, if this is still unclear, is the surface of a body of water. Minute crests and troughs resulting from the stimulation of the medium are analogous to 'virtual particles and virtual antiparticles'. They are always ebbing and flowing - what we refer to as 'flitting in and out of existence'. Or perhaps the 'nodes' are what we refer to as the virtual particles. Either way, it is a much more logical explanation.

Again, this medium is determined from the quantum waves of all matter in the universe.

We are not measuring 'particles' - we are measuring values and interpreting them as particles.

Originally posted by beebs
We could play all day long with semantic definitions of 'virtual' and 'particles'... or we could think critically about the concepts and the phenomena we are dealing with, and come to a logical explanation. Rather than applying our theoretical presuppositions onto the phenomenon, we should let the phenomenon stand on its own. We are supposed to be involved in the project of describing, not prescribing.

You say that, but it seems to me you're not following your own proclamations when you say this:

VDF and ZPE can be simply described as the interactions between all of the spherical quantum waves in the universe.

....We are not measuring 'particles' - we are measuring values and interpreting them as particles.

I don't think the top scientists in the world claim to be able to accurately answer the unsolved problems in physics related to vacuum energy, yet you claim how it can be "simply described"?

Originally posted by beebs

I too would like to know how nature is, and not how you would like it to be.

Why does one interpretation automatically get a higher status than another, seemingly a priori?

Why do we use Born's solutions and interpretations of the wavefunction, and not Schrödinger's original interpretation of his equations?

Why don't we use Bohm's mechanics and interpretations?

Who says we don't use them? That's exactly what this latest interpretation of the double slit experiment description uses; it refers to the "pilot wave theory" also known as the "Debroglie-Bohm theory":

What Does the New Double-Slit Experiment Actually Show?

The Copenhagen interpretation was extremely unsatisfying to several prominent physicists of the day (Einstein was the most famous dissenter, of course), and indeed to many working in the field now. Over the years, other scientists have proposed many alternative interpretations, some of which are more viable than others; many fail the Occam’s razor test by providing no empirical difference from the Copenhagen interpretation, yet are harder to work with....

Many (perhaps even most) physicists treat the whole theory as a black box, something that provides very good predictions, but that will lead to madness if you try to figure out why it works the way it does.

That at least partially answers your question about why alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation were found harder to work with but weren't able to distinguish themselves as being empirically different, so of course it seems logical to me that without an empirical way to distinguish them, scientists would prefer not making their lives unnecessarily more difficult by choosing a theory which is harder to work with for no good reason. And it also mentions the "black box" view of making good predictions. But nowhere does that really imply that people are married to the Copenhagen interpretation; on the contrary that implies if another interpretation actually had empirical evidence it was more correct, that would be the criterion scientists would be looking for to prefer it.

And one implication of this article is that the recent experiment may be leading to just such empirical evidence:

Enter the experiment by Kocsis et al.: by reducing the resolution of the measurements, the experimenters increased the uncertainty in the momentum, allowing a better chance at determining the trajectories of an ensemble of photons. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle still stands, in other words, and is an essential part of this experiment (whatever some headlines may say).

By repeating the experiment for a large number of individual photons and moving the apparatus to measure polarization at various points along the trajectories, the researchers were able to reconstruct the paths not of the individual photons but of the complete ensemble of all photons – yet due to the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, information about the individual photons within the system can still be inferred.

One possible interpretation of the experiment is in line with the pilot wave model, formulated by Louis de Broglie with later additions by David Bohm. In this view, the wave function describes a statistical distribution that says what physical properties the point-like particle is likely to have – while the particles themselves may follow precise trajectories, even if those are very difficult to track. This certainly is consistent with what we see in detectors, although one might ask whether the pilot waves themselves can ever be directly observed – and if they can’t, whether they can be said to be "real".

Did you catch that? Not only are they saying this might support the pilot wave theory, but the pilot wave theory itself is a particle theory which explains how the particle can move in a fashion to appear to have wave-like behavior.

The interpretation hasn't been resolved in a century and it probably won't be resolved with one experiment like this, but I think this is the way it will be answered, through experimentation.

Has the Copenhagen interpretation fallen? Has the pilot wave interpretation been vindicated? The cautious scientific answer must be "not yet". After all, there is nothing in this experiment that isn’t completely compatible with the mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics, so any valid interpretation – including the Copenhagen interpretation – will describe its results.

However, measurements such as this make it harder to say smugly that photons don’t follow any particular trajectory and that it’s unreasonable to expect them to. I for one look forward to more experiments along these lines.

So do I.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What technology did the Egyptians use to transport these blocks?

Hmmmm. Arb and BS have not weighed in on this.


Why not?

a) Because I didn't volunteer to tutor you in Internet and your local library usage.
b) Because Rodin's donut has zelch, zero, nada to do with Egypt, pyramids or common sense
c) Because I've visited Egypt and saw at least one example of how they did it in Luxor, where the ancient Egyptians left behind a huge mound of clay they used to hoist massive blocks up, to build a huge wall at Karnak, and there are other techniques that can supplement that.

Perhaps you should tell the class why granite inside the Pyramid of Khufu was entirely floated... Not just the floor, but its entire architectural structure.

Related:

Two Diamonds Linked by Strange Quantum Entanglement

www.livescience.com...

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I too would like to know how nature is, and not how you would like it to be.

Well, the rest of your post is a testament to the contrary.

Why do we have to adhere to contradictory particle interpretations to wave behavior - which results in the kind of exotic science that you yourself wish to avoid?

The "exotic science" exists only in your head. If nature shows both particle and wave type of behavior, well, that's how nature is. Your attitude maps nicely onto what Feynman is talking about in his video. In his words, if you want "something more philosophically pleasing", "go somewhere else".

To me, it seems illogical and totally arbitrary to name our (apparently unproven) speculations as 'virtual particles'.

These are instruments in examining and calculating fields, in qft. There are fields, we solve them and observe a result. One way to conduct calculation and interpret results etc is to refer to "virtual particles". Are they real? Yes in the sense they describe many aspects of physics. No in the sense that you can put them in a jar.

What is temperature? It's a measure of the kinetic energy of the particles in the system. It does not contain the totality of information, which would be the complete phase space of the system. Does it make temperature fake, or unnatural, or exotic?

Rather than applying our theoretical presuppositions onto the phenomenon, we should let the phenomenon stand on its own. We are supposed to be involved in the project of describing, not prescribing.

VDF and ZPE can be simply described as the interactions between all of the spherical quantum waves in the universe.

Well that's just remarkable. After "exposing" the dangers of "theoretical presuppositions", you boldly proceed to espouse exactly that.

Virtual particles are exactly a way to describe, not to prescribe. But you are not happy with that either.

Bottom line, you just can't break with your desire to impose your views on the Universe instead of doing problems in physics.