Hi, this is my first posting, about a question I have been pondering for a long time.
I graduated in physics (Honors degree) back in 1992 but wasn’t apparently good enough to pursue a career as a theoretical physicist, so I did a second degree in biology (as I wanted to have a broad view of all aspects of nature, from the most elementary particles to the most elaborate things like living beings) before finally studying to become the translator I am now. I did manage to take a few more classes in physics after getting my degree, most notably a graduate course in quantum field theory, and read a lot of textbooks on field theory, general relativity, etc. Understanding attempts made toward a unified field theory has remained an important goal for me.
So, right now, I am reading the excellent book by B. Zwieback, A first course in string theory (before I found it I had lost hope of ever finding anything accessible at the undergraduate level on the subject). It got me thinking again about a question that has been puzzling me for a long time and for which it seems physics has not yet given an answer. Basically, it goes like this :
1) There is a finite velocity that cannot be exceeded in our universe and it happens to be the speed of light given by Maxwell’s equations.
2) There is a quantum of action (Planck’s constant) and it limits the accuracy with which we can measure the position and momentum of a particle (uncertainty principle).
3) But when c goes to infinity and h goes to zero, the physics becomes Newtonian mechanics. Moreover, because of time dilation, if we could travel at the speed of light, it would feel like traveling at infinite speed.
Question : Why is that?
For me at least, it cannot be just a coincidence : there must be some deeper meaning to the fact that no information can exceed the speed of light (just like the equality between gravitational mass and the mass of inertia was seen as a coincidence until Einstein and the principle of equivalence).
From what I understand (and please correct me here if I’m wrong), string theory does not explain or justify special relativity or quantum mechanics; it just use them to obtain the particle states on vibrating strings. So, even if string theory is the correct unified description of all the interactions and particles, it seems to me that it leaves the biggest question unanswered (as an analogy, we can explain the periodic table in terms of atoms of increasing atomic number and layers of electrons without digging at the level of elementary particles and their fundamental interactions).
So I went back to where it all began by reading the first few chapters of my old quantum mechanics textbook. I get the feeling that the explanation might be there, hidden in the most elementary notions : the behavior of particles is described in terms of probability waves and those waves are combined in wave packets. And then it appears : the width of the wave packet multiplied by the width of the Fourier transform of the wave (in terms of k, the wave number, related to the impulse by Planck’s constant) cannot be smaller than a finite number. We have an uncertainty principle!
Nothing new here. But wave packets have a phase velocity and a group velocity. The group velocity can never exceed that of light (for instance, EM waves in a wave guide), but the phase velocity can be much higher.
So, here is my idea : couldn’t the description of phenomena in terms of waves of probability explain special relativity in the following way :
1) We can only observe the group velocity, despite the fact that individual waves may have velocities as high as we want.
2) Somehow, the speed of light c and Planck’s constant h should be related as a single parameter, so that both theories could be derived from a single explanation and thus unified. This parameter could be a characteristic of the medium of the waves (which could be real waves in a vibrating medium).
In summary, the picture (perhaps vague and naive) that comes to my mind from the pieces of the puzzle I see here is as follows :
1) Reality is a medium that can vibrate. The simplest choice for this medium might be spacetime itself, with some number of dimensions D (I also think this geometry should explain why there is only one time dimension that can only be traveled in one direction, toward the future), so that the psi wave of Schrodinger’s equation would be like a gravitational wave, although it may differ from it, for instance by not affecting the same dimensions, etc.
2) The velocity of the wave is not limited. But being made of particles (waves) ourselves (this would be true of any observer in general, of anything that interacts with anything else, be it a proton or a human being) we can only observe the world through interactions between waves (interference) and so can only measure the group velocity of wave packets. This velocity is limited by a parameter of the medium which also gives rise to the constant in the uncertainty principle.
3) We thus have a distinction between a Real world and an Observable world (back when I was a teenager I read a great book by Jean Charon where this distinction plays an important role). The Real world obeys classical, Newtonian mechanics and this is why Newtonian physics appears as a limit case. But we can only measure things in the observable world and this is where quantum and relativistic effects appear.
4) And why are there strings? Could strings be one-dimensional quanta of the psi wave field (just like particles are point-like – zero-dimensional – quanta in quantum field theory)? It makes sense to me. And their vibrations would give rise to the interactions and particles we know.
In this description, the wave-particle duality is easy to understand (no real particles, just wave packets) and the universe (the Real world) truly does not play dice (Einstein would have loved this idea!)
This of course may sound like an interpretation of quantum mechanics and I know some consider this as more philosophy than science. I don’t think we can be sure of that. What if a unified description of special relativity and quantum mechanics gave rise to new predictions, for instance that SP and QM themselves are approximations or that they break down in some extreme circumstances?
It would remains to do what I am not qualified to do : to develop a mathematically precise geometrical model of this Real world, find the correct relationship between c and h, and look into the idea of one-dimensional quanta for strings.
But like Einstein once said, sometimes the most difficult thing is not finding the answer, but finding the question.
Any thoughts or suggested reading on the subject are greatly appreciated.
The "mystery" of light speed is not a mystery if you throw away your assumptions of Euclidean space time and Galilean relativity and ask which concept of relativity makes the most sense for our physical universe. (See section 10.8 of this textbook and the Appendices, especially I). Given that it's reasonable to assume a upper speed limit to the universe, you have to ask is it finite or infinite, and if it is finite what is it? If it is finite, then it has to be SOMETHING (and that something numerically depends on your choice of units) and its reasonable that massless particles would only be observed traveling at that speed, which is the limit of very light particles with some sort of push applied. As light is modeled as a massless particle, it's speed in vacuum (where, by definition, there's nothing to interact with) is c.
Particle physicists and gravity experts almost exclusively use units where c = 1.
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16..._appendices.pdf
Math is never going to tell you "why" something is. Why is 22/7 close to pi? A nearly meaningless question. pi has to be close to SOME rational approximation.
A physics model, like Minkowski space or pseudo-Riemannian manifolds is not going to tell you "why" the model is a good approximation of reality, but only that it's arbitrarily close to the correct math of the universe.
As the child's game goes, "why" forms an infinite regress:
Eventually, why runs past what physics can tell us. If what we now believe about the universe is true, Man will never be able to have direct evidence of what happened before the first seconds of the universe. If the Brane World model is correct, we could all be wiped out by a collision we are powerless to anticipate or influence. So we do the best we can with what we have, and we ask "how" and "by how much" when our attempts to answer "why" go unanswered.
Particle physicists and gravity experts almost exclusively use units where c = 1.
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16..._appendices.pdf
Math is never going to tell you "why" something is. Why is 22/7 close to pi? A nearly meaningless question. pi has to be close to SOME rational approximation.
A physics model, like Minkowski space or pseudo-Riemannian manifolds is not going to tell you "why" the model is a good approximation of reality, but only that it's arbitrarily close to the correct math of the universe.
As the child's game goes, "why" forms an infinite regress:
- Why is the sky blue?
- Why is Rayleigh scattering right?
- Why are atoms stable?
- Why is QED correct?
- Why is the universe the way it is?
- Why is there a universe?
Eventually, why runs past what physics can tell us. If what we now believe about the universe is true, Man will never be able to have direct evidence of what happened before the first seconds of the universe. If the Brane World model is correct, we could all be wiped out by a collision we are powerless to anticipate or influence. So we do the best we can with what we have, and we ask "how" and "by how much" when our attempts to answer "why" go unanswered.
Light speed seems a misnoemer, or alternately the context has changed over time and has little to do with either light or speed.
Consider that some delays must exist in interactions between objects otherwise time wouldn't exist and the entire timeline of the universe would occur simultaneously without any chronologic order or any way to segment time and compare rates etc.
So some delays must exist. We often measure rates of one type of occurance versus another and call these ratios times, but if there's truly an underlying analog equivalent to all this, then quantizing rates isn't as accurate as measuring delays. If these interactions are discrete, then we can't measure inside a unit of time, but if there is an underlying analog approximation, we can do better than simply add up number of occurances of one thing and compare them to other occurances. For one thing, by simply summing these up over time, we ignore any variations in rate and assume the rate is constant, but you can actually determine rates faster by working with delays rather than counting number of occurances.
If you have a runner going around a 1 mile track and you want to measure the speed, you don't have him run around for an hour and then count how many laps he completed. This inherently quantizes the value (in this case to integer MPH values) simply because of the manner in which it was measured. Instead you'd simply have him run a lap and measure the delay (of course this ignores variations within this lap but it's still better).
If you had a timer tick off seconds and a second event occuring at some rate, if you wanted to measure how faster the secondary rate was occuring relative to 10 seconds, you might simply begin counting at some one second tick and then stop 10 seconds later and come up with an integer ratio down to 10ths of a second, but if you make the assumption that these rates are spaced evenly through time you can do better by actually recording the chronology of the ticks (even ignoring any way to measure within, or more accurately than a second).
Just to show you the general technique, imagine these results were recorded (though you can estimate rates much more accurately when you're comparing multiple events simultneously)
1st second, 2 ticks on secondary source
2nd second, 3 ticks on secondary source
3rd second, 3 ticks on secondary source
4th second, 2 ticks on secondary source
5th second, 3 ticks on secondary source
6th second, 2 ticks on secondary source
7th second, 3 ticks on secondary source
8th second, 2 ticks on secondary source
9th second, 3 ticks on secondary source
10th second, 2 ticks on secondary source
We would normally sum these up and say the secondary source runs between 2.4Hz and 2.6Hz but by using apriori assumptions that these are constant rates, we include phase relationships between ticks and limit the number of possible rates that could generate this (it comes out to 2.5 to ~2.572Hz is the maximum range that can generate this pattern).
I think when you dig down far enough time is a chronology of events. The problem with looking at lightspeed is likely that the analog space we perceive is simply an approximation of things and that meters and seconds are loose mental constructs that don't have a direct correlation to spacetime.
It might be that if we can fix our ruler for time, we'll find a better metric for space also.
P.S. By comparing multiple references for rates simultaneously, you can improve the results for measurements of time even better (a dramatic improvement could be gained in the above example by using 2 clocks, one at one second and another at some relatively prime ratio ... of course the faster, the better), of course this only works to the extent that these rates actually do have the equivalent of analog phase components, with a complex position that can be implicitly detected.
(Oh and this thread is a great example of why I hate intellectual property laws ... if this technique isn't already patented then sooner or later it probably will be, but it makes it so few people want to share information and when you do share information it quickly becomes useless as it gets claimed. You can't steal ideas like physical property, you can only copy them and consider that the only need for property laws is because we can't infinitely replicate tangible things in the same way as ideas, but if we could copy physical property in the same manner dang we'd all be wealthy ...)
Consider that some delays must exist in interactions between objects otherwise time wouldn't exist and the entire timeline of the universe would occur simultaneously without any chronologic order or any way to segment time and compare rates etc.
So some delays must exist. We often measure rates of one type of occurance versus another and call these ratios times, but if there's truly an underlying analog equivalent to all this, then quantizing rates isn't as accurate as measuring delays. If these interactions are discrete, then we can't measure inside a unit of time, but if there is an underlying analog approximation, we can do better than simply add up number of occurances of one thing and compare them to other occurances. For one thing, by simply summing these up over time, we ignore any variations in rate and assume the rate is constant, but you can actually determine rates faster by working with delays rather than counting number of occurances.
If you have a runner going around a 1 mile track and you want to measure the speed, you don't have him run around for an hour and then count how many laps he completed. This inherently quantizes the value (in this case to integer MPH values) simply because of the manner in which it was measured. Instead you'd simply have him run a lap and measure the delay (of course this ignores variations within this lap but it's still better).
If you had a timer tick off seconds and a second event occuring at some rate, if you wanted to measure how faster the secondary rate was occuring relative to 10 seconds, you might simply begin counting at some one second tick and then stop 10 seconds later and come up with an integer ratio down to 10ths of a second, but if you make the assumption that these rates are spaced evenly through time you can do better by actually recording the chronology of the ticks (even ignoring any way to measure within, or more accurately than a second).
Just to show you the general technique, imagine these results were recorded (though you can estimate rates much more accurately when you're comparing multiple events simultneously)
1st second, 2 ticks on secondary source
2nd second, 3 ticks on secondary source
3rd second, 3 ticks on secondary source
4th second, 2 ticks on secondary source
5th second, 3 ticks on secondary source
6th second, 2 ticks on secondary source
7th second, 3 ticks on secondary source
8th second, 2 ticks on secondary source
9th second, 3 ticks on secondary source
10th second, 2 ticks on secondary source
We would normally sum these up and say the secondary source runs between 2.4Hz and 2.6Hz but by using apriori assumptions that these are constant rates, we include phase relationships between ticks and limit the number of possible rates that could generate this (it comes out to 2.5 to ~2.572Hz is the maximum range that can generate this pattern).
I think when you dig down far enough time is a chronology of events. The problem with looking at lightspeed is likely that the analog space we perceive is simply an approximation of things and that meters and seconds are loose mental constructs that don't have a direct correlation to spacetime.
It might be that if we can fix our ruler for time, we'll find a better metric for space also.
P.S. By comparing multiple references for rates simultaneously, you can improve the results for measurements of time even better (a dramatic improvement could be gained in the above example by using 2 clocks, one at one second and another at some relatively prime ratio ... of course the faster, the better), of course this only works to the extent that these rates actually do have the equivalent of analog phase components, with a complex position that can be implicitly detected.
(Oh and this thread is a great example of why I hate intellectual property laws ... if this technique isn't already patented then sooner or later it probably will be, but it makes it so few people want to share information and when you do share information it quickly becomes useless as it gets claimed. You can't steal ideas like physical property, you can only copy them and consider that the only need for property laws is because we can't infinitely replicate tangible things in the same way as ideas, but if we could copy physical property in the same manner dang we'd all be wealthy ...)
The speed of light, as the upper limit of speed, makes sense. It is not the only fixed state of reality in the universe that is a finite number. Absolute zero is another one. Neither are mathematical constants needed to make equations/correlations work but measurable constants in reality. They appear to have something in common. For example, at absolute zero, matter is at the lowest energy level. This would be the lowest energy quanta.
I brought the next point up in another discussion but it doesn't yet strike a chord in anyone. Because energy is moving at C, and because it is massless, it is still a moving phenomena that uses special relativity, but only in distance and time. As such, the speed of light energy reference should only exhibit the energy quanta associated with absolute zero due to infinite gamma in distance and time.
Yet in our reference energy displays finite distance contraction and time dilation, as finite wavelength and frequency, associated with something going velocities less than C, even though we know it is traveling at C. Everything in the universe above absolute zero has this space-time inversion due to the finite distance and times aspect of energy.
It is subtle. If a spaceship moved near C, it would display a certain distance contraction and time affect in our reference connected to its velocity. If it displayed a distance contraction and time dilation, in our reference that was different than its velocity, we would say that something was wrong with one of the two measurements. But energy does exactly this, it travels at C yet can show output associated with a wide range of relativistic velocities less than C.
I brought the next point up in another discussion but it doesn't yet strike a chord in anyone. Because energy is moving at C, and because it is massless, it is still a moving phenomena that uses special relativity, but only in distance and time. As such, the speed of light energy reference should only exhibit the energy quanta associated with absolute zero due to infinite gamma in distance and time.
Yet in our reference energy displays finite distance contraction and time dilation, as finite wavelength and frequency, associated with something going velocities less than C, even though we know it is traveling at C. Everything in the universe above absolute zero has this space-time inversion due to the finite distance and times aspect of energy.
It is subtle. If a spaceship moved near C, it would display a certain distance contraction and time affect in our reference connected to its velocity. If it displayed a distance contraction and time dilation, in our reference that was different than its velocity, we would say that something was wrong with one of the two measurements. But energy does exactly this, it travels at C yet can show output associated with a wide range of relativistic velocities less than C.
This bears on several recent posts..
IMHO opinion 'c' appears to be the amount time changes with distance. This isn't a theory it is an observation put together from trying to work out 'why relativity?'. It may well be so far from the truth that it isn't even wrong. I don't know.
-C2.
Edit .. actually 1/c .. but this is just one number instead of another .. the principle remains unchanged.
IMHO opinion 'c' appears to be the amount time changes with distance. This isn't a theory it is an observation put together from trying to work out 'why relativity?'. It may well be so far from the truth that it isn't even wrong. I don't know.
-C2.
Edit .. actually 1/c .. but this is just one number instead of another .. the principle remains unchanged.
B******s! I think I might have posted this on the wrong thread.
Hi Ladara7, Confused2, MDT, StevenA, rpenner et al,
QUOTE (Ladara7 Posted on Jul 20 2006+ 05:09 AM)
Could strings be one-dimensional quanta of the psi wave field (just like particles are point-like – zero-dimensional – quanta in quantum field theory)? It makes sense to me. And their vibrations would give rise to the interactions and particles we know.
In this description, the wave-particle duality is easy to understand (no real particles, just wave packets) and the universe (the Real world) truly does not play dice (Einstein would have loved this idea!)
This of course may sound like an interpretation of quantum mechanics and I know some consider this as more philosophy than science. I don’t think we can be sure of that. What if a unified description of special relativity and quantum mechanics gave rise to new predictions, for instance that SP and QM themselves are approximations or that they break down in some extreme circumstances?
In this description, the wave-particle duality is easy to understand (no real particles, just wave packets) and the universe (the Real world) truly does not play dice (Einstein would have loved this idea!)
This of course may sound like an interpretation of quantum mechanics and I know some consider this as more philosophy than science. I don’t think we can be sure of that. What if a unified description of special relativity and quantum mechanics gave rise to new predictions, for instance that SP and QM themselves are approximations or that they break down in some extreme circumstances?
A man after my own heart, someone who is actually thinking about this issue. You will see that my posts over the last couple of years are littered with references to these points especially the Fourier Transform paradigm of "matter waves". I also think that the connection between dimensions is not linear, as in extremely compact dimensions below the Planck length. I am convinced the connection is harmonic in dealing with these extra dimensions and these additional dimensions are on a greater manifold related to ours through "reciprocal space"... a "T-dual" resulting in the quantum near-field of "shells" in Quantum Electrodynamics representing "shadows" of bosonic sparticles on our "spacetime" derived from the hybridization of nuclear sub-atomic fermions but in those higher dimensions and "inflated" on demand by spin energy.
You sound like a smart person I am sure that much of this will already be understood by you when you recognize that wave-particle duality are two sides of the one "classical" coin and represent the frequency and the time domains respectively of the extra spatial dimensions that host the unseen quanta... there are "locally" at least six of these and together with out three spatial dimensions and time form a totally background independent 10 dimensional basis which may be embedded holographically into other similar 10 dimensional spaces connected by at least one more dimension... as you have intimated... a minimum of a one dimensional "matter-string".
As to quantum mechanics... in order to squeeze the known universe into our current three dimensions plus time, a number of operational projections in quantum theory were necessary to arrive at our current theory of particles. This has resulted in quantum theory with all of its necessary assumptions none of which have been justified as pure physics and the results are interpreted now as pure statistical behavior. It has had a great success but it has also reached the end of a long road and it is time to continue the path into the woods. There is dissent and one way to proceed was to go down the path of further "particleization". This has a resulted in a number of corpses littered through the history of science, most notably quantum gravity in all of its incarnations. The square peg will not fit in the round hole. Too bad ... so sad. It is time to attempt the problem anew from a totally different perspective, from the other logical end, of classicised quantum theory by adding dimensions and removing the quantum assumptions by replacing it with the so called hidden parameters as real spatial dimensions plus physics. This is exactly the way Einstein may have proceeded if he were alive today and if he understood the present direction of research.
You are on the ball with Zwiebach's book but the dominant role of "string theory" is far too ambitious in trying to solve "strings" taken from below the level of the Planck's Length then working up (assuming there is a realm below the Planck Length... I disagree for very good science reasons). Then a few seconds of thought in that direction would lead all sane "Physicists" to dismiss this approach. This is a realm about which we have no direct knowledge and from which we cannot obtain any direct proof. Nothing into nothing gives "infinity", as many of them as you want... he he he! Einstein was right.. work on down from the known working with what we know right now. As Leonard Susskind once said "If anything is strings, everything are strings"... that includes the photon and its "minions".
I will not bore you with this unless you "agree" at least look into it. Get back to me or look at my previous posts if you like by logging in and clicking on my name (Good Elf) then on that page under my name check out some of the things I have been saying along your lines. You are not "Robinson Crusoe". The unfortunate thing about all this is it is far too big a job as dissenting 'amateurs" vs honored icons to overthrow nearly a hundred years of established paradigm. I am not interested in a complete revision but you eventually must deal with the practical aspects of higher dimensions some time even if that hundred years of work, as laudable as it was, all needs reworking throughout if we are to get new answers to old questions.
Cheers
PS: I will be adding a post to the "speed of light" here very soon...
speed of light
You sound like a smart person I am sure that much of this will already be understood by you when you recognize that wave-particle duality are two sides of the one "classical" coin and represent the frequency and the time domains respectively of the extra spatial dimensions that host the unseen quanta... there are "locally" at least six of these and together with out three spatial dimensions and time form a totally background independent 10 dimensional basis which may be embedded holographically into other similar 10 dimensional spaces connected by at least one more dimension... as you have intimated... a minimum of a one dimensional "matter-string".
As to quantum mechanics... in order to squeeze the known universe into our current three dimensions plus time, a number of operational projections in quantum theory were necessary to arrive at our current theory of particles. This has resulted in quantum theory with all of its necessary assumptions none of which have been justified as pure physics and the results are interpreted now as pure statistical behavior. It has had a great success but it has also reached the end of a long road and it is time to continue the path into the woods. There is dissent and one way to proceed was to go down the path of further "particleization". This has a resulted in a number of corpses littered through the history of science, most notably quantum gravity in all of its incarnations. The square peg will not fit in the round hole. Too bad ... so sad. It is time to attempt the problem anew from a totally different perspective, from the other logical end, of classicised quantum theory by adding dimensions and removing the quantum assumptions by replacing it with the so called hidden parameters as real spatial dimensions plus physics. This is exactly the way Einstein may have proceeded if he were alive today and if he understood the present direction of research.
You are on the ball with Zwiebach's book but the dominant role of "string theory" is far too ambitious in trying to solve "strings" taken from below the level of the Planck's Length then working up (assuming there is a realm below the Planck Length... I disagree for very good science reasons). Then a few seconds of thought in that direction would lead all sane "Physicists" to dismiss this approach. This is a realm about which we have no direct knowledge and from which we cannot obtain any direct proof. Nothing into nothing gives "infinity", as many of them as you want... he he he! Einstein was right.. work on down from the known working with what we know right now. As Leonard Susskind once said "If anything is strings, everything are strings"... that includes the photon and its "minions".
I will not bore you with this unless you "agree" at least look into it. Get back to me or look at my previous posts if you like by logging in and clicking on my name (Good Elf) then on that page under my name check out some of the things I have been saying along your lines. You are not "Robinson Crusoe". The unfortunate thing about all this is it is far too big a job as dissenting 'amateurs" vs honored icons to overthrow nearly a hundred years of established paradigm. I am not interested in a complete revision but you eventually must deal with the practical aspects of higher dimensions some time even if that hundred years of work, as laudable as it was, all needs reworking throughout if we are to get new answers to old questions.
Cheers
PS: I will be adding a post to the "speed of light" here very soon...
speed of light
Hi Ladara7,
Cheers
QUOTE
Moreover, because of time dilation, if we could travel at the speed of light, it would feel like traveling at infinite speed.
Question : Why is that?
Missed this point. This is simply because as we experience less of the "passage" of time in any "trip". Due to the scalar "Relativistic Transverse Doppler" as the result of acceleration, our measured velocity appears as distance divided by time... any distance divided by a zero (or close to zero) is "infinite". Travel the length of the galaxy and return in an "instant" of your experience of time but our star may have died in that elapsed "instant". Still... look at the reference above when I finally add something here.Question : Why is that?
Cheers
Have a quick look here...
Double Slit Experiment
See if this appeals or not.
Here is Yquantum's Leonard Susskind's tilt on strings...
Proposed String Theory Test
Cheers
Double Slit Experiment
See if this appeals or not.
Here is Yquantum's Leonard Susskind's tilt on strings...
Proposed String Theory Test
Cheers
Ladara7 and Good Elf
I think I have a site or two that may interest you two.
I stumbled across a site while doing other research, but came back to it. The site was devoted to the work of a physicist, Dr. Milo Wolf and his theory called W.S.M. or the Wave Structure of Matter. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
Milo Wolfs paper on the electron that started this theory can be found at. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html
My humble model of the atom based on his paper can be found at. http://forums.hypography.com/science-paper...m-expanded.html
Please let me know what you think. His theory has attracted more philosophers than physicists, though the science seems sound. I agree the three points Ladara7 made in her post, but it took me some time to reach those conclusions. Good Elf, I would also like to thank you for your posts and links.
I think I have a site or two that may interest you two.
I stumbled across a site while doing other research, but came back to it. The site was devoted to the work of a physicist, Dr. Milo Wolf and his theory called W.S.M. or the Wave Structure of Matter. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
Milo Wolfs paper on the electron that started this theory can be found at. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html
My humble model of the atom based on his paper can be found at. http://forums.hypography.com/science-paper...m-expanded.html
Please let me know what you think. His theory has attracted more philosophers than physicists, though the science seems sound. I agree the three points Ladara7 made in her post, but it took me some time to reach those conclusions. Good Elf, I would also like to thank you for your posts and links.
Good Elf, Ladara & Aireal etc,
Firstly, more excellence from G'E'...I just love your posts!
Ladara/Aireal, I offer you this....my model of things:
Spacial Vacuoles
Firstly, more excellence from G'E'...I just love your posts!
Ladara/Aireal, I offer you this....my model of things:
Spacial Vacuoles
First of all, welcome to the forums Ladara7! Let me congratulate you on making your first post an excellent post IMO. All of the points you mention in your post, I agree with and they are in fact included in an entire unified model that I've built over the past 3 years.
Some info about me: I'm from Pakistan, 19 years old, and 2 more years before I complete a BSc. in CompSci. I have an intense curiousity about theoretical physics, as I love to just sit or lay down and ponder and think for hours about these mysteries...even trying to picture 4-dimensional pictures in my head. These kind of tendencies sort of reached a watershed right before my 16th birthday...and thats when the flood gates opened and I started working on my own model of a unified physics theory. There were many "aha" moments (for example, when I derived the time-dilation factor of special relativity from only the assumption that velocity is 4-dimensional and its magnitude is constant). From that day onwards, I was hooked...
Anyways, here's what I've come up with so far. I completely agree that the best way to model our universe is to consider particles/waves to be waves (and other types of disturbances) which exist in a medium. In my model, the medium is 4-dimensional. I've been able to derive gravity, electromagnetism, and both of the nuclear forces from these concepts. It also explains some other mysteries like why there is more matter in the universe than antimatter, as well as the truly bizarre like quantum delayed eraser experiments.
The geometric model used in my model is 4-dimensional Euclidean. It's like Minkowskian spacetime, but the time-coordinate is multiplied by "i", resulting in what Hawking terms as "imaginary time", but I like to think that that time is the real time, and the time we use is the imaginary time. The difference between the two is that the first time is invariant, but the second time is attached to individual observers, resulting in time dilation and those kind of things. The basic idea is that the universes started out as a dense ball of 4-dimensional fluid. This fluid expanded at an enormous rate into a surrounding void (the "true vacuum"). The expansion rate was faster than speed of disturbances in the medium (which, of course, varies with density), and this resulting in the medium "bubbling" and condensing, kind of like superheated water erupting when disturbed. The process is called spontaneous symmetry breaking in current physics. The outward flow of the fluid creates an aetheric wind around everything. The direction of this wind is always outwards from the hypercenter of the universe, which means it's more or less aligned with the time axes of individual observers. As this wind came across knots, bubbles, and other types of density pockets in the medium, brought on by the spontaneous symmetry breaking, it refracted around. Many of these density pockets formed into stable self-refracting 4-dimensional waves, with a 3-dimensional "spin" (the spin of the Earth or that of a top, in comparison, is 2-dimensional). This 3-d spin results in electromagnetism. The outwards wind of the expanding universe results in a bias on all interactions...creating the weak force. This is most strongly seen in the CP-violation between matter and antimatter, because antimatter is oppositely aligned with this wind. The strength of the weak force was much stronger in the early universe, due to rapid expansion, and this resulted in an enormous bias towards matter being created rather than antimatter. Today, the value of the CP-violation factor is much weaker. The structure of quarks and the strong force is also simple to explain here. In a proton, for instance, we have 3 quarks forming a stable union. The whole of the stable union results in a big, stable self-refracting wave pattern. The individual quarks are then distinct subsets of the wave, so to speak. They can't exist by themselves because they do not consitute an entire wave. On a more grander scale, as huge quantities of stable wave patterns travel around in the medium, they also carry their density pockets with them...meaning that energy density = medium density. This causes things to refract towards each other, resulting in gravity.
Let me know what you think of that
Some info about me: I'm from Pakistan, 19 years old, and 2 more years before I complete a BSc. in CompSci. I have an intense curiousity about theoretical physics, as I love to just sit or lay down and ponder and think for hours about these mysteries...even trying to picture 4-dimensional pictures in my head. These kind of tendencies sort of reached a watershed right before my 16th birthday...and thats when the flood gates opened and I started working on my own model of a unified physics theory. There were many "aha" moments (for example, when I derived the time-dilation factor of special relativity from only the assumption that velocity is 4-dimensional and its magnitude is constant). From that day onwards, I was hooked...
Anyways, here's what I've come up with so far. I completely agree that the best way to model our universe is to consider particles/waves to be waves (and other types of disturbances) which exist in a medium. In my model, the medium is 4-dimensional. I've been able to derive gravity, electromagnetism, and both of the nuclear forces from these concepts. It also explains some other mysteries like why there is more matter in the universe than antimatter, as well as the truly bizarre like quantum delayed eraser experiments.
The geometric model used in my model is 4-dimensional Euclidean. It's like Minkowskian spacetime, but the time-coordinate is multiplied by "i", resulting in what Hawking terms as "imaginary time", but I like to think that that time is the real time, and the time we use is the imaginary time. The difference between the two is that the first time is invariant, but the second time is attached to individual observers, resulting in time dilation and those kind of things. The basic idea is that the universes started out as a dense ball of 4-dimensional fluid. This fluid expanded at an enormous rate into a surrounding void (the "true vacuum"). The expansion rate was faster than speed of disturbances in the medium (which, of course, varies with density), and this resulting in the medium "bubbling" and condensing, kind of like superheated water erupting when disturbed. The process is called spontaneous symmetry breaking in current physics. The outward flow of the fluid creates an aetheric wind around everything. The direction of this wind is always outwards from the hypercenter of the universe, which means it's more or less aligned with the time axes of individual observers. As this wind came across knots, bubbles, and other types of density pockets in the medium, brought on by the spontaneous symmetry breaking, it refracted around. Many of these density pockets formed into stable self-refracting 4-dimensional waves, with a 3-dimensional "spin" (the spin of the Earth or that of a top, in comparison, is 2-dimensional). This 3-d spin results in electromagnetism. The outwards wind of the expanding universe results in a bias on all interactions...creating the weak force. This is most strongly seen in the CP-violation between matter and antimatter, because antimatter is oppositely aligned with this wind. The strength of the weak force was much stronger in the early universe, due to rapid expansion, and this resulted in an enormous bias towards matter being created rather than antimatter. Today, the value of the CP-violation factor is much weaker. The structure of quarks and the strong force is also simple to explain here. In a proton, for instance, we have 3 quarks forming a stable union. The whole of the stable union results in a big, stable self-refracting wave pattern. The individual quarks are then distinct subsets of the wave, so to speak. They can't exist by themselves because they do not consitute an entire wave. On a more grander scale, as huge quantities of stable wave patterns travel around in the medium, they also carry their density pockets with them...meaning that energy density = medium density. This causes things to refract towards each other, resulting in gravity.
Let me know what you think of that
What a great thread, and a good collection of sensible theories. The present ΛCDM standard cosmology based on General Relativity (GR) where ’Λ’ (Lambda) refers to the dark energy, or the cosmological constant, and ’CDM’ to the cold dark matter that are believed to pervade the universe. Is being given a shake by several other theories that appear to solve some anomolies better than the current model, but I favour the time variation models. One on which I have done some research proposes that even C is relative bearing in mind that our definition of speed is time dependent (V=d/t). If time varies then C is relative to our position in the time continuum.
There is a link between gravity and time, so an earlier denser universe would have had a greater gravitational field and therefore time would have passed more slowly. The full concept is obviously too lengthy for a forum post but if anyone wants to follow that concept further I will dig up some more detail.
There is a link between gravity and time, so an earlier denser universe would have had a greater gravitational field and therefore time would have passed more slowly. The full concept is obviously too lengthy for a forum post but if anyone wants to follow that concept further I will dig up some more detail.
QUOTE (Dennis+Aug 26 2006, 05:58 PM)
What a great thread, and a good collection of sensible theories.
So you can even consider the AWT, a very primitive & negligible theory, consisting just from two equations...
There's nearly no point to dwell with this..
So you can even consider the AWT, a very primitive & negligible theory, consisting just from two equations...
There's nearly no point to dwell with this..
Hi Ladara7, Confused2, MDT, StevenA, rpenner et al,
Not much action on this thread at the moment so I will respond. These relationships are important...
Here we can see where de Broglie and Einstein "come together". The next set are interesting too...
The second equation I will not fully justify because of the source but it comes from..
This quote, modified and abridged from Louis de Broglie says it all..
Not much action on this thread at the moment so I will respond. These relationships are important...
Here we can see where de Broglie and Einstein "come together". The next set are interesting too...
The second equation I will not fully justify because of the source but it comes from..
QUOTE
This concept of the "basic model" of matter was presented initially at the Spring Conference of the German Physical Society (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft) on 24 March 2000 in Dresden
by Dr. Albrecht Giese.
http://www.ag-physics.org/
You will see why the derivations are not quite right for many of his proposals but I just got to hand it to him for his ingenuity and this does work. The first equation is no surprise and comes from de Broglie's famous 1923 Comptes Rendues Note. Together we are able to derive an easy equation for frequency independent of h but dependent on R, the radius of the particle.by Dr. Albrecht Giese.
http://www.ag-physics.org/
This quote, modified and abridged from Louis de Broglie says it all..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This concept of the "basic model" of matter was presented initially at the Spring Conference of the German Physical Society (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft) on 24 March 2000 in Dresden by Dr. Albrecht Giese. http://www.ag-physics.org/ |
You will see why the derivations are not quite right for many of his proposals but I just got to hand it to him for his ingenuity and this does work. The first equation is no surprise and comes from de Broglie's famous 1923 Comptes Rendues Note. Together we are able to derive an easy equation for frequency independent of h but dependent on R, the radius of the particle.
This quote, modified and abridged from Louis de Broglie says it all..
Note of Louis de Broglie, presented by Jean Perrin.
(Translated from Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510)
The demonstration of this important result rests uniquely on the principle of special relativity and on the correctness of the quantum relationship as much for the fixed observer as for the moving observer.
Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass ( g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to (although slightly less). We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency v, is the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light.
http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/broglie/broglie.shtml
The special case for light is not quite as suspected by Louis de Broglie, the temporal nature of light just does not occur unless it is in the region of the emitting or absorbing particle's evanescent region. The statement is correct for all sub-light particles with mass. Only there are the photon's properties of momentum and energy able to be transferred in "dynamics" where the particle is subjected to the property of "time". I will repeat that... no time... no dynamics. The equation of mass indicates clearly that the mass of a particle is inversely proportional to it's radius. This is not just for photons but applies "universally". This is not actually the "rest mass" but depends on its locality... and I think "locality" is most important as v -> 0. In the special case of photons they spread latitudinally but not longitudinally. This varies rapidly and greatly for any photon, so much so that within a vanishingly small distance from the source, the property of mass for any photon would quickly vanish.... and stay that way until it reached the point it was finally absorbed... this may be galaxies away and along that trip it was expanding on the surface of a wavefront of light (frequency remaining constant). Along the way the only phenomena that affect it are simple diffraction, tunneling and interference effects such as near thin edges. Also time dilation within the rest frame of the photon quickly reaches infinity from the point of view of any external observer frame of reference. It is very clear to me that all kinematic process where momentum and energy are being transferred require time so no such process can occur in the quantum state.
The next point I would like to reiterate is the one I made previously... that de Broglie Hypothesis and Einsteins Special Relativity form a "continuum" and are a winding on the brane of our particle universe in "quantum space". People are familiar with with my views on the electron and the topological interpretation imbedded in higher "stringy" dimensions. This mass derivation above of Dr. Albrecht Giese is consistent with the interpretation of Williamson and Van der Mark of a "photon trapped in a topological trap" but adds considerably to it.
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf
These derivations are "background independent" so would be "helpful" in any unified "string theories" and I will have more to say about this later.
Comments welcome... Missed unification indeed!
Cheers
PS: I am still intending to report a bit more extensively on some aspects of time and light propagation soon in another thread.
This quote, modified and abridged from Louis de Broglie says it all..
Note of Louis de Broglie, presented by Jean Perrin.
(Translated from Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510)
The demonstration of this important result rests uniquely on the principle of special relativity and on the correctness of the quantum relationship as much for the fixed observer as for the moving observer.
Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass ( g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to (although slightly less). We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency v, is the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light.
http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/broglie/broglie.shtml
The special case for light is not quite as suspected by Louis de Broglie, the temporal nature of light just does not occur unless it is in the region of the emitting or absorbing particle's evanescent region. The statement is correct for all sub-light particles with mass. Only there are the photon's properties of momentum and energy able to be transferred in "dynamics" where the particle is subjected to the property of "time". I will repeat that... no time... no dynamics. The equation of mass indicates clearly that the mass of a particle is inversely proportional to it's radius. This is not just for photons but applies "universally". This is not actually the "rest mass" but depends on its locality... and I think "locality" is most important as v -> 0. In the special case of photons they spread latitudinally but not longitudinally. This varies rapidly and greatly for any photon, so much so that within a vanishingly small distance from the source, the property of mass for any photon would quickly vanish.... and stay that way until it reached the point it was finally absorbed... this may be galaxies away and along that trip it was expanding on the surface of a wavefront of light (frequency remaining constant). Along the way the only phenomena that affect it are simple diffraction, tunneling and interference effects such as near thin edges. Also time dilation within the rest frame of the photon quickly reaches infinity from the point of view of any external observer frame of reference. It is very clear to me that all kinematic process where momentum and energy are being transferred require time so no such process can occur in the quantum state.
The next point I would like to reiterate is the one I made previously... that de Broglie Hypothesis and Einsteins Special Relativity form a "continuum" and are a winding on the brane of our particle universe in "quantum space". People are familiar with with my views on the electron and the topological interpretation imbedded in higher "stringy" dimensions. This mass derivation above of Dr. Albrecht Giese is consistent with the interpretation of Williamson and Van der Mark of a "photon trapped in a topological trap" but adds considerably to it.
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf
These derivations are "background independent" so would be "helpful" in any unified "string theories" and I will have more to say about this later.
Comments welcome... Missed unification indeed!
Cheers
PS: I am still intending to report a bit more extensively on some aspects of time and light propagation soon in another thread.
Hi Good Elf!
From your reference....
http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass/ The Origin of Mass
From your reference....
http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass/ The Origin of MassIf you follow the idea that mass energy equivalence is just a consequence of the set up of an elementary particle then this has a remarkable further consequence: As a reverse conclusion the mass energy equivalence cannot be valid below the level of an elementary particle.
This should be worthy of a good discussion.
I would say that he has taken an approach that would lead him to my "spot".
As it stands it could/would complement some of the proposals of the RS model.
jal
QUOTE
Together we are able to derive an easy equation for frequency independent of h but dependent on R, the radius of the particle.
From your reference....
http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass/ The Origin of Mass
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Together we are able to derive an easy equation for frequency independent of h but dependent on R, the radius of the particle. |
From your reference....
http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass/ The Origin of MassIf you follow the idea that mass energy equivalence is just a consequence of the set up of an elementary particle then this has a remarkable further consequence: As a reverse conclusion the mass energy equivalence cannot be valid below the level of an elementary particle.
This should be worthy of a good discussion.
I would say that he has taken an approach that would lead him to my "spot".
As it stands it could/would complement some of the proposals of the RS model.
jal
Hi Jal, Ladara7, Confused2, MDT, StevenA, rpenner et al,
QUOTE (jal Posted on Today at 3:09 AM+)
This should be worthy of a good discussion.
I would say that he has taken an approach that would lead him to my "spot". As it stands it could/would complement some of the proposals of the RS model.
I would say that he has taken an approach that would lead him to my "spot". As it stands it could/would complement some of the proposals of the RS model.
Yes Jal, it also leads to "my" spot as well. This all ties in with a reciprocal space interpretation. A quick look at the way Dr. Albrecht Giese resolves this mass problem involves the use of the effects of the near field. He has a particularly "easy going" view of this problem based on "zero mass particles". The mass of particles in his working are a near-field phenomena, I believe it is electromagnetic retarded potentials, and can be treated as background independent and leading to the effects of local mass spacetime curvature as a "pseudo-force". I would caution all readers to how this is interpreted since Giese is a mixture of very good ideas and some "less than optimal ones". Still it is his point of view and I respect that. I have my own and I am sure you have yours and this computation is only one part of a fully developed theory. A little from column A and a little from column B. I have also used ideas from Williamson and Van der Mark's paper ... out of strict context as well but I like to recognize the "piece in the jigsaw" where others have had a very good idea. Recall Einsteins 1905 paper was pretty rudimentary when it first appeared. These little "pieces" are all "rudimentary" in themselves but easy to recognize. An elves duty is not to solve the Universe but to show a reasonable context to place all this "String Theory" as realistic Physics.
All this only makes sense when you consider the complete picture and it is always difficult to express these complex issues in this forum with the tremendous graphic limitations impressed on the system as "management". Only a very few images allowed per post and these are "crushed" to reduce the footprint and the pixel count. Of course this reduces their value since they often become unreadable. Everyone should view these images by opening them in a full window where you can easily see them "uncrushed" (Mozilla... right click, view image). These "management" issues are reducing the science aspects of this forum and making it difficult to get ideas across. There is also the 1 hour cutoff limit for alterations which locks in problems such as images being shifted and not able to be corrected or missed typographic errors.
Cheers
Still it is his point of view and I respect that. I have my own and I am sure you have yours and this computation is only one part of a fully developed theory. A little from column A and a little from column B. I have also used ideas from Williamson and Van der Mark's paper ... out of strict context as well but I like to recognize the "piece in the jigsaw" where others have had a very good idea. Recall Einsteins 1905 paper was pretty rudimentary when it first appeared. These little "pieces" are all "rudimentary" in themselves but easy to recognize. An elves duty is not to solve the Universe but to show a reasonable context to place all this "String Theory" as realistic Physics.All this only makes sense when you consider the complete picture and it is always difficult to express these complex issues in this forum with the tremendous graphic limitations impressed on the system as "management". Only a very few images allowed per post and these are "crushed" to reduce the footprint and the pixel count. Of course this reduces their value since they often become unreadable. Everyone should view these images by opening them in a full window where you can easily see them "uncrushed" (Mozilla... right click, view image). These "management" issues are reducing the science aspects of this forum and making it difficult to get ideas across. There is also the 1 hour cutoff limit for alterations which locks in problems such as images being shifted and not able to be corrected or missed typographic errors.
Cheers
Ladara7, and all..
This seems too late, but I'll post nonetheless.
Did Ladara7 forget this thread, or just not find the need to respond back?
I have seen some things that have raised my eyebrows, but the opening (and sole) post of Ladara7 is probably the most instinctive "stab" at a solution to, at least some of problems in Physics, that I've ever seen.
the relevant (IMO) snips:
"1) Reality is a medium that can vibrate. The simplest choice for this medium might be spacetime itself, with some number of dimensions D (I also think this geometry should explain why there is only one time dimension that can only be traveled in one direction, toward the future).. "
"Could strings be one-dimensional quanta of the psi wave field (just like particles are point-like – zero-dimensional – quanta in quantum field theory)? It makes sense to me. And their vibrations would give rise to the interactions and particles we know."
Does anyone else think that deriving c and h from a single source, and this source, being the medium itself, could give rise to the particles and interactions that Science has measured, simply through autopoeisis, is possible? Simple, within our dimensions, and broad (if not complete) in scope.
ciao!
T.Roc
This seems too late, but I'll post nonetheless.
Did Ladara7 forget this thread, or just not find the need to respond back?
I have seen some things that have raised my eyebrows, but the opening (and sole) post of Ladara7 is probably the most instinctive "stab" at a solution to, at least some of problems in Physics, that I've ever seen.
the relevant (IMO) snips:
QUOTE
"2) Somehow, the speed of light c and Planck’s constant h should be related as a single parameter, so that both theories could be derived from a single explanation and thus unified. This parameter could be a characteristic of the medium of the waves (which could be real waves in a vibrating medium)."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "2) Somehow, the speed of light c and Planck’s constant h should be related as a single parameter, so that both theories could be derived from a single explanation and thus unified. This parameter could be a characteristic of the medium of the waves (which could be real waves in a vibrating medium)." |
"1) Reality is a medium that can vibrate. The simplest choice for this medium might be spacetime itself, with some number of dimensions D (I also think this geometry should explain why there is only one time dimension that can only be traveled in one direction, toward the future).. "
QUOTE
".. we can only observe the world through interactions between waves (interference) and so can only measure the group velocity of wave packets. This velocity is limited by a parameter of the medium which also gives rise to the constant in the uncertainty principle."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ".. we can only observe the world through interactions between waves (interference) and so can only measure the group velocity of wave packets. This velocity is limited by a parameter of the medium which also gives rise to the constant in the uncertainty principle." |
"Could strings be one-dimensional quanta of the psi wave field (just like particles are point-like – zero-dimensional – quanta in quantum field theory)? It makes sense to me. And their vibrations would give rise to the interactions and particles we know."
QUOTE
".. to develop a mathematically precise geometrical model of this Real world, find the correct relationship between c and h, and look into the idea of one-dimensional quanta for strings."
Does anyone else think that deriving c and h from a single source, and this source, being the medium itself, could give rise to the particles and interactions that Science has measured, simply through autopoeisis, is possible? Simple, within our dimensions, and broad (if not complete) in scope.
ciao!
T.Roc
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 27 2006, 03:52 PM)
I will repeat that... no time... no dynamics.
Just contrary/in reverse to that, and in it is great deal of misconceptions of the contemporary (or even wider) "physics".
Just contrary/in reverse to that, and in it is great deal of misconceptions of the contemporary (or even wider) "physics".
Hi TRoc, Jal, Ladara7, Confused2, MDT, StevenA, Dennis, rpenner et al,
or indeed that conjecture of Planck Length...
Hi Good Elf,
First of all, I consider your physical way of thinking highly "open" and please think of my short sentences as of "hints".
Considering Planck's scale, you are totally right, even theoretically it is always "assumed".
Only valid QGT would be that one which "explains" it.
Thanks for interesting link.
With all respect
QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Today at 6:47 AM+)
Does anyone else think that deriving c and h from a single source, and this source, being the medium itself, could give rise to the particles and interactions that Science has measured, simply through autopoeisis, is possible? Simple, within our dimensions, and broad (if not complete) in scope.
The way you word this is ambiguous. Do you mean to exclude my views or do you mean this in an inclusive statement... looking for opinions? There are plenty of cases for relationships between C and h such as de Broglie's relationship as you can see here.
or indeed that conjecture of Planck Length...
I am not happy with this because there is no basis in experiment.
There is no convincing argument I have heard here or anywhere that C and h should be able to be derived from each other. One is the speed of light and the other is the the amount of energy per Hertz of frequency for quanta. Realizing that a Hertz (cycle per second) and a Joule are SI units and do not represent anything in themselves since fractional Hertz and large numbers of Hertz are indeed possible this is a simple linear relationship that defines the "distribution" of energy in our Universe. The other fact is the greater the energy the smaller the dimensions of the disturbance. This is an inverse relationship to energy and size. To some this is counter to the way people sometimes intuitively think. To some more energy the bigger it is... this is dead wrong. The greater the energy the smaller it is... that is it's wavelength. I have no doubt though that h defines the geometry of our Universe but in all conjectures you need to have the experiment that demonstrates the fact is true.
I suspect that since we equate Mass with energy (E = MC^2) then large aggregations of matter indicate a large and proportionate amount of energy. This is the result of the way fermions behave rather than the way electromagnetic energy behaves which are bosons and tend to reflect collective behavior. Above I have indicated what I think is a reasonable equation that relates mass with Planck's constant and the speed of light to the radius of a single "particle". You need to decide just what a "particle" is though...
It is not a full answer and it is not my idea anyway as you can see, but it is a start.
The Origins of Mass
Note: this is the only "bit" that I like of this theory but it is a pretty good bit, and quite simple. To make sense of this you would need to work in non-degenerate space. That would mean that everything has some extension and you cannot ignore the fact that there is no such thing as a "point particle". The answer is viewed as "Orbital Angular Momentum" which is one of the possible spins of a particle. Some particles have two "orbiting" sub-particles and others three (quarks?) and the orbit may involve a winding ratio of "N". I notice you did not comment on it... can I ask why?
Cheers
or indeed that conjecture of Planck Length...
I am not happy with this because there is no basis in experiment.
There is no convincing argument I have heard here or anywhere that C and h should be able to be derived from each other. One is the speed of light and the other is the the amount of energy per Hertz of frequency for quanta. Realizing that a Hertz (cycle per second) and a Joule are SI units and do not represent anything in themselves since fractional Hertz and large numbers of Hertz are indeed possible this is a simple linear relationship that defines the "distribution" of energy in our Universe. The other fact is the greater the energy the smaller the dimensions of the disturbance. This is an inverse relationship to energy and size. To some this is counter to the way people sometimes intuitively think. To some more energy the bigger it is... this is dead wrong. The greater the energy the smaller it is... that is it's wavelength. I have no doubt though that h defines the geometry of our Universe but in all conjectures you need to have the experiment that demonstrates the fact is true.
I suspect that since we equate Mass with energy (E = MC^2) then large aggregations of matter indicate a large and proportionate amount of energy. This is the result of the way fermions behave rather than the way electromagnetic energy behaves which are bosons and tend to reflect collective behavior. Above I have indicated what I think is a reasonable equation that relates mass with Planck's constant and the speed of light to the radius of a single "particle". You need to decide just what a "particle" is though...
It is not a full answer and it is not my idea anyway as you can see, but it is a start.
The Origins of Mass
Note: this is the only "bit" that I like of this theory but it is a pretty good bit, and quite simple. To make sense of this you would need to work in non-degenerate space. That would mean that everything has some extension and you cannot ignore the fact that there is no such thing as a "point particle". The answer is viewed as "Orbital Angular Momentum" which is one of the possible spins of a particle. Some particles have two "orbiting" sub-particles and others three (quarks?) and the orbit may involve a winding ratio of "N". I notice you did not comment on it... can I ask why?
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 18 2006, 02:45 PM)
or indeed that conjecture of Planck Length...
Hi Good Elf,
First of all, I consider your physical way of thinking highly "open" and please think of my short sentences as of "hints".
Considering Planck's scale, you are totally right, even theoretically it is always "assumed".
Only valid QGT would be that one which "explains" it.
Thanks for interesting link.
With all respect
Hi Tura, al, Ladara7, Confused2, MDT, StevenA, rpenner et al,
Thanks "I think" for the compliment.
I actually do not understand your one line comment but I am sure it is helpful. I am only the "elf" around here.
Thanks "I think" for the compliment.
I actually do not understand your one line comment but I am sure it is helpful. I am only the "elf" around here.QUOTE (Turya Posted on Yesterday at 3:29 PM+)
Considering Planck's scale, you are totally right, even theoretically it is always "assumed".
Only valid QGT would be that one which "explains" it.
Only valid QGT would be that one which "explains" it.
It has occurred to me that there are actually two possible ways to proceed here. You can either unify through quantizing space or linearizing quantum theory, showing QFT is the external expression of a deeper underlying "continuum". I fully realize that the way I have proceeded in almost everything I do is against the trend. The success of quantum theory has been so overwhelmingly total that we have collectively wiped from our minds any other way to solve the question of quantization. Yet a careful examination of the "evidence" shows that quantization is a process that occurs naturally from the truncation of continuous processes in time and space.
One possible way to proceed as you have rightly suggested is quantization of gravity. Most of these theories have centered around quantization at the Planck Length. A Planck Length quantum would require an enormous source of energy beyond the abilities of any technology now or in the future to be able to harness. Of course there is Loop Quantum Gravity that is popular around this Forum too but I am resistant to it on the grounds of a lack of physical evidence. My suggestion flies in the face of convention but is consistent with Einstein's Theories leaving them all "almost" intact but suggesting that Special Relativity is actually more important than General Relativity especially at high velocity and "zero" velocity. That "gravity" is not a force but a "pseudo-force" and mass is an expression of electromagnetic processes in a higher dimensional context. In effect restating the General Principle of Equivalence as saying gravitational acceleration is not only identical to inertial acceleration... Mass itself is an expression of "internal" acceleration within a confined dimensional reciprocal environment. A symmetry embedding of Einstein's Equivalence Concepts inside/outside the "next dimensional level" of of our "Holographic Universe".
My consistent view is to reinterpret much of the physics in terms of this quantization being solely the expression of "process" in which energy is transported. To me the ideas of quantization with all the various quantum postulates is a framework which ignores the harmonic nature of energy. QFT has been required to ignore much of the interdependence of properties in favor of a particle view of reality that ignores connection in preference to discreteness. Of course it does have it's uses and is easier to handle mathematically. An expression of this is de Broglie's Hypothesis. I see this as the low velocity end of Special Relativity... I have discussed this previously as an expression of an "evanescent zone" around a "particle" which goes from total lack of locality when v = 0 or m -> 0, to a tightly confined world-line path as v -> C.
Wave and Particle are two aspects of a reciprocal nature in our Universe that is contained in Fourier Theory or other closely allied Harmonic Theories on a "sphere" which treat the separate domains of time and frequency or space and "reciprocal" space... as a higher dimensional Hilbert Space that is confined by the geometry of the space itself. This connection exists in additional dimensional spaces that are not linearly connected to our space but harmonically connected. It is a variant on "String Theory" or actually a Membrane Theory in which sub-atomic particles represent externally small dimensional environments that are defined by a light cone as seen from its reciprocal space (which is immensely large due to its reciprocal nature and defined by reciprocal time == frequency). A fully geometric theory of reality linked holographically with our Universe by higher dimensional "matter waves" through "harmonics" and "resonance".
In this way I am not trying to quantize space at the smallest scale of the Planck Length but see an expression of quantization in a reciprocal process in which fermionic particles are defined by Planck's Constant "Bubbles" blown in the "space" of higher dimensions and existing as "quantum superpositions". This can be seen in the fermionic "collection" of quarks of a proton (simplest Hydrogen atom) and its harmonically related bosonic "s-particles"... which is a "superposition" of the harmonic "shells" we term the electronic structure of atoms... a hybrid state. To me this state exists regardless of electrons to fill them and are at a slightly different scale to the fermions. This is Quantum Electrodynamics. The electrons and photons "fit this structure" like a hand in a glove.
One possible way to proceed as you have rightly suggested is quantization of gravity. Most of these theories have centered around quantization at the Planck Length. A Planck Length quantum would require an enormous source of energy beyond the abilities of any technology now or in the future to be able to harness. Of course there is Loop Quantum Gravity that is popular around this Forum too but I am resistant to it on the grounds of a lack of physical evidence. My suggestion flies in the face of convention but is consistent with Einstein's Theories leaving them all "almost" intact but suggesting that Special Relativity is actually more important than General Relativity especially at high velocity and "zero" velocity. That "gravity" is not a force but a "pseudo-force" and mass is an expression of electromagnetic processes in a higher dimensional context. In effect restating the General Principle of Equivalence as saying gravitational acceleration is not only identical to inertial acceleration... Mass itself is an expression of "internal" acceleration within a confined dimensional reciprocal environment. A symmetry embedding of Einstein's Equivalence Concepts inside/outside the "next dimensional level" of of our "Holographic Universe".
My consistent view is to reinterpret much of the physics in terms of this quantization being solely the expression of "process" in which energy is transported. To me the ideas of quantization with all the various quantum postulates is a framework which ignores the harmonic nature of energy. QFT has been required to ignore much of the interdependence of properties in favor of a particle view of reality that ignores connection in preference to discreteness. Of course it does have it's uses and is easier to handle mathematically. An expression of this is de Broglie's Hypothesis. I see this as the low velocity end of Special Relativity... I have discussed this previously as an expression of an "evanescent zone" around a "particle" which goes from total lack of locality when v = 0 or m -> 0, to a tightly confined world-line path as v -> C.
Wave and Particle are two aspects of a reciprocal nature in our Universe that is contained in Fourier Theory or other closely allied Harmonic Theories on a "sphere" which treat the separate domains of time and frequency or space and "reciprocal" space... as a higher dimensional Hilbert Space that is confined by the geometry of the space itself. This connection exists in additional dimensional spaces that are not linearly connected to our space but harmonically connected. It is a variant on "String Theory" or actually a Membrane Theory in which sub-atomic particles represent externally small dimensional environments that are defined by a light cone as seen from its reciprocal space (which is immensely large due to its reciprocal nature and defined by reciprocal time == frequency). A fully geometric theory of reality linked holographically with our Universe by higher dimensional "matter waves" through "harmonics" and "resonance".
In this way I am not trying to quantize space at the smallest scale of the Planck Length but see an expression of quantization in a reciprocal process in which fermionic particles are defined by Planck's Constant "Bubbles" blown in the "space" of higher dimensions and existing as "quantum superpositions". This can be seen in the fermionic "collection" of quarks of a proton (simplest Hydrogen atom) and its harmonically related bosonic "s-particles"... which is a "superposition" of the harmonic "shells" we term the electronic structure of atoms... a hybrid state. To me this state exists regardless of electrons to fill them and are at a slightly different scale to the fermions. This is Quantum Electrodynamics. The electrons and photons "fit this structure" like a hand in a glove.
QUOTE (Leonard Susskind+)
"If anything is a string... everything is a string".
String theory starts with photons and we should be seeing what the theory is telling us from there.
If you logged into this forum you could look back over my ideas on this by clicking on my name and checking out my post history. I strongly suggest that you log in for all of our benefit since anyone could use your persona and no one would know otherwise. I have had a couple of bad experiences with this.
Cheers
If you logged into this forum you could look back over my ideas on this by clicking on my name and checking out my post history. I strongly suggest that you log in for all of our benefit since anyone could use your persona and no one would know otherwise. I have had a couple of bad experiences with this.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 20 2006, 02:38 AM)
... the ideas of quantization with all the various quantum postulates is a framework which ignores the harmonic nature of energy....
On the contrary - we can even say, without string model the quantization of energy would be pretty hard to explain. The quantization phenomena is closely related to the resonance condition for elastic string. Just try to check "scan frequency " check box on the DTHML applet (sorry, just for MS IE browser only...) and watch the spectrum peaks, which will be generated!
On the contrary - we can even say, without string model the quantization of energy would be pretty hard to explain. The quantization phenomena is closely related to the resonance condition for elastic string. Just try to check "scan frequency " check box on the DTHML applet (sorry, just for MS IE browser only...) and watch the spectrum peaks, which will be generated!
Hi zephir,
Thanks for the applet but I do not really know just what this is meant to illustrate other than resonance. OK we have a "string" vibrating but the context of this "resonance" is lost. I suppose what I am trying to communicate is the way in which evanescent processes are able to to feed quantum processes and perhaps visa versa (quantum back action).
Obviously there is Schrodinger's Wave Equation and the way that is "harmonic" but remember these processes, according to the current interpretation, are "waves of probability". I would seriously disregard any idea that you could have "resonance" in probability waves. Yet I am convinced that "resonance" is a purely physical wave phenomena that has been lost from current theory except in a highly abstracted non-physical form. It appears to me to reflect an obsession in the direction of current theory to interpret all things as particle in nature and to "bury" the wavelike nature which is actually connecting everything together.
I think LQG has taken a lot of thunder from String Theory and your interpretation of the Aether Theory is "wavelike" in nature but I can't see these waves as being "gravitational" with such short-range non-linearity. "Gravity" would need to be far stronger than electromagnetism to warp spacetime in such a way on the small scale. The other point of the theory is the necessity and "origin" for such strong radiation of gravitons to provide this deformational "flux". I may be wrong but it seems to me to be "non-physical" to be dropping off so quickly with distance. Still... it may be tested "soon" according to that space mission being proposed in the Science News Reports.
Cheers
Thanks for the applet but I do not really know just what this is meant to illustrate other than resonance. OK we have a "string" vibrating but the context of this "resonance" is lost. I suppose what I am trying to communicate is the way in which evanescent processes are able to to feed quantum processes and perhaps visa versa (quantum back action).
Obviously there is Schrodinger's Wave Equation and the way that is "harmonic" but remember these processes, according to the current interpretation, are "waves of probability". I would seriously disregard any idea that you could have "resonance" in probability waves. Yet I am convinced that "resonance" is a purely physical wave phenomena that has been lost from current theory except in a highly abstracted non-physical form. It appears to me to reflect an obsession in the direction of current theory to interpret all things as particle in nature and to "bury" the wavelike nature which is actually connecting everything together.
I think LQG has taken a lot of thunder from String Theory and your interpretation of the Aether Theory is "wavelike" in nature but I can't see these waves as being "gravitational" with such short-range non-linearity. "Gravity" would need to be far stronger than electromagnetism to warp spacetime in such a way on the small scale. The other point of the theory is the necessity and "origin" for such strong radiation of gravitons to provide this deformational "flux". I may be wrong but it seems to me to be "non-physical" to be dropping off so quickly with distance. Still... it may be tested "soon" according to that space mission being proposed in the Science News Reports.
Cheers
Quantum mechanics isn't there to make life difficult .. it's the result of trying to make sense of experimental data.
Is there a classical explanation for the way electrons don't radiate and fall into the nucleus of atoms ..?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_atom (for starters)
Black body radiation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation
Quantum mechanics doesn't predict "resonance in probability waves" ..
see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc.html
-C2.
Is there a classical explanation for the way electrons don't radiate and fall into the nucleus of atoms ..?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_atom (for starters)
Black body radiation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation
Quantum mechanics doesn't predict "resonance in probability waves" ..
see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc.html
-C2.
Hi GE, Zephir, Turya, C2...
Your opinion would never be excluded by me, nor any one else's. I participate in these forums specifically for the input and feedback of others. I am, however, sometimes too vague in my posts. This is mostly from a lack of sufficient time, and my "delivery style" seems to take longer than others!
I posted to see, more specifically, what were the thoughts of other people on the idea of a natural "minimum" being compared with a natural "maximum" is the same system (Physics), with the possibility of their having a common source, or derivation.
So, from what I can gather, GE notes that he has never heard an argument for this, and withholds his opinion for later on the potential value of this idea.
Thanks for the link too, that is similar in some ways to my way of thinking as well. In addition to the equations you provided, any discussion of the similarities in c and h are going to lead to the uncertainty principle, and the "zero point".
[somehow, I missed your question "Some particles have two "orbiting" sub-particles and others three (quarks?) and the orbit may involve a winding ratio of "N". I notice you did not comment on it... can I ask why?" previously. A. Did you mention that before?, and B. Were you directing that at Turya, or myself? ]
Now I see that C2 has joined us, with the semi-philosophical statement that "Quantum mechanics isn't there to make life difficult .. it's the result of trying to make sense of experimental data." I agree that its' "purpose" is not to make things difficult, but in practice it has. And, as GE has just said, it is hard to argue with the system because it is so accurate. The same goes for the competition for the throne, G&SR.
So, what I believe is the proper place to begin is, where these two systems might come from, rather than where they might "come together". This requires heavy, and thorough "cleaning", and a re-grouping. Too many inconsistent, or even contradictory definitions are inherent in the existing system. I'm going to point one out right now.
Just for fun (humor me), would the Four of you {Good Elf, Turya, Confused2, and Zephir} reply with your personal definition of the 2 words "resonance" and "harmonic". You can include a quote from your favorite source, but please try to keep it short, and to the point. I will eat my socks out in the middle of the street if we can all agree completely on the definitions of these 2 words, and very important (#1 IMO) phenomena. Extra points for definitions that rely on a mathematical principle.
Then, I believe, that we could have a meaningful discussion on this. Especially the idea that the speed of light might have a mathematical reason for being what it is, and that that reason might influence the minimum quanta of energies that we find. It all ties together with no zero-energy, and the mathematics that are required to match the data. Schrodinger was probably the closest, from modern Physics.
ciao!
T.Roc
Your opinion would never be excluded by me, nor any one else's. I participate in these forums specifically for the input and feedback of others. I am, however, sometimes too vague in my posts. This is mostly from a lack of sufficient time, and my "delivery style" seems to take longer than others!
I posted to see, more specifically, what were the thoughts of other people on the idea of a natural "minimum" being compared with a natural "maximum" is the same system (Physics), with the possibility of their having a common source, or derivation.
So, from what I can gather, GE notes that he has never heard an argument for this, and withholds his opinion for later on the potential value of this idea.
Thanks for the link too, that is similar in some ways to my way of thinking as well. In addition to the equations you provided, any discussion of the similarities in c and h are going to lead to the uncertainty principle, and the "zero point".
[somehow, I missed your question "Some particles have two "orbiting" sub-particles and others three (quarks?) and the orbit may involve a winding ratio of "N". I notice you did not comment on it... can I ask why?" previously. A. Did you mention that before?, and B. Were you directing that at Turya, or myself? ]
Now I see that C2 has joined us, with the semi-philosophical statement that "Quantum mechanics isn't there to make life difficult .. it's the result of trying to make sense of experimental data." I agree that its' "purpose" is not to make things difficult, but in practice it has. And, as GE has just said, it is hard to argue with the system because it is so accurate. The same goes for the competition for the throne, G&SR.
So, what I believe is the proper place to begin is, where these two systems might come from, rather than where they might "come together". This requires heavy, and thorough "cleaning", and a re-grouping. Too many inconsistent, or even contradictory definitions are inherent in the existing system. I'm going to point one out right now.
Just for fun (humor me), would the Four of you {Good Elf, Turya, Confused2, and Zephir} reply with your personal definition of the 2 words "resonance" and "harmonic". You can include a quote from your favorite source, but please try to keep it short, and to the point. I will eat my socks out in the middle of the street if we can all agree completely on the definitions of these 2 words, and very important (#1 IMO) phenomena. Extra points for definitions that rely on a mathematical principle.
Then, I believe, that we could have a meaningful discussion on this. Especially the idea that the speed of light might have a mathematical reason for being what it is, and that that reason might influence the minimum quanta of energies that we find. It all ties together with no zero-energy, and the mathematics that are required to match the data. Schrodinger was probably the closest, from modern Physics.
ciao!
T.Roc
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 20 2006, 06:51 PM)
Quantum mechanics doesn't predict "resonance in probability waves"
The spectrum and distinct quantum states are nothing, but resonance effects of standing wave pockets...
The spectrum and distinct quantum states are nothing, but resonance effects of standing wave pockets...
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 20 2006, 06:51 PM)
...reply with your personal definition of the 2 words "resonance" and "harmonic"...
Harmonic = can be expressed in terms of trigonometric function (sin/cos)
Resonance = the state of a system in which the external harmonic perturbation are cumulated and amplificated.
Harmonic = can be expressed in terms of trigonometric function (sin/cos)
Resonance = the state of a system in which the external harmonic perturbation are cumulated and amplificated.
Hi Troc, (et al)
As requested ..
Resonance .. anything that repeats a number of times where the energy remaining in the resonant system at the end of a cycle is greater than the amount of energy lost during the cycle.
Harmonic (in this context.. from Wiki)
In acoustics and telecommunication, the harmonic of a wave is a component frequency of the signal that is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency. For a sine wave it is an integer multiple of the frequency of the wave. For example, if the frequency is f, the harmonics have frequency 2f, 3f, 4f, etc.
-C2.
As requested
..Resonance .. anything that repeats a number of times where the energy remaining in the resonant system at the end of a cycle is greater than the amount of energy lost during the cycle.
Harmonic (in this context.. from Wiki)
In acoustics and telecommunication, the harmonic of a wave is a component frequency of the signal that is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency. For a sine wave it is an integer multiple of the frequency of the wave. For example, if the frequency is f, the harmonics have frequency 2f, 3f, 4f, etc.
-C2.
Hi!
This might be relevant.
http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v40/387.p...20oscillator%22
Wave Packets of a Harmonic Oscillator with Various Degrees of Rigidity
Qiong-Gui Lin¤
Department of Physics, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
and
China Center of Advanced Science and Technology (World Laboratory),
P. O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, Chinay
Can I get extra points?
jal
This might be relevant.
http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v40/387.p...20oscillator%22
Wave Packets of a Harmonic Oscillator with Various Degrees of Rigidity
Qiong-Gui Lin¤
Department of Physics, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
and
China Center of Advanced Science and Technology (World Laboratory),
P. O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, Chinay
Can I get extra points?
jal
First of all, thanks to Good Elf for a comprehensive reply. Appreciate it. Many interesting thoughts and I have few re-, but let's stay in the frame of this thread.
I've some remarks considering interesting A. Giese's link, but as hint interesting could be to compare it with Ph. Kanarev's "reinterpretation of physics". In my view, most interesting is a basic idea: h as clear dynamic representation of angular momentum (similar to D. Deutch).
Also, to be simple
Resonance: all "by side" phenomena of
f = f_0
for two given wave systems.
Harmonics:
n*f; n E N
for a given sinusoidal wave.
In the scope of the theme, let's think of "gravitomagnetic-space resonance" as a direct natural way to the "unification"
Best to all
I've some remarks considering interesting A. Giese's link, but as hint interesting could be to compare it with Ph. Kanarev's "reinterpretation of physics". In my view, most interesting is a basic idea: h as clear dynamic representation of angular momentum (similar to D. Deutch).
Also, to be simple
Resonance: all "by side" phenomena of
f = f_0
for two given wave systems.
Harmonics:
n*f; n E N
for a given sinusoidal wave.
In the scope of the theme, let's think of "gravitomagnetic-space resonance" as a direct natural way to the "unification"
Best to all
Edit -- sorry, I think I might be on the wrong thread .. many very similar.. this is to Zephir and his drawings showing Aether wave density .. also GE .. classical or QM?
Quantum mechanics makes a prediction about the probability of (say) a photon being detected.
The plate above shows photons being detected .. beyond (my) reasonable doubt the greater number of photons will be detected where quantum mechanics predicts the probability of detection is greatest. We have experiment matches prediction .. where does Aether density come into it? Does it give the same answer? If it does then it predicts the probability of detection. What else?
-C2.
Quantum mechanics makes a prediction about the probability of (say) a photon being detected.
The plate above shows photons being detected .. beyond (my) reasonable doubt the greater number of photons will be detected where quantum mechanics predicts the probability of detection is greatest. We have experiment matches prediction .. where does Aether density come into it? Does it give the same answer? If it does then it predicts the probability of detection. What else?
-C2.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 20 2006, 05:57 PM)
Obviously there is Schrodinger's Wave Equation and the way that is "harmonic" but remember these processes, according to the current interpretation, are "waves of probability". I would seriously disregard any idea that you could have "resonance" in probability waves. Yet I am convinced that "resonance" is a purely physical wave phenomena that has been lost from current theory except in a highly abstracted non-physical form.
The Quantum Theory has missed the simple point: the density waves of underwater appears like these "probability waves", when observed by water surface waves. This is a simple mechanical analogy of quantum mechanic. I suppose, most of scientist aren't so stupid to realize it, if the concept of massive environment (i.e. the Aether) wouldn't be subject of such consensual disbelief.
By my opinion, the contemporary physic has no other chance, than to accept the Aether back - no matter if we deal with it from relativity or quantum mechanic perspective. I believe, the inertial environment concept is the awaited and searched Holy Grail, which is able to connect both these theories together. A missed unification.
By AWT the probability function is the simply the mass/energy density profile of Aether - no less, no more. The AWT doesn't use the probabilistic concept at all. The God really does not play dice, it plays with wave pockets, confined by its own energy density. To understand this requires the only thing: to consider the refused massive environment concept. Which is unacceptable by most of mainstream physicists.
Which isn't my problem, of course.
I can try to explain once again, how the AWT is working at the case of the resonance of standing wave pockets. By AWT the density of environment is proportional to energy density by E=mc^2 formula. By such a way, each the standing wave contributes to it's own environment density, thus making the environment more dense. As the result, each the energy wave moves inside certain dense "blob" of Aether foam, reflecting itself from the inner sides of it. It has a tendency to collapse and to increase the density even more - until the wavelength size is reached. Bellow such limit the further decreasing of the particle size doesn't increases the energy density, but it decreases instead due the violation of resonance condition for standing wave. By such a way, the volume area into which the particle wave pocket oscillates keeps itself to the optimal size with respect of the energy density inside particle.
Is such explanation of the quantum state of particle understandable for you (despite of my poor English, of course)?
The Quantum Theory has missed the simple point: the density waves of underwater appears like these "probability waves", when observed by water surface waves. This is a simple mechanical analogy of quantum mechanic. I suppose, most of scientist aren't so stupid to realize it, if the concept of massive environment (i.e. the Aether) wouldn't be subject of such consensual disbelief.
By my opinion, the contemporary physic has no other chance, than to accept the Aether back - no matter if we deal with it from relativity or quantum mechanic perspective. I believe, the inertial environment concept is the awaited and searched Holy Grail, which is able to connect both these theories together. A missed unification.
By AWT the probability function is the simply the mass/energy density profile of Aether - no less, no more. The AWT doesn't use the probabilistic concept at all. The God really does not play dice, it plays with wave pockets, confined by its own energy density. To understand this requires the only thing: to consider the refused massive environment concept. Which is unacceptable by most of mainstream physicists.
Which isn't my problem, of course.
I can try to explain once again, how the AWT is working at the case of the resonance of standing wave pockets. By AWT the density of environment is proportional to energy density by E=mc^2 formula. By such a way, each the standing wave contributes to it's own environment density, thus making the environment more dense. As the result, each the energy wave moves inside certain dense "blob" of Aether foam, reflecting itself from the inner sides of it. It has a tendency to collapse and to increase the density even more - until the wavelength size is reached. Bellow such limit the further decreasing of the particle size doesn't increases the energy density, but it decreases instead due the violation of resonance condition for standing wave. By such a way, the volume area into which the particle wave pocket oscillates keeps itself to the optimal size with respect of the energy density inside particle.
Is such explanation of the quantum state of particle understandable for you (despite of my poor English, of course)?
Zephir..
Bit of a time-synch problem here.. My last post should follow Zephir's
By AWT the probability function is the simply the mass/energy density profile of Aether - no less, no more. The AWT doesn't use the probabilistic concept at all.
Are we agreed that photons are detected/not detected as (effectively) points regardless of wavelength?
-C2.
Bit of a time-synch problem here.. My last post should follow Zephir's
QUOTE (Zephir+)
By AWT the probability function is the simply the mass/energy density profile of Aether - no less, no more. The AWT doesn't use the probabilistic concept at all.
Are we agreed that photons are detected/not detected as (effectively) points regardless of wavelength?
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 21 2006, 01:39 AM)
We have experiment matches prediction .. where does Aether density come into it? Does it give the same answer?
I've explained the double slit experiment (DSE) here by many times. Try to imagine, you're sending waves across the pond with water of different, randomly changing (undulating) density. The energy spreading prefers the more dense environment, so that the wave pockets path in subsequent attemps will remain concentrated across the places with higher water density.
The particle motion makes the environment undulate by the same way, like the fish swimming beneath the water surface - in the so called de Broglie wave, which is always oriented perpendicular to the particle motion direction. Such wave makes an Aether more dense too and it interferes during the particle motion with the double slit in flabbelliform patterns. By such a way, the Aether makes the more dense in such flabbelliform patterns too. As the result, each the subsequent particle motion is random due the stochastic vacuum density fluctuations, but some the paths will be proffered due the interference of the deBroglie wave with th double slit.
A brief recapitulation of the main points, which can help in understanding of the DSE observed result:
1) The energy increases the Aether environment density by E=mc^2
2) The particle are forming an standing wave pocket, confined by its own density profile gradient into blob
3) The particles are spreading through aether like transversal waves at the water surface
4) The wave spreading always prefers the more dense volume areas of aether environment
5) The aether contains an insitric fluctuations of density, from this reason the path of particle wave in subsequent experiment never remains the very same
6) The particle deforms the aether in de-Broglie wave, which is always perpendicular to the particle motion direction
7) The de-Broglie wave interferes with the double slit like each the wave in characteristic flabbelliform patterns, which are making the Aether more dense at the places of the interference maximum
8) The particle prefers such patterns in subsequent experiments by such way, the particle path cummulates in the wave interference patterns, not in the simple Gaussian curve pattern
I've explained the double slit experiment (DSE) here by many times. Try to imagine, you're sending waves across the pond with water of different, randomly changing (undulating) density. The energy spreading prefers the more dense environment, so that the wave pockets path in subsequent attemps will remain concentrated across the places with higher water density.
The particle motion makes the environment undulate by the same way, like the fish swimming beneath the water surface - in the so called de Broglie wave, which is always oriented perpendicular to the particle motion direction. Such wave makes an Aether more dense too and it interferes during the particle motion with the double slit in flabbelliform patterns. By such a way, the Aether makes the more dense in such flabbelliform patterns too. As the result, each the subsequent particle motion is random due the stochastic vacuum density fluctuations, but some the paths will be proffered due the interference of the deBroglie wave with th double slit.
A brief recapitulation of the main points, which can help in understanding of the DSE observed result:
1) The energy increases the Aether environment density by E=mc^2
2) The particle are forming an standing wave pocket, confined by its own density profile gradient into blob
3) The particles are spreading through aether like transversal waves at the water surface
4) The wave spreading always prefers the more dense volume areas of aether environment
5) The aether contains an insitric fluctuations of density, from this reason the path of particle wave in subsequent experiment never remains the very same
6) The particle deforms the aether in de-Broglie wave, which is always perpendicular to the particle motion direction
7) The de-Broglie wave interferes with the double slit like each the wave in characteristic flabbelliform patterns, which are making the Aether more dense at the places of the interference maximum
8) The particle prefers such patterns in subsequent experiments by such way, the particle path cummulates in the wave interference patterns, not in the simple Gaussian curve pattern
Before that diversion into the AWT (sorry, my mistake) .. Troc was collecting answers.
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 21 2006, 02:02 AM)
...are we agreed that photons are detected/not detected as (effectively) points regardless of wavelength...
The photons are wave pockets too, consider the following mechanism of photon formation by AWT.
The shorter wavelength of light, the smaller the wave pocket is. But the photon detection is the matter of coincidence with the target antennae of similar size, which can be estimated easily. The average wavelength of vacuum fluctuation corresponds the Planck length (approximately 10-35 m). The interference pattern frequency corresponds the wavelength ratio, for example at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m). By such a way, the photon of visible light can be detected by the antennae corresponding the atom diameter, whereas the X-ray photon requires the target of atom nuclei size. It's definitely not the pin-point target.
The photons are wave pockets too, consider the following mechanism of photon formation by AWT.
The shorter wavelength of light, the smaller the wave pocket is. But the photon detection is the matter of coincidence with the target antennae of similar size, which can be estimated easily. The average wavelength of vacuum fluctuation corresponds the Planck length (approximately 10-35 m). The interference pattern frequency corresponds the wavelength ratio, for example at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m). By such a way, the photon of visible light can be detected by the antennae corresponding the atom diameter, whereas the X-ray photon requires the target of atom nuclei size. It's definitely not the pin-point target.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 20 2006, 11:38 PM)
The photons are wave pockets too, consider the mechanism of photon formation by <rest of nonsense snipped>
Wave "pockets"?
"Mechanism" of photon "formation"?
Where are you getting these things?
Wave "pockets"?
"Mechanism" of photon "formation"?
Where are you getting these things?
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 21 2006, 02:46 AM)
Where are you getting these things?
Try to consider an easy situation - all the light is spreading in the form of photons, right? Now we have an antennae, which is spreading the harmonic waves into its neighborhood. By which mechanism these spherical waves can transform into quanta of energy, which can be detected as the point particles?
Try to consider an easy situation - all the light is spreading in the form of photons, right? Now we have an antennae, which is spreading the harmonic waves into its neighborhood. By which mechanism these spherical waves can transform into quanta of energy, which can be detected as the point particles?
You are not answering what was asked:
Wave "pockets"?
"Mechanism" of photon "formation"?
Where are you getting these things?
Wave "pockets"?
"Mechanism" of photon "formation"?
Where are you getting these things?
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 21 2006, 03:47 AM)
You are not answering what was asked: Wave "pockets"?
Hi Tura, al, Ladara7, Confused2, Zephir, MDT, StevenA, rpenner et al,
QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Today at 5:27 PM+)
Just for fun (humor me), would the Four of you {Good Elf, Turya, Confused2, and Zephir} reply with your personal definition of the 2 words "resonance" and "harmonic".
Not a lot of time right now but I thought that I should answer this one question before I look at the other points later.
I am with Zephir on this one...
I am with Zephir on this one...
QUOTE (Zephir Posted on Today at 5:33 PM+)
Harmonic = can be expressed in terms of trigonometric function (sin/cos)
Resonance = the state of a system in which the external harmonic perturbation are cumulated and amplificated.
Resonance = the state of a system in which the external harmonic perturbation are cumulated and amplificated.
I would add a couple of clarifying additions to distinguish it from obvious "quantum" processes. All functions defined in a space and limited in time can have a Fourier decomposition and indicates the harmonic components of an otherwise discrete process. These "harmonic" components are continuous functions and have no specific beginning and no specific end, which "span" the space in which they inhabit and wrap in that space as well according to the spatial or temporal dimensions. This has an "equivalent role" to the principal quantum number in quantum systems. The "period" of wrapping could be scaled to a length or to a time or to some other parameter such as a frequency. For mathematicians it is an open choice. Of course we are speaking about "Physics" and that means while there is a lot of theory out there it must match the experimental facts. Regarding atomic processes and "electronic shells" of atoms the wrapping is on a phase change of 2pi or on multiples of wavelength or frequency .... a distance or reciprocal distance, a time or reciprocal time. The choice of domain determines which pair we are "in".
Resonance, on the other hand, usually occurs with a process executing in one system passing energy to an executing process in another system. We are familiar with photons being emitted and absorbed as quanta but we are not specifically aware of the way in which the energy processes do this. My "impression" is this is not interesting to those involved in ideas that only involve quanta, and transferring "whole quanta". Now a quantum state can be "refined" by the application of quantum back action. If only quantum processes are involved then IMHO quantum back action would not occur since the modifications to the quantum state occur at a lower energy than the energy of a full quanta.... you could choose to interpret this not as "virtual photons" but instead as a "system" tending toward some mean state by losing or gaining energy in "micro-quanta"... if you will forgive the term. These micro-quanta modify the state of the atomic or sub-atomic system in the evanescent region, possibly even "splitting" a line or two or refining the "side-bands" in a ground or excited state by kinetic processes like "very small kicks" to the system disturbing the Inertial frame slightly.
When you have a radiatively badly mismatched system if we are waiting for an emission or an absorption of a quanta... it usually has a long half-life. If this energy is "harmonic" the system "warms up" dissipating energy in various modes of movement of the atoms, it could be linear momentum or orbital angular momentum (both related to h but produce different results).
Measuring single qubits - "quantum back action"
This warming or even cooling as I have indicated to Confused2 is a "back action". Also it could occur at even lower frequencies such as in a Cesium Clock where the back action shifts the spin of an atom by only the equivalent of a microwave photon. This cross reference I made back in the thread on Quantum Superposition.
Now I can see a difference in opinion arising from the understanding of "Harmonic" vs what the meaning of "Resonance" may mean. Like I said I do not believe that you can have "resonance" in probability waves only in systems with positive "mechanical" feedback. So when C2 refers to the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator as a resonant system... while states have energies and defined values, they cannot have values in between those states. In fact a strict interpretation indicates that they have no existence between those states and you must "shut up and calculate". This view was fine in the 1920's but it is a different world today there is more experimental evidence to show inner processes related to those "virtual photons".
This Forum is no place to "publish a full description" of every process in these short "sound bytes". I can only respond when I see that somebody has missed the point altogether. I am sorry about that. If you look back over this "concept" that has developed over a longer period, you can see that while QM works brilliantly it has some serious failings. The failing is totally ignoring the evanescent processes which involve "matter waves" which are shorter wavelength versions of electromagnetic waves, the imaging of which leads directly to the physics of apparently solid particles. They are regarded as probability but individual particles are actually responding to individual wavelengths and undergo diffraction and interference as single particles not as "ensembles". This was formerly an argument for the quantum, in my view it is an argument against the quantum and one that shows "connections" to "harmonic resonance". C2 puts forward the argument about electrons spiraling into atoms due to electrostatic attraction between a nucleus and the electrons. It actually depends on your point of view... what is the electrostatic attraction to a beam of light? It actually depends on the geometry of that photon path as seen by an external observer as to the emergence of "charge" due to "Berry Phase" (Geometrical Phase).
Cheers
Resonance, on the other hand, usually occurs with a process executing in one system passing energy to an executing process in another system. We are familiar with photons being emitted and absorbed as quanta but we are not specifically aware of the way in which the energy processes do this. My "impression" is this is not interesting to those involved in ideas that only involve quanta, and transferring "whole quanta". Now a quantum state can be "refined" by the application of quantum back action. If only quantum processes are involved then IMHO quantum back action would not occur since the modifications to the quantum state occur at a lower energy than the energy of a full quanta.... you could choose to interpret this not as "virtual photons" but instead as a "system" tending toward some mean state by losing or gaining energy in "micro-quanta"... if you will forgive the term. These micro-quanta modify the state of the atomic or sub-atomic system in the evanescent region, possibly even "splitting" a line or two or refining the "side-bands" in a ground or excited state by kinetic processes like "very small kicks" to the system disturbing the Inertial frame slightly.
When you have a radiatively badly mismatched system if we are waiting for an emission or an absorption of a quanta... it usually has a long half-life. If this energy is "harmonic" the system "warms up" dissipating energy in various modes of movement of the atoms, it could be linear momentum or orbital angular momentum (both related to h but produce different results).
Measuring single qubits - "quantum back action"
This warming or even cooling as I have indicated to Confused2 is a "back action". Also it could occur at even lower frequencies such as in a Cesium Clock where the back action shifts the spin of an atom by only the equivalent of a microwave photon. This cross reference I made back in the thread on Quantum Superposition.
Now I can see a difference in opinion arising from the understanding of "Harmonic" vs what the meaning of "Resonance" may mean. Like I said I do not believe that you can have "resonance" in probability waves only in systems with positive "mechanical" feedback. So when C2 refers to the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator as a resonant system... while states have energies and defined values, they cannot have values in between those states. In fact a strict interpretation indicates that they have no existence between those states and you must "shut up and calculate". This view was fine in the 1920's but it is a different world today there is more experimental evidence to show inner processes related to those "virtual photons".
This Forum is no place to "publish a full description" of every process in these short "sound bytes". I can only respond when I see that somebody has missed the point altogether. I am sorry about that. If you look back over this "concept" that has developed over a longer period, you can see that while QM works brilliantly it has some serious failings. The failing is totally ignoring the evanescent processes which involve "matter waves" which are shorter wavelength versions of electromagnetic waves, the imaging of which leads directly to the physics of apparently solid particles. They are regarded as probability but individual particles are actually responding to individual wavelengths and undergo diffraction and interference as single particles not as "ensembles". This was formerly an argument for the quantum, in my view it is an argument against the quantum and one that shows "connections" to "harmonic resonance". C2 puts forward the argument about electrons spiraling into atoms due to electrostatic attraction between a nucleus and the electrons. It actually depends on your point of view... what is the electrostatic attraction to a beam of light? It actually depends on the geometry of that photon path as seen by an external observer as to the emergence of "charge" due to "Berry Phase" (Geometrical Phase).
Cheers
Good Day all!
Good Elf .... you are going where no man has gone before...
Also, here is what The Schrödinger can do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
Don't forget to read the last link that I gave. It has some math
jal
Good Elf .... you are going where no man has gone before...
Also, here is what The Schrödinger can do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
QUOTE
Need for dynamical equations
The problem with the de Broglie hypothesis as applied to the Bohr atom is that we have forced a plane wave solution valid in empty space to a situation in which there is a strong attractive potential. We have not yet discovered the general dynamic equation for the evolution of electron waves. The Schrödinger equation is the immediate generalization of the de Broglie hypothesis and the dynamics of the photon.
The problem with the de Broglie hypothesis as applied to the Bohr atom is that we have forced a plane wave solution valid in empty space to a situation in which there is a strong attractive potential. We have not yet discovered the general dynamic equation for the evolution of electron waves. The Schrödinger equation is the immediate generalization of the de Broglie hypothesis and the dynamics of the photon.
Don't forget to read the last link that I gave. It has some math
jal
Hi Jal,
QUOTE (jal Posted on Today at 3:38 PM+)
Don't forget to read the last link that I gave. It has some math
Thanks... You are right about that... that is very interesting and the context is quite fascinating.
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation+)
Some time before the discovery of quantum mechanics people realized that the connexion between light waves and photons must be of a statistical character. What they did not clearly realize, however, was that the wave function gives information about the probability of one photon being in a particular place and not the probable number of photons in that place. The importance of the distinction can be made clear in the following way. Suppose we have a beam of light consisting of a large number of photons split up into two components of equal intensity. On the assumption that the beam is connected with the probable number of photons in it, we should have half the total number going into each component. If the two components are now made to interfere, we should require a photon in one component to be able to interfere with one in the other. Sometimes these two photons would have to annihilate one another and other times they would have to produce four photons. This would contradict the conservation of energy. The new theory, which connects the wave function with probabilities for one photon gets over the difficulty by making each photon go partly into each of the two components. Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between two different photons never occurs.
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation
—Paul Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Fourth Edition, Chapter 1
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation
—Paul Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Fourth Edition, Chapter 1
(my emphasis) That will give me something to think about very carefully. It is all about "bosons" and Bose-Einstein Statistics, and this crops up all the time with LASER action. No such thing as truly "destructive" interference. Love it!
He he he... not trying to criticize but that picture of a EM Wave leaves a little to be desired, the rest is very good. I would add a little only with regard to evanescent behaviour of the wave and to "geometric phase". It also only refers to angular momentum (spin) and has not discovered "orbital angular momentum" of the wave or the photon.
Light Beams in High-Order Modes
Well may you ask.... "orbiting what?" he he he!
Cheers
He he he... not trying to criticize but that picture of a EM Wave leaves a little to be desired, the rest is very good. I would add a little only with regard to evanescent behaviour of the wave and to "geometric phase". It also only refers to angular momentum (spin) and has not discovered "orbital angular momentum" of the wave or the photon.
Light Beams in High-Order Modes
Well may you ask.... "orbiting what?" he he he!
Cheers
Good_Elf,
Can you clarify .. you do not think the results in 'Light Beams in High Order Modes' ( http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htm ) would 'build up' if single photons were used?
-C2.
Can you clarify .. you do not think the results in 'Light Beams in High Order Modes' ( http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htm ) would 'build up' if single photons were used?
-C2.
Cefarix
I loved your post and would like to here more about your theory as it has a lot in common with my current line of research. I agree with a 4 - dimensional Euclidean model. I liked the part also where you described the proton. If you wish, check out my model of the atom and proton formation on this site. http://forums.hypography.com/science-paper...m-expanded.html
GoodElf
Thanks for showing how to derive an equation for frequency independent of h but dependent on R, R being the radius of the particle. I too feel that harmonics and resonance plays an important role, the wavelike nature of the wave/particle duality has been largely overlooked.
Zephir
Could you give me a link to a full explaination of your AWT, I have caught many pieces of it in posts, but have not seen it in its entireity. I love the graphs you use also. Your theory seems to have some things in common with the concept I have been investigating.
All in all I am enjoying this thread, and learning a lot in the process.
I loved your post and would like to here more about your theory as it has a lot in common with my current line of research. I agree with a 4 - dimensional Euclidean model. I liked the part also where you described the proton. If you wish, check out my model of the atom and proton formation on this site. http://forums.hypography.com/science-paper...m-expanded.html
GoodElf
Thanks for showing how to derive an equation for frequency independent of h but dependent on R, R being the radius of the particle. I too feel that harmonics and resonance plays an important role, the wavelike nature of the wave/particle duality has been largely overlooked.
Zephir
Could you give me a link to a full explaination of your AWT, I have caught many pieces of it in posts, but have not seen it in its entireity. I love the graphs you use also. Your theory seems to have some things in common with the concept I have been investigating.
All in all I am enjoying this thread, and learning a lot in the process.
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (C2+)
Can you clarify .. you do not think the results in 'Light Beams in High Order Modes' ( http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...cs/oamgp/gp.htm ) would 'build up' if single photons were used?
Here are a few examples of the OAM (Orbital Angular Momentum) vectors in action
OAM = 0 (plane wave)
OAM = -1 hbar per photon (right-hand helical phase front)
OAM = +1 hbar per photon (left-hand helix)
OAM = +2 hbar per photon (two-fold helix)
OAM = +3 hbar per photon (three-fold helix: fusilli)
Here is a reference...
MEASURING THE ORBITAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF SINGLE PHOTONS
Notice for Order = 3 we have three of the possible polarizations "occupied" out of a potentially infinite number of possible polarizations. This is indicated by three different polarization directions in the wavefront (a "Y" pattern). Though the directions need not be symmetrically placed at exactly 120 degrees apart. A superposition of states are also possible so it seems you could have a vector rotating clockwise and another anti-clockwise at the same time in a single photon.
There is also a side panel in the reference that shows how spin (angular momentum) is related to this property of photons and of other particles as well. It carries only one qubit of information by contrast (three distinct states), plus and minus one and the superposition of the two states. This has an interesting leading question as to what a Higgs Boson is like having no angular momentum (spin). Maybe a Higgs Boson could have OAM and no spin... just a guess there.
Cheers
OAM = 0 (plane wave)
OAM = -1 hbar per photon (right-hand helical phase front)
OAM = +1 hbar per photon (left-hand helix)
OAM = +2 hbar per photon (two-fold helix)
OAM = +3 hbar per photon (three-fold helix: fusilli)
Here is a reference...
MEASURING THE ORBITAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF SINGLE PHOTONS
Notice for Order = 3 we have three of the possible polarizations "occupied" out of a potentially infinite number of possible polarizations. This is indicated by three different polarization directions in the wavefront (a "Y" pattern). Though the directions need not be symmetrically placed at exactly 120 degrees apart. A superposition of states are also possible so it seems you could have a vector rotating clockwise and another anti-clockwise at the same time in a single photon.
There is also a side panel in the reference that shows how spin (angular momentum) is related to this property of photons and of other particles as well. It carries only one qubit of information by contrast (three distinct states), plus and minus one and the superposition of the two states. This has an interesting leading question as to what a Higgs Boson is like having no angular momentum (spin). Maybe a Higgs Boson could have OAM and no spin... just a guess there.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 2 2006, 07:19 AM)
A superposition of states are also possible so it seems you could have a vector rotating clockwise and another anti-clockwise at the same time in a single photon.
****
Maybe a Higgs Boson could have OAM and no spin... just a guess there.
Thanks for the exciting link.
Along the "idea" of OAM for single photon, consider it is same as graviton (both S-1) but "interaction" depends on OAM. Helix structure of "gravyphoton beam" could be intersting one indeed.
Considering Higgs as scalar S-0 hmm...
Respect
****
Maybe a Higgs Boson could have OAM and no spin... just a guess there.
Thanks for the exciting link.
Along the "idea" of OAM for single photon, consider it is same as graviton (both S-1) but "interaction" depends on OAM. Helix structure of "gravyphoton beam" could be intersting one indeed.
Considering Higgs as scalar S-0 hmm...
Respect
Hi Confused2 and Tura,
I will have a little speculation here. Considering that Higgs Boson is theoretically supposed to be spin 0 then the interesting thing is this kind of spin (OAM) affects particles at a distance and is indeed a "force" and imparts acceleration "like gravity" through "gradient fields". As you see this "bosonic" property affects individual photons. It remains to be seen if a symmetrized form of this influence is the real nature of gravity or not. If Neutrinos carried OAM they could penetrate matter and influence it almost "uniformly" at the same time, maybe exhibiting the elusive mass oscillations. While Neutrinos are not easily absorbed in interactions they might be encouraged to impart a neutral "force" through interference only. It needs a lot more work to fully understand just what if any part this form of light plays in nature rather than being just a benchtop "oddity". It may be this forms an "undiscovered" particle or subtle influences our Universe over the larger scale (goodness knows there are many possibilities here). Big particle accelerators cannot influence this property and it represents "undiscovered territory". Simply more power has not led to a proportional linear increase in knowledge, but the experiments will need to be performed. These new discoveries are benchtop experiments that can do an awful lot toward a deeper understanding of matter as well as light.
Laser wakefield accelerators with energies of 1 GeV and more have been built. These achieve this energy in only 3 cm... over a linear distance. Combined with OEM excitation, particles will probably exhibit new quantum phenomena.
GeV Acceleration in Only 3 Centimeters AIP Oct3 2006
This is a benchtop experiment with significant energy.
The spiral nature of this energy and the EM forces that it imparts leads to my speculation that this energy may have played a role in the formation of DNA and the double helix, or a predisposition to the one form of left hand helix over the right hand helix. What about possible resonances along the coiled strands leading to OAM radiation in living organisms?
Cheers
I will have a little speculation here. Considering that Higgs Boson is theoretically supposed to be spin 0 then the interesting thing is this kind of spin (OAM) affects particles at a distance and is indeed a "force" and imparts acceleration "like gravity" through "gradient fields". As you see this "bosonic" property affects individual photons. It remains to be seen if a symmetrized form of this influence is the real nature of gravity or not. If Neutrinos carried OAM they could penetrate matter and influence it almost "uniformly" at the same time, maybe exhibiting the elusive mass oscillations. While Neutrinos are not easily absorbed in interactions they might be encouraged to impart a neutral "force" through interference only. It needs a lot more work to fully understand just what if any part this form of light plays in nature rather than being just a benchtop "oddity". It may be this forms an "undiscovered" particle or subtle influences our Universe over the larger scale (goodness knows there are many possibilities here). Big particle accelerators cannot influence this property and it represents "undiscovered territory". Simply more power has not led to a proportional linear increase in knowledge, but the experiments will need to be performed. These new discoveries are benchtop experiments that can do an awful lot toward a deeper understanding of matter as well as light.
Laser wakefield accelerators with energies of 1 GeV and more have been built. These achieve this energy in only 3 cm... over a linear distance. Combined with OEM excitation, particles will probably exhibit new quantum phenomena.
GeV Acceleration in Only 3 Centimeters AIP Oct3 2006
This is a benchtop experiment with significant energy.
The spiral nature of this energy and the EM forces that it imparts leads to my speculation that this energy may have played a role in the formation of DNA and the double helix, or a predisposition to the one form of left hand helix over the right hand helix. What about possible resonances along the coiled strands leading to OAM radiation in living organisms?
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 3 2006, 02:39 PM)
The spiral nature of this energy and the EM forces that it imparts leads to my speculation that this energy may have played a role in the formation of DNA and the double helix, or a predisposition to the one form of left hand helix over the right hand helix. What about possible resonances along the coiled strands leading to OAM radiation in living organisms?
Let me say, obviously WE SHARE GREAT DEAL OF SPECULATIONS seeing it from one wider perspective (but many "open" people share it also more and more).
Consider my lack in English as sort of obstacle to be much "wider" in expression.
But in a way, for this kind of discussion I like be in short sentences, in "hints". I think you (also the others) will accept that rightfully. Along with my identity.
You are on the track with your DNA "speculation", but once again please reconsider it in one transversal vector kind GEM perspective. Really great!
Considering "a predisposition to the one form of left hand helix over the right hand helix", or for example seeing in shell-spiral helix, it could be clear consequence of one "toroidal field", or exactly how I see one "elctrogravity field" (please take terms very "relativly")
I couldn't agree more.
I need more time for this new link. Thanks again. Also thanks to C2; quite inspiriting in discussion, even when in disagreement.
The best (to all)
Let me say, obviously WE SHARE GREAT DEAL OF SPECULATIONS seeing it from one wider perspective (but many "open"
people share it also more and more).Consider my lack in English as sort of obstacle to be much "wider" in expression.
But in a way, for this kind of discussion I like be in short sentences, in "hints". I think you (also the others) will accept that rightfully. Along with my identity.
You are on the track with your DNA "speculation", but once again please reconsider it in one transversal vector kind GEM perspective. Really great!
Considering "a predisposition to the one form of left hand helix over the right hand helix", or for example seeing in shell-spiral helix, it could be clear consequence of one "toroidal field", or exactly how I see one "elctrogravity field" (please take terms very "relativly")
QUOTE
Big particle accelerators cannot influence this property and it represents "undiscovered territory". Simply more power has not led to a proportional linear increase in knowledge, but the experiments will need to be performed. These new discoveries are benchtop experiments that can do an awful lot toward a deeper understanding of matter as well as light.
I couldn't agree more.
I need more time for this new link. Thanks again. Also thanks to C2; quite inspiriting in discussion, even when in disagreement.
The best (to all)
Hi Turya,
Since you have speculated about DNA and why there is a predisposition toward this asymmetry, I would like to point out that an incident recently has jogged my memory about the nature and possible influence of/on the double helix. Some research (not at hand) has shown that the double helix is "superconducting" in certain tests, I remember one in which a strand was covered in metal and resonant superconductivity was observed. I have recently also implicated Neutrinos in this overall phenomenon of mass and gravity. Neutrinos come in only one handed chirality while light comes in both forms.
Despite the fact that Neutrinos are "fermions" it is possible that they oscillate between massive and massless states across that boundary of the speed of light.
When at the speed of light the neutrino would "see" the universe as a "block of very clear glass" of various refractive indices dependent only on the properties of the space... including the matter. Even a star would appear "unreactive" and transparent except for the "optical" refractive index phenomena in which no particle reactions are involved. DNA might then take part in some as yet unknown process involving Neutrinos. It would seem that the coincidence that DNA is wrapped in that way is too much, more likely that something is going on there.
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf on Neutrinos
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later... first post
This and the following speculation I made might provide some insight into this strange asymmetry. This is closely related to this...
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
Maldacena duality is one of the concrete links with the "Holographic Universe". This concept is linked to this interpretation...
The Illusion of Gravity: Juan Maldacena, Scientific American
I have a different take on this phenomenon but only slightly so. See this thread...
QM and the Paradox behind the Door, possibility of extra hidden dimensions
It would be best to register so that I could at least alert you when this kind of thing turns up.
Cheers
Since you have speculated about DNA and why there is a predisposition toward this asymmetry, I would like to point out that an incident recently has jogged my memory about the nature and possible influence of/on the double helix. Some research (not at hand) has shown that the double helix is "superconducting" in certain tests, I remember one in which a strand was covered in metal and resonant superconductivity was observed. I have recently also implicated Neutrinos in this overall phenomenon of mass and gravity. Neutrinos come in only one handed chirality while light comes in both forms.
Despite the fact that Neutrinos are "fermions" it is possible that they oscillate between massive and massless states across that boundary of the speed of light.
When at the speed of light the neutrino would "see" the universe as a "block of very clear glass" of various refractive indices dependent only on the properties of the space... including the matter. Even a star would appear "unreactive" and transparent except for the "optical" refractive index phenomena in which no particle reactions are involved. DNA might then take part in some as yet unknown process involving Neutrinos. It would seem that the coincidence that DNA is wrapped in that way is too much, more likely that something is going on there.
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf on Neutrinos
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later... first post
This and the following speculation I made might provide some insight into this strange asymmetry. This is closely related to this...
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence
Maldacena duality is one of the concrete links with the "Holographic Universe". This concept is linked to this interpretation...
The Illusion of Gravity: Juan Maldacena, Scientific American
I have a different take on this phenomenon but only slightly so. See this thread...
QM and the Paradox behind the Door, possibility of extra hidden dimensions
It would be best to register so that I could at least alert you when this kind of thing turns up.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 4 2006, 11:11 PM)
Since you have speculated about DNA and why there is a predisposition toward this asymmetry, I would like to point out that an incident recently has jogged my memory about the nature and possible influence of/on the double helix.
...
First of all I hope the incident wasn’t too much harmful. Thanks for your positive efforts and for this inviting in line with our exchange. All the links are exciting as always. Some of them I’ve already cached, yours last thread including.
No doubt there is enough good material and my thoughts are nearby some the ideas you speculate of. For example, “holographic paradigm” is something very interesting and I admit one of my old “Bohmian games” (I recall here StevenA with his also very comprehensive idea of the Universe as an informational net). But now I see it more as a question of quite real holistic “wave stereodynamics” which could be e.g. dynamics of timeless 2-d space “on boundaries”. There however is a deep-grounded non-linearity and corresponding mass-particle creation mechanism naturally arises. As I already mentioned in this thread, there could be seen the space-matter resonance principle; seeing it from a clear gravitomagnetic perspective – it seems that it is the possible direct “missed link” towards the unification. So to speak, the unity is exactly in (front of) “our eyes”.
Your “variation” on the neutrino theme is nevertheless inspirational one (in a wider scope of the natural bosons-fermions dynamic scheme). Once again it could be sort of waving around some space dynamic equilibrium – very similar to the above mentioned space-matter resonance if you agree? Recently Ivars (also active in this forum) mentioned to me his interesting neutrino screw model where I only disagree with his mass-estimation (I think it should be in the limit of ~ E-68 kg or so; very near to QG “photon mass limit” how I see it – of course again in the highly dynamic creation-destruction process of mass). In a way that leads to the clear insight that c really isn’t speed/velocity constant at all – it is more a part/property of space itself (and its dynamics of course). It seems also that it is not so speculative, from this perspective, to see (for now not so exact) possible direct connections in the triangle neutrino-gravyphoton-DNA.
In a way, on this extremely fundamental levels something appears as obvious to me: Nature follows narrow line between extreme dualities and in this case it is between “linear” and “rotational” - might be the fundamental cosmic polarity.
The very best
...
First of all I hope the incident wasn’t too much harmful. Thanks for your positive efforts and for this inviting in line with our exchange. All the links are exciting as always. Some of them I’ve already cached, yours last thread including.
No doubt there is enough good material and my thoughts are nearby some the ideas you speculate of. For example, “holographic paradigm” is something very interesting and I admit one of my old “Bohmian games” (I recall here StevenA with his also very comprehensive idea of the Universe as an informational net). But now I see it more as a question of quite real holistic “wave stereodynamics” which could be e.g. dynamics of timeless 2-d space “on boundaries”. There however is a deep-grounded non-linearity and corresponding mass-particle creation mechanism naturally arises. As I already mentioned in this thread, there could be seen the space-matter resonance principle; seeing it from a clear gravitomagnetic perspective – it seems that it is the possible direct “missed link” towards the unification. So to speak, the unity is exactly in (front of) “our eyes”.
Your “variation” on the neutrino theme is nevertheless inspirational one (in a wider scope of the natural bosons-fermions dynamic scheme). Once again it could be sort of waving around some space dynamic equilibrium – very similar to the above mentioned space-matter resonance if you agree? Recently Ivars (also active in this forum) mentioned to me his interesting neutrino screw model where I only disagree with his mass-estimation (I think it should be in the limit of ~ E-68 kg or so; very near to QG “photon mass limit” how I see it – of course again in the highly dynamic creation-destruction process of mass). In a way that leads to the clear insight that c really isn’t speed/velocity constant at all – it is more a part/property of space itself (and its dynamics of course). It seems also that it is not so speculative, from this perspective, to see (for now not so exact) possible direct connections in the triangle neutrino-gravyphoton-DNA.
In a way, on this extremely fundamental levels something appears as obvious to me: Nature follows narrow line between extreme dualities and in this case it is between “linear” and “rotational” - might be the fundamental cosmic polarity.
The very best
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.