Hi all,
Nice to see that the thread has all but died-out.
Just a few comments on the things I have catched-up so far. (started at the latest posts)
Good Elf: I can't agree more, your stance towards the current 'main-stream' physics is very similar to mine. When will we see that matter and therefore particles is just another expression of space-time. That way they don't need to be continuous (in one place) nor that they need to 'exist' at every moment in time.
The main problem here is how can we describe this phenomenon in a consistent framework which is similar to wave theory but comprises the locality of the 'particle' as a specific wave 'state'..
phyti: As to see the answer of Neil, yes the slit itself is (part of) the cause of the interference. Topology is (always) the cause for resulting interference patterns in wave theory.
Best regards,
Jan Rinze.
Hi janrinze,
QUOTE (Jan Rinze+)
Good Elf: I can't agree more, your stance towards the current 'main-stream' physics is very similar to mine. When will we see that matter and therefore particles is just another expression of space-time. That way they don't need to be continuous (in one place) nor that they need to 'exist' at every moment in time.
The main problem here is how can we describe this phenomenon in a consistent framework which is similar to wave theory but comprises the locality of the 'particle' as a specific wave 'state'..
phyti: As to see the answer of Neil, yes the slit itself is (part of) the cause of the interference. Topology is (always) the cause for resulting interference patterns in wave theory.
The main problem here is how can we describe this phenomenon in a consistent framework which is similar to wave theory but comprises the locality of the 'particle' as a specific wave 'state'..
phyti: As to see the answer of Neil, yes the slit itself is (part of) the cause of the interference. Topology is (always) the cause for resulting interference patterns in wave theory.
Good to see someone that likes a 'vintage' thread that has become mature in the cellar. The principle behind all electromagnetic phenomena is gauge invariance. Gauge invariance is "background independent" so "actual" coordinates probably do not mean anything at all. What is important appears to be relative coordinates produced by the difference between two "systems of different energy". Energy is similarly scaled in as much as it is not an absolute but a relative phenomena subject to an arbitrary "zero point" which is probably the result of a stray constant, the result of an integration. If the integration is "definite" between two specified "levels" then there is no constant to worry about.
The "slit" is not the system that we should be thinking about, it is the point source and not an linear extended source which is simply a series of point sources. The point source I really mean is the pinhole source since all sources must be extended to some extent. The result of this pinhole when illuminated by a coherent source is the quantum packets are either blocked at this "gateway" or they pass through. If they are "blocked" the obstruction acts as an absorber or reflector of the packets. The "instant" this occurs they "collapse" their state. In actual fact this is incorrect if we consider Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. We know "in the geometry of the packet itself" this absorption is a symmetric process to the emission of the photon originally. This is because quantum theory is time symmetric. This means the geometry is also time symmetric so we can swap the source and the sink's relative roles and the answers still come out the same. Yet from our perspective this is not able to be reconciled "geometrically" since photons expand from the original source or from secondary sources "parametrically". The state collapse then appears "magically" to form out of an apparently almost infinitely expanded inverse shadow which could technically cover "half the heavens"... especially if this light "particle" has been traveling for a few millions of years. Why is there this apparent discrepancy? On the one hand the photon comes from the single shell of a single atom, expand almost forever to cover a quite large extent then suddenly without apparent warning is "trapped" in a similar sized "speck" that is too small by any account to contain this vast expanded packet in the transverse direction and indeed is really too large to contain the photon whose wavelength is much bigger than the size if the shell it apparently originated from. Assuming the original photon "escaped" from a particular shell in a particular atom and then was captured by the same order shell in an identical atom 100 million light years away from the point of origin in a "symmetrical event" not unlike this animation run backwards...
Light Dipole after Dr. Lago
Regarding pinholes... When these photon packets "pass" this single pinhole they are restricted in size once more and are "reset" to the dimension of that pinhole as a secondary source. The spreading is "restarted" at "nearly" the diameter of the slit. Of course this is an unseen event for quanta that truly "pass" the slit. From there on the spreading continues to increase without limit until it is forced to "restart" again at another "intermediate source". At the slit the quanta are not actually confined to move as I have stated "exactly" since this Quantum Zeno expansion is still in the near field (evanescent field). The velocity of the phenomenon at this secondary source (the pinhole) "could become" infinite locally right there.... further away it "decelerates down" to the speed of light in the far field.
A Gedanken Experiment "suggests" if we observe this "unseen phenomena" from a different frame of time than that of the actual photons whose experience of time is only briefly experienced near or within that evanescent region but once again removed in the far field... We might be viewing this event from outside a block of glass for instance... We might notice that to travel along with this traveling "wave" the length contraction in the direction of motion would be not so noticeable and the "transverse spreading" would be the dominating phenomenon.
Since the photon continues to travel at the local speed of light the leading edge of this packet is in the forefront of this "wave" while the trailing edge is only slightly behind around a 1/2 wavelength away but still traveling at the same speed of light. The center of this packet is also moving forward at the speed of light as well. If we were to center a moving frame "origin" of the photons influence at it "still heart", the transverse spreading may seem to the external observer (not to the photon itself which cannot experience time) the packet is universally expanding fore , aft and transversely such that it is the center of a uniformly expanding sphere centered on the pinhole (which is relatively at rest in the frame of the block of the glass). This might be "experienced" from a moving observer frame such that the block of refracting material is a medium for an extreme example of "slow light" inside the block and we the observer are moving along outside at a very low actual translational velocity at the external relative velocity of this light as it propagates inside the block. Speeds of a few meters per second for light have been obtained in practical materials. A carriage on a rail could easily keep up with the light propagating in such in extreme material such that it "appears" relatively at rest in it's "frozen state of hibernation". In this "highly artificial" system the light quanta are entirely stationary relative to the moving observer except for the spreading of the packet and this is confined by some dimensions in the transverse and longitudinal directions. If we as observers were to "touch" this unseen spreading quanta it will instantly "shrink" due to a quantum Zeno reaction. Touch it too heavily it will be absorbed but several very light touches will cause the packet to be confined to a particular size as it continues to spread between "the intervals between touches". As your "touching finger" moves toward the packets the packets them selves will shrink away from the near influence of the presence of your finger. This will be an interesting "Gedanken" phenomena, one in which you really cannot truly know the consequence because unless you actually collapse this state you still do not know where these packets are. It is conceivable that many "very light touches" might have an influence through the Aharanov-Bohm Effect on the spreading electromagnetic wave "at a distance". These cumulative disturbances may tell us over a period of time to provide sufficient information of the presence of a traveling packet that is currently being restricted in extent by these "protective measurements".
On the one hand we have propagating light in a "highly refractive medium" plus the motion of an observer resulting in a semi-stationary optical packet whose "size" is confined only to spreading from an intermediate source (the pinhole). An analogous system can be considered of a single electron in a void in which a similar observer is now at rest. The electron is also "expanding parametrically" into the void while the stationary observer is making a number of very light protective measurements. The cumulative effect of many of these tiny "measurements" (or partial observations) is to simply confine the electron packet to a finite size and to detect it's presence from afar by the Aharanov-Bohm Effect once again. If no measurements were made on both systems (electron or photon) both packets would expand to fill any bounding cavity. In one case, the photon, a stationary photon packet is observed through a combination of refractive material that has altered the speed of light plus a relative motion to the refractive material... in the second case of an electron in a void, the void containing the "matter particle" confined in a "greater void" and can contain the electron alone and at "rest" and the observer is now "relatively" stationary. I suggest that the total composing mass of the photon in an electron is equivalent to a photon moving in an extreme refractive material (having an almost infinite optical density) and being "chased" by a moving "observer" (possibly not necessarily in a rectilinear path). This is a special relativistic effect and not a gravitational general relativistic effect. There are some existing experiments where the mass of electrons in "conducting systems" can depend on the motion of relatively moving particles in a refractive medium in which only the local speed of light and the relative motion is important. This is a subtle phenomenon and it is within our experimental capacity to prove at this time. This would confirm "mass" is due to "Special Relativity" and not "General Relativity"... regarding "cause and effects". The "influence" is an optical vortex that "symmetrizes" this geometry of advanced and retarded waves so that both positions are "equivalent".
There is no accident that the coherent images of an electron and the shadowgram of a single coherent photon source both "appear" to be a three dimensional and a two dimensional analog of the ideal Airy Disk respectively. These are the representations of these entities in a special motional space (as defined above).
The ideal Airy Disk
The ideal Airy disk is the "projection" or inner product of a sinc source. All sources can be considered composed of a series of interfering sync sources. In the case of light the sources are expanding from a central primary or secondary source and in the case of matter the expansion is from it's own central "internal" source which is creating it's own virtual cavity. The differences between these two states is in the intervening "lens" of spacetime and it's "spin motion". In the first case the stationary states depend on the size and distribution of the protective measurements made by a "feeble observer" moving with the "frozen but still expanding photons". In the second case of an electron these frozen and expanding confined photons have come pre-packaged in a refractive media of undulatory curved spacetime that has changed the speed of light near the source. That is the consistent framework... All particles and waves spread according to de Broglie's relationship in the vacuum and according to the natural "protective measurements" created by surrounding cavities which are the product of "stationary" matter wave patterns in space. Now with a special medium even light may be observed as a stationary pattern in space. Naturally this stationary wave pattern also must contain "topological charge" as one of the aspects of this phenomenon. In the case of "light particles" they are always moving at the speed of light but they still are spreading the same as an electron does into a "cavity" of some sort in a perfectly symmetric fashion according to weak observations made by a very special observer "outside the immediate environment" of the photon's rest frame.
Does this make sense to you at all? In this way "mass" is spacetime curvature and this is caused by "Special Relativity" not "General Relativity". The influences of each on the other is still spacetime curvature but electromagnetic influences are 10^41 times stronger than Gravity and so explains why it works so much better. "brute force" may create a "Black Hole" but electromagnetic influence is not a black hole but a "coherent matter source" (not that different from a "pinhole" Airy source) which warps spacetime on the microscale as the inside of a spacetime while gravity is the effect we see at large on the outside of a spacetime. These are two sides of the one "fabric" (an interior of a smaller confining cavity and an external bounding cavity). Positively curved and negatively curved spacetime together. Gravity is by almost definition only positively curved influences while electromagnetism can perform "both" positive and negative "asymmetrical" curvature as standing waves in a Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Interpretation.
On a large scale we have SQUIDS and BEC's and we also have the influence of coherently arranged spatial matter particles creating quantum matter wave interferences. Each of these can produce "phase accumulations" and stationary states in quasi-stationary standing waves in which the advanced waves are unable to be recorded because they are "retrocausal" (except in the near field).
Cheers
The "slit" is not the system that we should be thinking about, it is the point source and not an linear extended source which is simply a series of point sources. The point source I really mean is the pinhole source since all sources must be extended to some extent. The result of this pinhole when illuminated by a coherent source is the quantum packets are either blocked at this "gateway" or they pass through. If they are "blocked" the obstruction acts as an absorber or reflector of the packets. The "instant" this occurs they "collapse" their state. In actual fact this is incorrect if we consider Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. We know "in the geometry of the packet itself" this absorption is a symmetric process to the emission of the photon originally. This is because quantum theory is time symmetric. This means the geometry is also time symmetric so we can swap the source and the sink's relative roles and the answers still come out the same. Yet from our perspective this is not able to be reconciled "geometrically" since photons expand from the original source or from secondary sources "parametrically". The state collapse then appears "magically" to form out of an apparently almost infinitely expanded inverse shadow which could technically cover "half the heavens"... especially if this light "particle" has been traveling for a few millions of years. Why is there this apparent discrepancy? On the one hand the photon comes from the single shell of a single atom, expand almost forever to cover a quite large extent then suddenly without apparent warning is "trapped" in a similar sized "speck" that is too small by any account to contain this vast expanded packet in the transverse direction and indeed is really too large to contain the photon whose wavelength is much bigger than the size if the shell it apparently originated from. Assuming the original photon "escaped" from a particular shell in a particular atom and then was captured by the same order shell in an identical atom 100 million light years away from the point of origin in a "symmetrical event" not unlike this animation run backwards...
Light Dipole after Dr. Lago
Regarding pinholes... When these photon packets "pass" this single pinhole they are restricted in size once more and are "reset" to the dimension of that pinhole as a secondary source. The spreading is "restarted" at "nearly" the diameter of the slit. Of course this is an unseen event for quanta that truly "pass" the slit. From there on the spreading continues to increase without limit until it is forced to "restart" again at another "intermediate source". At the slit the quanta are not actually confined to move as I have stated "exactly" since this Quantum Zeno expansion is still in the near field (evanescent field). The velocity of the phenomenon at this secondary source (the pinhole) "could become" infinite locally right there.... further away it "decelerates down" to the speed of light in the far field.
A Gedanken Experiment "suggests" if we observe this "unseen phenomena" from a different frame of time than that of the actual photons whose experience of time is only briefly experienced near or within that evanescent region but once again removed in the far field... We might be viewing this event from outside a block of glass for instance... We might notice that to travel along with this traveling "wave" the length contraction in the direction of motion would be not so noticeable and the "transverse spreading" would be the dominating phenomenon.
Since the photon continues to travel at the local speed of light the leading edge of this packet is in the forefront of this "wave" while the trailing edge is only slightly behind around a 1/2 wavelength away but still traveling at the same speed of light. The center of this packet is also moving forward at the speed of light as well. If we were to center a moving frame "origin" of the photons influence at it "still heart", the transverse spreading may seem to the external observer (not to the photon itself which cannot experience time) the packet is universally expanding fore , aft and transversely such that it is the center of a uniformly expanding sphere centered on the pinhole (which is relatively at rest in the frame of the block of the glass). This might be "experienced" from a moving observer frame such that the block of refracting material is a medium for an extreme example of "slow light" inside the block and we the observer are moving along outside at a very low actual translational velocity at the external relative velocity of this light as it propagates inside the block. Speeds of a few meters per second for light have been obtained in practical materials. A carriage on a rail could easily keep up with the light propagating in such in extreme material such that it "appears" relatively at rest in it's "frozen state of hibernation". In this "highly artificial" system the light quanta are entirely stationary relative to the moving observer except for the spreading of the packet and this is confined by some dimensions in the transverse and longitudinal directions. If we as observers were to "touch" this unseen spreading quanta it will instantly "shrink" due to a quantum Zeno reaction. Touch it too heavily it will be absorbed but several very light touches will cause the packet to be confined to a particular size as it continues to spread between "the intervals between touches". As your "touching finger" moves toward the packets the packets them selves will shrink away from the near influence of the presence of your finger. This will be an interesting "Gedanken" phenomena, one in which you really cannot truly know the consequence because unless you actually collapse this state you still do not know where these packets are. It is conceivable that many "very light touches" might have an influence through the Aharanov-Bohm Effect on the spreading electromagnetic wave "at a distance". These cumulative disturbances may tell us over a period of time to provide sufficient information of the presence of a traveling packet that is currently being restricted in extent by these "protective measurements".
On the one hand we have propagating light in a "highly refractive medium" plus the motion of an observer resulting in a semi-stationary optical packet whose "size" is confined only to spreading from an intermediate source (the pinhole). An analogous system can be considered of a single electron in a void in which a similar observer is now at rest. The electron is also "expanding parametrically" into the void while the stationary observer is making a number of very light protective measurements. The cumulative effect of many of these tiny "measurements" (or partial observations) is to simply confine the electron packet to a finite size and to detect it's presence from afar by the Aharanov-Bohm Effect once again. If no measurements were made on both systems (electron or photon) both packets would expand to fill any bounding cavity. In one case, the photon, a stationary photon packet is observed through a combination of refractive material that has altered the speed of light plus a relative motion to the refractive material... in the second case of an electron in a void, the void containing the "matter particle" confined in a "greater void" and can contain the electron alone and at "rest" and the observer is now "relatively" stationary. I suggest that the total composing mass of the photon in an electron is equivalent to a photon moving in an extreme refractive material (having an almost infinite optical density) and being "chased" by a moving "observer" (possibly not necessarily in a rectilinear path). This is a special relativistic effect and not a gravitational general relativistic effect. There are some existing experiments where the mass of electrons in "conducting systems" can depend on the motion of relatively moving particles in a refractive medium in which only the local speed of light and the relative motion is important. This is a subtle phenomenon and it is within our experimental capacity to prove at this time. This would confirm "mass" is due to "Special Relativity" and not "General Relativity"... regarding "cause and effects". The "influence" is an optical vortex that "symmetrizes" this geometry of advanced and retarded waves so that both positions are "equivalent".
There is no accident that the coherent images of an electron and the shadowgram of a single coherent photon source both "appear" to be a three dimensional and a two dimensional analog of the ideal Airy Disk respectively. These are the representations of these entities in a special motional space (as defined above).
The ideal Airy Disk
The ideal Airy disk is the "projection" or inner product of a sinc source. All sources can be considered composed of a series of interfering sync sources. In the case of light the sources are expanding from a central primary or secondary source and in the case of matter the expansion is from it's own central "internal" source which is creating it's own virtual cavity. The differences between these two states is in the intervening "lens" of spacetime and it's "spin motion". In the first case the stationary states depend on the size and distribution of the protective measurements made by a "feeble observer" moving with the "frozen but still expanding photons". In the second case of an electron these frozen and expanding confined photons have come pre-packaged in a refractive media of undulatory curved spacetime that has changed the speed of light near the source. That is the consistent framework... All particles and waves spread according to de Broglie's relationship in the vacuum and according to the natural "protective measurements" created by surrounding cavities which are the product of "stationary" matter wave patterns in space. Now with a special medium even light may be observed as a stationary pattern in space. Naturally this stationary wave pattern also must contain "topological charge" as one of the aspects of this phenomenon. In the case of "light particles" they are always moving at the speed of light but they still are spreading the same as an electron does into a "cavity" of some sort in a perfectly symmetric fashion according to weak observations made by a very special observer "outside the immediate environment" of the photon's rest frame.
Does this make sense to you at all? In this way "mass" is spacetime curvature and this is caused by "Special Relativity" not "General Relativity". The influences of each on the other is still spacetime curvature but electromagnetic influences are 10^41 times stronger than Gravity and so explains why it works so much better. "brute force" may create a "Black Hole" but electromagnetic influence is not a black hole but a "coherent matter source" (not that different from a "pinhole" Airy source) which warps spacetime on the microscale as the inside of a spacetime while gravity is the effect we see at large on the outside of a spacetime. These are two sides of the one "fabric" (an interior of a smaller confining cavity and an external bounding cavity). Positively curved and negatively curved spacetime together. Gravity is by almost definition only positively curved influences while electromagnetism can perform "both" positive and negative "asymmetrical" curvature as standing waves in a Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Interpretation.
On a large scale we have SQUIDS and BEC's and we also have the influence of coherently arranged spatial matter particles creating quantum matter wave interferences. Each of these can produce "phase accumulations" and stationary states in quasi-stationary standing waves in which the advanced waves are unable to be recorded because they are "retrocausal" (except in the near field).
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
interesting post. However I am missing the conversational value and the room for discussion in the way you present your ideas.
For purpose of keeping things on a step by step level, it would be nice to break down the concepts into its constituents. This will ensure that we wont be running around explaining stuff that does not need explaining.
Generally there are a couple of basic principles that you are trying to explain in you last mail. Since it seems to me that you are trying a little too much in one post we might best approach this top down.
Firstly both special and general relativity theory imply some underlying structure we call space-time but they fail to explain the origin and nature of this fabric. It does however show that interaction with this fabric can be seen as 'mass' and gravity.
Outside the scope is both EM and inertia. So to state that these are also an implicit property of the space-time fabric is hard to 'prove'.
Secondly, any theory built upon the vorticity , gradient or any other geometrical transformation of a property of space-time would therefore become an interesting mathematical exercise which inherently will be correct for the sake of its definitions.
This however does not start a new kind of Science at all. it is just a re-iteration of what has been done and will therefore not fill any gaps at all.
Why? it simply keeps us stuck within an Euclidean and Newtonian mindset with a relativity 'twist'.
so, either this mindset is correct or we are missing out on something much more profound here. In the latter case we need a new base model of some underlying structure which can facilitate and cater for the expression of all the properties that have been detected thus far.
why do we need a single structure for this?
In order to be able to let properties combine to give the impression of a 'particle' the coherence and 'entangledness' between each of the properties involved on a microscopic scale implies a single cause. This single 'cause' however could imply that on a quantum scale the properties would not necessarily need to be evenly distributed or even continuous. This in turn would imply that the 'particles' could pop in and out of existence seemingly random at any place and any time causing the notion of a probability field.
I could go on but i have some questions for you.
Since particles and their respective surrounding fields are one and the same, how does that integrate in your notion of waves and 'particles' ?
Best regards,
Jan Rinze.
interesting post. However I am missing the conversational value and the room for discussion in the way you present your ideas.
For purpose of keeping things on a step by step level, it would be nice to break down the concepts into its constituents. This will ensure that we wont be running around explaining stuff that does not need explaining.
Generally there are a couple of basic principles that you are trying to explain in you last mail. Since it seems to me that you are trying a little too much in one post we might best approach this top down.
Firstly both special and general relativity theory imply some underlying structure we call space-time but they fail to explain the origin and nature of this fabric. It does however show that interaction with this fabric can be seen as 'mass' and gravity.
Outside the scope is both EM and inertia. So to state that these are also an implicit property of the space-time fabric is hard to 'prove'.
Secondly, any theory built upon the vorticity , gradient or any other geometrical transformation of a property of space-time would therefore become an interesting mathematical exercise which inherently will be correct for the sake of its definitions.
This however does not start a new kind of Science at all. it is just a re-iteration of what has been done and will therefore not fill any gaps at all.
Why? it simply keeps us stuck within an Euclidean and Newtonian mindset with a relativity 'twist'.
so, either this mindset is correct or we are missing out on something much more profound here. In the latter case we need a new base model of some underlying structure which can facilitate and cater for the expression of all the properties that have been detected thus far.
why do we need a single structure for this?
In order to be able to let properties combine to give the impression of a 'particle' the coherence and 'entangledness' between each of the properties involved on a microscopic scale implies a single cause. This single 'cause' however could imply that on a quantum scale the properties would not necessarily need to be evenly distributed or even continuous. This in turn would imply that the 'particles' could pop in and out of existence seemingly random at any place and any time causing the notion of a probability field.
I could go on but i have some questions for you.
Since particles and their respective surrounding fields are one and the same, how does that integrate in your notion of waves and 'particles' ?
Best regards,
Jan Rinze.
Good Elf et al
QUOTE: "That way they don't need to be continuous (in one place) nor that they need to 'exist' at every moment in time."
Happy to see that you accept the idea of oscillating and discreteness. BTW - do you think that continuity is an option at all ?
QUOTE: "What is important appears to be relative coordinates produced by the difference between two "systems of different energy". Energy is similarly scaled in as much as it is not an absolute but a relative phenomena subject to an arbitrary "zero point" which is probably the result of a stray constant, the result of an integration. If the integration is "definite" between two specified "levels" then there is no constant to worry about."
May I take this as a token that you accept the importance of SCALE - and the importance of sharp phase -transistions - like in the pixel-concept ?
QUOTE: "The point source I really mean is the pinhole source since all sources must be extended to some extent."
May I take this as a token that you accept that point-particles or shall we say points - they are not into existance - or do you see some special cases where points are into existance - and now I am not referring to conditions where points are being used for convenience - but to the much more stringent - does a point EXIST ?
QUOTE: "That way they don't need to be continuous (in one place) nor that they need to 'exist' at every moment in time."
Happy to see that you accept the idea of oscillating and discreteness. BTW - do you think that continuity is an option at all ?
QUOTE: "What is important appears to be relative coordinates produced by the difference between two "systems of different energy". Energy is similarly scaled in as much as it is not an absolute but a relative phenomena subject to an arbitrary "zero point" which is probably the result of a stray constant, the result of an integration. If the integration is "definite" between two specified "levels" then there is no constant to worry about."
May I take this as a token that you accept the importance of SCALE - and the importance of sharp phase -transistions - like in the pixel-concept ?
QUOTE: "The point source I really mean is the pinhole source since all sources must be extended to some extent."
May I take this as a token that you accept that point-particles or shall we say points - they are not into existance - or do you see some special cases where points are into existance - and now I am not referring to conditions where points are being used for convenience - but to the much more stringent - does a point EXIST ?
QUOTE (janrinze+May 8 2008, 05:13 PM)
Since particles and their respective surrounding fields are one and the same, how does that integrate in your notion of waves and 'particles' ?
hi jan
I do not want to intrude, but I wanted to mention that waves and particles must have critical geometrical differences, although they are built form the same "stuff=field".
E.g. particle can be related to closed loop of space time on itself which means certain stabilizing/localizing feedback is at work, and appearance of (finite bandwidth) filtering properties Good Elf has mentioned elsewhere, while waves in general have a problem to localize themselves. So in my interpretation, if particles are "field" products, it is a field with feedback. Vortex seems to serve this notion well, and the question is what goes on inside space time vortex? The answer obviously is not obtainable yet since turbulence in general has evaded explanation. So to expect exact solution for space time fields to appear before turbulence is solved is naive, at best, but space time turbulence must be the simplest there is because of reference speed c and other fundamental constants which are well known.
hi jan
I do not want to intrude, but I wanted to mention that waves and particles must have critical geometrical differences, although they are built form the same "stuff=field".
E.g. particle can be related to closed loop of space time on itself which means certain stabilizing/localizing feedback is at work, and appearance of (finite bandwidth) filtering properties Good Elf has mentioned elsewhere, while waves in general have a problem to localize themselves. So in my interpretation, if particles are "field" products, it is a field with feedback. Vortex seems to serve this notion well, and the question is what goes on inside space time vortex? The answer obviously is not obtainable yet since turbulence in general has evaded explanation. So to expect exact solution for space time fields to appear before turbulence is solved is naive, at best, but space time turbulence must be the simplest there is because of reference speed c and other fundamental constants which are well known.
QUOTE (Ivars+May 8 2008, 07:27 PM)
hi jan
I do not want to intrude, but I wanted to mention that waves and particles must have critical geometrical differences, although they are built form the same "stuff=field".
E.g. particle can be related to closed loop of space time on itself which means certain stabilizing/localizing feedback is at work, and appearance of (finite bandwidth) filtering properties Good Elf has mentioned elsewhere, while waves in general have a problem to localize themselves. So in my interpretation, if particles are "field" products, it is a field with feedback. Vortex seems to serve this notion well, and the question is what goes on inside space time vortex? The answer obviously is not obtainable yet since turbulence in general has evaded explanation. So to expect exact solution for space time fields to appear before turbulence is solved is naive, at best, but space time turbulence must be the simplest there is because of reference speed c and other fundamental constants which are well known.
hi Ivars,
No problem, there is no intruding here since it is an open forum.
How come you would like the space-time to be like a fluid?
Do you know that fluids are just an expression of large scale behavior of loosely coupled 'particles'? would this imply a recursive definition of space-time?
regards,
Jan Rinze.
I do not want to intrude, but I wanted to mention that waves and particles must have critical geometrical differences, although they are built form the same "stuff=field".
E.g. particle can be related to closed loop of space time on itself which means certain stabilizing/localizing feedback is at work, and appearance of (finite bandwidth) filtering properties Good Elf has mentioned elsewhere, while waves in general have a problem to localize themselves. So in my interpretation, if particles are "field" products, it is a field with feedback. Vortex seems to serve this notion well, and the question is what goes on inside space time vortex? The answer obviously is not obtainable yet since turbulence in general has evaded explanation. So to expect exact solution for space time fields to appear before turbulence is solved is naive, at best, but space time turbulence must be the simplest there is because of reference speed c and other fundamental constants which are well known.
hi Ivars,
No problem, there is no intruding here since it is an open forum.
How come you would like the space-time to be like a fluid?
Do you know that fluids are just an expression of large scale behavior of loosely coupled 'particles'? would this imply a recursive definition of space-time?
regards,
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (janrinze+May 8 2008, 07:53 PM)
How come you would like the space-time to be like a fluid?
Do you know that fluids are just an expression of large scale behavior of loosely coupled 'particles'? would this imply a recursive definition of space-time?
hi jan,
I am not sure about "fluid", since the space time flow could be rather peculiar. Perhaps closer to superfluid, but still one has to be careful not to stick to limited definitions too early.
The vorticity I mention is essentially vorticity of (imaginary) time. Space like loops are sometimes considered non-physical, but that does not mean they can not exist. Obviously, large scale behavior of loosely coupled particles would not explain space time, while "loosely coupled infinitesimal things of different shapes with certain velocity distributions that are neither waves nor looped waves =particles" might do better, but then they would not exist in 3D space, they would create their own varying space time dimensionality locally. There would not be any 3D space, to start with. "Empty" space would not be a 3D space, but more like potential space whose dimensionality would appear along with things filling it. Such space time would have locally fractal dimensionality.
However, obviously such "field" would require speeds above c to exist for things forming its properties, and existence of speeds above c by definition would exclude existence of particles in it prior to looping of (imaginary) time. So that fluid does not contain particles in usual sense for sure - first , they do not have volume in 3D, second, they may move with speeds higher than c.
The definition of space time there fore is not recursive, it just have to wait, as defining such an ultimate thing like space time or field in beginning of investigation by definition excludes the possibility to find out what it is like as it allows only to test 1 hypothesis included in such a definition.
Do you know that fluids are just an expression of large scale behavior of loosely coupled 'particles'? would this imply a recursive definition of space-time?
hi jan,
I am not sure about "fluid", since the space time flow could be rather peculiar. Perhaps closer to superfluid, but still one has to be careful not to stick to limited definitions too early.
The vorticity I mention is essentially vorticity of (imaginary) time. Space like loops are sometimes considered non-physical, but that does not mean they can not exist. Obviously, large scale behavior of loosely coupled particles would not explain space time, while "loosely coupled infinitesimal things of different shapes with certain velocity distributions that are neither waves nor looped waves =particles" might do better, but then they would not exist in 3D space, they would create their own varying space time dimensionality locally. There would not be any 3D space, to start with. "Empty" space would not be a 3D space, but more like potential space whose dimensionality would appear along with things filling it. Such space time would have locally fractal dimensionality.
However, obviously such "field" would require speeds above c to exist for things forming its properties, and existence of speeds above c by definition would exclude existence of particles in it prior to looping of (imaginary) time. So that fluid does not contain particles in usual sense for sure - first , they do not have volume in 3D, second, they may move with speeds higher than c.
The definition of space time there fore is not recursive, it just have to wait, as defining such an ultimate thing like space time or field in beginning of investigation by definition excludes the possibility to find out what it is like as it allows only to test 1 hypothesis included in such a definition.
Hi Jan Rinze, Ivars, bukh et al,
A certain experimental framework exists already for for these "topological optical defects".
A certain experimental framework exists already for for these "topological optical defects".
QUOTE (Bukh+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
: "The point source I really mean is the pinhole source since all sources must be extended to some extent."
May I take this as a token that you accept that point-particles or shall we say points - they are not into existence - or do you see some special cases where points are into existence - and now I am not referring to conditions where points are being used for convenience - but to the much more stringent - does a point EXIST ?
These "points" are taken from the macroscopic experimental realm. I "partially" grasp your pixel concept as a kind of "cell" used in computation to sum to an extended process such as those used in certain models of particle QCD for instance. As a practical process to evolve an "underlying mechanism" it "appears to me" to be not as useful. The "pixel" as you have described it is an infinitesimally extended object to accommodate current particle concepts.
These "point sources" or "point particles", as you have put it, are really extended objects that are the size that a genuine Sheffield steel pin can put in a thin card or foil at optical wavelengths... or the size of a Deep Space Radio Telescope "Dish" at radio frequencies. These act as secondary Quantum Zeno Sources for incoming or transmitted individual quantized photons for the propagating and spreading quantum wavelet in an optical "Minkowski flatspace". Once again the idea of "propagation" rather than "moving" should be stressed since the "rest frame" of these optical systems are only relatively observed since the states the photons are in are stationary states and unobserved they are "frozen in time" and temporarily (relative to observer time) "beyond" all dynamic processes until they are "detected" by virtue of the process of propagating at the local speed of light. I am not trying to "baffle people with science" here I am actually pointing out the "experimentally obvious" since experiments exist already that fill in a lot of this intervening theory between Particle QED and Circuit Cavity QED where single photon quantum states may trap a single photon in a Quantum Zeno process for relatively long periods of time. There can be no single particle descriptions in quantum particle descriptions since all such descriptions are mathematical artifice. A single propagating photon has no "statistics"... it has a history and thus a destiny. Each coherent photon is "accumulating phase" around a cavity and in a stationary state... not moving... frozen. With an imperfect cavity the photon is "scattered" after a few billion loops or so but "nothing lasts forever".
There is a certain "flatness" regarding all our space over cosmologically short distances. There is a divergence away from "flatness" over cosmologically large distances and over microscopically short distances as defined by the "observing" frequency or wavelength of the radiation (the most usefully source is coherent radiation). No "special cases" and these phenomena are reciprocal to concept of dimensional space. Energetic quanta are small and low energy quanta age big... sometimes very big... maybe much bigger than you.
In a holographic interpretation of a single transactional universe made up of single photon transactions all of which each photon quanta individually come from its own source and eventually destined through it's particular history to a particular fate by Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Transactions. This is shown in experiments related to source coherent phenomena where the Uncertainty relationship is a "fixed" and rigid process with almost no statistical behavior. In these "squeezed states" the relationships are not...
∆E.∆T ≥ ћ
but...
∆E.∆T = ћ (for regulated states where quantum "noise" is suppressed)
I have this point covered in another post...
Light, compostion of light
Certain holograms can "craft" individual photon packets to exhibit coherent "gravity" such as in the experimentally verified phenomena of truncated Airy Packets. These are "self accelerating". The way to do this is to spread the photon packets and pass then through a specially prepared optical mask that "truncates" the natural Airy Packet to cause it to self accelerate in free space in an partial optical vortex. These are stationary spatial patterns not moving spatial patterns.
Here is another paper indicating the general approach that might be found in many sources. One important "complete" source is Carver Mead;s Collective Electrodynamics which I have linked elsewhere but a full description is to be found in his book.
Here is another paper indicating the general approach that might be found in many sources. One important "complete" source is Carver Mead;s Collective Electrodynamics which I have linked elsewhere but a full description is to be found in his book.
Theory of Frozen Waves
M. Zamboni-Rached, and H. E. Hernandez-Figueroa
Abstract – In this work, starting by suitable superpositions of equal-frequency Bessel beams, we develop a theoretical and experimental methodology to obtain localized stationary wave fields, with high transverse localization, whose longitudinal intensity pattern can approximately assume any desired shape within a chosen interval 0 ≤ z ≤ L of the propagation axis z. Their intensity envelope remains static, i.e. with velocity v = 0; so that we have named “Frozen Waves” (FW) these new solutions to the wave equations (and, in particular, to the Maxwell equations). Inside the envelope of a FW only the carrier wave does propagate: And the longitudinal shape, within the interval 0 ≤ z ≤ L, can be chosen in such a way that no non-negligible field exists outside the pre-determined region (consisting, e.g., in one or more high intensity peaks). Our solutions are noticeable also for the different and interesting applications they can have, especially in electromagnetism and acoustics, such as optical tweezers, atom guides, optical or acoustic bistouries, various important medical apparata, etc.
Work partially supported by MIUR and INFN (Italy), and by FAPESP (Brazil). This paper did first appear as e-print physics/*******. E-mail addresses for contacts: mzamboni@dmo.fee.unicamp.br;recami@mi.infn.it
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502105v1
These "point sources" or "point particles", as you have put it, are really extended objects that are the size that a genuine Sheffield steel pin can put in a thin card or foil at optical wavelengths... or the size of a Deep Space Radio Telescope "Dish" at radio frequencies. These act as secondary Quantum Zeno Sources for incoming or transmitted individual quantized photons for the propagating and spreading quantum wavelet in an optical "Minkowski flatspace". Once again the idea of "propagation" rather than "moving" should be stressed since the "rest frame" of these optical systems are only relatively observed since the states the photons are in are stationary states and unobserved they are "frozen in time" and temporarily (relative to observer time) "beyond" all dynamic processes until they are "detected" by virtue of the process of propagating at the local speed of light. I am not trying to "baffle people with science" here I am actually pointing out the "experimentally obvious" since experiments exist already that fill in a lot of this intervening theory between Particle QED and Circuit Cavity QED where single photon quantum states may trap a single photon in a Quantum Zeno process for relatively long periods of time. There can be no single particle descriptions in quantum particle descriptions since all such descriptions are mathematical artifice. A single propagating photon has no "statistics"... it has a history and thus a destiny. Each coherent photon is "accumulating phase" around a cavity and in a stationary state... not moving... frozen. With an imperfect cavity the photon is "scattered" after a few billion loops or so but "nothing lasts forever".
There is a certain "flatness" regarding all our space over cosmologically short distances. There is a divergence away from "flatness" over cosmologically large distances and over microscopically short distances as defined by the "observing" frequency or wavelength of the radiation (the most usefully source is coherent radiation). No "special cases" and these phenomena are reciprocal to concept of dimensional space. Energetic quanta are small and low energy quanta age big... sometimes very big... maybe much bigger than you. In a holographic interpretation of a single transactional universe made up of single photon transactions all of which each photon quanta individually come from its own source and eventually destined through it's particular history to a particular fate by Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Transactions. This is shown in experiments related to source coherent phenomena where the Uncertainty relationship is a "fixed" and rigid process with almost no statistical behavior. In these "squeezed states" the relationships are not...
∆E.∆T ≥ ћ
but...
∆E.∆T = ћ (for regulated states where quantum "noise" is suppressed)
I have this point covered in another post...
Light, compostion of light
Certain holograms can "craft" individual photon packets to exhibit coherent "gravity" such as in the experimentally verified phenomena of truncated Airy Packets. These are "self accelerating". The way to do this is to spread the photon packets and pass then through a specially prepared optical mask that "truncates" the natural Airy Packet to cause it to self accelerate in free space in an partial optical vortex. These are stationary spatial patterns not moving spatial patterns.
QUOTE
Nonspreading wave packets
M. V, Berry N. L. Balazs
Received 30 Jane 1978 accepted 12 September 1978)
We show that for a wave ψ in the form of an Airy function the probability density |ψ|² propagates in free space without distortion and with constant acceleration. This 'Airy packet' corresponds classically to a family of orbits represented by a parabola in phase space; under the classical motion this parabola translates rigidly, and the fact that no other curve has this property shows that the Airy packet is unique in propagating without change of form. The acceleration of the packet (which does not violate Ehrenfest's theorem) is related to the curvature of the caustic (envelope) of the family of world lines in spacetme. When a spatially uniform force F(t) acts the Airy packet continues to preserve its integrity. We exhibit the solution of hrödinger's equation's equation for general F(t) and discuss the motion for some special forms of F(t).
...[..] In SecIII we show that Airy packets continue to propagate without spreading when a spatially uniform force F(t) can reduce the wave to rest, and an oscillatory F(t) stimulates the packet into a secular drift with superimposed oscillations.
.... [..] the correctness of this solution can be found in two different ways : (a) by evaluating Feynman's path Integral for the propagator of the Schrödinger equation, and then integrating over the initial wave; and ( b ) by solving the Schrödinger equation in momentum representation using the method of characteristics.
... [..] Moreover, the role played by the caustic shows dramatically how features of wave functions can be dominated by forms (envelopes of families of orbits, which can accelerate , even in empty space) rather than things (individual particles, which are constrained to move with constant velocity).
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/Berry_mv/...rs/Berry078.pdf
M. V, Berry N. L. Balazs
Received 30 Jane 1978 accepted 12 September 1978)
We show that for a wave ψ in the form of an Airy function the probability density |ψ|² propagates in free space without distortion and with constant acceleration. This 'Airy packet' corresponds classically to a family of orbits represented by a parabola in phase space; under the classical motion this parabola translates rigidly, and the fact that no other curve has this property shows that the Airy packet is unique in propagating without change of form. The acceleration of the packet (which does not violate Ehrenfest's theorem) is related to the curvature of the caustic (envelope) of the family of world lines in spacetme. When a spatially uniform force F(t) acts the Airy packet continues to preserve its integrity. We exhibit the solution of hrödinger's equation's equation for general F(t) and discuss the motion for some special forms of F(t).
...[..] In SecIII we show that Airy packets continue to propagate without spreading when a spatially uniform force F(t) can reduce the wave to rest, and an oscillatory F(t) stimulates the packet into a secular drift with superimposed oscillations.
.... [..] the correctness of this solution can be found in two different ways : (a) by evaluating Feynman's path Integral for the propagator of the Schrödinger equation, and then integrating over the initial wave; and ( b ) by solving the Schrödinger equation in momentum representation using the method of characteristics.
... [..] Moreover, the role played by the caustic shows dramatically how features of wave functions can be dominated by forms (envelopes of families of orbits, which can accelerate , even in empty space) rather than things (individual particles, which are constrained to move with constant velocity).
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/Berry_mv/...rs/Berry078.pdf
Here is another paper indicating the general approach that might be found in many sources. One important "complete" source is Carver Mead;s Collective Electrodynamics which I have linked elsewhere but a full description is to be found in his book.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nonspreading wave packets M. V, Berry N. L. Balazs Received 30 Jane 1978 accepted 12 September 1978) We show that for a wave ψ in the form of an Airy function the probability density |ψ|² propagates in free space without distortion and with constant acceleration. This 'Airy packet' corresponds classically to a family of orbits represented by a parabola in phase space; under the classical motion this parabola translates rigidly, and the fact that no other curve has this property shows that the Airy packet is unique in propagating without change of form. The acceleration of the packet (which does not violate Ehrenfest's theorem) is related to the curvature of the caustic (envelope) of the family of world lines in spacetme. When a spatially uniform force F(t) acts the Airy packet continues to preserve its integrity. We exhibit the solution of hrödinger's equation's equation for general F(t) and discuss the motion for some special forms of F(t). ...[..] In SecIII we show that Airy packets continue to propagate without spreading when a spatially uniform force F(t) can reduce the wave to rest, and an oscillatory F(t) stimulates the packet into a secular drift with superimposed oscillations. .... [..] the correctness of this solution can be found in two different ways : (a) by evaluating Feynman's path Integral for the propagator of the Schrödinger equation, and then integrating over the initial wave; and ( b ) by solving the Schrödinger equation in momentum representation using the method of characteristics. ... [..] Moreover, the role played by the caustic shows dramatically how features of wave functions can be dominated by forms (envelopes of families of orbits, which can accelerate , even in empty space) rather than things (individual particles, which are constrained to move with constant velocity). http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/Berry_mv/...rs/Berry078.pdf |
Here is another paper indicating the general approach that might be found in many sources. One important "complete" source is Carver Mead;s Collective Electrodynamics which I have linked elsewhere but a full description is to be found in his book.
Theory of Frozen Waves
M. Zamboni-Rached, and H. E. Hernandez-Figueroa
Abstract – In this work, starting by suitable superpositions of equal-frequency Bessel beams, we develop a theoretical and experimental methodology to obtain localized stationary wave fields, with high transverse localization, whose longitudinal intensity pattern can approximately assume any desired shape within a chosen interval 0 ≤ z ≤ L of the propagation axis z. Their intensity envelope remains static, i.e. with velocity v = 0; so that we have named “Frozen Waves” (FW) these new solutions to the wave equations (and, in particular, to the Maxwell equations). Inside the envelope of a FW only the carrier wave does propagate: And the longitudinal shape, within the interval 0 ≤ z ≤ L, can be chosen in such a way that no non-negligible field exists outside the pre-determined region (consisting, e.g., in one or more high intensity peaks). Our solutions are noticeable also for the different and interesting applications they can have, especially in electromagnetism and acoustics, such as optical tweezers, atom guides, optical or acoustic bistouries, various important medical apparata, etc.
Work partially supported by MIUR and INFN (Italy), and by FAPESP (Brazil). This paper did first appear as e-print physics/*******. E-mail addresses for contacts: mzamboni@dmo.fee.unicamp.br;recami@mi.infn.it
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502105v1
IMHO these "frozen waves" are an attempt to describe the stationary states caused by Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Phenomena in structured spacetime due to the presence of de Broglie matter waves. I would like to remind everyone that these sculptured wave packets are a physical reality and this form of pseudo-force is produced by certain holographic masks acting on suitably diverged wavepackets. See "Light Beam with a Curve" Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 213901.
"Accelerating Finite Energy Airy Beams," Opt. Lett. 32, 979 (2007).
or in this reference where the actual masks are presented...
Scientists make first observation of Airy optical beams
I will discuss more on these interesting phenomena later but these phenomena represent a 'pseudo force" a kind of spatial interfering "mass" concentration exerting a torque in free space on matter... easily understood through Fourier Theory in a spatial cavity with phase periodicity.
Cheers
"Accelerating Finite Energy Airy Beams," Opt. Lett. 32, 979 (2007).
or in this reference where the actual masks are presented...
QUOTE
Observation of Accelerating Airy Beams
G. A. Siviloglou, J. Broky, A. Dogariu, and D. N. Christodoulides*
College of Optics/CREOL, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816, USA
(Received 15 August 2007; published 20 November 2007)
We report the first observation of Airy optical beams. This intriguing class of wave packets, initially predicted by Berry and Balazs in 1979, has been realized in both one- and two-dimensional configurations.
As demonstrated in our experiments, these Airy beams can exhibit unusual features such as the ability to remain diffraction-free over long distances while they tend to freely accelerate during propagation.
G. A. Siviloglou, J. Broky, A. Dogariu, and D. N. Christodoulides*
College of Optics/CREOL, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816, USA
(Received 15 August 2007; published 20 November 2007)
We report the first observation of Airy optical beams. This intriguing class of wave packets, initially predicted by Berry and Balazs in 1979, has been realized in both one- and two-dimensional configurations.
As demonstrated in our experiments, these Airy beams can exhibit unusual features such as the ability to remain diffraction-free over long distances while they tend to freely accelerate during propagation.
Scientists make first observation of Airy optical beams
I will discuss more on these interesting phenomena later but these phenomena represent a 'pseudo force" a kind of spatial interfering "mass" concentration exerting a torque in free space on matter... easily understood through Fourier Theory in a spatial cavity with phase periodicity.
Cheers
hej Good Elf, jan , bukh
Interesting links. Would You know any reference for de broglie waves /Schrodinger equation using fractional discrete with (infinite modes) Fourier transform? What I am looking for is kind of standing fractional waves of (imaginary) time which might form spatial and time scales inside the Kolmogorov vortex of time, which again would serve as source of cooling radiation of high frequency- the one that is being demodulated by particles-filters and express itself as EM field. (May be I am using Fourier decomposition little wrongly here, open to improvements).
I am looking at idea that internal AND external structure of any space time vortex has to be possible to decompose in Fourier series of fractional de broglie wave lenghts (relative to its circumference) and that Kolmogorov vortex of time should be the simplest ( but not simple) case since its Scale /time ratios would be either c or rational multiples of c ( presumably, inside it structures will have smaller scales and faster speeds). This relates to Quantum Hall effect as well since one option to explain it is have fractional spins instead of h and fractional Heisenberg uncertainty as well.
That necessarily involves principal, step like change (increase of k in kT) in external thermal character of energy of this radiation ( and space time inside vortex) with each fractional mode inside vortex.
As to outside modes, these are interesting as well , most likely
The imaginary character of time might play important role in this Fourier transform since otherwise it would not be possible to obtain STANDING wave structures from fractional wavelenghts.
Interesting links. Would You know any reference for de broglie waves /Schrodinger equation using fractional discrete with (infinite modes) Fourier transform? What I am looking for is kind of standing fractional waves of (imaginary) time which might form spatial and time scales inside the Kolmogorov vortex of time, which again would serve as source of cooling radiation of high frequency- the one that is being demodulated by particles-filters and express itself as EM field. (May be I am using Fourier decomposition little wrongly here, open to improvements).
I am looking at idea that internal AND external structure of any space time vortex has to be possible to decompose in Fourier series of fractional de broglie wave lenghts (relative to its circumference) and that Kolmogorov vortex of time should be the simplest ( but not simple) case since its Scale /time ratios would be either c or rational multiples of c ( presumably, inside it structures will have smaller scales and faster speeds). This relates to Quantum Hall effect as well since one option to explain it is have fractional spins instead of h and fractional Heisenberg uncertainty as well.
That necessarily involves principal, step like change (increase of k in kT) in external thermal character of energy of this radiation ( and space time inside vortex) with each fractional mode inside vortex.
As to outside modes, these are interesting as well , most likely
The imaginary character of time might play important role in this Fourier transform since otherwise it would not be possible to obtain STANDING wave structures from fractional wavelenghts.
An interesting link where discreteness and continuity is linked via time scales mathematics. Here the notion of discreteness has been generalized which I find very interesting, and because of applications to (non-linear) dynamic equations the name time appears in pure math- which is also as it should be.
Time scales mathematics
Especially interesting is concept of "graininess" of time scales. Discrete time has graininess= 1. I wonder if this could be linked to scales we define at Kolmogorov vortex, namely, the time scale of outer edge of Kolmogorov vortex is 100% discrete, and is 1. As we go inside K-vortex, we obtain fractional time scales and fractional standing waves which in my opinion gives time which is in between continuous and discrete.
Next I wonder how would Fourier analysis be applicable to such times - partly discrete,partly continuous?
Also, this approach offers generalization of complex unit circle in terms of signal processing which by itself is a no mean feat.
Here is an excerpt from the site:
In Laplace transforms of continuous time signals, we have the s plane. In the z-transform of discrete time signals, there is the unit circle. In time scales, both are special cases of the Hilger circle shown here. The Hilger circle has a diameter equal to the reciprocal of graininess and is tangent to the imaginary axis.
For discrete time, the graininess is one.
Time scales mathematics
Especially interesting is concept of "graininess" of time scales. Discrete time has graininess= 1. I wonder if this could be linked to scales we define at Kolmogorov vortex, namely, the time scale of outer edge of Kolmogorov vortex is 100% discrete, and is 1. As we go inside K-vortex, we obtain fractional time scales and fractional standing waves which in my opinion gives time which is in between continuous and discrete.
Next I wonder how would Fourier analysis be applicable to such times - partly discrete,partly continuous?
Also, this approach offers generalization of complex unit circle in terms of signal processing which by itself is a no mean feat.
Here is an excerpt from the site:
In Laplace transforms of continuous time signals, we have the s plane. In the z-transform of discrete time signals, there is the unit circle. In time scales, both are special cases of the Hilger circle shown here. The Hilger circle has a diameter equal to the reciprocal of graininess and is tangent to the imaginary axis.
For discrete time, the graininess is one.
Hi janrinze, bukh, dawn, Ivars, "THEY", Gorgeous, Montec, Sandra doliak, Majkl, Confused2, mr_homm, mtallingham, rmuldavin, fizzeksman et al,
Apologies here ... I have posted this in the "wrong" place but it is also relevant since it is answering the same problem...
Light, compostion of light Good Elf
Apologies here ... I have posted this in the "wrong" place but it is also relevant since it is answering the same problem...
Light, compostion of light Good Elf
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Neither is Milo Wollf alone. It should also be noted that there is a growing number of contemporary scientists, both physics-based and philosophical, who are working industriously 'outside' of government funded work. Yuri Ivanov took the SSW work in a new direction, and Milo Wolff added his work on electrons to it...
This is NOT some 'crackpot' theory, it just doesn't 'sit well' with the money people, at the moment. However, nobody can hold back the truth forever, and that is just as 'true' for everyone, so if WSM is Honestly found to be erroneous, I think the first people to acknowledge the fact will be the people involved with it, as these are Real scientists, who actually care about true understanding, and not just the funding involved!
This is NOT some 'crackpot' theory, it just doesn't 'sit well' with the money people, at the moment. However, nobody can hold back the truth forever, and that is just as 'true' for everyone, so if WSM is Honestly found to be erroneous, I think the first people to acknowledge the fact will be the people involved with it, as these are Real scientists, who actually care about true understanding, and not just the funding involved!
Milo Wollf's ideas are fine and I am sure this is a fruitful concept but as far as I can see (... and I have not looked into it too far) it does not incorporate the concept of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. The other point is the actual way in which this theory "embeds" into our Universe must dovetail with out observations as being a background independent theory. We actually "observe" these standing waves as part of a "darkened universe" devoid of light, matter waves are still there in fact they would grow to fill that space if there were no other interactions because of de Broglie's Matter Wave Hypothesis. Matter waves are a "fact of life" and they are not some "constant" in our universe but are simultaneously "extended" and "limited" by mutual interactions of virtual cavities through standing waves and their electromagnetic resonances which add and subtract vectorially through three dimensional space (and time) using integer "phase accumulations" (not fractional phase accumulations?). These "phase accumulations" are, photon by photon and fermion by fermion, spatial standing waves. The instantaneous nature is "limited" by the speed of light while the transactions are propagatdd at infinite velocity. The transactions "hide" this underlying spacetime symmetry because of the need to be causal. However anti-causal or retro-causal phenomena may be detected through observation of the evanescent field of single interactions. The potential also exists for single fermion particle creation.
In the case of the photon these standing waves "propagate" in our time at the speed of light but the interactions are instantaneous (a resonance along the null geodesic in spacetime connecting the source and the sink in a single "event" in which these two "sites" emit a "wave"... the source emits a retarded wave and the sink emits an advanced wave). The "photon" is the sum of these waves and is the quantum of energy being transferred. In between these two places in space is time and distance and these are the result of "mass". These interactions can also be "dissipative" in such ways as they are not "absolutely perfectly" time symmetric allowing the energy of the interaction to be transferred and "eventually" redistributed for a new purpose at the target sink. Of course the energy can also be used to create particles and anti-particles too but the symmetry is "too perfect" to last. This is the underlying reason for time itself and the subtle reason why time cannot be perfectly symmetric. The photons are also created "on demand" (they are their own antiparticle and they are the force carriers in our Universe) and their energy can be transferred "on demand" and the "accountancy" used for these 'particles" is not "enforced"... observe the radio antenna mast's capability to "create" vast numbers of them "coherently" and the ability of the surrounding landscape to absorb them easily and redistribute that energy in the "time domain".
Regarding fermions these "particles" are "essentially" the same kind of "stuff" as the photons (the photon being more primitive and elementary and created in a flatspace) they are "equivalent to the energy of creation of a very high energy photon, but the topology of spacetime is actually "knotted", therefore through the symmetry Law of CPT they have a high preservation rate and only a transfer of a quantum with the exactly right geometry can "unzip" them. Our Universe has "lots" of these but they were created in an asymmetric event "very early on". Particle accelerators "usually" do not utilize this inner knot symmetry to perform "transformations" preferring the "big hammer" approach of particle creation in which higher and higher energy "resonances" are formed. The theory is if you use a big enough hammer you can build anything. A cleaver craftsman should try and understand his materials and realize there is one kind of "creation" we are not able to synthesize... try and create "just one fermion" by itself and in that operation you will be able to understand all the rest. I am not saying this is impossible but it is a subtle manipulation requiring more "craft". The fermions are created in pairs each separate particle of the pair are the knot and the anti-knot of each other (the spacetime "tape" the knot is made from has "at least" two sides) .... the particle and antiparticle are Tweedledee and Tweedledum entiomorphs inside out wrappings of each other. The spacetime knot involves time "running in a relative reverse direction" to the time in it's identical "companion" when created in pairs. This is the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of the antiparticle and this "ensures" a Transactional Interpretation of spacetime as a particle as enunciated by John Cramer. As I have said previously this "solves" many curious questions regarding time and the Baryongenesis event at about one second after the beginning of our Universe, while this "knot" is the topological inverse of the other particle it solves the "riddle" regarding charge as being a topological standing wave of the electromagnetic field as a spatial "carpet" that extends way out "to infinity" when summed "incoherently" with vast quantities of similar particles as "gravity". Time has it's perfect place in that framework. I hope this assists in putting this concept into its rightful framework. It is a great oversimplification but it is the "wave of the future" to coin an awful pun.
In the case of the photon these standing waves "propagate" in our time at the speed of light but the interactions are instantaneous (a resonance along the null geodesic in spacetime connecting the source and the sink in a single "event" in which these two "sites" emit a "wave"... the source emits a retarded wave and the sink emits an advanced wave). The "photon" is the sum of these waves and is the quantum of energy being transferred. In between these two places in space is time and distance and these are the result of "mass". These interactions can also be "dissipative" in such ways as they are not "absolutely perfectly" time symmetric allowing the energy of the interaction to be transferred and "eventually" redistributed for a new purpose at the target sink. Of course the energy can also be used to create particles and anti-particles too but the symmetry is "too perfect" to last. This is the underlying reason for time itself and the subtle reason why time cannot be perfectly symmetric. The photons are also created "on demand" (they are their own antiparticle and they are the force carriers in our Universe) and their energy can be transferred "on demand" and the "accountancy" used for these 'particles" is not "enforced"... observe the radio antenna mast's capability to "create" vast numbers of them "coherently" and the ability of the surrounding landscape to absorb them easily and redistribute that energy in the "time domain".
Regarding fermions these "particles" are "essentially" the same kind of "stuff" as the photons (the photon being more primitive and elementary and created in a flatspace) they are "equivalent to the energy of creation of a very high energy photon, but the topology of spacetime is actually "knotted", therefore through the symmetry Law of CPT they have a high preservation rate and only a transfer of a quantum with the exactly right geometry can "unzip" them. Our Universe has "lots" of these but they were created in an asymmetric event "very early on". Particle accelerators "usually" do not utilize this inner knot symmetry to perform "transformations" preferring the "big hammer" approach of particle creation in which higher and higher energy "resonances" are formed. The theory is if you use a big enough hammer you can build anything. A cleaver craftsman should try and understand his materials and realize there is one kind of "creation" we are not able to synthesize... try and create "just one fermion" by itself and in that operation you will be able to understand all the rest. I am not saying this is impossible but it is a subtle manipulation requiring more "craft". The fermions are created in pairs each separate particle of the pair are the knot and the anti-knot of each other (the spacetime "tape" the knot is made from has "at least" two sides) .... the particle and antiparticle are Tweedledee and Tweedledum entiomorphs inside out wrappings of each other. The spacetime knot involves time "running in a relative reverse direction" to the time in it's identical "companion" when created in pairs. This is the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of the antiparticle and this "ensures" a Transactional Interpretation of spacetime as a particle as enunciated by John Cramer. As I have said previously this "solves" many curious questions regarding time and the Baryongenesis event at about one second after the beginning of our Universe, while this "knot" is the topological inverse of the other particle it solves the "riddle" regarding charge as being a topological standing wave of the electromagnetic field as a spatial "carpet" that extends way out "to infinity" when summed "incoherently" with vast quantities of similar particles as "gravity". Time has it's perfect place in that framework. I hope this assists in putting this concept into its rightful framework. It is a great oversimplification but it is the "wave of the future" to coin an awful pun.
QUOTE (Ivars+)
Interesting links. Would You know any reference for de broglie waves /Schrodinger equation using fractional discrete with (infinite modes) Fourier transform? What I am looking for is kind of standing fractional waves of (imaginary) time which might form spatial and time scales inside the Kolmogorov vortex of time, which again would serve as source of cooling radiation of high frequency- the one that is being demodulated by particles-filters and express itself as EM field. (May be I am using Fourier decomposition little wrongly here, open to improvements).
The two sides of the Fourier transform can be understood as "wave and impulse"... these are the "opposite conjugate ends" of a system... an infinite force exerted for an infinitely short time produces an impulse, a true point source (there are no "true" point sources because spacetime cannot sustain such a mathematical "artifact" but "near enough is good enough" so while true point sources and "infinite waves" do not exist they have an expression in spacetime as a cavity "resonance" where both aspects can been realized at the same time. Fourier Theory then states that you can wrap these functions around the space as "carpets" which are periodic in phase... matter "particles" with 4π symmetry and boson waves with 2π symmetry.
In the "idealization" of out Universe in theory Zero interaction (force) allows the evolution of a wave that "propagates" at the speed of light to expand to fill the entire cavity. This is the de Broglie Particle Matter Wave. The impulse response is what most are call "particles". The "wave" is the sinc function which I have already described... the "unprojected" Airy Function of a single pinhole source. There are two domains and the impulse response "lives" in the time domain as particles. The wave "response" lives in the frequency domain (the reciprocal domain). The frequency domain is not a "fractional domain" but a reciprocal "integer" domain of conjugate variables. Time is reciprocal frequency and "distance" (or dimension) is reciprocal space. These cohabit our Universe but they are not the same. What we tend to do is measure one convenient variable from one domain while we simultaneously (or as near as possible simultaneously) measure the other variable in the other domain. These "measurements" are interactive and mutually affect each other. These two variables are "mixed" in relationships but are "ideally" perfect under certain systems. In less than perfect systems we call this relationship Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship and I have been through this in this thread previously.
The Universe "may be" entirely Holographic such that transaction by transaction at all scales the whole is reflected in the part. "As above... so below". Our entire Universe has a geometry relative to us as a single closed spatial bosonic particle. Seen from the other side beyond the bounding light cone of this "bubble" our entire universe is "fermionic". These two simultaneous representations are "conjugate" to space and time to our Universe in a similar way that an Optical Four Processor handles "real spatial images where dimensions are length" and "conjugate inverse spatial images where the dimensions are spatial frequencies.
Optical Fourier Processor
While there is a superficial relationship between the concepts of supersymmetry and its ability to recognize the particle and it's superparticle the s-particle, this "link" is through a reciprocal dimensional spacetime. Examples of this are the way a single atomic particle is also a complete atom (less it's electrons). .. the proton. The "shells" exist independently of the fermion at its core. The "shells" are an expression of the supersymmetric partner cohabiting the same space and time at a slightly different size as the " Fourier matter wave". Which is real... the proton or the matter wave? The answer is "neither" they are non-ideal realistic reflections of each other. "Several" fermions including neutrons (considered as protons plus an electron) hybridize in the bosonic domain to produce "overlapping space filling shells" of the periodic elements. The nucleus cannot hybridize the way these overlapping bosonic "ghosts" can because they are fermions obeying Fermi-Dirac Statistics while the "bosonic" twin in the parallel manifold superimpose as "electromagnetic forces" which are topological in nature due to the wrapping of the spatial "knot". The knot exists in both expressions of this single entity. This is why Schrodinger Wave Equation (or Dirac's Wave Equation) actually work not just for matter waves and electrons and for all manner of photons in cavities... because the underlying reality in our real world is waves not the particles. The particle is only the extreme response (currently being probed at Cern). The subtle wave response is not seen at high energy but is more evident at "our energy"... in our world of experience.
Cheers
PS: If you need any additional points clarified with existing experiment I can supply them but that would be redundant. Phenomena described here are well known and supported with experiment... what is not known is a consistent view that links these various disciplines together. That is my "interest".
In the "idealization" of out Universe in theory Zero interaction (force) allows the evolution of a wave that "propagates" at the speed of light to expand to fill the entire cavity. This is the de Broglie Particle Matter Wave. The impulse response is what most are call "particles". The "wave" is the sinc function which I have already described... the "unprojected" Airy Function of a single pinhole source. There are two domains and the impulse response "lives" in the time domain as particles. The wave "response" lives in the frequency domain (the reciprocal domain). The frequency domain is not a "fractional domain" but a reciprocal "integer" domain of conjugate variables. Time is reciprocal frequency and "distance" (or dimension) is reciprocal space. These cohabit our Universe but they are not the same. What we tend to do is measure one convenient variable from one domain while we simultaneously (or as near as possible simultaneously) measure the other variable in the other domain. These "measurements" are interactive and mutually affect each other. These two variables are "mixed" in relationships but are "ideally" perfect under certain systems. In less than perfect systems we call this relationship Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship and I have been through this in this thread previously.
The Universe "may be" entirely Holographic such that transaction by transaction at all scales the whole is reflected in the part. "As above... so below". Our entire Universe has a geometry relative to us as a single closed spatial bosonic particle. Seen from the other side beyond the bounding light cone of this "bubble" our entire universe is "fermionic". These two simultaneous representations are "conjugate" to space and time to our Universe in a similar way that an Optical Four Processor handles "real spatial images where dimensions are length" and "conjugate inverse spatial images where the dimensions are spatial frequencies.
Optical Fourier Processor
While there is a superficial relationship between the concepts of supersymmetry and its ability to recognize the particle and it's superparticle the s-particle, this "link" is through a reciprocal dimensional spacetime. Examples of this are the way a single atomic particle is also a complete atom (less it's electrons). .. the proton. The "shells" exist independently of the fermion at its core. The "shells" are an expression of the supersymmetric partner cohabiting the same space and time at a slightly different size as the " Fourier matter wave". Which is real... the proton or the matter wave? The answer is "neither" they are non-ideal realistic reflections of each other. "Several" fermions including neutrons (considered as protons plus an electron) hybridize in the bosonic domain to produce "overlapping space filling shells" of the periodic elements. The nucleus cannot hybridize the way these overlapping bosonic "ghosts" can because they are fermions obeying Fermi-Dirac Statistics while the "bosonic" twin in the parallel manifold superimpose as "electromagnetic forces" which are topological in nature due to the wrapping of the spatial "knot". The knot exists in both expressions of this single entity. This is why Schrodinger Wave Equation (or Dirac's Wave Equation) actually work not just for matter waves and electrons and for all manner of photons in cavities... because the underlying reality in our real world is waves not the particles. The particle is only the extreme response (currently being probed at Cern). The subtle wave response is not seen at high energy but is more evident at "our energy"... in our world of experience.
Cheers
PS: If you need any additional points clarified with existing experiment I can supply them but that would be redundant. Phenomena described here are well known and supported with experiment... what is not known is a consistent view that links these various disciplines together. That is my "interest".
Hi janrinze, bukh, dawn, Ivars, "THEY", Gorgeous, Montec, Sandra doliak, Majkl, Confused2, mr_homm, mtallingham, rmuldavin, fizzeksman et al,
Thank you for your questions and they are quite interesting too. Sorry I did not get right back to you but I have to devote time to other tasks as well.. apologies!
Thank you for your questions and they are quite interesting too. Sorry I did not get right back to you but I have to devote time to other tasks as well.. apologies!
QUOTE (janrinze+)
I could go on but i have some questions for you.
Since particles and their respective surrounding fields are one and the same, how does that integrate in your notion of waves and 'particles' ?
Since particles and their respective surrounding fields are one and the same, how does that integrate in your notion of waves and 'particles' ?
The idea of "particle" is not a good idea since they are usually described as "point particles" without extension. I do not believe that descriptions of extended particles are sufficiently realistic to be used to describe "real extended particles" whatever that might mean. The description of particles had to ignore the nature of the extended aspect of these quanta in order to become a useful theory. The wave is able to capture this idea indirectly through it's lack of "locality".
The concept of "field" arising from the idea of the centrality of charge as being a fundamental property is disturbing. A quick look at the treatment of classical electromagnetism suggests that if magnetic fields are not fundamental and they are sourceless. If this is so then neither is charge "fundamental" and is likewise "sourceless" to balance the books. The search for the magnetic monopole for many years indicated just how errant this idea was but nothing was learned from this effort. It should have immediately occurred to everyone involved that the next search should have been to show that charge itself is nothing more than a topological "wrapping" of "stressors" in spacetime. The electromagnetic wave is not truly a dynamic phenomenon. The quantized packets launched into space (or so the story goes) appear to polarize the vacuum with electric and magnetic fields. Of course each and every packet from a single coherent source experiences the environment of the surrounding matter waves as if each and every packet "understands" what it is about to "find" ahead of time. In this way the "interferences" are the same for all source coherent photons regardless of timing and regardless of how many are in the wavefront. Truly it is correct to say that the photon "searches" many paths "as rays" or a single path that is a divergent "bundle" that occupies a single boson state. This is an aspect of the wavelet that exhibits classical gauge invariant inverse square law spreading.
In the case of multiple pinholes or slits the optically diverged "wavelet packet" can encounter the spatially quasi-static de Broglie Matter Waves which are extended through our space and respond to them without ever encountering a wall or a boundary since these standing waves already exist in space well before the photons ever get there. That is why one photon behaves just like many photons through a vacuum interference phenomena that depends on the "spreading" of the matter waves in space to fill any "cavity".
So is it electric and magnetic fields that are "moving" through the space that creates this wave phenomena... I don't think so. The phenomenon of light propagation is a reaction of the quantized packets to the spacetime interferences of the de Broglie Matter Waves. What we have is a primary vector and scalar potential and not fields that are responsible for this phenomenon. Forget the idea that there must be "electric and magnetic fields". A convincing argument can be made by observing some of the experiments involving the non-local influence of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. This is a "real effect" and cannot involve fields of any sort.
We "know" that magnetic "fields" are apparently (to the limits of experiment) ... sourceless. From symmetry this implies that the electric fields are similarly "sourceless" as I have stated here and in many other places on this thread in the past. I would point everyone to the ideas in this paper to show how it is possible to deform a spacetime "strip" in such a way that deformed spacetime will lead to a sourceless standing wave that is dual sided but also stabilized by phase accumulation as quanta. Once such a phenomenon has occurred and spacetime has such a "perfect" configuration it is "frozen in place" by the confining "walls" of the light cone and by the most extreme influence of time dilation and space contraction of photons propagating along the null geodesic in a spatially curved sub-space on a topologically "confined" manifold. One illustration of this could be this kind of geometry...
From Williamson and Van der Mark
Here is the paper...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
A distinction must be made between the external matter wave geometry of an electron and its internal "curved spacetime" energy flow (there exists images taken of the electron with light that illustrate the actual shape of this form and it is a three dimensional sinc function). This paper above does not propose that spacetime is curved but it suggests some kind of process may be possible.
This idea is continued in this paper...
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
So these are not ideas that are not analyzed. It only requires a framework to embed them to make it sensible. These ideas are to be incorporated into a theory that Carver Mead has supported that appears to be correct that phase accumulations in spacetime result in stable stationary particles maintained by a resonance by way of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. These ideas are very common since all electrical transmission line phenomena must have some recourse to it and it is a well known "effect". The spatial arrangement of matter also leads to other kinds of simple interferences which lead to the double slit experiment and it's results as long as the photon is considered as a parametrically expanding packet occupying around a 1/2 wavelength along the direction of propagation and expanding to what ever size is necessary to fill a cavity provided that it is not subject to interferences as noted in de Broglie's basic postulate. A simple electron will fill a cavity if the cavity remains unobserved and is not subject to any interactions. The same appears to apply to photons as shown in Circuit (Cavity) Quantum Electrodynamics. These propagating photons... or what appears to be "propagating photons" move (as it were) from one stationary cavity state to the next through a "connected region" from source to sink. An obvious case of this is a waveguide. Here is an "image" that was obtained from scanning a section through a cavity using an Atomic Force Microscope revealing the Schrödinger Standing matter wave states (or Dirac Wave Equation States) "illuminated with the light of the propagating photons" .
cavity Solutions of a highly source coherent source of electromagnetic radiation.
A direct "simplified" analogy can be drawn between the statistical function psi and the electromagnetic field thus...
Schrodinger's Wave Equation
Electromagnetic Wave Equation
But I would stress that the real entities are not electric and magnetic fields but the vector and scalar potential. So I have mentioned many facts about waves and "particles" but in the end it is resonance in spacetime between sources and sinks that define the event. The photons are emitted "one at a time" from a source and received one at a time at the sinks. The standard quantum theory never anticipated that single source coherent photon sources would be possible and so those who devised these approaches never believed that a true test of the theory would ever emerge. Well the news is there are many experiments that do just that right now. As a background to "new physics" I suggest an article in New Scientist that puts my ideas and the ideas of others into context and indicates that "everything old is new again".
The idea presented here is not truly "deconstructionist" so it is not going to be a simple soundbyte that you can say like "the Universe is a Hologram" or a simple equation you may be able to emblazon across your tee-shirt. But it is an old idea that we "outgrew" early on without paying deference to the appropriate caution and concern that we now use to protect this new particle concept...
Quantum randomness may not be random - 22 March 2008
The concept of "field" arising from the idea of the centrality of charge as being a fundamental property is disturbing. A quick look at the treatment of classical electromagnetism suggests that if magnetic fields are not fundamental and they are sourceless. If this is so then neither is charge "fundamental" and is likewise "sourceless" to balance the books. The search for the magnetic monopole for many years indicated just how errant this idea was but nothing was learned from this effort. It should have immediately occurred to everyone involved that the next search should have been to show that charge itself is nothing more than a topological "wrapping" of "stressors" in spacetime. The electromagnetic wave is not truly a dynamic phenomenon. The quantized packets launched into space (or so the story goes) appear to polarize the vacuum with electric and magnetic fields. Of course each and every packet from a single coherent source experiences the environment of the surrounding matter waves as if each and every packet "understands" what it is about to "find" ahead of time. In this way the "interferences" are the same for all source coherent photons regardless of timing and regardless of how many are in the wavefront. Truly it is correct to say that the photon "searches" many paths "as rays" or a single path that is a divergent "bundle" that occupies a single boson state. This is an aspect of the wavelet that exhibits classical gauge invariant inverse square law spreading.
In the case of multiple pinholes or slits the optically diverged "wavelet packet" can encounter the spatially quasi-static de Broglie Matter Waves which are extended through our space and respond to them without ever encountering a wall or a boundary since these standing waves already exist in space well before the photons ever get there. That is why one photon behaves just like many photons through a vacuum interference phenomena that depends on the "spreading" of the matter waves in space to fill any "cavity".
So is it electric and magnetic fields that are "moving" through the space that creates this wave phenomena... I don't think so. The phenomenon of light propagation is a reaction of the quantized packets to the spacetime interferences of the de Broglie Matter Waves. What we have is a primary vector and scalar potential and not fields that are responsible for this phenomenon. Forget the idea that there must be "electric and magnetic fields". A convincing argument can be made by observing some of the experiments involving the non-local influence of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. This is a "real effect" and cannot involve fields of any sort.
We "know" that magnetic "fields" are apparently (to the limits of experiment) ... sourceless. From symmetry this implies that the electric fields are similarly "sourceless" as I have stated here and in many other places on this thread in the past. I would point everyone to the ideas in this paper to show how it is possible to deform a spacetime "strip" in such a way that deformed spacetime will lead to a sourceless standing wave that is dual sided but also stabilized by phase accumulation as quanta. Once such a phenomenon has occurred and spacetime has such a "perfect" configuration it is "frozen in place" by the confining "walls" of the light cone and by the most extreme influence of time dilation and space contraction of photons propagating along the null geodesic in a spatially curved sub-space on a topologically "confined" manifold. One illustration of this could be this kind of geometry...
From Williamson and Van der Mark
Here is the paper...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
A distinction must be made between the external matter wave geometry of an electron and its internal "curved spacetime" energy flow (there exists images taken of the electron with light that illustrate the actual shape of this form and it is a three dimensional sinc function). This paper above does not propose that spacetime is curved but it suggests some kind of process may be possible.
This idea is continued in this paper...
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
So these are not ideas that are not analyzed. It only requires a framework to embed them to make it sensible. These ideas are to be incorporated into a theory that Carver Mead has supported that appears to be correct that phase accumulations in spacetime result in stable stationary particles maintained by a resonance by way of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. These ideas are very common since all electrical transmission line phenomena must have some recourse to it and it is a well known "effect". The spatial arrangement of matter also leads to other kinds of simple interferences which lead to the double slit experiment and it's results as long as the photon is considered as a parametrically expanding packet occupying around a 1/2 wavelength along the direction of propagation and expanding to what ever size is necessary to fill a cavity provided that it is not subject to interferences as noted in de Broglie's basic postulate. A simple electron will fill a cavity if the cavity remains unobserved and is not subject to any interactions. The same appears to apply to photons as shown in Circuit (Cavity) Quantum Electrodynamics. These propagating photons... or what appears to be "propagating photons" move (as it were) from one stationary cavity state to the next through a "connected region" from source to sink. An obvious case of this is a waveguide. Here is an "image" that was obtained from scanning a section through a cavity using an Atomic Force Microscope revealing the Schrödinger Standing matter wave states (or Dirac Wave Equation States) "illuminated with the light of the propagating photons" .
cavity Solutions of a highly source coherent source of electromagnetic radiation.
A direct "simplified" analogy can be drawn between the statistical function psi and the electromagnetic field thus...
Schrodinger's Wave Equation
Electromagnetic Wave Equation
But I would stress that the real entities are not electric and magnetic fields but the vector and scalar potential. So I have mentioned many facts about waves and "particles" but in the end it is resonance in spacetime between sources and sinks that define the event. The photons are emitted "one at a time" from a source and received one at a time at the sinks. The standard quantum theory never anticipated that single source coherent photon sources would be possible and so those who devised these approaches never believed that a true test of the theory would ever emerge. Well the news is there are many experiments that do just that right now. As a background to "new physics" I suggest an article in New Scientist that puts my ideas and the ideas of others into context and indicates that "everything old is new again".
The idea presented here is not truly "deconstructionist" so it is not going to be a simple soundbyte that you can say like "the Universe is a Hologram" or a simple equation you may be able to emblazon across your tee-shirt. But it is an old idea that we "outgrew" early on without paying deference to the appropriate caution and concern that we now use to protect this new particle concept...
Quantum randomness may not be random - 22 March 2008
QUOTE (short exerpt from New Scientist "Quantum randomness may not be random "- 22 March 2008+)
Until now, that is. A series of recent papers show that the idea of a deterministic and objective universe is alive and kicking. At the very least, the notion that quantum theory put the nail in the coffin of determinism has been wildly overstated, says physicist Sheldon Goldstein of Rutgers University in New Jersey. He and a cadre of like-minded physicists have been pursuing an alternative quantum
theory known as Bohmian mechanics, in which particles follow precise trajectories or paths through space and time, and the future is perfectly predictable from the past. "It's a reformulation of quantum theory that is not at all congenial to supposedly deep quantum philosophy," says Goldstein. "It's precise and objective - and deterministic." If these researchers can convince their peers, most of whom remain sceptical, it would be a big step towards rebuilding the universe as Einstein wanted, one in which "God does not play dice". It could also trigger a search for evidence of physics beyond quantum theory, paving the way for a better and more intuitive theory of how the universe works. Nearly a century after the discovery of quantum
weirdness, it seems determinism may be back.
The debate over quantum theory and determinism started in the 1920s, when physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg suggested that the unpredictability of quantum phenomena reflected an inherent fuzziness in nature. Einstein and others countered that the unpredictability might instead reflect nothing more than a lack of adequate knowledge. In principle you could predict the outcome of a coin flip, they argued, if you had perfect knowledge of the coin's initial state and surroundings.
At the historic 1927 Solvay meeting in Brussels, physicist Louis de Broglie tried to further this idea, showing how quantum randomness might arise in a non-mysterious way. He suggested that quantum particles show wave-like phenomena because they are accompanied by "pilot waves" that influence their motion in just the right way as to make them obey the Schrödinger wave equation, a cornerstone of quantum theory. However, most dismissed de Broglie's ideas, citing in particular shortcomings
pointed out by the physicist Wolfgang Pauli.
Yet de Broglie's ideas would not go quietly. In the early 1950s, physicist David Bohm developed a more consistent version of the pilot-wave model, one based on the same equations as ordinary quantum theory but offering a different interpretation of them. Bohm found buried within those equations a close link to the mathematics of classical physics, which is based on Newton's laws of motion. Bohmian mechanics asserts that the outcome of an experiment isn't truly random, but is determined by the values of certain "hidden variables". For instance, in quantum theory two electrons may be "entangled" such that their states appear to have a kind of spooky link; measuring the spin of one determines the spin of the other, say. Bohm's theory suggests that they share a hidden variable governing spin. The theory also shows how probabilistic quantum measurements can always arise from specific particle trajectories.
Take a key puzzle in quantum theory: explaining how a beam of particles passing through two slits in a screen will create a wave-like interference pattern, even if the particles are sent one at a time. While mainstream quantum theory insists that you can't give any account of exactly how a given particle moves, Bohmian mechanics can. It suggests that a quantum wave associated with each particle goes through both slits and sets up a pattern of constructive and destructive interference - just like the bright and dark interference bands produced with light. This wave pattern then acts on the particles, driving them towards the "bright" bands of constructive interference (see Diagram).
In the Bohmian view, the statistical interference pattern arises from individual particles following distinct trajectories. This does away with any inherent quantum fuzziness, and shows that it's still possible to believe not only in determinism but also in the intuitive notion that particles really act like particles, having definite positions at all times. "The wave function choreographs the motion of the particles," says physicist Detlef Dürr of Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, Germany. "As a result, while everything is deterministic, the universe evolves in such way that the appearance of randomness emerges, and precisely as described by the quantum formalism."
Still, the majority of physicists didn't take Bohmian mechanics very seriously, often suggesting that it was contrived and afflicted with technical problems. One of the biggest of these was that Bohm's original model cannot cope with the physics of Einstein's special relativity. It worked only for particles with low energies and speeds, where the number of particles in any process remains fixed. At higher energies, relativistic processes routinely create and destroy particles, as when an electron and
positron annihilate one another, turning their energy into light. The simplest version of Bohm's theory could not handle such processes. So Goldstein and others have tried to develop modified versions of the theory that can. Their work began in the 1980s and 90s as part of an effort to develop Bohmian models that describe not only
quantum particles but quantum fields as well, which provide the basic framework of all modern physics. In these models, the universe consists both of particles following precise trajectories and of continuous fields that, like classical magnetic or electric fields, also evolve in a deterministic way. Over the past decade, Goldstein, working with Dürr and physicist Nino Zanghi of the University of Genoa in Italy, has shown that this picture gives a consistent view of relativistic particle processes, while reproducing the accurate predictions of quantum field theory (Physical Review Letters, vol 93, p090402).
The most promising result to come out of this framework was published last year by Ward Struyve and Hans Westman, both at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. They developed a Bohmian model that matches one of the most accurate theories in the history of science - quantum electrodynamics, the theory of light and its interactions with charged particles. In fact, Struyve and Westman found that a number of Bohmian models can easily account for all such phenomena, while
remaining fully deterministic (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, vol 463, p 3115).
theory known as Bohmian mechanics, in which particles follow precise trajectories or paths through space and time, and the future is perfectly predictable from the past. "It's a reformulation of quantum theory that is not at all congenial to supposedly deep quantum philosophy," says Goldstein. "It's precise and objective - and deterministic." If these researchers can convince their peers, most of whom remain sceptical, it would be a big step towards rebuilding the universe as Einstein wanted, one in which "God does not play dice". It could also trigger a search for evidence of physics beyond quantum theory, paving the way for a better and more intuitive theory of how the universe works. Nearly a century after the discovery of quantum
weirdness, it seems determinism may be back.
The debate over quantum theory and determinism started in the 1920s, when physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg suggested that the unpredictability of quantum phenomena reflected an inherent fuzziness in nature. Einstein and others countered that the unpredictability might instead reflect nothing more than a lack of adequate knowledge. In principle you could predict the outcome of a coin flip, they argued, if you had perfect knowledge of the coin's initial state and surroundings.
At the historic 1927 Solvay meeting in Brussels, physicist Louis de Broglie tried to further this idea, showing how quantum randomness might arise in a non-mysterious way. He suggested that quantum particles show wave-like phenomena because they are accompanied by "pilot waves" that influence their motion in just the right way as to make them obey the Schrödinger wave equation, a cornerstone of quantum theory. However, most dismissed de Broglie's ideas, citing in particular shortcomings
pointed out by the physicist Wolfgang Pauli.
Yet de Broglie's ideas would not go quietly. In the early 1950s, physicist David Bohm developed a more consistent version of the pilot-wave model, one based on the same equations as ordinary quantum theory but offering a different interpretation of them. Bohm found buried within those equations a close link to the mathematics of classical physics, which is based on Newton's laws of motion. Bohmian mechanics asserts that the outcome of an experiment isn't truly random, but is determined by the values of certain "hidden variables". For instance, in quantum theory two electrons may be "entangled" such that their states appear to have a kind of spooky link; measuring the spin of one determines the spin of the other, say. Bohm's theory suggests that they share a hidden variable governing spin. The theory also shows how probabilistic quantum measurements can always arise from specific particle trajectories.
Take a key puzzle in quantum theory: explaining how a beam of particles passing through two slits in a screen will create a wave-like interference pattern, even if the particles are sent one at a time. While mainstream quantum theory insists that you can't give any account of exactly how a given particle moves, Bohmian mechanics can. It suggests that a quantum wave associated with each particle goes through both slits and sets up a pattern of constructive and destructive interference - just like the bright and dark interference bands produced with light. This wave pattern then acts on the particles, driving them towards the "bright" bands of constructive interference (see Diagram).
In the Bohmian view, the statistical interference pattern arises from individual particles following distinct trajectories. This does away with any inherent quantum fuzziness, and shows that it's still possible to believe not only in determinism but also in the intuitive notion that particles really act like particles, having definite positions at all times. "The wave function choreographs the motion of the particles," says physicist Detlef Dürr of Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, Germany. "As a result, while everything is deterministic, the universe evolves in such way that the appearance of randomness emerges, and precisely as described by the quantum formalism."
Still, the majority of physicists didn't take Bohmian mechanics very seriously, often suggesting that it was contrived and afflicted with technical problems. One of the biggest of these was that Bohm's original model cannot cope with the physics of Einstein's special relativity. It worked only for particles with low energies and speeds, where the number of particles in any process remains fixed. At higher energies, relativistic processes routinely create and destroy particles, as when an electron and
positron annihilate one another, turning their energy into light. The simplest version of Bohm's theory could not handle such processes. So Goldstein and others have tried to develop modified versions of the theory that can. Their work began in the 1980s and 90s as part of an effort to develop Bohmian models that describe not only
quantum particles but quantum fields as well, which provide the basic framework of all modern physics. In these models, the universe consists both of particles following precise trajectories and of continuous fields that, like classical magnetic or electric fields, also evolve in a deterministic way. Over the past decade, Goldstein, working with Dürr and physicist Nino Zanghi of the University of Genoa in Italy, has shown that this picture gives a consistent view of relativistic particle processes, while reproducing the accurate predictions of quantum field theory (Physical Review Letters, vol 93, p090402).
The most promising result to come out of this framework was published last year by Ward Struyve and Hans Westman, both at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. They developed a Bohmian model that matches one of the most accurate theories in the history of science - quantum electrodynamics, the theory of light and its interactions with charged particles. In fact, Struyve and Westman found that a number of Bohmian models can easily account for all such phenomena, while
remaining fully deterministic (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, vol 463, p 3115).
For the full story you need to read the article. I do not subscribe to "Bohmian Mechanics" since this theory is not constructed to be a substitute for a "real theory" of everything. It is very clear that BM is a "Stalking Horse" for an underlying theory that is the real goal of present day Physics. The problem with BM is the "particle"... a source of charge as it were. That is not a necessary part of any real theory and it needs correction. I suggest everyone read the "whole article" to be found in the issue above which is quite extensive and interesting with appropriate references.
Cheers
Cheers
Hi Good Elf (and all the rest ..)
Thanks for your elaboration on particles, waves and the Bohmian theory.
Whether this is a theory or not is apparently up to 'taste' but I agree that it does show us the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Within the Bohmian theory there is a notion of determinism which is not supported by QM. This may be a fundamental clue towards a full theory where predictions can also be made on the level of single 'particles'.
My personal preference would be a theory where space-time is the single cause of 'everything' and the distribution or topology of all known (and yet unknown) properties give the impression of 'particles'. So in short, all know properties like mass, charge spin etc. are embedded as a properties of space-time. The mere fact that we never 'measure' particles but only interaction allows us to safely say that there are no particles.
Having non-euclidean space-time (as proposed in general relativity) can be more fundamentally seen as the cause of all measurable phenomena. It thus can be considered that any physical particle might be seen as a topological construct leading to the impression of a 'solid' particle with a size and a mass.. Mass meaning only the curvature (topologically a local 'distortion' or 'knot') of space-time.
Does this fit in with your ideas?
Best regards,
Jan Rinze.
Thanks for your elaboration on particles, waves and the Bohmian theory.
Whether this is a theory or not is apparently up to 'taste' but I agree that it does show us the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Within the Bohmian theory there is a notion of determinism which is not supported by QM. This may be a fundamental clue towards a full theory where predictions can also be made on the level of single 'particles'.
My personal preference would be a theory where space-time is the single cause of 'everything' and the distribution or topology of all known (and yet unknown) properties give the impression of 'particles'. So in short, all know properties like mass, charge spin etc. are embedded as a properties of space-time. The mere fact that we never 'measure' particles but only interaction allows us to safely say that there are no particles.
Having non-euclidean space-time (as proposed in general relativity) can be more fundamentally seen as the cause of all measurable phenomena. It thus can be considered that any physical particle might be seen as a topological construct leading to the impression of a 'solid' particle with a size and a mass.. Mass meaning only the curvature (topologically a local 'distortion' or 'knot') of space-time.
Does this fit in with your ideas?
Best regards,
Jan Rinze.
Hi Jan,
QUOTE (Jan Rinze+)
Within the Bohmian theory there is a notion of determinism which is not supported by QM. This may be a fundamental clue towards a full theory where predictions can also be made on the level of single 'particles'.
My personal preference would be a theory where space-time is the single cause of 'everything' and the distribution or topology of all known (and yet unknown) properties give the impression of 'particles'. So in short, all know properties like mass, charge spin etc. are embedded as a properties of space-time. The mere fact that we never 'measure' particles but only interaction allows us to safely say that there are no particles.
Having non-euclidean space-time (as proposed in general relativity) can be more fundamentally seen as the cause of all measurable phenomena. It thus can be considered that any physical particle might be seen as a topological construct leading to the impression of a 'solid' particle with a size and a mass.. Mass meaning only the curvature (topologically a local 'distortion' or 'knot') of space-time.
Does this fit in with your ideas?
My personal preference would be a theory where space-time is the single cause of 'everything' and the distribution or topology of all known (and yet unknown) properties give the impression of 'particles'. So in short, all know properties like mass, charge spin etc. are embedded as a properties of space-time. The mere fact that we never 'measure' particles but only interaction allows us to safely say that there are no particles.
Having non-euclidean space-time (as proposed in general relativity) can be more fundamentally seen as the cause of all measurable phenomena. It thus can be considered that any physical particle might be seen as a topological construct leading to the impression of a 'solid' particle with a size and a mass.. Mass meaning only the curvature (topologically a local 'distortion' or 'knot') of space-time.
Does this fit in with your ideas?
I must go to bed now but the answer is 100%... I agree. Spacetime is the "stuff" that our universe is constructed. It has "evolved" at the same time as the appearance of matter early on. Of course light is more primal again than matter since it lacks mass. Bohmian Mechanics has a particle riding a wave... this is a "model" that really does not analyze the problem too well since the particle can never be observed at the same time as a wave. This is fine since it is a "stalking horse", a good starting point where all the particle theorists can "touch base" with those who disagree. These "aspects" of "wave and particle" are complementary properties of a single essence. The formulation of De Broglie Matter Waves indicate that the less a particle is interacted with the longer the wavelength. This period in which the particle is not interacted with it must be "propagating" into a cavity unobserved. The stronger the interaction with the particle (the change in momentum) the shorter the wavelength...
λ = h/mv = h/p
... more accurately... the de Broglie-Einstein Relationship...
de Broglie-Einstein Relationship
... in the limit as v -> C the wavelength -> zero... a particle by definition has no wavelength or spatial extension. This is like particles at CERN in the accelerator.
I am currently discussing aspects of this topic elsewhere... I have written here just tonight and you may find this additionally interesting and the references helpful...
Light, compostion of light Good Elf
Must go to bed before I "pass out".
Cheers
λ = h/mv = h/p
... more accurately... the de Broglie-Einstein Relationship...
de Broglie-Einstein Relationship
... in the limit as v -> C the wavelength -> zero... a particle by definition has no wavelength or spatial extension. This is like particles at CERN in the accelerator.
I am currently discussing aspects of this topic elsewhere... I have written here just tonight and you may find this additionally interesting and the references helpful...
Light, compostion of light Good Elf
Must go to bed before I "pass out".
Cheers
I somthing read, that electron(s) in double slit experiment traveling through crystal and interference is about crystal atoms or somthing? I don't understnad how they detecting this interference if it is in crystal, how they have such small detectors? Maybe making one layer crystal and shoting electron and watching interference?
Hi DavidD,
Electron Diffraction
Electron diffraction is "small beer"stuff and has been performed for quite a long time. High energy electrons do show that they are influenced by matter waves of crystals and form patterns. These electrons are not required to be coherent to do this trick. However this "simple" experiment leads naturally to the more basic phenomenon of electron interference effects. Electron interference is an entirely different phenomenon at a radically different scale and dimension and this is what you are referring to.
"Electron interference" is produced by the de Broglie matter waves of sub-atomic gaps. Because we are operating with the wavelength of the electron rather than the wavelength of cavity matter waves this is in a whole new class of phenomena. This is difficult to notice but because of the former phenomenon we can infer that this second phenomenon "must" also occur. Recently there was a news report that said that this effect was actually measured. I think that the report was a little stale since there has been a long list of equivalent experiments which have gone before.
Single electron double slit experiments using coherent electron beams impose "formidable" technical difficulties. You may read a lot about this "feat of technology" but mostly it has been "wishful thinking" in the past. The classic Young's Type Experiment is very hard to do at atomic scales. Recently though this effect has been shown in real experiments. The problem is the electron has a much shorter wavelength than most planes of matter and very much shorter than optical interference effects. The effect also requires that the electron beam to be "source coherent"... a difficult restriction and a problem for experimenters. Here is an account of it.
The double-slit experiment - Sep2002 - single electron interference through double slits
The subtlety of this phenomenon is that the electron must pass through both slits in order that it can interfere with itself. The "slits" themselves are of the order of atomic dimensions, this is one reason why it is very hard to do this kind of test of theory. Particles (even electrons which are fermions) cannot technically pass through both slits simultaneously. In some experiments multiple electrons pass through slits and thus it can be argued that the electrons "mutually interfere". In these definitive experiments one electron at a time pass through "both slits" and form double slit interference pattern (with one electron at a time). The interference pattern will build up over a period of time and many repeated events being recorded. This pattern is critically dependent on source coherence and velocity selection. The lower the velocity the better. In the end there is the proof that you can see in the film that indeed this is what happens. The "device" in question is the electron biprism (American Journal of Physics 57 117-120). The article above discusses it in passing but I am sure that it is described better elsewhere. The detector "would probably be" a photoelectrically sensitive segmented cmos plate placed significantly behind the device which is a kind of two dimensional electron capture detector which acts as an amplifier... sensitive to electron impacts rather than "tuned" to receive photons... Very much like a digital camera image sensor in construction. This is probably why the event is capable of display on a video screen so readily probably using a storage oscilloscope or the equivalent effect provided in computer software. These devices can detect single electrons easily. The most accomplished demonstration of this event was shown by Akira Tonomura who was also so famous in his clear and unequivocal demonstration of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect.
As noted in the article it is unfortunately a problem that those who perform these classical Gedanken Experiments in the real world hardly ever get any recognition for them despite the need for these "details" to be shown to be the case "for real". The more esoteric ideas and "flights of fancy" of some String Theorists or Loop Quantum Gravity Theorists gain more attention even though there is literally no current way to test any of the consequences. I think that it is because of the pseudo-mysticism that these tales appear to exude. People like to hear exciting stories about "magic" rather than the real life triumphs. I would point out that without these experiments there can be no guarantee that the theory really works and in some cases the "devil is in the fine detail".
Cheers
QUOTE
I somthing read, that electron(s) in double slit experiment traveling through crystal and interference is about crystal atoms or somthing? I don't understnad how they detecting this interference if it is in crystal, how they have such small detectors? Maybe making one layer crystal and shoting electron and watching interference?
Not exactly sure what you are describing here. In the case of simple electron diffraction we have results of these efforts here...Electron Diffraction
Electron diffraction is "small beer"stuff and has been performed for quite a long time. High energy electrons do show that they are influenced by matter waves of crystals and form patterns. These electrons are not required to be coherent to do this trick. However this "simple" experiment leads naturally to the more basic phenomenon of electron interference effects. Electron interference is an entirely different phenomenon at a radically different scale and dimension and this is what you are referring to.
"Electron interference" is produced by the de Broglie matter waves of sub-atomic gaps. Because we are operating with the wavelength of the electron rather than the wavelength of cavity matter waves this is in a whole new class of phenomena. This is difficult to notice but because of the former phenomenon we can infer that this second phenomenon "must" also occur. Recently there was a news report that said that this effect was actually measured. I think that the report was a little stale since there has been a long list of equivalent experiments which have gone before.
Single electron double slit experiments using coherent electron beams impose "formidable" technical difficulties. You may read a lot about this "feat of technology" but mostly it has been "wishful thinking" in the past. The classic Young's Type Experiment is very hard to do at atomic scales. Recently though this effect has been shown in real experiments. The problem is the electron has a much shorter wavelength than most planes of matter and very much shorter than optical interference effects. The effect also requires that the electron beam to be "source coherent"... a difficult restriction and a problem for experimenters. Here is an account of it.
The double-slit experiment - Sep2002 - single electron interference through double slits
The subtlety of this phenomenon is that the electron must pass through both slits in order that it can interfere with itself. The "slits" themselves are of the order of atomic dimensions, this is one reason why it is very hard to do this kind of test of theory. Particles (even electrons which are fermions) cannot technically pass through both slits simultaneously. In some experiments multiple electrons pass through slits and thus it can be argued that the electrons "mutually interfere". In these definitive experiments one electron at a time pass through "both slits" and form double slit interference pattern (with one electron at a time). The interference pattern will build up over a period of time and many repeated events being recorded. This pattern is critically dependent on source coherence and velocity selection. The lower the velocity the better. In the end there is the proof that you can see in the film that indeed this is what happens. The "device" in question is the electron biprism (American Journal of Physics 57 117-120). The article above discusses it in passing but I am sure that it is described better elsewhere. The detector "would probably be" a photoelectrically sensitive segmented cmos plate placed significantly behind the device which is a kind of two dimensional electron capture detector which acts as an amplifier... sensitive to electron impacts rather than "tuned" to receive photons... Very much like a digital camera image sensor in construction. This is probably why the event is capable of display on a video screen so readily probably using a storage oscilloscope or the equivalent effect provided in computer software. These devices can detect single electrons easily. The most accomplished demonstration of this event was shown by Akira Tonomura who was also so famous in his clear and unequivocal demonstration of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect.
As noted in the article it is unfortunately a problem that those who perform these classical Gedanken Experiments in the real world hardly ever get any recognition for them despite the need for these "details" to be shown to be the case "for real". The more esoteric ideas and "flights of fancy" of some String Theorists or Loop Quantum Gravity Theorists gain more attention even though there is literally no current way to test any of the consequences. I think that it is because of the pseudo-mysticism that these tales appear to exude. People like to hear exciting stories about "magic" rather than the real life triumphs. I would point out that without these experiments there can be no guarantee that the theory really works and in some cases the "devil is in the fine detail".
Cheers
I read both articles and in second article is saying that single electron interference in double slit experiment can be difraction. So difraction of electron or single photon don't mean superposition!
So if single electron double slit experiment wasn't performed it actualy don't care for me. I would like to know do double slit experiment was performed for single photon? Etc, two slits is of size 500nm and distance between them say 250 nm and "shoting" one photon into this double slit. Do there will be interference? Maybe it also would be possible to explain with difraction?
Becouse the point is that if you shot bulet into obstace and bulet is still in the midle and it goes through obstacle like invisible, then any classical theory can't explain this, but if bullet can difract or can't be very precisly shoted and can difract then all double slit fringers can be gotten from coincidence...maybe even only from difraction...
So if single electron double slit experiment wasn't performed it actualy don't care for me. I would like to know do double slit experiment was performed for single photon? Etc, two slits is of size 500nm and distance between them say 250 nm and "shoting" one photon into this double slit. Do there will be interference? Maybe it also would be possible to explain with difraction?
Becouse the point is that if you shot bulet into obstace and bulet is still in the midle and it goes through obstacle like invisible, then any classical theory can't explain this, but if bullet can difract or can't be very precisly shoted and can difract then all double slit fringers can be gotten from coincidence...maybe even only from difraction...
On the over hand after difraction fallowing interference, so I don't see diference between single photon difraction and interference. Only maybe diference that one finger "|" insteat two slits "| | |". For me good is any of those for photon. But if suppose, that photon can split into superposition then he can only difract with some angle depending, where will be phase photon connection with obstacle, right? So photon difraction or interference in double slit experiment can be actualy photon turn up/down/left/right. With idea that photon phase with concidence always is the same.
Do single photon difraction and/or interference realy was performed and where I can see somthing about it? It's then amazing that photon traveling over so wide sapce and then colpasing to one point/spot...
On the over hand difraction and interference is not the same if particle/photon don't spliting into tow point in difraction, but only changing his direction...
Do single photon difraction and/or interference realy was performed and where I can see somthing about it? It's then amazing that photon traveling over so wide sapce and then colpasing to one point/spot...
On the over hand difraction and interference is not the same if particle/photon don't spliting into tow point in difraction, but only changing his direction...
Hi DavidD,
Hmm... I may have gotten my wires crossed and misinterpreted you there... sorry. The "electron" is a matter particle and I was convinced "in my own mind" that is the tack you were following since it is very difficult to show single electron interference in cavities.
I think I get it now you want to know about photons not electrons... Yes?
Hmm... I may have gotten my wires crossed and misinterpreted you there... sorry. The "electron" is a matter particle and I was convinced "in my own mind" that is the tack you were following since it is very difficult to show single electron interference in cavities.
I think I get it now you want to know about photons not electrons... Yes?
QUOTE (DavidD+)
Do single photon difraction and/or interference realy was performed and where I can see somthing about it? It's then amazing that photon traveling over so wide sapce and then colpasing to one point/spot...
On the over hand difraction and interference is not the same if particle/photon don't spliting into tow point in difraction, but only changing his direction...
On the over hand difraction and interference is not the same if particle/photon don't spliting into tow point in difraction, but only changing his direction...
Please forgive me but I will paraphrase your comments in my own words for my benefit and to explain which questions I am going to be answering since the English is a little difficult here...
QUOTE (Good Elf on DavidD+)
Does photon diffraction really occur and how is this related to photon interference? Where can I see an article about this effect of single photon "self interference" being measured for real? It is amazing that photons appear to expand almost indefinitely and then collapse when they are absorbed to a very tiny point or spot...
The ability of a photon to pass through two slits simultaneously does not appear at first to be connected with the concept of simply interference and diffraction. It would seem that to accomplish this task of passing through two slits it must first split into at least two parts and then recombining and joining up to be absorbed as a single particle once more.
The ability of a photon to pass through two slits simultaneously does not appear at first to be connected with the concept of simply interference and diffraction. It would seem that to accomplish this task of passing through two slits it must first split into at least two parts and then recombining and joining up to be absorbed as a single particle once more.
What I would like to say is photon diffraction and interference is easier to deal with than electron diffraction and interference... This is "good". This latter problem of electron interference is not a problem that can be shown in a classroom or college laboratory because it happens at a very much smaller scale and there is the problem of the charge causing some problems by inducing fields on the walls of the experiment. Photons, at least, are uncharged. The properties of simple photons are an entirely different and easier question and it is one that has been studied quite well... it is only the conclusions as to how this effect is produced that is in question. IMHO you either take the stand that we are dealing with particles and none of this makes any sense at all or you take the stand that we are dealing with "waves" only and with some kind of almost indivisible packets of energy that are absorbed "whole" or not at all. The idea that we have packets of energy that are infinitely elastic , stretchable, deformable without any losses or dissipation on the way from source to sink. Ultimately they will be absorbed in a sink but the process is "specially targeted" at the sink and that sink is the only place that this particular photon can be absorbed "whole". More on that later.
A suitable piece of apparatus can be found here...
Two Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time
This is a very well designed experiment and will show that the result of reducing the number of photons through the instrument to only a few photons a minute so low a flux that you can actually count them arriving one at a time. The left hand single slit produces a very well collimated beam from the laser. The "double slit" is where the diffraction and interference actually occur. The "slit blocker" just reduces any extraneous light that may be scattered by the apparatus. Finally a mask that is followed by the detector (I presume) to count the "clicks" per minute at various points along the pattern. The cost of the apparatus is "reasonable" at around $16K but it does the trick very well indeed. No special "fiddling" ... it would work "out of the box". The problem is to reduce the flux of photons to a very small rate and then to actually count them using the "detector slit" to narrow the band of light from the source on the screen the experiment in which a 'count" per minute of the audible "clicks" (the two slit "cricket"). Hearing is believing I guess. A green band interference filter selects for the higher energy photons from the incandescent source which can be lowered in intensity markedly using a potentiometer... way down to emit only a few stray "green" photons.
The far more plausible answer is that there is no disconnection in the first place! - You are looking at 'parts' of the same One thing.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Einste...-Experiment.htm
g.
A suitable piece of apparatus can be found here...
Two Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time
This is a very well designed experiment and will show that the result of reducing the number of photons through the instrument to only a few photons a minute so low a flux that you can actually count them arriving one at a time. The left hand single slit produces a very well collimated beam from the laser. The "double slit" is where the diffraction and interference actually occur. The "slit blocker" just reduces any extraneous light that may be scattered by the apparatus. Finally a mask that is followed by the detector (I presume) to count the "clicks" per minute at various points along the pattern. The cost of the apparatus is "reasonable" at around $16K but it does the trick very well indeed. No special "fiddling" ... it would work "out of the box". The problem is to reduce the flux of photons to a very small rate and then to actually count them using the "detector slit" to narrow the band of light from the source on the screen the experiment in which a 'count" per minute of the audible "clicks" (the two slit "cricket"). Hearing is believing I guess. A green band interference filter selects for the higher energy photons from the incandescent source which can be lowered in intensity markedly using a potentiometer... way down to emit only a few stray "green" photons.
QUOTE (The Instrunemt+)
At the far end of the U-channel is a moveable single slit, the detector slit. It, too, is attached to a translational stage actuated by a micrometer. Students move the detector slit across the interference pattern in front of either the photodiode or cathode of a photomultiplier to make quantitative measurements of either the light intensity or photon arrival rate as a function of position.
The black box with the brass front panel contains a complete photon counting module, as well as a photodiode detector connected a current-to-voltage converter. The box is supplied with a special flange and a light shutter. The photodiode is mounted on the outside of the shutter so that it is in the light path when the shutter is closed, and removed from the light path when the shutter is opened to let the light pass to the photomultiplier.
The next point is how can photons expand on the surface of a sphere and then instantly collapse to a single point absorber on a screen? There are two possibilities... the first is the conventional one in which the photons are little balls that do not expand and are somehow dispersed everywhere as if by being "sprayed" by some kind of photon gun source. That way the photons do not expand at all and are simply "diluted" in space as they move away from the source. This would surely mean that the individual photons cannot go through both slits at once. It is very clear that photons (one at a time ) must go through both slits since covering one slit will produce only a single airy pattern due to a single slit diffraction pattern and not the double slit pattern of Young's Experiment. You can see the effect with this "model".
Laser "cannon"
What it will emphasize is any photons you cannot see interacting are not part of the final diffraction pattern... that is a good thing. Quite often you see these illustrations "filling in" what is actually not possible to know ... that is what is happening to the photons between source and sink. Remember to "see" the results of a photon is to destroy the qubit and that is what is actually forming the pattern (this additional information). Take that away through interfering with these photons the result will not be an interference pattern but a "simple" Gaussian distributions of light on the screen.
If we take the case of the experimental apparatus and consider the extreme case we can see this is a kind of waveguide. For much longer wavelengths we know that the photons are emitted from a source and are received in a sink at the far end (the load in a transmission line). In that case there is no difficulty in "imagining" the photons expanding to fill the cavity and "propagate" along the channel to the other end.This "becomes" a transmission line. It is not that difficult to image if the 'cavity" is more open that the "transmission line" is now much larger and the waves have a capacity to "spread out" a little. This spreading out is usually called the mode of transmission.
Here is an image of some of the possibilities...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_mode
This is for just one source but when there are two slits the one source can then become two through the waves "spreading" through both apertures. With waves at the beach moving past obstructions the energy once divided does not need to coalesce to interact with the shoreline. In the case of a quantum it happens that the packets of energy can spread just like waves and diffract and interfere with it's own wavelets and with the other objects in the extended cavity but when it is absorbed the quantum moves and interacts as a single unit of energy only. No half photons or any other "fractional photons" can be absorbed.
You are right to question why the photon does not "split up" into as many slits that are available. Why stop at only two slits? Of course there could be 100 slits. This "should" split the single photon into 100 fragments. Experiment shows that it undergoes the same interaction as it would with two slits only extended for those hundred possible "doorways". The photon needs to be diverged to pass through many slits but that is pretty easy using a diverging lens. Logically this photon is a wave that somehow does not undergo "fragmentation" but like a wave can pass obstructions just like any other wave even at the beach. This is the "many paths" that particle theories suggest. The photon is supposed to "test" all possible paths. I don't think so. The problem with all particle theories is the particle is a "point source"... it has no extension in space. The truth is waves "fill space with a certain function". This "function" it is able to utilize is the Wave Equation in a cavity (closed or otherwise). It is far more likely that each photon "expands" and spreads through the entire apparatus to a more or less extent. The wavelet does not interact with any intermediate barriers because what we have here is a two way "transaction" made between the source and the sink. Since the photon transaction is two way the photon can't change it's "mind" half way to it's destination and complete the transaction with another "target". It has a rock solid "bargain" with a single site "somewhere out there" to exchange that outward going photon with something that is "inward going"... actually traveling back in time. All quantum theory is time symmetric. The reason why is because of the need to recognize that all "transmission lines" need a sink into which the source is matched to a "load. Any "radio technician" can tell you that without a load the source will not transmit it energy (photons) at all... That energy (photons) will be retained in the source "inductively" as virtual photons in the evanescent region.
This theory is Wheeler-Feynman Theory and it is not accepted by everyone (... except those who actually need to make equipment work... he he he!) I can't "prove" this assertion but it makes a very compelling case while the alternative case you actually must believe in "magic". The "magic" theory of photons as little particles will have you believe that the photons have no individual history so they do not proceed from source to sink. I don't buy this glib argument of the Copenhagen Interpretation and there are other interpretations that can be shown to be as least as good. One of them is Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and another is the Bohmian Mechanical Interpretation.
In all these theories there is a time symmetry as well in which the expanding "shell" must be matched at the sink by a contracting "shell" which is the influence of the advanced potential moving back in time to cancel the retarded potential moving forward in time. All quantum Theories are time symmetric but there is not too much made of this point in quantum electrodynamics. What can be said is other theories will not explain this phenomenon the way a wave theory can. In a way we cannot physically "see" this reversal phenomenon because we "see" time always moving in the forward direction (due to causality), this symmetry balances the books for those photons that go "all the way" from an initial "source" to a transacted final "sink".
In the rest frame of the photon... when it is "launched" at the speed of light... instantly it moves on to a path which is called the null geodesic. The null geodesic is the Special Relativistic Result when the photon undergoes the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction such that the source and the destination (in the rest frame of the "moving" photon) have a "connection" which is zero time units long and zero length... this effectively brings the source and the destination together "instantly" in the frame of the photon. In this "resonant state" the photon does not really know which way to go ... forward in time or backward in time... it "resonates". Eventually if that transaction is truly valid the energy will all end up in the sink and this means the photon has "propagated" to the sink. If the transaction is not "matched" to that sink it may be "reflected" back to the source. In either case the transaction is "all or nothing"... it is the quantum... Frozen in time and "bi-located in space".
I feel that this light speed "connection" is the underlying reason for particle "entanglement" as well as shown by Bell's Inequality. Alain Aspect has suggested as much (and he should know). This is a source of the well known non-local effects or "spooky instantaneous action at a distance" of quantum phenomena that cannot be explicitly explained by the standard theory (the confounding of Einstein). While this "connection" can occur at infinite speed "instantly" the energy must move at the speed of light. These separate 'facts" result in time and space as we the observer measure it as a single extensive entity that occupies "both" in the laboratory frame of reference but the "poor photon" experiences neither time nor space in it's limited "rest" frame and so cannot partake in any process involving energy until this resonant condition is met in a transaction. The photon is the exchange force in the universe and is responsible for almost all phenomena except those involving "mass" and "sub-nuclear resonant features" such as "radioactivity" etc. That may not sound much but it is the source of intense research as Quantum Chromodynamics as well as string theory, loop quantum gravity and other pretty wild ideas.
Cheers
The black box with the brass front panel contains a complete photon counting module, as well as a photodiode detector connected a current-to-voltage converter. The box is supplied with a special flange and a light shutter. The photodiode is mounted on the outside of the shutter so that it is in the light path when the shutter is closed, and removed from the light path when the shutter is opened to let the light pass to the photomultiplier.
The next point is how can photons expand on the surface of a sphere and then instantly collapse to a single point absorber on a screen? There are two possibilities... the first is the conventional one in which the photons are little balls that do not expand and are somehow dispersed everywhere as if by being "sprayed" by some kind of photon gun source. That way the photons do not expand at all and are simply "diluted" in space as they move away from the source. This would surely mean that the individual photons cannot go through both slits at once. It is very clear that photons (one at a time ) must go through both slits since covering one slit will produce only a single airy pattern due to a single slit diffraction pattern and not the double slit pattern of Young's Experiment. You can see the effect with this "model".
Laser "cannon"
What it will emphasize is any photons you cannot see interacting are not part of the final diffraction pattern... that is a good thing. Quite often you see these illustrations "filling in" what is actually not possible to know ... that is what is happening to the photons between source and sink. Remember to "see" the results of a photon is to destroy the qubit and that is what is actually forming the pattern (this additional information). Take that away through interfering with these photons the result will not be an interference pattern but a "simple" Gaussian distributions of light on the screen.
If we take the case of the experimental apparatus and consider the extreme case we can see this is a kind of waveguide. For much longer wavelengths we know that the photons are emitted from a source and are received in a sink at the far end (the load in a transmission line). In that case there is no difficulty in "imagining" the photons expanding to fill the cavity and "propagate" along the channel to the other end.This "becomes" a transmission line. It is not that difficult to image if the 'cavity" is more open that the "transmission line" is now much larger and the waves have a capacity to "spread out" a little. This spreading out is usually called the mode of transmission.
Here is an image of some of the possibilities...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_mode
This is for just one source but when there are two slits the one source can then become two through the waves "spreading" through both apertures. With waves at the beach moving past obstructions the energy once divided does not need to coalesce to interact with the shoreline. In the case of a quantum it happens that the packets of energy can spread just like waves and diffract and interfere with it's own wavelets and with the other objects in the extended cavity but when it is absorbed the quantum moves and interacts as a single unit of energy only. No half photons or any other "fractional photons" can be absorbed.
You are right to question why the photon does not "split up" into as many slits that are available. Why stop at only two slits? Of course there could be 100 slits. This "should" split the single photon into 100 fragments. Experiment shows that it undergoes the same interaction as it would with two slits only extended for those hundred possible "doorways". The photon needs to be diverged to pass through many slits but that is pretty easy using a diverging lens. Logically this photon is a wave that somehow does not undergo "fragmentation" but like a wave can pass obstructions just like any other wave even at the beach. This is the "many paths" that particle theories suggest. The photon is supposed to "test" all possible paths. I don't think so. The problem with all particle theories is the particle is a "point source"... it has no extension in space. The truth is waves "fill space with a certain function". This "function" it is able to utilize is the Wave Equation in a cavity (closed or otherwise). It is far more likely that each photon "expands" and spreads through the entire apparatus to a more or less extent. The wavelet does not interact with any intermediate barriers because what we have here is a two way "transaction" made between the source and the sink. Since the photon transaction is two way the photon can't change it's "mind" half way to it's destination and complete the transaction with another "target". It has a rock solid "bargain" with a single site "somewhere out there" to exchange that outward going photon with something that is "inward going"... actually traveling back in time. All quantum theory is time symmetric. The reason why is because of the need to recognize that all "transmission lines" need a sink into which the source is matched to a "load. Any "radio technician" can tell you that without a load the source will not transmit it energy (photons) at all... That energy (photons) will be retained in the source "inductively" as virtual photons in the evanescent region.
This theory is Wheeler-Feynman Theory and it is not accepted by everyone (... except those who actually need to make equipment work... he he he!) I can't "prove" this assertion but it makes a very compelling case while the alternative case you actually must believe in "magic". The "magic" theory of photons as little particles will have you believe that the photons have no individual history so they do not proceed from source to sink. I don't buy this glib argument of the Copenhagen Interpretation and there are other interpretations that can be shown to be as least as good. One of them is Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and another is the Bohmian Mechanical Interpretation.
In all these theories there is a time symmetry as well in which the expanding "shell" must be matched at the sink by a contracting "shell" which is the influence of the advanced potential moving back in time to cancel the retarded potential moving forward in time. All quantum Theories are time symmetric but there is not too much made of this point in quantum electrodynamics. What can be said is other theories will not explain this phenomenon the way a wave theory can. In a way we cannot physically "see" this reversal phenomenon because we "see" time always moving in the forward direction (due to causality), this symmetry balances the books for those photons that go "all the way" from an initial "source" to a transacted final "sink".
In the rest frame of the photon... when it is "launched" at the speed of light... instantly it moves on to a path which is called the null geodesic. The null geodesic is the Special Relativistic Result when the photon undergoes the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction such that the source and the destination (in the rest frame of the "moving" photon) have a "connection" which is zero time units long and zero length... this effectively brings the source and the destination together "instantly" in the frame of the photon. In this "resonant state" the photon does not really know which way to go ... forward in time or backward in time... it "resonates". Eventually if that transaction is truly valid the energy will all end up in the sink and this means the photon has "propagated" to the sink. If the transaction is not "matched" to that sink it may be "reflected" back to the source. In either case the transaction is "all or nothing"... it is the quantum... Frozen in time and "bi-located in space".
I feel that this light speed "connection" is the underlying reason for particle "entanglement" as well as shown by Bell's Inequality. Alain Aspect has suggested as much (and he should know). This is a source of the well known non-local effects or "spooky instantaneous action at a distance" of quantum phenomena that cannot be explicitly explained by the standard theory (the confounding of Einstein). While this "connection" can occur at infinite speed "instantly" the energy must move at the speed of light. These separate 'facts" result in time and space as we the observer measure it as a single extensive entity that occupies "both" in the laboratory frame of reference but the "poor photon" experiences neither time nor space in it's limited "rest" frame and so cannot partake in any process involving energy until this resonant condition is met in a transaction. The photon is the exchange force in the universe and is responsible for almost all phenomena except those involving "mass" and "sub-nuclear resonant features" such as "radioactivity" etc. That may not sound much but it is the source of intense research as Quantum Chromodynamics as well as string theory, loop quantum gravity and other pretty wild ideas.
Cheers
The far more plausible answer is that there is no disconnection in the first place! - You are looking at 'parts' of the same One thing.
QUOTE
The Spherical Wave Structure of Matter, particularly the behaviour of the In and Out Waves, is able to resolve this puzzle so that the appearance of instant communication is understood and yet neither Einstein nor QM need be wrong. In order to show this, it is necessary to carefully look at the detailed process of exchanging energy between two atoms, by the action of the IN/OUT waves of both atoms. Remember that for resonant coupling it is necessary for the In and Out Waves of both electrons to interact with one another.
The passage of both In-Waves through both Wave-Centers precedes the actual frequency shifts of the source and detector. A means to detect this first passage event is not a capability of the usual photo-detector apparatus and remains totally unnoticed. But the In-Waves are symmetrical counterparts of the Out-Waves and carry the information of their polarization state between parts of the experimental apparatus before the Out-Waves cause a "departing photon" event. The IN-waves travel with the speed of light so there is no violation of relativity.
Thus effectively the electrons in the experiment are already interconnected with one another, and hence are already 'aware' of one another’s resonant state and polarization, before the paired photons are emitted. It is this subtle interconnection of Matter that explains the apparent conflict of the EPR experiment.
The passage of both In-Waves through both Wave-Centers precedes the actual frequency shifts of the source and detector. A means to detect this first passage event is not a capability of the usual photo-detector apparatus and remains totally unnoticed. But the In-Waves are symmetrical counterparts of the Out-Waves and carry the information of their polarization state between parts of the experimental apparatus before the Out-Waves cause a "departing photon" event. The IN-waves travel with the speed of light so there is no violation of relativity.
Thus effectively the electrons in the experiment are already interconnected with one another, and hence are already 'aware' of one another’s resonant state and polarization, before the paired photons are emitted. It is this subtle interconnection of Matter that explains the apparent conflict of the EPR experiment.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Einste...-Experiment.htm
g.
I am "in some sense" dissagree with Feynman's words (from link), that quantum mechanic can't be explained calssicaly. For example if your are from past and you know newton law about linear motion etc, and if somebody to you will show mechanical clock, which is also the same classical newton mechanic (maybe except mainspring...), then human from past will say, that it can't be explained calssicaly with his laws, becouse it's too dificult... 
What me interesting about photon difraction and interference is that does there is some probability that (single) photon in double slit experiment traveling through one of two slits and then difracting and difraction can be, like I understand, at (alsmost) any angle left/right. So do there can be such probability, that each photon traveling only through one of two slits and just accidently flying at some angle and then accidently/coincidencly making lines of interference? So my point is that interference is coincidence of photons difraction through one of two slits. Does such probability remain, that it can be coincidence (coincidence with human measurment)? I mean, photon can difract, but can't interference with itself.
I don't read transaction interpretation deep... but if it expaining with traveling back in time, then it or don't explaining nothing and predicting some more difficult meachanic (classical), or is nonsense...
My theory is that quantum mechanic is classical mechanic, but it mechanizme is too dificult to understand for human or computer... how it become in such way... Or it absolutly can't be? Alphanumeric can't it nor confirm nor negate/deny (maybe becouse don't understand quantum mechanic, Boheman interpretation, many worlds intepretations and similar stuff, quantum computer...), that quantum mechanic can be difficult/complex interaction of classical mechanic...
What me interesting about photon difraction and interference is that does there is some probability that (single) photon in double slit experiment traveling through one of two slits and then difracting and difraction can be, like I understand, at (alsmost) any angle left/right. So do there can be such probability, that each photon traveling only through one of two slits and just accidently flying at some angle and then accidently/coincidencly making lines of interference? So my point is that interference is coincidence of photons difraction through one of two slits. Does such probability remain, that it can be coincidence (coincidence with human measurment)? I mean, photon can difract, but can't interference with itself.
I don't read transaction interpretation deep... but if it expaining with traveling back in time, then it or don't explaining nothing and predicting some more difficult meachanic (classical), or is nonsense...
My theory is that quantum mechanic is classical mechanic, but it mechanizme is too dificult to understand for human or computer... how it become in such way... Or it absolutly can't be? Alphanumeric can't it nor confirm nor negate/deny (maybe becouse don't understand quantum mechanic, Boheman interpretation, many worlds intepretations and similar stuff, quantum computer...), that quantum mechanic can be difficult/complex interaction of classical mechanic...
Hi DavidD,
Check out this site:-
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You'll see that the effect of interest occurs within the overlap of the main diffraction peaks of the two slits. IMHO it is the troughs (cancellation of probability of detection) that show the effect best.
-C2.
Check out this site:-
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You'll see that the effect of interest occurs within the overlap of the main diffraction peaks of the two slits. IMHO it is the troughs (cancellation of probability of detection) that show the effect best.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+May 20 2008, 07:53 AM)
Hi DavidD,
Check out this site:-
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You'll see that the effect of interest occurs within the overlap of the main diffraction peaks of the two slits. IMHO it is the troughs (cancellation of probability of detection) that show the effect best.
-C2.
I read this... But if supose that difraction through one slit is not liner like bulet, then possible interpretation of quantum mechanic that all interference measurment is just difraction considence (of course this considece is too unrealistic), but I just wnat to know do such considence is possible? Becouse when photon traveling through single slit then he changing it direction by some angle. And this cangle maybe can be even near to 90 degress (to left or right). But seems, that even through single slit photon difracting and Making Interference? But maybe it only difracting and this difraction angle depend on photon possition? And then photons with considence creating Newton rings and black/white spots... Or it is impopsible? I just want to know do such possibility is possible or not.
BTW, do all interference experiments is each photon interference with itself?
Edit: Okey, I look in Double slit experiment with coherent light and think, that similar "statistic" would be with single photon. So double slit experiment can be explained with considece, when measuring this result...
But newtons rings seems can't be each photon interference with itself, so question do all interference (experiments) is each single photon interference with itself, remianing.
Check out this site:-
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml
You'll see that the effect of interest occurs within the overlap of the main diffraction peaks of the two slits. IMHO it is the troughs (cancellation of probability of detection) that show the effect best.
-C2.
I read this... But if supose that difraction through one slit is not liner like bulet, then possible interpretation of quantum mechanic that all interference measurment is just difraction considence (of course this considece is too unrealistic), but I just wnat to know do such considence is possible? Becouse when photon traveling through single slit then he changing it direction by some angle. And this cangle maybe can be even near to 90 degress (to left or right). But seems, that even through single slit photon difracting and Making Interference? But maybe it only difracting and this difraction angle depend on photon possition? And then photons with considence creating Newton rings and black/white spots... Or it is impopsible? I just want to know do such possibility is possible or not.
BTW, do all interference experiments is each photon interference with itself?
Edit: Okey, I look in Double slit experiment with coherent light and think, that similar "statistic" would be with single photon. So double slit experiment can be explained with considece, when measuring this result...
But newtons rings seems can't be each photon interference with itself, so question do all interference (experiments) is each single photon interference with itself, remianing.
Does in diffraction there is interference like in this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diffraction1.png
?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diffraction1.png
?
Hi all,
janrinze Posted: May 7 2008, 06:48 AM
It's hard to interpret this.. are you glad that is is not quite dead, or glad because it has almost died?
Anyway, you've revived it!
Welcome back jan. I take it you've survived another term, and are still going strong? What is your current status?
janrinze Posted
It's hard to interpret this.. are you glad that is is not quite dead, or glad because it has almost died?
Anyway, you've revived it!
Welcome back jan. I take it you've survived another term, and are still going strong? What is your current status?
janrinze Posted
The main problem here is how can we describe this phenomenon in a consistent framework which is similar to wave theory but comprises the locality of the 'particle' as a specific wave 'state'..
Topology is (always) the cause for resulting interference patterns in wave theory.
My question to you is, is Topology "fundamental"? IE. is it utterly spontaneous, or does it have a cause? If it has a cause, then perhaps that is where we start to build the consistent framework to describe these phenomenon.
Also, I concur with this advise to Good Elf:
(emphasis added)
I would think it would be much better to write 2 or 3 paragraphs well written, edited, and thought through adequately, rather than such long posts, that contain so many problems. It is incidental as to whether they are "typos", errors in understanding, or problems with your theoretical ideas; to the readers, it goes the same.
If you really want some feedback, which is always valuable, you have to make it easier to give feedback. I feel that pointing out 2 or 3 problems, and not pointing out 10 others, is not really good use of anybodies time. I also (and imagine others would concur) do not have time to write posts longer than yours, in order to adequately cover all the issues that beg addressing. You obviously have the time, so why not take the time to edit & re-write? There is no pressure here to post right away, or bonus points for "longest post".
If you have some new ideas, you need to state them clearly. You need to show how, and why they are different (and hopefully better) than the accepted paradigms, or interpretations that you are referencing. More than anything, to be considered "Science", or new Physics, you need to make some predictions. I never see any of this in your posts, which is fine, as long as you are just posting commentary; but, you regularly state that you have some unique theory that you are attempting to explain.
That said, here are just a few comments/questions:
Good Elf Posted: Jan 12 2008, 10:30 PM
(emphasis added)
I would think it would be much better to write 2 or 3 paragraphs well written, edited, and thought through adequately, rather than such long posts, that contain so many problems. It is incidental as to whether they are "typos", errors in understanding, or problems with your theoretical ideas; to the readers, it goes the same.
If you really want some feedback, which is always valuable, you have to make it easier to give feedback. I feel that pointing out 2 or 3 problems, and not pointing out 10 others, is not really good use of anybodies time. I also (and imagine others would concur) do not have time to write posts longer than yours, in order to adequately cover all the issues that beg addressing. You obviously have the time, so why not take the time to edit & re-write? There is no pressure here to post right away, or bonus points for "longest post".
If you have some new ideas, you need to state them clearly. You need to show how, and why they are different (and hopefully better) than the accepted paradigms, or interpretations that you are referencing. More than anything, to be considered "Science", or new Physics, you need to make some predictions. I never see any of this in your posts, which is fine, as long as you are just posting commentary; but, you regularly state that you have some unique theory that you are attempting to explain.
That said, here are just a few comments/questions:
Good Elf Posted: Jan 12 2008, 10:30 PM
..de Broglie matter wave theory does not describe photons. Um... I think that it does if you use the full theory..
What "full theory" do you mean here? De Broglies matter wave ideas are for matter. Matter does not move at c . I can't see that it was intended for use with "photons". It is to show the wave properties of what is conceived of as "particles" (matter). If you start mingling these ideas, you are going to get into problems right away. After all, the "photon" itself, is already a wave emanating from matter, so to use these ideas together is inviting contradiction. There is good reason why his work does not play a more prominent role in QM; it would contradict some of the main tenets. I am not saying that there is not a connection, in the limit of velocity, but if by "full theory", you mean going the direction that Bohm went with it, then you are including the "pilot wave" guiding the particle idea, which you are against.
IMO, these are "either/or" ideas: QM's "photons", or matter waves. Also, I do not think that QM can be fixed from "within" (IE. making "sandwiches" out of different ideas/interpretations). You can't start from the middle, or the top, of a system with inherent (and undetermined) problems. Otherwise, you get just what we have today: competing interpretations that just "shift" the paradox to another stage of the game.
Good Elf Posted
OK, so I think you'll need to explain "resonance", without time or movement (including the broadest definition of "movement", and what it takes to measure movement). Also, a matter wave, of a "particle" at rest (not moving), has a frequency, and experiences time. Then, the "particle" (also having mass, frequency, and experiencing time), generates a "photon". How do you explain this?
(since you've said those things come after the "photon")
There is only one fundamental phenomenon: vibration/oscillation. You must agree with me, because you've quoted Einstein & Dirac (via Mead): "..Since neither can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described.." ("photon - electron"), "..— two different points of view..". The problem is, that you consistently try to narrow it to one (side) of the argument, contradicting yourself along the way. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you over the years, but you continue unabashed.
Good Elf Posted
OK, so I think you'll need to explain "resonance", without time or movement (including the broadest definition of "movement", and what it takes to measure movement). Also, a matter wave, of a "particle" at rest (not moving), has a frequency, and experiences time. Then, the "particle" (also having mass, frequency, and experiencing time), generates a "photon". How do you explain this?
(since you've said those things come after the "photon")
There is only one fundamental phenomenon: vibration/oscillation. You must agree with me, because you've quoted Einstein & Dirac (via Mead): "..Since neither can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described.." ("photon - electron"), "..— two different points of view..". The problem is, that you consistently try to narrow it to one (side) of the argument, contradicting yourself along the way. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you over the years, but you continue unabashed.
Good Elf Posted
Speeds of a few meters per second for light have been obtained in practical materials. A carriage on a rail could easily keep up with the light propagating in such in extreme material such that it "appears" relatively at rest in it's "frozen state of hibernation".
This one is particularly bad. Make an "apples to apples" comparison: the "carriage" would need to travel to the "recycler" at the speed of light, then, with a slight delay, a new carriage made from the old, and it too moving at the speed of light to the next recycler. The "phenomenon" that is creating the illusion of "slow speed" is our inability to distinguish the old from the new. QM fails to remind you that this is NOT the same "photon". "Speed" does not apply to this scenario, in the sense of a "single photon". The speed of light is constant; only a series of absorbers (the medium), and a poor interpretation can create this illusion.
Good Elf Posted
Recently, I've seen you list the exceptions to this "rule", that I've pointed out in the past. Now it's time to change the title of "rule", to just another aspect. Resonance, as a complete model, takes care of the different "rules" of partial absorbance. Otherwise, you've got problems; take this next quote, for example:
Recently, I've seen you list the exceptions to this "rule", that I've pointed out in the past. Now it's time to change the title of "rule", to just another aspect. Resonance, as a complete model, takes care of the different "rules" of partial absorbance. Otherwise, you've got problems; take this next quote, for example:
A green band interference filter selects for the higher energy photons from the incandescent source which can be lowered in intensity markedly using a potentiometer... way down to emit only a few stray "green" photons.
Please explain, according to your "rule", what happens to the higher energy "photon", when it interacts with the green filter. The lower energy (green) filter can NOT absorb the "whole photon". Keep in mind that the term "reflection" is a classical generalization, and can not be used in a quantum description. Also, why do you think that these experiments always use a green filter? Just want to see if you've understood my explanation on color and resonance, or even if you might have your own idea.
Good Elf Posted
Can you explain how your "magic theory" is any different? You keep saying there is no time "experienced" for the "photon"; how can it have a "history" without time?
Good Elf Posted: May 9 2008, 08:51 PM
Can you explain how your "magic theory" is any different? You keep saying there is no time "experienced" for the "photon"; how can it have a "history" without time?
Good Elf Posted: May 9 2008, 08:51 PM
The instantaneous nature is "limited" by the speed of light while the transactions are propagatdd at infinite velocity.
How do you combine "instantaneous" with "limited speed"?
Good Elf Posted
Again, these ideas are contradictory. Why would the packet search any other paths, if it knew ahead of time, which one it was going to take? De Broglie, Cramer, and Feynman don't mix, in this instance. Bad sandwich.
Good Elf Posted
Again, these ideas are contradictory. Why would the packet search any other paths, if it knew ahead of time, which one it was going to take? De Broglie, Cramer, and Feynman don't mix, in this instance. Bad sandwich.
Good Elf Posted
Forget the idea that there must be "electric and magnetic fields". A convincing argument can be made by observing some of the experiments involving the non-local influence of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. This is a "real effect" and cannot involve fields of any sort.
I don't think that "forgetting" E & B fields is wise. Why do you suggest that these fields are not "real"?
That's all I have time for.
Gorgeous Posted on Yesterday at 2:32 PM
I agree totally with the "subtle interconnection" of all matter, and that it has not played its' destiny in our full understanding yet. The fields, like electric, or gravitational, extend "forever", while losing "strength". Their frequency does not change however, and resonance still works the same as always, with harmonics. There is no way to create an experiment that does not already have this communication present, and therefore, no way to separate these influences. There is no "perfect vacuum", there are no isolated "particles".
regards,
T.Roc
janrinze Posted: May 7 2008, 06:48 AM
QUOTE
Nice to see that the thread has all but died-out.
It's hard to interpret this.. are you glad that is is not quite dead, or glad because it has almost died?
Anyway, you've revived it!
Welcome back jan. I take it you've survived another term, and are still going strong? What is your current status?
janrinze Posted
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nice to see that the thread has all but died-out. |
It's hard to interpret this.. are you glad that is is not quite dead, or glad because it has almost died?
Anyway, you've revived it!
Welcome back jan. I take it you've survived another term, and are still going strong? What is your current status?
janrinze Posted
The main problem here is how can we describe this phenomenon in a consistent framework which is similar to wave theory but comprises the locality of the 'particle' as a specific wave 'state'..
Topology is (always) the cause for resulting interference patterns in wave theory.
My question to you is, is Topology "fundamental"? IE. is it utterly spontaneous, or does it have a cause? If it has a cause, then perhaps that is where we start to build the consistent framework to describe these phenomenon.
Also, I concur with this advise to Good Elf:
QUOTE
Hi Good Elf,
interesting post. However I am missing the conversational value and the room for discussion in the way you present your ideas.
For purpose of keeping things on a step by step level, it would be nice to break down the concepts into its constituents. This will ensure that we wont be running around explaining stuff that does not need explaining.
Generally there are a couple of basic principles that you are trying to explain in you last mail. Since it seems to me that you are trying a little too much in one post we might best approach this top down.
interesting post. However I am missing the conversational value and the room for discussion in the way you present your ideas.
For purpose of keeping things on a step by step level, it would be nice to break down the concepts into its constituents. This will ensure that we wont be running around explaining stuff that does not need explaining.
Generally there are a couple of basic principles that you are trying to explain in you last mail. Since it seems to me that you are trying a little too much in one post we might best approach this top down.
(emphasis added)
I would think it would be much better to write 2 or 3 paragraphs well written, edited, and thought through adequately, rather than such long posts, that contain so many problems. It is incidental as to whether they are "typos", errors in understanding, or problems with your theoretical ideas; to the readers, it goes the same.
If you really want some feedback, which is always valuable, you have to make it easier to give feedback. I feel that pointing out 2 or 3 problems, and not pointing out 10 others, is not really good use of anybodies time. I also (and imagine others would concur) do not have time to write posts longer than yours, in order to adequately cover all the issues that beg addressing. You obviously have the time, so why not take the time to edit & re-write? There is no pressure here to post right away, or bonus points for "longest post".
If you have some new ideas, you need to state them clearly. You need to show how, and why they are different (and hopefully better) than the accepted paradigms, or interpretations that you are referencing. More than anything, to be considered "Science", or new Physics, you need to make some predictions. I never see any of this in your posts, which is fine, as long as you are just posting commentary; but, you regularly state that you have some unique theory that you are attempting to explain.
That said, here are just a few comments/questions:
Good Elf Posted: Jan 12 2008, 10:30 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi Good Elf, interesting post. However I am missing the conversational value and the room for discussion in the way you present your ideas. For purpose of keeping things on a step by step level, it would be nice to break down the concepts into its constituents. This will ensure that we wont be running around explaining stuff that does not need explaining. Generally there are a couple of basic principles that you are trying to explain in you last mail. Since it seems to me that you are trying a little too much in one post we might best approach this top down. |
(emphasis added)
I would think it would be much better to write 2 or 3 paragraphs well written, edited, and thought through adequately, rather than such long posts, that contain so many problems. It is incidental as to whether they are "typos", errors in understanding, or problems with your theoretical ideas; to the readers, it goes the same.
If you really want some feedback, which is always valuable, you have to make it easier to give feedback. I feel that pointing out 2 or 3 problems, and not pointing out 10 others, is not really good use of anybodies time. I also (and imagine others would concur) do not have time to write posts longer than yours, in order to adequately cover all the issues that beg addressing. You obviously have the time, so why not take the time to edit & re-write? There is no pressure here to post right away, or bonus points for "longest post".
If you have some new ideas, you need to state them clearly. You need to show how, and why they are different (and hopefully better) than the accepted paradigms, or interpretations that you are referencing. More than anything, to be considered "Science", or new Physics, you need to make some predictions. I never see any of this in your posts, which is fine, as long as you are just posting commentary; but, you regularly state that you have some unique theory that you are attempting to explain.
That said, here are just a few comments/questions:
Good Elf Posted: Jan 12 2008, 10:30 PM
..de Broglie matter wave theory does not describe photons. Um... I think that it does if you use the full theory..
What "full theory" do you mean here? De Broglies matter wave ideas are for matter. Matter does not move at c . I can't see that it was intended for use with "photons". It is to show the wave properties of what is conceived of as "particles" (matter). If you start mingling these ideas, you are going to get into problems right away. After all, the "photon" itself, is already a wave emanating from matter, so to use these ideas together is inviting contradiction. There is good reason why his work does not play a more prominent role in QM; it would contradict some of the main tenets. I am not saying that there is not a connection, in the limit of velocity, but if by "full theory", you mean going the direction that Bohm went with it, then you are including the "pilot wave" guiding the particle idea, which you are against.
IMO, these are "either/or" ideas: QM's "photons", or matter waves. Also, I do not think that QM can be fixed from "within" (IE. making "sandwiches" out of different ideas/interpretations). You can't start from the middle, or the top, of a system with inherent (and undetermined) problems. Otherwise, you get just what we have today: competing interpretations that just "shift" the paradox to another stage of the game.
Good Elf Posted
QUOTE
Photons "resonate" and not "move" through spatial matter wave interferences.
..
The photon in it's own from of reference is without time and without spatial separation between source and sinks. It is through the addition of time and therefore mass that "resonance" and frequency occurs.
..
The photon in it's own from of reference is without time and without spatial separation between source and sinks. It is through the addition of time and therefore mass that "resonance" and frequency occurs.
OK, so I think you'll need to explain "resonance", without time or movement (including the broadest definition of "movement", and what it takes to measure movement). Also, a matter wave, of a "particle" at rest (not moving), has a frequency, and experiences time. Then, the "particle" (also having mass, frequency, and experiencing time), generates a "photon". How do you explain this?
(since you've said those things come after the "photon")
There is only one fundamental phenomenon: vibration/oscillation. You must agree with me, because you've quoted Einstein & Dirac (via Mead): "..Since neither can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described.." ("photon - electron"), "..— two different points of view..". The problem is, that you consistently try to narrow it to one (side) of the argument, contradicting yourself along the way. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you over the years, but you continue unabashed.
Good Elf Posted
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Photons "resonate" and not "move" through spatial matter wave interferences. .. The photon in it's own from of reference is without time and without spatial separation between source and sinks. It is through the addition of time and therefore mass that "resonance" and frequency occurs. |
OK, so I think you'll need to explain "resonance", without time or movement (including the broadest definition of "movement", and what it takes to measure movement). Also, a matter wave, of a "particle" at rest (not moving), has a frequency, and experiences time. Then, the "particle" (also having mass, frequency, and experiencing time), generates a "photon". How do you explain this?
(since you've said those things come after the "photon")
There is only one fundamental phenomenon: vibration/oscillation. You must agree with me, because you've quoted Einstein & Dirac (via Mead): "..Since neither can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described.." ("photon - electron"), "..— two different points of view..". The problem is, that you consistently try to narrow it to one (side) of the argument, contradicting yourself along the way. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you over the years, but you continue unabashed.
Good Elf Posted
Speeds of a few meters per second for light have been obtained in practical materials. A carriage on a rail could easily keep up with the light propagating in such in extreme material such that it "appears" relatively at rest in it's "frozen state of hibernation".
This one is particularly bad. Make an "apples to apples" comparison: the "carriage" would need to travel to the "recycler" at the speed of light, then, with a slight delay, a new carriage made from the old, and it too moving at the speed of light to the next recycler. The "phenomenon" that is creating the illusion of "slow speed" is our inability to distinguish the old from the new. QM fails to remind you that this is NOT the same "photon". "Speed" does not apply to this scenario, in the sense of a "single photon". The speed of light is constant; only a series of absorbers (the medium), and a poor interpretation can create this illusion.
Good Elf Posted
QUOTE
..we are dealing with "waves" only and with some kind of almost indivisible packets of energy that are absorbed "whole" or not at all.
..
No half photons or any other "fractional photons" can be absorbed.
..
No half photons or any other "fractional photons" can be absorbed.
Recently, I've seen you list the exceptions to this "rule", that I've pointed out in the past. Now it's time to change the title of "rule", to just another aspect. Resonance, as a complete model, takes care of the different "rules" of partial absorbance. Otherwise, you've got problems; take this next quote, for example:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..we are dealing with "waves" only and with some kind of almost indivisible packets of energy that are absorbed "whole" or not at all. .. No half photons or any other "fractional photons" can be absorbed. |
Recently, I've seen you list the exceptions to this "rule", that I've pointed out in the past. Now it's time to change the title of "rule", to just another aspect. Resonance, as a complete model, takes care of the different "rules" of partial absorbance. Otherwise, you've got problems; take this next quote, for example:
A green band interference filter selects for the higher energy photons from the incandescent source which can be lowered in intensity markedly using a potentiometer... way down to emit only a few stray "green" photons.
Please explain, according to your "rule", what happens to the higher energy "photon", when it interacts with the green filter. The lower energy (green) filter can NOT absorb the "whole photon". Keep in mind that the term "reflection" is a classical generalization, and can not be used in a quantum description. Also, why do you think that these experiments always use a green filter? Just want to see if you've understood my explanation on color and resonance, or even if you might have your own idea.
Good Elf Posted
QUOTE
The "magic" theory of photons as little particles will have you believe that the photons have no individual history so they do not proceed from source to sink.
Can you explain how your "magic theory" is any different? You keep saying there is no time "experienced" for the "photon"; how can it have a "history" without time?
Good Elf Posted: May 9 2008, 08:51 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The "magic" theory of photons as little particles will have you believe that the photons have no individual history so they do not proceed from source to sink. |
Can you explain how your "magic theory" is any different? You keep saying there is no time "experienced" for the "photon"; how can it have a "history" without time?
Good Elf Posted: May 9 2008, 08:51 PM
The instantaneous nature is "limited" by the speed of light while the transactions are propagatdd at infinite velocity.
How do you combine "instantaneous" with "limited speed"?
Good Elf Posted
QUOTE
.. every packet from a single coherent source experiences the environment of the surrounding matter waves as if each and every packet "understands" what it is about to "find" ahead of time.
..
Truly it is correct to say that the photon "searches" many paths "as rays" or a single path
..
Truly it is correct to say that the photon "searches" many paths "as rays" or a single path
Again, these ideas are contradictory. Why would the packet search any other paths, if it knew ahead of time, which one it was going to take? De Broglie, Cramer, and Feynman don't mix, in this instance. Bad sandwich.
Good Elf Posted
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| .. every packet from a single coherent source experiences the environment of the surrounding matter waves as if each and every packet "understands" what it is about to "find" ahead of time. .. Truly it is correct to say that the photon "searches" many paths "as rays" or a single path |
Again, these ideas are contradictory. Why would the packet search any other paths, if it knew ahead of time, which one it was going to take? De Broglie, Cramer, and Feynman don't mix, in this instance. Bad sandwich.
Good Elf Posted
Forget the idea that there must be "electric and magnetic fields". A convincing argument can be made by observing some of the experiments involving the non-local influence of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. This is a "real effect" and cannot involve fields of any sort.
I don't think that "forgetting" E & B fields is wise. Why do you suggest that these fields are not "real"?
That's all I have time for.
Gorgeous Posted on Yesterday at 2:32 PM
QUOTE
Thus effectively the electrons in the experiment are already interconnected with one another, and hence are already 'aware' of one another’s resonant state and polarization, before the paired photons are emitted. It is this subtle interconnection of Matter that explains the apparent conflict of the EPR experiment.
I agree totally with the "subtle interconnection" of all matter, and that it has not played its' destiny in our full understanding yet. The fields, like electric, or gravitational, extend "forever", while losing "strength". Their frequency does not change however, and resonance still works the same as always, with harmonics. There is no way to create an experiment that does not already have this communication present, and therefore, no way to separate these influences. There is no "perfect vacuum", there are no isolated "particles".
regards,
T.Roc
Hi Troc,
you wrote:
essentially .. yes. it should be fundamental since it is the 'shape' of local space-time.
in my opinion this topology can either be 'stable' or dynamic. to describe these try 'knots' in the mathematical topological sense.
essentially .. yes. it should be fundamental since it is the 'shape' of local space-time.
in my opinion this topology can either be 'stable' or dynamic. to describe these try 'knots' in the mathematical topological sense.
I would think it would be much better to write 2 or 3 paragraphs well written, edited, and thought through adequately, rather than such long posts, that contain so many problems. It is incidental as to whether they are "typos", errors in understanding, or problems with your theoretical ideas; to the readers, it goes the same.
looking at your last post you may need some of your own advice
Happy to be back.
Best regards,
Jan Rinze.
(still like this thread )
you wrote:
QUOTE
My question to you is, is Topology "fundamental"? IE. is it utterly spontaneous, or does it have a cause? If it has a cause, then perhaps that is where we start to build the consistent framework to describe these phenomenon.
essentially .. yes. it should be fundamental since it is the 'shape' of local space-time.
in my opinion this topology can either be 'stable' or dynamic. to describe these try 'knots' in the mathematical topological sense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My question to you is, is Topology "fundamental"? IE. is it utterly spontaneous, or does it have a cause? If it has a cause, then perhaps that is where we start to build the consistent framework to describe these phenomenon. |
essentially .. yes. it should be fundamental since it is the 'shape' of local space-time.
in my opinion this topology can either be 'stable' or dynamic. to describe these try 'knots' in the mathematical topological sense.
I would think it would be much better to write 2 or 3 paragraphs well written, edited, and thought through adequately, rather than such long posts, that contain so many problems. It is incidental as to whether they are "typos", errors in understanding, or problems with your theoretical ideas; to the readers, it goes the same.
looking at your last post you may need some of your own advice
Happy to be back.
Best regards,
Jan Rinze.
(still like this thread
)
Hi all,
janrinze
Yes, I went against my better judgment there!
Yes, I went against my better judgment there!
I feel that pointing out 2 or 3 problems, and not pointing out 10 others, is not really good use of anybodies time. I also (and imagine others would concur) do not have time to write posts longer than yours, in order to adequately cover all the issues that beg addressing.
In general, I have nothing against long posts, so long as they are well written, and do not include, say, >3n topics, where n is the number of paragraphs.
janrinze
When I asked, "does it have a cause?", that is what I'm looking for: do you think that there is another phenomenon, that guides the topology through the "imbalance" that stable or or spreading dynamics would cause. Is the geometry (that creates stable or non-stable) purely spontaneous, or is it guided?
ciao,
T.Roc
janrinze
QUOTE
you may need some of your own advice
Yes, I went against my better judgment there!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you may need some of your own advice |
Yes, I went against my better judgment there!
I feel that pointing out 2 or 3 problems, and not pointing out 10 others, is not really good use of anybodies time. I also (and imagine others would concur) do not have time to write posts longer than yours, in order to adequately cover all the issues that beg addressing.
In general, I have nothing against long posts, so long as they are well written, and do not include, say, >3n topics, where n is the number of paragraphs.
janrinze
QUOTE
.. it should be fundamental since it is the 'shape' of local space-time
..
this topology can either be 'stable' or dynamic
..
this topology can either be 'stable' or dynamic
When I asked, "does it have a cause?", that is what I'm looking for: do you think that there is another phenomenon, that guides the topology through the "imbalance" that stable or or spreading dynamics would cause. Is the geometry (that creates stable or non-stable) purely spontaneous, or is it guided?
ciao,
T.Roc
Hi Troc,
As for a cause, there is either the 'big bang' or some other creation myth which might cater for its existence. Whereas the diversity and the 'guidedness' could be perceived as an interaction between 'near' topological shapes and the tendency of space-time to flatten. E=mc2 should fit nicely in that concept since any form of energy should be seen as a topology of space-time. So if energy is the 'cause' then conservation of energy will be the cause that topological phenomena can cause this 'knotting'.
as an illustration I would say that 'waves' can cause 'matter' and vice verse.
such as in annihilation and creation.
best regards,
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE
When I asked, "does it have a cause?", that is what I'm looking for: do you think that there is another phenomenon, that guides the topology through the "imbalance" that stable or or spreading dynamics would cause. Is the geometry (that creates stable or non-stable) purely spontaneous, or is it guided?
As for a cause, there is either the 'big bang' or some other creation myth which might cater for its existence. Whereas the diversity and the 'guidedness' could be perceived as an interaction between 'near' topological shapes and the tendency of space-time to flatten. E=mc2 should fit nicely in that concept since any form of energy should be seen as a topology of space-time. So if energy is the 'cause' then conservation of energy will be the cause that topological phenomena can cause this 'knotting'.
as an illustration I would say that 'waves' can cause 'matter' and vice verse.
such as in annihilation and creation.
best regards,
Jan Rinze.
Hi janrinze, Confused2, DavidD, TRoc, Gorgeous et al,
QUOTE (janrinze+)
The main problem here is how can we describe this phenomenon in a consistent framework which is similar to wave theory but comprises the locality of the 'particle' as a specific wave 'state'..
Topology is (always) the cause for resulting interference patterns in wave theory.
and...
Topology is (always) the cause for resulting interference patterns in wave theory.
and...
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Also, I concur with this advise to Good Elf:
QUOTE (janrinze+)
Hi Good Elf,
interesting post. However I am missing the conversational value and the room for discussion in the way you present your ideas.
For purpose of keeping things on a step by step level, it would be nice to break down the concepts into its constituents. This will ensure that we wont be running around explaining stuff that does not need explaining.
Generally there are a couple of basic principles that you are trying to explain in you last mail. Since it seems to me that you are trying a little too much in one post we might best approach this top down.
(emphasis added)
I would think it would be much better to write 2 or 3 paragraphs well written, edited, and thought through adequately, rather than such long posts, that contain so many problems. Yep... you are correct. You know me all too well though and you also ask a lot of leading questions that need explanations. What's an elf supposed to do??
I really want feedback (.... of course I would like "positive" feedback naturally). However I will take any feedback as long as it has some science behind it.
interesting post. However I am missing the conversational value and the room for discussion in the way you present your ideas.
For purpose of keeping things on a step by step level, it would be nice to break down the concepts into its constituents. This will ensure that we wont be running around explaining stuff that does not need explaining.
Generally there are a couple of basic principles that you are trying to explain in you last mail. Since it seems to me that you are trying a little too much in one post we might best approach this top down.
(emphasis added)
I would think it would be much better to write 2 or 3 paragraphs well written, edited, and thought through adequately, rather than such long posts, that contain so many problems.
Yep... you are correct. You know me all too well though and you also ask a lot of leading questions that need explanations. What's an elf supposed to do??I really want feedback (.... of course I would like "positive" feedback naturally). However I will take any feedback as long as it has some science behind it.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
There is no pressure here to post right away, or bonus points for "longest post".
True... I am not presenting anything new now. I think I can summarize by saying that the Universe can't be fully understood through deconstruction alone. Many concepts I have developed are related to "Holographic Principles". You can never learn how a watch works by smashing it and looking at the pieces. The working of a watch can only be understood "holistically".
One principle is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (.... Or Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis) in which time is symmetric (or nearly so). All quantum theories are time symmetric. The problem of "observation" is "we", the observers, are not "time symmetric" so we can't observe "advanced waves". While the advanced waves exist and we note only the retarded waves the resultant for "de Broglie Matter Waves" is entirely stationary "standing waves". I am in general agreement with what Gorgeous has said about Milo Wolff's ideas earlier above.
The main disagreement I have with Milo is in the way that these advanced and retarded waves "propagate". I may seem very "picky" about this point but I believe it is very important to understand.
The next point is space is not amorphous but is "probably" infinitely extensible and there is no Planck Length breaking up of the "continuum" in some quantum "foam" somewhere at 10^-41 cm. Quanta are strictly confined to "entities" that are found "embedded in the continuum" as "features" such as light quanta and particles of all kinds.
Space and time are inseparable yet are subject to interpretation by the causal observers. we observe only a 1/2 a dimension of time due to "causality" which is the arrow of time that we need to link causes and effect in our philosophy.
One principle is Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (.... Or Cramer's Transactional Hypothesis) in which time is symmetric (or nearly so). All quantum theories are time symmetric. The problem of "observation" is "we", the observers, are not "time symmetric" so we can't observe "advanced waves". While the advanced waves exist and we note only the retarded waves the resultant for "de Broglie Matter Waves" is entirely stationary "standing waves". I am in general agreement with what Gorgeous has said about Milo Wolff's ideas earlier above.
The main disagreement I have with Milo is in the way that these advanced and retarded waves "propagate". I may seem very "picky" about this point but I believe it is very important to understand.
The next point is space is not amorphous but is "probably" infinitely extensible and there is no Planck Length breaking up of the "continuum" in some quantum "foam" somewhere at 10^-41 cm. Quanta are strictly confined to "entities" that are found "embedded in the continuum" as "features" such as light quanta and particles of all kinds.
Space and time are inseparable yet are subject to interpretation by the causal observers. we observe only a 1/2 a dimension of time due to "causality" which is the arrow of time that we need to link causes and effect in our philosophy.
QUOTE (Gorgeous +)
The far more plausible answer is that there is no disconnection in the first place! - You are looking at 'parts' of the same One thing.
QUOTE (Wolff+)
The Spherical Wave Structure of Matter, particularly the behaviour of the In and Out Waves, is able to resolve this puzzle so that the appearance of instant communication is understood and yet neither Einstein nor QM need be wrong. In order to show this, it is necessary to carefully look at the detailed process of exchanging energy between two atoms, by the action of the IN/OUT waves of both atoms. Remember that for resonant coupling it is necessary for the In and Out Waves of both electrons to interact with one another.
The passage of both In-Waves through both Wave-Centers precedes the actual frequency shifts of the source and detector. A means to detect this first passage event is not a capability of the usual photo-detector apparatus and remains totally unnoticed. But the In-Waves are symmetrical counterparts of the Out-Waves and carry the information of their polarization state between parts of the experimental apparatus before the Out-Waves cause a "departing photon" event. The IN-waves travel with the speed of light so there is no violation of relativity.
Thus effectively the electrons in the experiment are already interconnected with one another, and hence are already 'aware' of one another’s resonant state and polarization, before the paired photons are emitted. It is this subtle interconnection of Matter that explains the apparent conflict of the EPR experiment.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Einste...-Experiment.htm
The passage of both In-Waves through both Wave-Centers precedes the actual frequency shifts of the source and detector. A means to detect this first passage event is not a capability of the usual photo-detector apparatus and remains totally unnoticed. But the In-Waves are symmetrical counterparts of the Out-Waves and carry the information of their polarization state between parts of the experimental apparatus before the Out-Waves cause a "departing photon" event. The IN-waves travel with the speed of light so there is no violation of relativity.
Thus effectively the electrons in the experiment are already interconnected with one another, and hence are already 'aware' of one another’s resonant state and polarization, before the paired photons are emitted. It is this subtle interconnection of Matter that explains the apparent conflict of the EPR experiment.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Einste...-Experiment.htm
This "interpretation" is not the way in which the real world actually works. The need for standing waves is dutifully recognized and standing waves are the result. What Milo Wolff does not acknowledge the need for is true time symmetry with a bit of a "fudge" with "in and out" waves. Milo Wolff says "Space must be the substance which exists and matter is formed from waves in Space"... I entirely agree but the need for this to define the dimension of space itself is not indicated. The "non-local communication needs to be explained by some kind of "instantaneous" influence while preserving the fact that energy still takes time to "accumulate" at the sinks where the action "transfers to" after some time determined by the speed of light. In most other respects his ideas are right. The devil is in the detail though.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Good Elf Posted: Jan 12 2008, 10:30 PM
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
..de Broglie matter wave theory does not describe photons. Um... I think that it does if you use the full theory..
What "full theory" do you mean here? De Broglies matter wave ideas are for matter. Matter does not move at c . I can't see that it was intended for use with "photons". It is to show the wave properties of what is conceived of as "particles" (matter). If you start mingling these ideas, you are going to get into problems right away. After all, the "photon" itself, is already a wave emanating from matter, so to use these ideas together is inviting contradiction. There is good reason why his work does not play a more prominent role in QM; it would contradict some of the main tenets. I am not saying that there is not a connection, in the limit of velocity, but if by "full theory", you mean going the direction that Bohm went with it, then you are including the "pilot wave" guiding the particle idea, which you are against.
IMO, these are "either/or" ideas: QM's "photons", or matter waves. Also, I do not think that QM can be fixed from "within" (IE. making "sandwiches" out of different ideas/interpretations). You can't start from the middle, or the top, of a system with inherent (and undetermined) problems. Otherwise, you get just what we have today: competing interpretations that just "shift" the paradox to another stage of the game.
IMO, these are "either/or" ideas: QM's "photons", or matter waves. Also, I do not think that QM can be fixed from "within" (IE. making "sandwiches" out of different ideas/interpretations). You can't start from the middle, or the top, of a system with inherent (and undetermined) problems. Otherwise, you get just what we have today: competing interpretations that just "shift" the paradox to another stage of the game.
The "full" theory is that both electromagnetism and matter deform spacetime. The "sandwich" as you say I attempt to describe it as a Holographic Principle as recurrences of the same kinds of structure (embedded dimensions) at different scales. Mostly our Universe can be described as being Quantum Electrodynamics at the atomic scale. This is the description of "quanta"... all the "particles" we are seeing around us. You me and everything that is a fermion are just collections of these. The description of almost all the properties of our Universe is basically just the description of these "embedded particles" in a very "smooth" spacetime. That spacetime is a compact dimensional structure on the massive scale of the Universe and is also a compact dimensional structure on the smaller scale. These different scales are related through a dimensional embedding. At a much larger scale we have our Universe which is another kind of "particle" made of "empty space" with a boundary that appears closed on the inside.... Our spacetime of four Einstein dimensions which are in one way mathematically "symmetric". On the smaller scale there are dimensional spaces defined "on the outside" by all these particles (this outside when curving of spacetime is called "mass"). Each fermion particle is "sitting in" our bosonic spacetime adding it's dimensions to spacetime as a fermion. These two "separate" dimensional spaces are simultaneously experienced by light quanta which treat spacetime as being "flat". Flat on the "Minkowski Spacetime" inside of our Universe and flat on the inside of fermions (which are the matter). This inside and outside relationship relate boson to fermion respectively in a certain way and they add dimensional spaces as well. Each sub-atomic particle in our Universe exists on a "surface". This surface is "flat" like a mirror in our Universe just like Lewis Carroll's Alice's Mirror Universe (only with Alice's world in the mirror that is a world of "light" and in reality I am speaking of a world of de Broglie's matter waves)... the "flatspace". This reality appears to us as three dimensional but to something or someone (an observer) outside of of our Universe ... beyond this "internal" bosonic environment... we appear "flat" to them as if in a mirror.
We describe our "space" as three dimensional and the internal aspect of the sub-atomic particles of our space is also three dimensional... but not the same three dimensions... they are overlapping simultaneous dimensions. Reciprocal dimensions. Likewise time for us in our three "bosonic" dimensions does not relate to the time in sub-atomic reciprocal dimensions either. The time is a proportional reciprocal time or frequency. The relationship between them is through Special Relativity and the Light Cone Wall. This leads not to "Sandwiches" but "Russian Dolls". The Holographic aspect of this is how matter waves connect the reciprocal environments at differnt levels... just like in this "low dimensional" Fourier Transform Processor.
Fourier Transform Processor
This device "processes" light sources on a "static two dimensional plane" ... a transparency by projecting it into a reciprocal space... these are not "rays" as they should be in conventional theory (carrying particles from point to point) but are Fourier Transforms in higher dimensions which turn these "light particles" inside out. A "bubble Universe" processes an image of an outer Universe as a series of matter wave sources in it's higher dimensional surface in the same way our optical mirrors or lenses process flat images of light. The additional twist to this picture of things is the gauge invariance common to all theories of electromagnetism and even QCD which is where we get to the concept of the "speed of light" and the expansion of waves on the surface of light cones (the inverse square law). The words "expansion" and "speed" are semantic traps now conveying "motion" when we try to translate this into a meaning which relates in a reciprocal space. Actually we really only want to convey "causality"... the idea of before and after into a world in which time and frequency are interchanged with spatial terms as spatial wave numbers and spatial frequency. So time and frequency lead to distance and resonance through the property of "mass".
I will stop here and let you add your own observations to this. I am really sorry about the length of this but because the problem is not one that can be understood through "deconstruction" but through holographic principles it can't be dumbed down too much.
Cheers
We describe our "space" as three dimensional and the internal aspect of the sub-atomic particles of our space is also three dimensional... but not the same three dimensions... they are overlapping simultaneous dimensions. Reciprocal dimensions. Likewise time for us in our three "bosonic" dimensions does not relate to the time in sub-atomic reciprocal dimensions either. The time is a proportional reciprocal time or frequency. The relationship between them is through Special Relativity and the Light Cone Wall. This leads not to "Sandwiches" but "Russian Dolls". The Holographic aspect of this is how matter waves connect the reciprocal environments at differnt levels... just like in this "low dimensional" Fourier Transform Processor.
Fourier Transform Processor
This device "processes" light sources on a "static two dimensional plane" ... a transparency by projecting it into a reciprocal space... these are not "rays" as they should be in conventional theory (carrying particles from point to point) but are Fourier Transforms in higher dimensions which turn these "light particles" inside out. A "bubble Universe" processes an image of an outer Universe as a series of matter wave sources in it's higher dimensional surface in the same way our optical mirrors or lenses process flat images of light. The additional twist to this picture of things is the gauge invariance common to all theories of electromagnetism and even QCD which is where we get to the concept of the "speed of light" and the expansion of waves on the surface of light cones (the inverse square law). The words "expansion" and "speed" are semantic traps now conveying "motion" when we try to translate this into a meaning which relates in a reciprocal space. Actually we really only want to convey "causality"... the idea of before and after into a world in which time and frequency are interchanged with spatial terms as spatial wave numbers and spatial frequency. So time and frequency lead to distance and resonance through the property of "mass".
I will stop here and let you add your own observations to this. I am really sorry about the length of this but because the problem is not one that can be understood through "deconstruction" but through holographic principles it can't be dumbed down too much.
Cheers
jan,
I'm not speaking of the "first cause", or something to that effect. Looking for the "ongoing cause of the dynamic", moment by moment, bit by bit. I'm looking at Resonance as this cause; additionally, since it's nonlinear, Topology will also affect Resonance.
I'm not speaking of the "first cause", or something to that effect. Looking for the "ongoing cause of the dynamic", moment by moment, bit by bit. I'm looking at Resonance as this cause; additionally, since it's nonlinear, Topology will also affect Resonance.
Whereas the diversity and the 'guidedness' could be perceived as an interaction between 'near' topological shapes and the tendency of space-time to flatten.
I totally agree. This tendency has been noted by many, and stated in as many different terms, IE. Law of Least Action, Minimum Amplitude, etc. My personal "spin" on this is the "zero beat-frequency", as it applies to Resonance.
Also a very good point. I would add that since c is our constant & limit, and we need to square it to get the mass~energy relationship, we end up with a workable symmetry that connects the actual medium induced changes in velocity, Geometric Phase, and Resonance, via frequency & wavelength measurements of space-time, and the net result of constant measured velocity.
Also a very good point. I would add that since c is our constant & limit, and we need to square it to get the mass~energy relationship, we end up with a workable symmetry that connects the actual medium induced changes in velocity, Geometric Phase, and Resonance, via frequency & wavelength measurements of space-time, and the net result of constant measured velocity.
So if energy is the 'cause' then conservation of energy will be the cause that topological phenomena can cause this 'knotting'.
I would say that "energy" is the subject, conservation of energy the law in which it abides, and the procedural rules for the law are in the dynamics of Resonance. The ratio of velocity to frequency being the first limit that allows the symmetry that causes these knots, which then then create a bound/closed wave topology. We would need 2 kinds: knots (fermions), and loops (bosons), to put it as simply as possible.
It seems that we are very close to saying the same thing?
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE
As for a cause, there is either the 'big bang' or some other creation myth which might cater for its existence.
I'm not speaking of the "first cause", or something to that effect. Looking for the "ongoing cause of the dynamic", moment by moment, bit by bit. I'm looking at Resonance as this cause; additionally, since it's nonlinear, Topology will also affect Resonance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for a cause, there is either the 'big bang' or some other creation myth which might cater for its existence. |
I'm not speaking of the "first cause", or something to that effect. Looking for the "ongoing cause of the dynamic", moment by moment, bit by bit. I'm looking at Resonance as this cause; additionally, since it's nonlinear, Topology will also affect Resonance.
Whereas the diversity and the 'guidedness' could be perceived as an interaction between 'near' topological shapes and the tendency of space-time to flatten.
I totally agree. This tendency has been noted by many, and stated in as many different terms, IE. Law of Least Action, Minimum Amplitude, etc. My personal "spin" on this is the "zero beat-frequency", as it applies to Resonance.
QUOTE
E=mc2 should fit nicely in that concept since any form of energy should be seen as a topology of space-time.
Also a very good point. I would add that since c is our constant & limit, and we need to square it to get the mass~energy relationship, we end up with a workable symmetry that connects the actual medium induced changes in velocity, Geometric Phase, and Resonance, via frequency & wavelength measurements of space-time, and the net result of constant measured velocity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| E=mc2 should fit nicely in that concept since any form of energy should be seen as a topology of space-time. |
Also a very good point. I would add that since c is our constant & limit, and we need to square it to get the mass~energy relationship, we end up with a workable symmetry that connects the actual medium induced changes in velocity, Geometric Phase, and Resonance, via frequency & wavelength measurements of space-time, and the net result of constant measured velocity.
So if energy is the 'cause' then conservation of energy will be the cause that topological phenomena can cause this 'knotting'.
I would say that "energy" is the subject, conservation of energy the law in which it abides, and the procedural rules for the law are in the dynamics of Resonance. The ratio of velocity to frequency being the first limit that allows the symmetry that causes these knots, which then then create a bound/closed wave topology. We would need 2 kinds: knots (fermions), and loops (bosons), to put it as simply as possible.
It seems that we are very close to saying the same thing?
regards,
T.Roc
QUOTE (janrinze+May 21 2008, 05:06 PM)
Hi Troc,
As for a cause, there is either the 'big bang' or some other creation myth which might cater for its existence.
hi TRoc
The cause must have the ability to reduce entropy in addition to being source of energy.
I see it in pure chaos- the spontaneous appearance and disappearance of infinitesimal disconnected spatial dimensions out of imaginary time, before it loops.
This applies that there is no infinite 3D space. The infinite , eternal imaginary time is outside spatial dimensions.
The chaotic space does not sustain waves, nor straight lines, nor circles- because if we plan to draw a line, next point of space we were aiming at disappears and appears somewhere else, so what we get instead of straight line is something like Brownian motion trajectory.
However, infinitesimal dimensions of space tend to aggregate, making little bigger dimensions ( still infinitesimal, but lower degree). These start to have own frequencies which are pertubed by forcing from Brownian space appearing nearby and disappearing. They are like prestrings.
Then, for some reason, perhaps because there is some guidance from potential infinitedimensional space ( the space that could be space, but is not until it appears) because of its spherical nature ( spherical-flat-hyperbolic) infinitesimal aggregates loop, catching themselves.
When they loop, string like objects are formed, and they can sustain frequency 1 but also inside the loop there appear structures of space which are able to sustain standing waves of rational fractions of wave lengths per turn- harmonics. Most likely, appearance of such internal structure of space time vortex causes a symmetric structure outside the vortex.
Now these loops are also scattered in chaotic space time, even though their local space dimension is 2. It requires again aggregation of such loops in big enough numbers so that the area covered by loops exceeds area covered by chaotic space- even if both these areas are undefinable, their ratio must reach value where loops in sea of infinitesimal space appearances/disappearances connect-percolate, so chaotic space is reduced to lakes between connected loops vs. sea around islands of loops.
This how I envisage the first few steps . The omnipresence of chaotic appearance/disappearance of space infinitesimals give the necessary cooling entropy , while space in such development has fractal dimensions locally- there is no 3D background space. It does not exist, its not needed. What exists and is needed is potential space, but that can not be real.
Waves as constituents of matter is OK, but not enough- wave matter duality does not lead to energy, nor reduction of entropy independent if we define particle before wave or vice versa even with infinite reduction of grains in medium for waves - the origin is still deeper.
Such are my thoughts. Personally I think we have all the symbols and mathematical and physical facts to reconstruct how Universe works - just need to sort the knowledge in the right order.
As for a cause, there is either the 'big bang' or some other creation myth which might cater for its existence.
hi TRoc
The cause must have the ability to reduce entropy in addition to being source of energy.
I see it in pure chaos- the spontaneous appearance and disappearance of infinitesimal disconnected spatial dimensions out of imaginary time, before it loops.
This applies that there is no infinite 3D space. The infinite , eternal imaginary time is outside spatial dimensions.
The chaotic space does not sustain waves, nor straight lines, nor circles- because if we plan to draw a line, next point of space we were aiming at disappears and appears somewhere else, so what we get instead of straight line is something like Brownian motion trajectory.
However, infinitesimal dimensions of space tend to aggregate, making little bigger dimensions ( still infinitesimal, but lower degree). These start to have own frequencies which are pertubed by forcing from Brownian space appearing nearby and disappearing. They are like prestrings.
Then, for some reason, perhaps because there is some guidance from potential infinitedimensional space ( the space that could be space, but is not until it appears) because of its spherical nature ( spherical-flat-hyperbolic) infinitesimal aggregates loop, catching themselves.
When they loop, string like objects are formed, and they can sustain frequency 1 but also inside the loop there appear structures of space which are able to sustain standing waves of rational fractions of wave lengths per turn- harmonics. Most likely, appearance of such internal structure of space time vortex causes a symmetric structure outside the vortex.
Now these loops are also scattered in chaotic space time, even though their local space dimension is 2. It requires again aggregation of such loops in big enough numbers so that the area covered by loops exceeds area covered by chaotic space- even if both these areas are undefinable, their ratio must reach value where loops in sea of infinitesimal space appearances/disappearances connect-percolate, so chaotic space is reduced to lakes between connected loops vs. sea around islands of loops.
This how I envisage the first few steps . The omnipresence of chaotic appearance/disappearance of space infinitesimals give the necessary cooling entropy , while space in such development has fractal dimensions locally- there is no 3D background space. It does not exist, its not needed. What exists and is needed is potential space, but that can not be real.
Waves as constituents of matter is OK, but not enough- wave matter duality does not lead to energy, nor reduction of entropy independent if we define particle before wave or vice versa even with infinite reduction of grains in medium for waves - the origin is still deeper.
Such are my thoughts. Personally I think we have all the symbols and mathematical and physical facts to reconstruct how Universe works - just need to sort the knowledge in the right order.
QUOTE (GoodElf+)
This "interpretation" is not the way in which the real world actually works. The need for standing waves is dutifully recognized and standing waves are the result. What Milo Wolff does not acknowledge the need for is true time symmetry with a bit of a "fudge" with "in and out" waves. Milo Wolff says "Space must be the substance which exists and matter is formed from waves in Space"... I entirely agree but the need for this to define the dimension of space itself is not indicated. The "non-local communication needs to be explained by some kind of "instantaneous" influence while preserving the fact that energy still takes time to "accumulate" at the sinks where the action "transfers to" after some time determined by the speed of light. In most other respects his ideas are right. The devil is in the detail though.
There is no 'devil'.
Then how is it that you, apparently, 'entirely agree'? Please indicate how it is that you 'entirely agree'!
Also, please note that 'advancing' waves and 'retarding' waves are actually the same thing; the in-wave being formed from the out-waves of other wave-centres ('matter'). This is the motion of what exists (as you have already 'entirely agreed' upon) - and as such, also represents your 'fudge' of 'true time symmetry'.
g.
There is no 'devil'.
QUOTE
Milo Wolff says "Space must be the substance which exists and matter is formed from waves in Space"... I entirely agree but the need for this to define the dimension of space itself is not indicated.
Then how is it that you, apparently, 'entirely agree'? Please indicate how it is that you 'entirely agree'!
Also, please note that 'advancing' waves and 'retarding' waves are actually the same thing; the in-wave being formed from the out-waves of other wave-centres ('matter'). This is the motion of what exists (as you have already 'entirely agreed' upon) - and as such, also represents your 'fudge' of 'true time symmetry'.
g.
Hi Gorgeous,
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
There is no 'devil'.
You are right... this is a "turn of phrase"... "The devil is in the detail"
QUOTE (Wordreference.com - English Only Questions involving English usage. +)
Q: G'day English@s
I would be fascinated to hear your interpretations of the old English idiom;
The devil is in the detail.
A:The old child-hood poem says it all:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost / For want of a shoe the horse was lost / For want of a horse the rider was lost / For want of a rider the battle was lost / For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
The nail was the detail!
Joelline
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=375512
I would be fascinated to hear your interpretations of the old English idiom;
The devil is in the detail.
A:The old child-hood poem says it all:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost / For want of a shoe the horse was lost / For want of a horse the rider was lost / For want of a rider the battle was lost / For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
The nail was the detail!
Joelline
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=375512
Or perhaps this is what you mean... he he he!
With A Grain of Salt! We elves "love" details....
With A Grain of Salt! We elves "love" details....
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Milo Wolff says "Space must be the substance which exists and matter is formed from waves in Space"... I entirely agree but the need for this to define the dimension of space itself is not indicated.
In/out standing spherical wave motion.
cheers, hehehe.
g.
Then how is it that you, apparently, 'entirely agree'? Please indicate how it is that you 'entirely agree'!
Also, please note that 'advancing' waves and 'retarding' waves are actually the same thing; the in-wave being formed from the out-waves of other wave-centres ('matter'). This is the motion of what exists (as you have already 'entirely agreed' upon) - and as such, also represents your 'fudge' of 'true time symmetry'.
Also, please note that 'advancing' waves and 'retarding' waves are actually the same thing; the in-wave being formed from the out-waves of other wave-centres ('matter'). This is the motion of what exists (as you have already 'entirely agreed' upon) - and as such, also represents your 'fudge' of 'true time symmetry'.
I "agree" entirely with the statement made but "always" there is more to be said. Space and time are the "stuff" of dimensional spacetime. Events are able to be "separated" only by having a "separation" in space and time. Unfortunately a separation in space and time alone is not sufficient to "define" separate "events". That may sound "trivial" or even "crazy" but it is not "sufficient" for a description of "everything". While a single event may be defined as the "instantaneous emission and absorption of a photon in the photon's rest frame" (... along the null geodesic) other "observers" see this "separation" in time and space leading to the phenomenon of our rather extensive "Universe" and the appearance of mass through a gauge invariance. Some may say it is through a "breaking" of gauge invariance but that is because we see things "causally".
It is not "my fudge" of time symmetry... it is all quantum electrodynamic theories that show this time symmetry. It is an "appreciation" of this "finer point" of the null geodesic in which "everything we see exists". Photons are the "exchange force" of our macroscopic Universe. How they are interpreted is our "little devil". And I must say a very "cute little fellow" he is!
Cheers
It is not "my fudge" of time symmetry... it is all quantum electrodynamic theories that show this time symmetry. It is an "appreciation" of this "finer point" of the null geodesic in which "everything we see exists". Photons are the "exchange force" of our macroscopic Universe. How they are interpreted is our "little devil".
And I must say a very "cute little fellow" he is!Cheers
Hi All,
i just stumbled over a nice youtube video showing the effects of a disturbance in corn-starch while it is covered with 120 Hz standing waves.
corn starch movie
the last part is even more interesting since it shows how two disturbances can attract and repel each other. At the end it shows how a disturbance can grow in size.
Just food for thought..
Jan Rinze.
i just stumbled over a nice youtube video showing the effects of a disturbance in corn-starch while it is covered with 120 Hz standing waves.
corn starch movie
the last part is even more interesting since it shows how two disturbances can attract and repel each other. At the end it shows how a disturbance can grow in size.
Just food for thought..
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE
It is not "my fudge" of time symmetry... it is all quantum electrodynamic theories that show this time symmetry.
In/out standing spherical wave motion.
cheers, hehehe.
g.
QUOTE (janrinze+May 22 2008, 09:23 PM)
Hi All,
i just stumbled over a nice youtube video showing the effects of a disturbance in corn-starch while it is covered with 120 Hz standing waves.
corn starch movie
the last part is even more interesting since it shows how two disturbances can attract and repel each other. At the end it shows how a disturbance can grow in size.
Just food for thought..
Jan Rinze.
Hi jan
Such experiments would have been possible in very early days of humanity.
i just stumbled over a nice youtube video showing the effects of a disturbance in corn-starch while it is covered with 120 Hz standing waves.
corn starch movie
the last part is even more interesting since it shows how two disturbances can attract and repel each other. At the end it shows how a disturbance can grow in size.
Just food for thought..
Jan Rinze.
Hi jan
Such experiments would have been possible in very early days of humanity.
Hi Ivars, janrinze et al,
Corn Starch Movie
It is an interesting movie but you need to say exactly what it is that is of relevance. Of course you may not have implied anything at all here.. just having a little fun with these YouTube thought provoking videos. Otherwise the movie is only of curiosity value unless you can stipulate what relevance it is to a particular problem. This is not a magic phenomenon and it is "easy" to explain. Corn starch powder floats on water and is hydrophobic (not able to be wetted) so "naturally" it is going to have certain surface properties on water. A small number of particles on a water surface will exhibit "anti-clumping behavior" and repel each other through negative surface tension. Large numbers of particles can't usually escape from each other but they clump (outside of the water surface). The addition of vertical acceleration sets up standing waves and allows the particles to "partially escape the surface boundary layer" with the additional energy. There is more cellular clumping behavior ("out of the water" in antinodes) than immersed ("in the water" in the nodes). The energy of the "hole" is higher than the energy of the standing waves antinodes (except the nodes) which a hole is one of these nodes. Big holes are "lower" in energy than the smaller holes... surface tension is "lower" in big holes than in small holes . This means big holes break up into smaller holes and small holes have a minimum size in which they can exist. Think of a fine capillary tube immersed in a bowl of water and how far the water flows up the tube vs a drinking straw and how far the water flows up it. Of course this analogy is the "negative" in this case and it is more like the capillary action "repels" the liquids ability to rise up a capillary tube so depresses the level below the "natural" surface level. In more energetic environments (higher accelerations) you are allowing each particle to get a lot more "vertical" energy like each little particle is "bouncing up and down on a trampoline". The energy of each particle "free of the surface" is lower than particles confined to the surface so clumping increases to a much greater extent and you see all the particles crawling over each other to get out of the water into a lower energy "dry" environment. ... Ummm I guess the water must feel really "cold" to corn starch powder??
This is "my" interpretation, maybe there are other more sophisticated answers. Feel free to contribute anyone.
Cheers... interesting
Corn Starch Movie
It is an interesting movie but you need to say exactly what it is that is of relevance. Of course you may not have implied anything at all here.. just having a little fun with these YouTube thought provoking videos. Otherwise the movie is only of curiosity value unless you can stipulate what relevance it is to a particular problem. This is not a magic phenomenon and it is "easy" to explain. Corn starch powder floats on water and is hydrophobic (not able to be wetted) so "naturally" it is going to have certain surface properties on water. A small number of particles on a water surface will exhibit "anti-clumping behavior" and repel each other through negative surface tension. Large numbers of particles can't usually escape from each other but they clump (outside of the water surface). The addition of vertical acceleration sets up standing waves and allows the particles to "partially escape the surface boundary layer" with the additional energy. There is more cellular clumping behavior ("out of the water" in antinodes) than immersed ("in the water" in the nodes). The energy of the "hole" is higher than the energy of the standing waves antinodes (except the nodes) which a hole is one of these nodes. Big holes are "lower" in energy than the smaller holes... surface tension is "lower" in big holes than in small holes . This means big holes break up into smaller holes and small holes have a minimum size in which they can exist. Think of a fine capillary tube immersed in a bowl of water and how far the water flows up the tube vs a drinking straw and how far the water flows up it. Of course this analogy is the "negative" in this case and it is more like the capillary action "repels" the liquids ability to rise up a capillary tube so depresses the level below the "natural" surface level. In more energetic environments (higher accelerations) you are allowing each particle to get a lot more "vertical" energy like each little particle is "bouncing up and down on a trampoline". The energy of each particle "free of the surface" is lower than particles confined to the surface so clumping increases to a much greater extent and you see all the particles crawling over each other to get out of the water into a lower energy "dry" environment.
... Ummm I guess the water must feel really "cold" to corn starch powder??This is "my" interpretation, maybe there are other more sophisticated answers. Feel free to contribute anyone.
Cheers... interesting
Hi Good Elf, Ivars and the rest,
my reference to the corn-starch movie is of course mainly for entertainment value.
However, since the beginning of this thread about the two slit experiment we have seen lots of discussion about standing waves, interference and other stuff. This example shows that the behavior of non-Newtonian fluids is somewhat counter intuitive. Similar is the behavior of Quantum Mechanics counter intuitive. Since the non-Newtonian fluid medium is not well understood by most of us it can behave in very interesting ways.
This leads me to the following question.
What happens to space-time when it is being 'agitated' or shaken like the corn-starch in the movie.
Many analogies have been made to perceive the 'fabric' of space-time as a (perfect) fluid. And that only led to many discarded aether theories.
So where do we stand now?
If space-time has the ability to hold local topological 'disturbances' that can be stable for any conceivable time, how easy would it be to think that those stable topological 'knots' or other phenomena are the result of waves within space-time itself.
If we could understand better how space-time reacts and copes with waves then we might be able to construct a set of 'fundamental particles' that can be the constituents of the diverse set of know particles today.
Am i going too fast or even beyond sane argumentation?
Jan Rinze.
my reference to the corn-starch movie is of course mainly for entertainment value.
However, since the beginning of this thread about the two slit experiment we have seen lots of discussion about standing waves, interference and other stuff. This example shows that the behavior of non-Newtonian fluids is somewhat counter intuitive. Similar is the behavior of Quantum Mechanics counter intuitive. Since the non-Newtonian fluid medium is not well understood by most of us it can behave in very interesting ways.
This leads me to the following question.
What happens to space-time when it is being 'agitated' or shaken like the corn-starch in the movie.
Many analogies have been made to perceive the 'fabric' of space-time as a (perfect) fluid. And that only led to many discarded aether theories.
So where do we stand now?
If space-time has the ability to hold local topological 'disturbances' that can be stable for any conceivable time, how easy would it be to think that those stable topological 'knots' or other phenomena are the result of waves within space-time itself.
If we could understand better how space-time reacts and copes with waves then we might be able to construct a set of 'fundamental particles' that can be the constituents of the diverse set of know particles today.
Am i going too fast or even beyond sane argumentation?
Jan Rinze.
Hi janrinze, Confused2, DavidD, TRoc, Gorgeous et al,
QUOTE (janrinze+)
This leads me to the following question.
What happens to space-time when it is being 'agitated' or shaken like the corn-starch in the movie.
What happens to space-time when it is being 'agitated' or shaken like the corn-starch in the movie.
"Empty spacetime" probably exhibits no direct property of it's own since there appears to be no "absolute" frame of reference ... thus no aether. Matter "embedded" in an otherwise featureless spacetime exhibits space filling de Broglie Waves (when unobserved) which respond to "acceleration" (change or exchange in momentum). Of course this also exhibits orthogonal properties of the Uncertainty Principle. I have discussed that point in detail on other threads. The finer the specific "measurement" the more certain is the "position" but at the expense of the momentum. This means that the particle's wave is collapsed to an almost featureless "point source" by the "test probe's kick". An extremely "light touch" will discern the spatially distributed waves (as has been seen in Bose Einstein Condensates which are macroscopic quantum objects of proportionately large mass). Naturally the word "light" depends on the relative interactions between the object being probed and the "test particle" doing the probing. With "fundamental" quanta rather than the BEC "collections/ensembles" the mass is very small. The limits being if the test particle has a lower quantum energy than the object being probed it stands a good chance of not being able to "see" this object (be diffracted by it). Saying this another way... if the wavelength of the "test probe" is longer than the wavelength of the particle being probed it may not interact with it at all... Observe the tuning of antenna... the length of elements must be tuned to the frequency of the transmitter... if not "externally" in the element itself but in the resonantly tuned circuit that is "attached". Otherwise the "channel/station will not be noticed at all by the receiver... the quanta is "ignored".
Ideally of course this "probe" should be the smallest test particle possible to interact in order that it not disturb the state of the particle being probed. As you can see this is a losing battle. Just when you think that you can interact with the system "minimally" to discover what it is doing, elusively your "probe" loses it's effectiveness to "probe" this "sized" object (... it loses tune... below and above an optimal mutual frequency). Shortening the wavelength of the probes energy means you can "probe" better but unfortunately this probe now carries more energy than the object it is meant to probe. On the one hand the particle passes through the probe "unseen" and in the other case the probe passes through the particle "unseen". Only when the probe and the particle are "tuned" to the same frequency will there be a chance of adequate detection. Radio Techs know all about this... "the practical version of the Uncertainty Principle". Unfortunately this occurs when the probes are the same de Broglie wavelength. Like two billiard balls whose size depends on their speed. The slower a "ball" travels the larger it is and visa versa. Just when optimum interaction occurs they are now interacting too strongly to determine the outcome exactly.
Ideally of course this "probe" should be the smallest test particle possible to interact in order that it not disturb the state of the particle being probed. As you can see this is a losing battle. Just when you think that you can interact with the system "minimally" to discover what it is doing, elusively your "probe" loses it's effectiveness to "probe" this "sized" object (... it loses tune... below and above an optimal mutual frequency). Shortening the wavelength of the probes energy means you can "probe" better but unfortunately this probe now carries more energy than the object it is meant to probe. On the one hand the particle passes through the probe "unseen" and in the other case the probe passes through the particle "unseen". Only when the probe and the particle are "tuned" to the same frequency will there be a chance of adequate detection. Radio Techs know all about this... "the practical version of the Uncertainty Principle". Unfortunately this occurs when the probes are the same de Broglie wavelength. Like two billiard balls whose size depends on their speed. The slower a "ball" travels the larger it is and visa versa. Just when optimum interaction occurs they are now interacting too strongly to determine the outcome exactly.
QUOTE (janrinze+)
If space-time has the ability to hold local topological 'disturbances' that can be stable for any conceivable time, how easy would it be to think that those stable topological 'knots' or other phenomena are the result of waves within space-time itself.
If we could understand better how space-time reacts and copes with waves then we might be able to construct a set of 'fundamental particles' that can be the constituents of the diverse set of know particles today.
Am i going too fast or even beyond sane argumentation?
If we could understand better how space-time reacts and copes with waves then we might be able to construct a set of 'fundamental particles' that can be the constituents of the diverse set of know particles today.
Am i going too fast or even beyond sane argumentation?
He he he... not at all. Of course they are. Electrons are "trapped" photons. The way the photon is "wrapped" topologically leads to "topological" charge. That wrapping is a knot in spacetime exhibiting a dual sided hypersurface. For a very long time there has been an asymmetry known about in electromagnetism that is unexplained. Why is there charges (source of elementary charge) while there is no magnetic monopoles (source of elementary magnetic monopoles)? The simple answer to this is there are no elementary charges and no elementary magnetic monopoles. This is the theory of Geometrodynamics of JA Wheeler. Clearly this is not gong to be the standard theory that he had espoused but it is in principle the solution to the problem.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Geometrodynamics+)
As described by Wheeler in the early 1960s, geometrodynamics attempts to realize three catchy slogans
* mass without mass,
* charge without charge,
* field without field.
These slogans (due to Wheeler himself), which are discussed in more detail below, capture the general hope that geometrodynamics would "do more with less".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics
* mass without mass,
* charge without charge,
* field without field.
These slogans (due to Wheeler himself), which are discussed in more detail below, capture the general hope that geometrodynamics would "do more with less".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics
Electromagnetism are "stressors" in the underlying spacetime continuum. The electromagnetic wave that photons are intrinsically a part are tiny packets that "stretch" spacetime such that like an elastic membrane energy is stored in that process and we call it electric and magnetic fields. Cause these fields to "dance" around inside a space through "phase accumulation" and we produce charges in standing waves.
"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
The qualification on this is to realize that this is a "model" that describes what it appears in "normal space". Naturally this process in reality is actually defining the geometry of space and time itself.
Twisted strip model for one wavelength
In actual fact they form "carpets" of overlapping sub-quantum Fourier frequencies all bearing a relationship of 2π, 4π, 6π etc to the original base wavelength of the packet. Their "sum" instantaneously give the position and momentum of the complete packet. The "test probe" kicks this ensemble around inside of cavities moving the "centroid" of the "particle" with it and also affecting its apparent size. This "movement" is by a series of stationary states, eigenstates of the cavity system. Quantum Electrodynamics has long conceded that charges are not at all important to the way matter reacts. What is important to "reactions" are the masses of particles which relate the interactions... and "mass" is simply "spacetime curvature" and nothing more. This insight led to Feynman Diagrams... something that went totally unnoticed before it was resolved. This "knot" is the Hubrius Helix.
The Hubrius Helix after Qiu-Hong Hu
Hubrius Helix simple Equation
The "counter knot" that can unravel it exists only in the matching anti-particle... the positron. Other more energetic particles have their own knots... more twists... and their matching counter knots only exist in their own anti-particle. In every other respect the particles and their antiparticles are otherwise 100% stable (antiprotons are stable by themselves and antineutrons are stable inside of anti-atoms only). Other particles are "resonances" which can dissipate their energy in other particle "resonant" decay reactions .
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
This geometry is the simplest possible for an electron. Of course other particles may be formed from different "number of twists" in this "knot". The more twists the greater the energy of the final particle (boosts) and the higher the "mass" (spacetime curvature at distance). In reality we are not able to do this "trick" easily because of the inability to manipulate the matter wave field accurately so we are usually left with particle creation in matched pairs using a "chaotic" process of "creation" followed by "annihilation". These are extreme versions of "bright matter solitons". Light alone "in theory" can produce all the standard particles in pairs.
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
In practice only the electron has been formed through such processes using an "unmatched pair" of very energetic photons. The LHC would not be able to produce appropriate photons to validate this theory for the other major particles (mainly protons and neutrons). Heavier particles would be out of the question at this point in time.
PS: String Theory is not the point of what I am submitting here it is "yet another theory" of everything. What is "correct" about string theory is the underlying symmetry in which all primary sub-atomic particles are effectively just "photons" subjected to boosts and spins.
PPS: Please note that you must "rotate" the electron twice (and all fermions) before you return it to an equivalent position. This is related to the 1/2 integer spin quanta of fermions. Read this short assessment of this process and how these "twisted spacetimes" must have "two sides" (apparently).
Candle Dances 2pi-rotated electron and Atoms
Cheers
"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
The qualification on this is to realize that this is a "model" that describes what it appears in "normal space". Naturally this process in reality is actually defining the geometry of space and time itself.
Twisted strip model for one wavelength
In actual fact they form "carpets" of overlapping sub-quantum Fourier frequencies all bearing a relationship of 2π, 4π, 6π etc to the original base wavelength of the packet. Their "sum" instantaneously give the position and momentum of the complete packet. The "test probe" kicks this ensemble around inside of cavities moving the "centroid" of the "particle" with it and also affecting its apparent size. This "movement" is by a series of stationary states, eigenstates of the cavity system. Quantum Electrodynamics has long conceded that charges are not at all important to the way matter reacts. What is important to "reactions" are the masses of particles which relate the interactions... and "mass" is simply "spacetime curvature" and nothing more. This insight led to Feynman Diagrams... something that went totally unnoticed before it was resolved. This "knot" is the Hubrius Helix.
The Hubrius Helix after Qiu-Hong Hu
Hubrius Helix simple Equation
The "counter knot" that can unravel it exists only in the matching anti-particle... the positron. Other more energetic particles have their own knots... more twists... and their matching counter knots only exist in their own anti-particle. In every other respect the particles and their antiparticles are otherwise 100% stable (antiprotons are stable by themselves and antineutrons are stable inside of anti-atoms only). Other particles are "resonances" which can dissipate their energy in other particle "resonant" decay reactions .
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
This geometry is the simplest possible for an electron. Of course other particles may be formed from different "number of twists" in this "knot". The more twists the greater the energy of the final particle (boosts) and the higher the "mass" (spacetime curvature at distance). In reality we are not able to do this "trick" easily because of the inability to manipulate the matter wave field accurately so we are usually left with particle creation in matched pairs using a "chaotic" process of "creation" followed by "annihilation". These are extreme versions of "bright matter solitons". Light alone "in theory" can produce all the standard particles in pairs.
P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
In practice only the electron has been formed through such processes using an "unmatched pair" of very energetic photons. The LHC would not be able to produce appropriate photons to validate this theory for the other major particles (mainly protons and neutrons). Heavier particles would be out of the question at this point in time.
PS: String Theory is not the point of what I am submitting here it is "yet another theory" of everything. What is "correct" about string theory is the underlying symmetry in which all primary sub-atomic particles are effectively just "photons" subjected to boosts and spins.
PPS: Please note that you must "rotate" the electron twice (and all fermions) before you return it to an equivalent position. This is related to the 1/2 integer spin quanta of fermions. Read this short assessment of this process and how these "twisted spacetimes" must have "two sides" (apparently).
Candle Dances 2pi-rotated electron and Atoms
Cheers
OK, I hope to express this right.
Everyone is familiar with Young's dual-split experiment.
It has also been shown to work the same way using electrons, instead of photon's(light).
Now, my question is, has anyone set up the experiment such
1) there are no detectors on the slits, hence the interference pattern is created.
now lets slow down the experiment and fire one electron at a time.
2) use the same material being used to detect the interference pattern in the back, for the slits upfront.
After the electron is fired, determine where it hit, either on the front screen (it missed the slit), or the back screen.
Over time the inference pattern should begin to form.
Using light Feynman would say, the photon travels through both slits and cancels itself out. In this case, the electron would be fired, but was not detected on the front or back screen.
But if that were the case with electrons, then the electron would cancel itself out or disappear. Obviously this is not possible. So where did my thinking go wrong?
Everyone is familiar with Young's dual-split experiment.
It has also been shown to work the same way using electrons, instead of photon's(light).
Now, my question is, has anyone set up the experiment such
1) there are no detectors on the slits, hence the interference pattern is created.
now lets slow down the experiment and fire one electron at a time.
2) use the same material being used to detect the interference pattern in the back, for the slits upfront.
After the electron is fired, determine where it hit, either on the front screen (it missed the slit), or the back screen.
Over time the inference pattern should begin to form.
Using light Feynman would say, the photon travels through both slits and cancels itself out. In this case, the electron would be fired, but was not detected on the front or back screen.
But if that were the case with electrons, then the electron would cancel itself out or disappear. Obviously this is not possible. So where did my thinking go wrong?
Hi WideBody, janrinze, Confused2, DavidD, TRoc, Gorgeous et al,
QUOTE (WideBody+)
Everyone is familiar with Young's dual-split experiment.
It has also been shown to work the same way using electrons, instead of photon's(light).
Now, my question is, has anyone set up the experiment such
1) there are no detectors on the slits, hence the interference pattern is created. now lets slow down the experiment and fire one electron at a time.
2) use the same material being used to detect the interference pattern in the back, for the slits upfront. After the electron is fired, determine where it hit, either on the front screen (it missed the slit), or the back screen. Over time the inference pattern should begin to form.
[..]
Using light Feynman would say, the photon travels through both slits and cancels itself out. In this case, the electron would be fired, but was not detected on the front or back screen.
But if that were the case with electrons, then the electron would cancel itself out or disappear. Obviously this is not possible. So where did my thinking go wrong?
It has also been shown to work the same way using electrons, instead of photon's(light).
Now, my question is, has anyone set up the experiment such
1) there are no detectors on the slits, hence the interference pattern is created. now lets slow down the experiment and fire one electron at a time.
2) use the same material being used to detect the interference pattern in the back, for the slits upfront. After the electron is fired, determine where it hit, either on the front screen (it missed the slit), or the back screen. Over time the inference pattern should begin to form.
[..]
Using light Feynman would say, the photon travels through both slits and cancels itself out. In this case, the electron would be fired, but was not detected on the front or back screen.
But if that were the case with electrons, then the electron would cancel itself out or disappear. Obviously this is not possible. So where did my thinking go wrong?
First the initial statements... There are two major differences between photons and electrons in diffraction. Electrons are shorter in wavelength and they are charged. So there are aspects which make the results more "difficult" to analyze. Here is a reference to "Electron Diffraction".
Wikipedia: Electron Diffraction
As stated there an equation that shows the relationship of the de Broglie Wavelength of the Electron
Electron de Broglie Wavelength
(Wikipedia: We recognize the first term in this final expression as the non-relativistic expression derived above, while the last term is a relativistic correction factor. The wavelength of the electrons in a 10 kV SEM is then 12.3 x 10-12 m (12.3 pm) while in a 200 kV TEM the wavelength is 2.5 pm. In comparison the wavelength of X-rays usually used in X-ray diffraction is in the order of 100 pm (Cu kα: λ=154 pm).
So you can't use "slits" to diffract electrons and photons that will produce the same effect. They need to be a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the shortest wavelength of electromagnetic radiation we can "comfortably" manipulate.
Regarding Feynman and Quantum Electrodynamics... he would probably say that there is no way to predict any individual event such as what an individual electron or an individual photon would do. In this theory... The electron or photon does not "travel" anywhere. What we are confined to do is sum a number of "amplitudes" for all possible paths to a target which also have phase until you arrive at a "probability" for an event normalized and providing a density function per unit of area... the event being a absorption/scattering of a photon or scattering event for an electron. We do the calculation for "everywhere" of interest. This is a very accurate process. The "probability" predicts "nothing" about individual events but only predicts what large numbers of the individual events will "on average" cluster. In the case of the Young's Double Slit Experiment we do not concern ourselves with which slit the electron or photon actually goes through... we just calculate the different probabilities and the result is the "normalized" answer. The "particle" (electron or photon) is not canceled or anything like that. This is just an "abacus" for calculation.
There is a law of conservation of electrons which are fermions and this does not apply to photons which are bosons. Photons are created and destroyed "on demand" while electrons can only be created or destroyed in events which include its exact antiparticle, the positron. The only way to "destroy" an electron it for it to encounter a positron. So the "event" we are calculating is not the destruction or cancellation of anything just a decision on where photons or electrons "end up" on average and the "fate" of particles of all kinds does not depend on an experiment but depends on what that particular particle "encounters" on the way. Quantum Electrodynamic Theory has no "history"as such and is entirely "time symmetric". As limited as the theory is it can predict almost everything we can know about our Universe other than some "nuclear resonance" phenomena (radioactivity) and the phenomenon of "mass". Interestingly you do not need to know "charge" either... you only need to know the "interaction parameter" (mass).
Cheers
Wikipedia: Electron Diffraction
As stated there an equation that shows the relationship of the de Broglie Wavelength of the Electron
Electron de Broglie Wavelength
(Wikipedia: We recognize the first term in this final expression as the non-relativistic expression derived above, while the last term is a relativistic correction factor. The wavelength of the electrons in a 10 kV SEM is then 12.3 x 10-12 m (12.3 pm) while in a 200 kV TEM the wavelength is 2.5 pm. In comparison the wavelength of X-rays usually used in X-ray diffraction is in the order of 100 pm (Cu kα: λ=154 pm).
So you can't use "slits" to diffract electrons and photons that will produce the same effect. They need to be a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the shortest wavelength of electromagnetic radiation we can "comfortably" manipulate.
Regarding Feynman and Quantum Electrodynamics... he would probably say that there is no way to predict any individual event such as what an individual electron or an individual photon would do. In this theory... The electron or photon does not "travel" anywhere. What we are confined to do is sum a number of "amplitudes" for all possible paths to a target which also have phase until you arrive at a "probability" for an event normalized and providing a density function per unit of area... the event being a absorption/scattering of a photon or scattering event for an electron. We do the calculation for "everywhere" of interest. This is a very accurate process. The "probability" predicts "nothing" about individual events but only predicts what large numbers of the individual events will "on average" cluster. In the case of the Young's Double Slit Experiment we do not concern ourselves with which slit the electron or photon actually goes through... we just calculate the different probabilities and the result is the "normalized" answer. The "particle" (electron or photon) is not canceled or anything like that. This is just an "abacus" for calculation.
There is a law of conservation of electrons which are fermions and this does not apply to photons which are bosons. Photons are created and destroyed "on demand" while electrons can only be created or destroyed in events which include its exact antiparticle, the positron. The only way to "destroy" an electron it for it to encounter a positron. So the "event" we are calculating is not the destruction or cancellation of anything just a decision on where photons or electrons "end up" on average and the "fate" of particles of all kinds does not depend on an experiment but depends on what that particular particle "encounters" on the way. Quantum Electrodynamic Theory has no "history"as such and is entirely "time symmetric". As limited as the theory is it can predict almost everything we can know about our Universe other than some "nuclear resonance" phenomena (radioactivity) and the phenomenon of "mass". Interestingly you do not need to know "charge" either... you only need to know the "interaction parameter" (mass).
Cheers
Hi all,
a recent article on physorg has triggered me.. uncollapse hypothesis verified
any ideas if this might allow for a situation where we can measure in the dual slit experiment without disturbing the interference pattern?
Jan Rinze.
a recent article on physorg has triggered me.. uncollapse hypothesis verified
any ideas if this might allow for a situation where we can measure in the dual slit experiment without disturbing the interference pattern?
Jan Rinze.
QUOTE (janrinze+Aug 6 2008, 05:47 PM)
Hi all,
a recent article on physorg has triggered me.. uncollapse hypothesis verified
any ideas if this might allow for a situation where we can measure in the dual slit experiment without disturbing the interference pattern?
Jan Rinze.
I claim this few mounths ago, that photon don't colapse, but detectors sensativity is limited...
a recent article on physorg has triggered me.. uncollapse hypothesis verified
any ideas if this might allow for a situation where we can measure in the dual slit experiment without disturbing the interference pattern?
Jan Rinze.
I claim this few mounths ago, that photon don't colapse, but detectors sensativity is limited...
QUOTE (janrinze+May 22 2008, 09:23 PM)
Hi All,
i just stumbled over a nice youtube video showing the effects of a disturbance in corn-starch while it is covered with 120 Hz standing waves.
corn starch movie
the last part is even more interesting since it shows how two disturbances can attract and repel each other. At the end it shows how a disturbance can grow in size.
Just food for thought..
Jan Rinze.
That's a very nice link there and it appears to give a quite easily accessible perspective in which chaotic interactions on small scales can create aggregate interactions on larger scales that appear very fluid and dynamic.
(The was a poster here named, Zephir, that had many comments related to such properties.)
Thank you for that link. The aggregate properties that it presented were more complex than I'd have expected from such a system, so it's adds some things to consider about the possible physical forms and properties of mediums with potentially chaotic properties.
i just stumbled over a nice youtube video showing the effects of a disturbance in corn-starch while it is covered with 120 Hz standing waves.
corn starch movie
the last part is even more interesting since it shows how two disturbances can attract and repel each other. At the end it shows how a disturbance can grow in size.
Just food for thought..
Jan Rinze.
That's a very nice link there and it appears to give a quite easily accessible perspective in which chaotic interactions on small scales can create aggregate interactions on larger scales that appear very fluid and dynamic.
(The was a poster here named, Zephir, that had many comments related to such properties.)
Thank you for that link. The aggregate properties that it presented were more complex than I'd have expected from such a system, so it's adds some things to consider about the possible physical forms and properties of mediums with potentially chaotic properties.
Hi DavidD, StevenA, janrinze et al,
I have just noticed this "revival"of this topic and I find it quite an interesting effect. Janrinze has referred to the "uncollapse" of a quantum state. There are also some excellent references to this phenomenon by DavidD. Here is another very recent paper on the subject..
Europhysics Letters - Vol. 83 No. 3 (2008)
A free download can be had up to 30 days after publication, I am unsure that this article is still "open". They are very good that way. You just need a login and it is free.
It is clear that even in the event of the most extreme case of a quantum state collapse there is "hope" of revival that exists for some time after the event has occurred. It shows that entangled phenomena are like resonant phenomena with a "quantum history"... which flies in the face of most of the accepted interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Clearly quantum processes are not entirely Markovian and represent at least partially reversible events. The interesting question is does the "unmaking" of a quantum event process at least partially reverse our collective history or does it only reverse the history for the single particle. What about the flow on events from consequential results of an earlier event and the later revival?
This process also has some influence...
EPL Vol. 83 No. 4 (2008)
Localization by entanglement 40002
J. Brand, S. Flach, V. Fleurov, L. S. Schulman and D. Tolkunov
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/83/40002
Hi Good Elf
I have been thinking about photons since our last encounter, and this is the most I could produce. Looping of spatial dimensions ( composed from oscillating infinitesimals that exist partially, between spatial presence and imaginary presence) is related to Kolmogorov vortex (=electron black hole) , or smallest formation of spatial dimensions that has an angular moment = looping of imagianry time . ( in this contect imagianry time seems very close to Aether, but I would stay away from such definition yet- see below).
Anyway, take it as a honest attempt to have another look at photon.
In a Universe without large aggregations of spatial dimensions their appearance is of statistical nature ( the appearance of dimensions of space ).
After looping and repeating, the aggregates acquire coherent component.
Photon is a coherent formation of SPACE itself that is able and forced at the same time to translate an invariant coherent "portion" of dimensions of space (which naturally contain information, or is information) in NO SPACE, or , on the background of chaotic vacuum oscillations(fluctuations) (stochastic creation of space dimensions).
Since photon itself is a wave, it proceeds as a ripple in SPACE, as a packet of spatial dimensions, creating/adding spatial dimensions on its way, leaving none behind.
The wave properties of photon are related to internal resonance of spatial dimensions it contains. The particle properties include the fact that it caries a finite portion of coherent spatial dimensions as well.
So photon contains information about the dimensions of space at its origin, and , when absorbed, it adds dimensionality ( and in many cases complexity if in resonance with receiver) and builds space .
The medium photon is a wave into is a medium that is between spatial and information dimensions. It is also the medium of qubit wave and wave function. In such medium, partial existence of a spatial dimension aggregate is a norm, and this partial existence of a particle is wave like ( after Fourier decomposition, if that is possible).
Well, this is still confusing, but partial existence (not probability of full existence as in quantum mechanic probabilistic interpretation) is encoded in quantum mechanic wave functions, so this interpretation can be put on firmer ground.
I have just noticed this "revival"of this topic and I find it quite an interesting effect. Janrinze has referred to the "uncollapse" of a quantum state. There are also some excellent references to this phenomenon by DavidD. Here is another very recent paper on the subject..
QUOTE
Entanglement sudden death and its controlled partial resuscitation
G. Gordon(a)
Department of Chemical Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science - Rehovot 76100, Israel
received 1 May 2008; accepted in final form 20 June 2008
published online 28 July 2008
Abstract – Entanglement is very susceptible to decoherence and can rapidly decay or even completely disappear in finite time. A universal dynamical control of the disentanglement approach is presented, whereby one locally modulates entangled systems weakly coupled to thermal baths. We show that these local modulations can reduce the entanglement’s decay rate and may facilitate controlled oscillations of entanglement that result in entanglement partial resuscitation. In the case of separate systems, we show that controlling the asymmetry between the systems’ decoherence rates may result in partial resuscitation in non-Markovian time scales. Furthermore, controlling the time-dependent cross-decoherence of systems coupled to the same bath may exhibit partial resuscitation on longer time scales, dictated by the local modulations.
I think it can still be downloaded from this site...G. Gordon(a)
Department of Chemical Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science - Rehovot 76100, Israel
received 1 May 2008; accepted in final form 20 June 2008
published online 28 July 2008
Abstract – Entanglement is very susceptible to decoherence and can rapidly decay or even completely disappear in finite time. A universal dynamical control of the disentanglement approach is presented, whereby one locally modulates entangled systems weakly coupled to thermal baths. We show that these local modulations can reduce the entanglement’s decay rate and may facilitate controlled oscillations of entanglement that result in entanglement partial resuscitation. In the case of separate systems, we show that controlling the asymmetry between the systems’ decoherence rates may result in partial resuscitation in non-Markovian time scales. Furthermore, controlling the time-dependent cross-decoherence of systems coupled to the same bath may exhibit partial resuscitation on longer time scales, dictated by the local modulations.
Europhysics Letters - Vol. 83 No. 3 (2008)
A free download can be had up to 30 days after publication, I am unsure that this article is still "open". They are very good that way. You just need a login and it is free.
It is clear that even in the event of the most extreme case of a quantum state collapse there is "hope" of revival that exists for some time after the event has occurred. It shows that entangled phenomena are like resonant phenomena with a "quantum history"... which flies in the face of most of the accepted interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Clearly quantum processes are not entirely Markovian and represent at least partially reversible events. The interesting question is does the "unmaking" of a quantum event process at least partially reverse our collective history or does it only reverse the history for the single particle. What about the flow on events from consequential results of an earlier event and the later revival?
This process also has some influence...
EPL Vol. 83 No. 4 (2008)
Localization by entanglement 40002
J. Brand, S. Flach, V. Fleurov, L. S. Schulman and D. Tolkunov
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/83/40002
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Entanglement sudden death and its controlled partial resuscitation G. Gordon(a) Department of Chemical Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science - Rehovot 76100, Israel received 1 May 2008; accepted in final form 20 June 2008 published online 28 July 2008 Abstract – Entanglement is very susceptible to decoherence and can rapidly decay or even completely disappear in finite time. A universal dynamical control of the disentanglement approach is presented, whereby one locally modulates entangled systems weakly coupled to thermal baths. We show that these local modulations can reduce the entanglement’s decay rate and may facilitate controlled oscillations of entanglement that result in entanglement partial resuscitation. In the case of separate systems, we show that controlling the asymmetry between the systems’ decoherence rates may result in partial resuscitation in non-Markovian time scales. Furthermore, controlling the time-dependent cross-decoherence of systems coupled to the same bath may exhibit partial resuscitation on longer time scales, dictated by the local modulations. |
I think it can still be downloaded from this site...
Europhysics Letters - Vol. 83 No. 3 (2008)
A free download can be had up to 30 days after publication, I am unsure that this article is still "open". They are very good that way. You just need a login and it is free.
It is clear that even in the event of the most extreme case of a quantum state collapse there is "hope" of revival that exists for some time after the event has occurred. It shows that entangled phenomena are like resonant phenomena with a "quantum history"... which flies in the face of most of the accepted interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Clearly quantum processes are not entirely Markovian and represent at least partially reversible events. The interesting question is does the "unmaking" of a quantum event process at least partially reverse our collective history or does it only reverse the history for the single particle. What about the flow on events from consequential results of an earlier event and the later revival?
This process also has some influence...
EPL Vol. 83 No. 4 (2008)
Localization by entanglement 40002
J. Brand, S. Flach, V. Fleurov, L. S. Schulman and D. Tolkunov
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/83/40002
Localization by entanglement
J. Brand1(a), S. Flach2, V. Fleurov2,3, L. S. Schulman2,4 and D. Tolkunov4
1 Centre of Theoretical Chemistry and Physics, Institute of Fundamental Sciences, Massey University Auckland New Zealand 2 Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Physik komplexer Systeme - N¨othnitzer Str. 38, D-01187 Dresden, Germany, EU 3 School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University - Tel Aviv, Israel 4 Department of Physics, Clarkson University - Potsdam NY, USA
received 22 December 2007; accepted in final form 25 June 2008 published online 5 August 2008
PACS 03.75.Gg – Entanglement and decoherence in Bose-Einstein condensates
PACS 05.45.-a – Nonlinear dynamics and chaos
PACS 11.15.Kc – General theory of fields and particles: Classical and semiclassical techniques
Abstract – We study the localization of bosonic atoms in an optical lattice, which interact in a spatially confined region. The classical theory predicts that there is no localization below a threshold value for the strength of interaction that is inversely proportional to the number of participating atoms. In a full quantum treatment, however, we find that localized states exist for arbitrarily weak attractive or repulsive interactions for any number (> 1) of atoms. We further show, using an explicit solution of the two-particle bound state and an appropriate measure of entanglement, that the entanglement tends to a finite value in the limit of weak interactions.
Coupled with the non-existence of localization in an optimized quantum product state, we conclude that the localization exists by virtue of entanglement.
Link to the publication of the article here..
Europhysics Letters - Vol. 83 No. 3 (2008)
A free download can be had up to 30 days after publication, I am unsure that this article is still "open". They are very good that way. You just need a login and it is free.
It is clear that even in the event of the most extreme case of a quantum state collapse there is "hope" of revival that exists for some time after the event has occurred. It shows that entangled phenomena are like resonant phenomena with a "quantum history"... which flies in the face of most of the accepted interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Clearly quantum processes are not entirely Markovian and represent at least partially reversible events. The interesting question is does the "unmaking" of a quantum event process at least partially reverse our collective history or does it only reverse the history for the single particle. What about the flow on events from consequential results of an earlier event and the later revival?
This process also has some influence...
EPL Vol. 83 No. 4 (2008)
Localization by entanglement 40002
J. Brand, S. Flach, V. Fleurov, L. S. Schulman and D. Tolkunov
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/83/40002
Localization by entanglement
J. Brand1(a), S. Flach2, V. Fleurov2,3, L. S. Schulman2,4 and D. Tolkunov4
1 Centre of Theoretical Chemistry and Physics, Institute of Fundamental Sciences, Massey University Auckland New Zealand 2 Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Physik komplexer Systeme - N¨othnitzer Str. 38, D-01187 Dresden, Germany, EU 3 School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University - Tel Aviv, Israel 4 Department of Physics, Clarkson University - Potsdam NY, USA
received 22 December 2007; accepted in final form 25 June 2008 published online 5 August 2008
PACS 03.75.Gg – Entanglement and decoherence in Bose-Einstein condensates
PACS 05.45.-a – Nonlinear dynamics and chaos
PACS 11.15.Kc – General theory of fields and particles: Classical and semiclassical techniques
Abstract – We study the localization of bosonic atoms in an optical lattice, which interact in a spatially confined region. The classical theory predicts that there is no localization below a threshold value for the strength of interaction that is inversely proportional to the number of participating atoms. In a full quantum treatment, however, we find that localized states exist for arbitrarily weak attractive or repulsive interactions for any number (> 1) of atoms. We further show, using an explicit solution of the two-particle bound state and an appropriate measure of entanglement, that the entanglement tends to a finite value in the limit of weak interactions.
Coupled with the non-existence of localization in an optimized quantum product state, we conclude that the localization exists by virtue of entanglement.
Link to the publication of the article here..
This phenomenon may be related to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (which is related to the topic in this thread) "Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later"... The "observing later" bit was related to the DCQEE.
Are there any interesting statements to be made here? I originally commented that the two entangled photons were connected by the null geodesic and so the destruction of one of the photons and the state of the surviving photon could be "modified" by random choice of how this "latter days" photon was 'read"... the reading of the photon "forced" the earlier "apparently destroyed" photon to have its "fate" changed. Clearly this "fate" could be considered as a quantum revival.... and potentially a case of "bring back your dead!"... he he he! Maybe the "dead" photon can be resuscitated or is this simply an "echo" of the original photon and not the original photon itself (and what could be the difference) since photons have no creation or destruction limitations (... make as many as you like) unlike other matter wave particles (Fermions) which have very specific conservation laws. All this is breaking one of the underlying tenants of standard Quantum Physics that quantum particles are all Markovian in nature and are effectively interchangable and have no "history".
Back to you on this one...
Cheers
Are there any interesting statements to be made here? I originally commented that the two entangled photons were connected by the null geodesic and so the destruction of one of the photons and the state of the surviving photon could be "modified" by random choice of how this "latter days" photon was 'read"... the reading of the photon "forced" the earlier "apparently destroyed" photon to have its "fate" changed. Clearly this "fate" could be considered as a quantum revival.... and potentially a case of "bring back your dead!"... he he he! Maybe the "dead" photon can be resuscitated or is this simply an "echo" of the original photon and not the original photon itself (and what could be the difference) since photons have no creation or destruction limitations (... make as many as you like) unlike other matter wave particles (Fermions) which have very specific conservation laws. All this is breaking one of the underlying tenants of standard Quantum Physics that quantum particles are all Markovian in nature and are effectively interchangable and have no "history".
Back to you on this one...
Cheers
Hej Good Elf
QUOTE: " or is this simply an "echo" of the original photon and not the original photon itself (and what could be the difference) since photons have no creation or destruction limitations (... make as many as you like) unlike other matter wave particles (Fermions) which have very specific conservation laws. All this is breaking one of the underlying tenants of standard Quantum Physics that quantum particles are all Markovian in nature and are effectively interchangable and have no "history"."
I like to think that "Everything" best can be described - or understood as dimensional rearrangements in 3D space - and any such dimensional rearrangements will show themselves as wave-like - train-like - domino-like effects spreading sphere-like in all directions AND likewise coming from all directions - and driven by natures desire to achieve least void.
Everything is being based on the following axioms:
1) "DIMENSIONALITY" - space - this very concept of exibiting a 3D dimensionality without defining zize or form or anything else - just dimensionality.
2) a "SYSTEM" could be a binary system - that is the ordering system that segregates space (dimensionality) into ratios - into "smaller" dimensionalities. - Smaller is not a size - it is more a relative expression of ratio of space - everything is expressable in terms of ratios - there exist no absolutes except that a ratio is explicit.
3) OSCILLATING - smallest dimensionality is into oscillating existance
4) "LEAST VOID" - Nature strives after least void - or best fit of dimensionalities in space
5) "SELF-AWARENESS" - any ratio including smallest ratio inhabits a "knowledge" about its existance - an existance that we as humans define or percept as consciousnes.
Universe - human physical Universe - or OUR Universe is being born the moment that space is being affected by the system such that space starts being segregated into dimensionalities. The birth is this unfolding - the unfolding where it is possible to say if a dimensionality belongs to this or to that - or perhaps better saying that a dimensionality "knows" to where it is belonging relative to its neighboring dimensionalities.
The SYSTEM results in a ever ongoing new-creation of more and more ("smaller and smaller") dimensionalities, and said dimensionalities are being dynamically ordered and rearranged in space. An easy and working mind-picture (to me) is to define PHYSICAL simply as such dimensionalities being dynamically rearranged into space. ( I would like to emphasize that "Everything" is a mind picture, Everything is according to how it is being percepted - how it is being translated into someting understandable - cummunicatable. Existance is depending on perception - not saying that something does not exist if it is not being percepted - but the form that existance takes is solely dependant on the "receptor" )
Now - any physical expression - everything that we percept and everything that we measure with our apparatus - is a reflection about how dimensionalities rearrange themselves in space.
At a well-defined moment there will be a well-defined number of smallest dimensionalities at a given place - and according to the complexity at said place (the more space is being ratio'ed into dimensionalities the smaller the building-blocks and the more complex and sophisticated structures can be expressed) smallest dimensionality will be well-defined in terms of "size".
There exist no such thing as a dimensionsless point - even smallest is a dimensionality - and even smallest can be segregated further into smaller. It is a dynamic process where smallest constantly is being segregated into smaller - and this implicate that dimensionalities are constantly being rearranged such that they strive after the optimal fit - such that there is least void - and the smaller the building blocks the better the optimal fit can be leaving least void. The principle of least void and the principle of an ever new-formation of more and more (smaller and smaller) building blocks is the fuel of Universe - is what drives Universe dynamically - the force that secures that dimensionalities constantly and dynamically rearrange themselves - it is the principle behind entropy and kinetic - it is the principle behind complexion motion and energy.
Smallest dimensionality is into oscillating existance - via smallest points repeating all the "points" in space that define said dimensionality (note that "points" is in bracket - indicating that they are point-like structures in said scale - but they will be dimensionalities in the next-following lower scale - and these dimensionalities will again be made of point-structures in said lower dimension - and this regression is potentially infinite - but not fulfilled - it is an ever ongoing process accomplished by the SYSTEM)
The oscillating existance of a dimension can be taken both Down-wards and Up-wards, and a dimensionality pops into "existance" at the moment that it enters into a repeating pattern of the points in the firts lower dimension. And once a dimensionality is being established the dimension in said scale is stable - and the dimensions in said scale can arrange and rearrange themselves in (nearly) any pattern.
In human physical scale the dimension is referred to as Pixel. Pixel is the stable configuration of information that has taken a well-defined size and shape.
Pixels are constantly arranging themselves in dynamically changing dimensionalities. They are oscillating into existance and via their oscillating existance they indicate to which higher dimensionality they belong.
There exist no such thing that is into static expression - everything is into oscillating existance. We define a particle structure according to the oscillating pattern that something is being expressed via pixel-oscillations- The pixels constitute the frame out from which we humans can percept. The pixels can best be imagined as being arranged into a frozen 3D Screen - it is the frame that we have choosen as our reference frame - and it is a "motionless" frame from a relative point of view.
So any and all expressions via the 3D pixel screen is according to how pixels oscillate - and all fermionic expressions they are characterized by repeating patterns in situ - repeating in the sense that the pixel-pattern do not move over the frame - and such a structure is entirely potential mass / energy. Most expressions are mixtures of moving and in-situ repetitions - and they will seen as partial potential and partial kinetc - and ot the other extreme we have oscillating patterns with no in-situ repetition - a wave-like domino-effect with new pixels involved at each oscillation - and such expressions are classified as bosonic.
Existance - fermionic existance is solely defined out from circling - repeating - in-situ - oscillations.
Fermionic expressions are completely translatable into bosonic. Everything is completely interchangable - but everything has a history.
QUOTE: " or is this simply an "echo" of the original photon and not the original photon itself (and what could be the difference) since photons have no creation or destruction limitations (... make as many as you like) unlike other matter wave particles (Fermions) which have very specific conservation laws. All this is breaking one of the underlying tenants of standard Quantum Physics that quantum particles are all Markovian in nature and are effectively interchangable and have no "history"."
I like to think that "Everything" best can be described - or understood as dimensional rearrangements in 3D space - and any such dimensional rearrangements will show themselves as wave-like - train-like - domino-like effects spreading sphere-like in all directions AND likewise coming from all directions - and driven by natures desire to achieve least void.
Everything is being based on the following axioms:
1) "DIMENSIONALITY" - space - this very concept of exibiting a 3D dimensionality without defining zize or form or anything else - just dimensionality.
2) a "SYSTEM" could be a binary system - that is the ordering system that segregates space (dimensionality) into ratios - into "smaller" dimensionalities. - Smaller is not a size - it is more a relative expression of ratio of space - everything is expressable in terms of ratios - there exist no absolutes except that a ratio is explicit.
3) OSCILLATING - smallest dimensionality is into oscillating existance
4) "LEAST VOID" - Nature strives after least void - or best fit of dimensionalities in space
5) "SELF-AWARENESS" - any ratio including smallest ratio inhabits a "knowledge" about its existance - an existance that we as humans define or percept as consciousnes.
Universe - human physical Universe - or OUR Universe is being born the moment that space is being affected by the system such that space starts being segregated into dimensionalities. The birth is this unfolding - the unfolding where it is possible to say if a dimensionality belongs to this or to that - or perhaps better saying that a dimensionality "knows" to where it is belonging relative to its neighboring dimensionalities.
The SYSTEM results in a ever ongoing new-creation of more and more ("smaller and smaller") dimensionalities, and said dimensionalities are being dynamically ordered and rearranged in space. An easy and working mind-picture (to me) is to define PHYSICAL simply as such dimensionalities being dynamically rearranged into space. ( I would like to emphasize that "Everything" is a mind picture, Everything is according to how it is being percepted - how it is being translated into someting understandable - cummunicatable. Existance is depending on perception - not saying that something does not exist if it is not being percepted - but the form that existance takes is solely dependant on the "receptor" )
Now - any physical expression - everything that we percept and everything that we measure with our apparatus - is a reflection about how dimensionalities rearrange themselves in space.
At a well-defined moment there will be a well-defined number of smallest dimensionalities at a given place - and according to the complexity at said place (the more space is being ratio'ed into dimensionalities the smaller the building-blocks and the more complex and sophisticated structures can be expressed) smallest dimensionality will be well-defined in terms of "size".
There exist no such thing as a dimensionsless point - even smallest is a dimensionality - and even smallest can be segregated further into smaller. It is a dynamic process where smallest constantly is being segregated into smaller - and this implicate that dimensionalities are constantly being rearranged such that they strive after the optimal fit - such that there is least void - and the smaller the building blocks the better the optimal fit can be leaving least void. The principle of least void and the principle of an ever new-formation of more and more (smaller and smaller) building blocks is the fuel of Universe - is what drives Universe dynamically - the force that secures that dimensionalities constantly and dynamically rearrange themselves - it is the principle behind entropy and kinetic - it is the principle behind complexion motion and energy.
Smallest dimensionality is into oscillating existance - via smallest points repeating all the "points" in space that define said dimensionality (note that "points" is in bracket - indicating that they are point-like structures in said scale - but they will be dimensionalities in the next-following lower scale - and these dimensionalities will again be made of point-structures in said lower dimension - and this regression is potentially infinite - but not fulfilled - it is an ever ongoing process accomplished by the SYSTEM)
The oscillating existance of a dimension can be taken both Down-wards and Up-wards, and a dimensionality pops into "existance" at the moment that it enters into a repeating pattern of the points in the firts lower dimension. And once a dimensionality is being established the dimension in said scale is stable - and the dimensions in said scale can arrange and rearrange themselves in (nearly) any pattern.
In human physical scale the dimension is referred to as Pixel. Pixel is the stable configuration of information that has taken a well-defined size and shape.
Pixels are constantly arranging themselves in dynamically changing dimensionalities. They are oscillating into existance and via their oscillating existance they indicate to which higher dimensionality they belong.
There exist no such thing that is into static expression - everything is into oscillating existance. We define a particle structure according to the oscillating pattern that something is being expressed via pixel-oscillations- The pixels constitute the frame out from which we humans can percept. The pixels can best be imagined as being arranged into a frozen 3D Screen - it is the frame that we have choosen as our reference frame - and it is a "motionless" frame from a relative point of view.
So any and all expressions via the 3D pixel screen is according to how pixels oscillate - and all fermionic expressions they are characterized by repeating patterns in situ - repeating in the sense that the pixel-pattern do not move over the frame - and such a structure is entirely potential mass / energy. Most expressions are mixtures of moving and in-situ repetitions - and they will seen as partial potential and partial kinetc - and ot the other extreme we have oscillating patterns with no in-situ repetition - a wave-like domino-effect with new pixels involved at each oscillation - and such expressions are classified as bosonic.
Existance - fermionic existance is solely defined out from circling - repeating - in-situ - oscillations.
Fermionic expressions are completely translatable into bosonic. Everything is completely interchangable - but everything has a history.
Hi Good Elf
I have been thinking about photons since our last encounter, and this is the most I could produce. Looping of spatial dimensions ( composed from oscillating infinitesimals that exist partially, between spatial presence and imaginary presence) is related to Kolmogorov vortex (=electron black hole) , or smallest formation of spatial dimensions that has an angular moment = looping of imagianry time . ( in this contect imagianry time seems very close to Aether, but I would stay away from such definition yet- see below).
Anyway, take it as a honest attempt to have another look at photon.
In a Universe without large aggregations of spatial dimensions their appearance is of statistical nature ( the appearance of dimensions of space ).
After looping and repeating, the aggregates acquire coherent component.
Photon is a coherent formation of SPACE itself that is able and forced at the same time to translate an invariant coherent "portion" of dimensions of space (which naturally contain information, or is information) in NO SPACE, or , on the background of chaotic vacuum oscillations(fluctuations) (stochastic creation of space dimensions).
Since photon itself is a wave, it proceeds as a ripple in SPACE, as a packet of spatial dimensions, creating/adding spatial dimensions on its way, leaving none behind.
The wave properties of photon are related to internal resonance of spatial dimensions it contains. The particle properties include the fact that it caries a finite portion of coherent spatial dimensions as well.
So photon contains information about the dimensions of space at its origin, and , when absorbed, it adds dimensionality ( and in many cases complexity if in resonance with receiver) and builds space .
The medium photon is a wave into is a medium that is between spatial and information dimensions. It is also the medium of qubit wave and wave function. In such medium, partial existence of a spatial dimension aggregate is a norm, and this partial existence of a particle is wave like ( after Fourier decomposition, if that is possible).
Well, this is still confusing, but partial existence (not probability of full existence as in quantum mechanic probabilistic interpretation) is encoded in quantum mechanic wave functions, so this interpretation can be put on firmer ground.
I guess previous post was very unclear.
I try to explain one part of it:
The polyvalent or continuos logic I am targeting since I found out that there might be spatial things whose self perception require them to disappear - smallest indivisible. Of course, this disappearance may be not binary, but continuous, similar to qubit, leading to continuous ( perhaps wave like) partial existance due to limited ability of its mind to percept it - so as it disappears from space, its mind perceives it with a phase shift- with some delay. This lead me to the idea of basic oscillations of consciousness, and that involves continuos logic, not only polyvalent. As mentioned, I found a promising example in the same direction in qubits logic- quantum computer- which can have all values between 0 and 1. But not only.
Following that, I have been using the concept ( starting to use) of partial existance and partial truth. Applied to smallest indivisibles, it may mean they are coming into being and disappearing, existing gradually , partially in between, never able to fix own existance at the same INSTANT as it happens, but with a delay.
I think The same concept can be applied to quantum mechanics in general, where wave function real and imaginary part describe the partial existance of a given space state in correspondingly spatial and informational (consciousness) form. The result squared module of wave function, describing probability today in ususal interpretation, will then also describe the total partial PRESENCE of quantum field in a given space place in both spatial and consciousness spaces, but each of the components (real /imaginary) will have own meaning.
Partial consciousness and existance somehow obviously intuitively leads to partial truth, so the sequental logic based on yes/no statements and proofs is , actually, deeply flawed for events in those regions.
I try to explain one part of it:
The polyvalent or continuos logic I am targeting since I found out that there might be spatial things whose self perception require them to disappear - smallest indivisible. Of course, this disappearance may be not binary, but continuous, similar to qubit, leading to continuous ( perhaps wave like) partial existance due to limited ability of its mind to percept it - so as it disappears from space, its mind perceives it with a phase shift- with some delay. This lead me to the idea of basic oscillations of consciousness, and that involves continuos logic, not only polyvalent. As mentioned, I found a promising example in the same direction in qubits logic- quantum computer- which can have all values between 0 and 1. But not only.
Following that, I have been using the concept ( starting to use) of partial existance and partial truth. Applied to smallest indivisibles, it may mean they are coming into being and disappearing, existing gradually , partially in between, never able to fix own existance at the same INSTANT as it happens, but with a delay.
I think The same concept can be applied to quantum mechanics in general, where wave function real and imaginary part describe the partial existance of a given space state in correspondingly spatial and informational (consciousness) form. The result squared module of wave function, describing probability today in ususal interpretation, will then also describe the total partial PRESENCE of quantum field in a given space place in both spatial and consciousness spaces, but each of the components (real /imaginary) will have own meaning.
Partial consciousness and existance somehow obviously intuitively leads to partial truth, so the sequental logic based on yes/no statements and proofs is , actually, deeply flawed for events in those regions.
Hi Ivars, bukh, DavidD, StevenA, janrinze et al,
I do not want to criticize but everyone who starts off with this statement you know is going to lecture you in some way. I don't want to be seen to lecture anyone about how to absorb information... each of us needs to do this for himself. The idea that the human mind enters into the events we are observing is "romanticized" by Quantum Physicists. Some of these guys are "religious freaks" and other kinds of manipulators. Some are plainly misguided. I have mentioned the idea of "Chi" elsewhere in relationship with Science as an idea to explain the process of "right action" (there is no adequate word or concept for it in the west because all "good" and "evil" is tied to religious concepts of "reward" and "punishment" and to the patronage of "g*ds") but unless you get the idea of the real meaning of this concept it is also lost in a wave of "psychobabble". If I went to a Creationist School and tried to teach the Big Bang which happened over 13 Billion Years ago... the science is fine but the Chi is dead wrong for that group accepting it fully. When it comes to quantum phenomena the measurement of them is mostly left to our instruments. By the time any human mind has been able to asses the results the phenomenon is long since passed into "quantum history"... That is if Quantum Theory could admit to the existence of a "history" of any process at all.
The influence of "mind" appears to many to be pretty "spooky" and "mystical" but in fact, as it is with all tuned phenomena (or squeezed states), it will sting you in the rear if you take your eyes off it for one moment. Anyone who has worked on high power high frequency circuits can tell you how the "observer" can influence where the sparks fly and there is nothing spooky in it at all... it really "smarts" a lot. IMHO there is little practical difference between "bright matter solitons" and "particles" except for the amount of stability and relative energies involved. There are also pseudoparticles such as "plasmons" which also carry packets of energy from place to place. None of this involve the intervention of a human mind.
It is true that photons can be considered as a "wavelet".... or wave packet. Nobody has been able to examine this phenomenon in any detail. It is the nature of collapsing states to confound measurement. The quantum state while it remains a quantum cannot have much information extracted from it as I was discussing about in my last post. There are ways of resurrecting some photon quantum states and the qubit at least partially restored. In fact it is either restored or it is not there is nothing in between... apparently with about 70% accuracy. The act of this "restoration" effectively reverses the effect of the original collapse so the information about the state and the information is "gone"... as if it never happened... and from that point of view in one real way it never happened at all. This is intrinsically mixed with the idea of reality and time. I have recently made some statements about "time travel".
Science is not about the Psyche. However our beliefs do affect what we can understand. As I stated Chi determines if the knowledge of Science flows correctly into us as a learning process. We "know" science from our confirmatory experiments... unfortunately we are not compelled to believe them and many things get in our way regarding "beliefs". Most people "believe" we are subject to the will of G*d or g*ds in which they seek favors. People perform "right action" because they are hoping for some reward either in this life or the next. All religious "mumbo jumbo". If there are "g*ds" they do not care. The person who believes in the concept of Chi has no need of "g*ds" to justify their actions... they perform right action... balanced action... because it is it's own reward. They are not adding up all the good deeds and all the bad deeds to see if they gain some kind of grace or gift sort of like Santa Claus... the intention is like any true physicist in performing an experiment is to "do it right" and get the information without our subjectivity getting in the way.
Now I know that some of that "subjectivity" will occur no matter how "good" we think we are but "right action" gets "right results". Don't bother praying to the g*ds just be sure you dotted all the "I's" and crossed all the "T's". If you want to fly in safe airplanes then a lot of "right action" must occur along the way. If it takes laws and penalties and "moral persuasion" through churches to get that "right action" so be it... I don't want anyone with their misguided views on religion or politics causing my plane to crash... Capeci?? The same with Science... the right Chi with the correct amount of "yin and yang" in balance achieves the correct level of understanding possible. Those with an "unbalanced or unhealthy" view of Science or Religion allow these views to interfere with each other. The result is ignorance. The difference between Germany and the Axis Powers and the Allies in World War II was Chi... stupid thinking and religion got in the way of Germany and their prejudices such as condemning "Jewish Physics" and their hatred of other races such as the Slavs and Gypsies etc. They lost because their Chi was poor not because they did not understand Science. The side with the greater understanding of Science ultimately won. However the knowledge and more importantly the understanding of Science is tempered by our beliefs. You cannot understand anything new if you have a large number of beliefs which precondition your mind to fail. The west thought they could build an atomic bomb and at that time they had the right level of Chi to do it. The rest is History.
Chi is not constant in history... most in the West have fallen (like this Forum) into a state of stupidity by arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" while there are no angels there are things they need to understand. If you do not understand them it may be that a price must be paid for "wrong action" as Germany did in WWII as will others in the future. In this world right action is rewarded and wrong action is punished.... not by the "g*ds" ... you do it to yourself... and your "planes fall out of the sky"... he he he!
Ivars... don't listen to those with strange stories about Science they are all "selling stuff". And Bukh... we need to temper our philosophy with the experimental verificational guidance the Universe gives "herself". These pixels of yours are far too complex and hypothetical and without any experimental basis.
Cheers
I do not want to criticize but everyone who starts off with this statement you know is going to lecture you in some way. I don't want to be seen to lecture anyone about how to absorb information... each of us needs to do this for himself. The idea that the human mind enters into the events we are observing is "romanticized" by Quantum Physicists. Some of these guys are "religious freaks" and other kinds of manipulators. Some are plainly misguided. I have mentioned the idea of "Chi" elsewhere in relationship with Science as an idea to explain the process of "right action" (there is no adequate word or concept for it in the west because all "good" and "evil" is tied to religious concepts of "reward" and "punishment" and to the patronage of "g*ds") but unless you get the idea of the real meaning of this concept it is also lost in a wave of "psychobabble". If I went to a Creationist School and tried to teach the Big Bang which happened over 13 Billion Years ago... the science is fine but the Chi is dead wrong for that group accepting it fully. When it comes to quantum phenomena the measurement of them is mostly left to our instruments. By the time any human mind has been able to asses the results the phenomenon is long since passed into "quantum history"... That is if Quantum Theory could admit to the existence of a "history" of any process at all.
The influence of "mind" appears to many to be pretty "spooky" and "mystical" but in fact, as it is with all tuned phenomena (or squeezed states), it will sting you in the rear if you take your eyes off it for one moment. Anyone who has worked on high power high frequency circuits can tell you how the "observer" can influence where the sparks fly and there is nothing spooky in it at all... it really "smarts" a lot. IMHO there is little practical difference between "bright matter solitons" and "particles" except for the amount of stability and relative energies involved. There are also pseudoparticles such as "plasmons" which also carry packets of energy from place to place. None of this involve the intervention of a human mind.
It is true that photons can be considered as a "wavelet".... or wave packet. Nobody has been able to examine this phenomenon in any detail. It is the nature of collapsing states to confound measurement. The quantum state while it remains a quantum cannot have much information extracted from it as I was discussing about in my last post. There are ways of resurrecting some photon quantum states and the qubit at least partially restored. In fact it is either restored or it is not there is nothing in between... apparently with about 70% accuracy. The act of this "restoration" effectively reverses the effect of the original collapse so the information about the state and the information is "gone"... as if it never happened... and from that point of view in one real way it never happened at all. This is intrinsically mixed with the idea of reality and time. I have recently made some statements about "time travel".
Science is not about the Psyche. However our beliefs do affect what we can understand. As I stated Chi determines if the knowledge of Science flows correctly into us as a learning process. We "know" science from our confirmatory experiments... unfortunately we are not compelled to believe them and many things get in our way regarding "beliefs". Most people "believe" we are subject to the will of G*d or g*ds in which they seek favors. People perform "right action" because they are hoping for some reward either in this life or the next. All religious "mumbo jumbo". If there are "g*ds" they do not care. The person who believes in the concept of Chi has no need of "g*ds" to justify their actions... they perform right action... balanced action... because it is it's own reward. They are not adding up all the good deeds and all the bad deeds to see if they gain some kind of grace or gift sort of like Santa Claus... the intention is like any true physicist in performing an experiment is to "do it right" and get the information without our subjectivity getting in the way.
Now I know that some of that "subjectivity" will occur no matter how "good" we think we are but "right action" gets "right results". Don't bother praying to the g*ds just be sure you dotted all the "I's" and crossed all the "T's". If you want to fly in safe airplanes then a lot of "right action" must occur along the way. If it takes laws and penalties and "moral persuasion" through churches to get that "right action" so be it... I don't want anyone with their misguided views on religion or politics causing my plane to crash... Capeci?? The same with Science... the right Chi with the correct amount of "yin and yang" in balance achieves the correct level of understanding possible. Those with an "unbalanced or unhealthy" view of Science or Religion allow these views to interfere with each other. The result is ignorance. The difference between Germany and the Axis Powers and the Allies in World War II was Chi... stupid thinking and religion got in the way of Germany and their prejudices such as condemning "Jewish Physics" and their hatred of other races such as the Slavs and Gypsies etc. They lost because their Chi was poor not because they did not understand Science. The side with the greater understanding of Science ultimately won. However the knowledge and more importantly the understanding of Science is tempered by our beliefs. You cannot understand anything new if you have a large number of beliefs which precondition your mind to fail. The west thought they could build an atomic bomb and at that time they had the right level of Chi to do it. The rest is History.
Chi is not constant in history... most in the West have fallen (like this Forum) into a state of stupidity by arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" while there are no angels there are things they need to understand. If you do not understand them it may be that a price must be paid for "wrong action" as Germany did in WWII as will others in the future. In this world right action is rewarded and wrong action is punished.... not by the "g*ds" ... you do it to yourself... and your "planes fall out of the sky"... he he he!
Ivars... don't listen to those with strange stories about Science they are all "selling stuff". And Bukh... we need to temper our philosophy with the experimental verificational guidance the Universe gives "herself". These pixels of yours are far too complex and hypothetical and without any experimental basis.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf
Thanks for answer.I will study also Your time machine ideas, since the fact of possibility to erase information about quantum event is interesting, is not it?
Chi happens when You are in line with Nature, understand it, and act accordingly ( including humans, society in nature). When You stiffen in dogma, extrapolate new acquired ideas beyond their field of application, You start to work against the flow, and You get punished, and do a lot of harm as well.
As to connection of quantum physics and "other space" and "other medium", we may not call it consciousness, not to mess too much with various interpretations that immediately arise, but de Broglie, Bohm used physical field that is the field described by wave function, quantum potential, pilot waves and so far I have not read anything that would prove them wrong, though the approach has not been very popular.
In my opinion, that physical quantum field is an information field that registers the existence of space dimensions itself, via self perception, and vice versa. It is intrinsically dual to existence of spatial dimensions.
I actually do not read any ready made theories of nature, honestly, I do not want to get influenced in my understanding .
So far I have got to dynamic transformations of space into itself as one necessary component ( via projective geometry, invariants, -it leads to groups , probably, I am not that far yet ) which has to be combined with oscillating nature of vacuum and stochastic appearance of individual spatial dimension indivisibles. That is on small scale.
On large scale, the answer is also in projective geometry, and its invariant circles (as special case of conics) with no fixed location, indetermined position, and imaginary characteristics. These should both lead to:
spiral characteristics of space flows,
2 dimensional disc type structure prevalence,
tendency of rotation to create order and translation to destroy it,
constancy of speed of light ( mathematical origin of that ) in certain conditions , principles of special relativity (e.g. rotating disc in relativistic case leads to hyperbolic ( or imaginary sphere, quaternion) geometry immediately- at least that I found in one article.
To this one adds phase transitions similar to Kolmogorov scales of space where the form of space flows change mechanisms of dissipation in the smallest vortex of a given scale, and, accordingly, units of energy. The existence of such phase transitions (looping of fields) adds scales and units of length to space, which are local, depends on "density""or "stretch" of space. Each scale characterized by its own K(Boltzmann) constant.
This in turn mean and that even the field of quantum wave functions has measurable energy , albeit a very small one in our scale ( 10^52 times bigger k).
The medium which contains both spatial and informational oscillations is very fine one, and difficult to define, and may be not needed, but helps in understanding oscillations. That medium is definitely NOT purely spatial, nor informational. Its something else, out of which both these dual forms of existence appear.
Thanks for answer.I will study also Your time machine ideas, since the fact of possibility to erase information about quantum event is interesting, is not it?
Chi happens when You are in line with Nature, understand it, and act accordingly ( including humans, society in nature). When You stiffen in dogma, extrapolate new acquired ideas beyond their field of application, You start to work against the flow, and You get punished, and do a lot of harm as well.
As to connection of quantum physics and "other space" and "other medium", we may not call it consciousness, not to mess too much with various interpretations that immediately arise, but de Broglie, Bohm used physical field that is the field described by wave function, quantum potential, pilot waves and so far I have not read anything that would prove them wrong, though the approach has not been very popular.
In my opinion, that physical quantum field is an information field that registers the existence of space dimensions itself, via self perception, and vice versa. It is intrinsically dual to existence of spatial dimensions.
I actually do not read any ready made theories of nature, honestly, I do not want to get influenced in my understanding .
So far I have got to dynamic transformations of space into itself as one necessary component ( via projective geometry, invariants, -it leads to groups , probably, I am not that far yet ) which has to be combined with oscillating nature of vacuum and stochastic appearance of individual spatial dimension indivisibles. That is on small scale.
On large scale, the answer is also in projective geometry, and its invariant circles (as special case of conics) with no fixed location, indetermined position, and imaginary characteristics. These should both lead to:
spiral characteristics of space flows,
2 dimensional disc type structure prevalence,
tendency of rotation to create order and translation to destroy it,
constancy of speed of light ( mathematical origin of that ) in certain conditions , principles of special relativity (e.g. rotating disc in relativistic case leads to hyperbolic ( or imaginary sphere, quaternion) geometry immediately- at least that I found in one article.
To this one adds phase transitions similar to Kolmogorov scales of space where the form of space flows change mechanisms of dissipation in the smallest vortex of a given scale, and, accordingly, units of energy. The existence of such phase transitions (looping of fields) adds scales and units of length to space, which are local, depends on "density""or "stretch" of space. Each scale characterized by its own K(Boltzmann) constant.
This in turn mean and that even the field of quantum wave functions has measurable energy , albeit a very small one in our scale ( 10^52 times bigger k).
The medium which contains both spatial and informational oscillations is very fine one, and difficult to define, and may be not needed, but helps in understanding oscillations. That medium is definitely NOT purely spatial, nor informational. Its something else, out of which both these dual forms of existence appear.
Hej Ivars
Your last two posts (12 - 14.th) makes a lot of sense to me -
Smallest dimensionalities are into oscillating existance - and it is a Continous proces from ideal (100%) into existance and to non-existance (0%) and anything in-between.
I have explained it like: "Smallest dimensionality is into oscillating existance - via smallest points repeating all the "points" in space that define said dimensionality" - and this means that all the "points" needed to define / express said smallest dimensionality in space (well-defineds in place) all these points - infinitely many - they are each and everyone into an oscillating on/off - and the overall presence of the smallest dimensionality is a probabilioty existance from 100% On (nearto being absolutely unlikely) and to 0 % On (also nearto absolutely unlikely).
Everything is being expressed via such smallest dimensionalities - and hence everything can be back-related to such "probability-occurrence" of smallest dimensionalities.
Now the triggy point is how to "stabilize" the probability occurrence - in order to get a dynamic Universe - showing a one-way entropy gradient.
Your last two posts (12 - 14.th) makes a lot of sense to me -
Smallest dimensionalities are into oscillating existance - and it is a Continous proces from ideal (100%) into existance and to non-existance (0%) and anything in-between.
I have explained it like: "Smallest dimensionality is into oscillating existance - via smallest points repeating all the "points" in space that define said dimensionality" - and this means that all the "points" needed to define / express said smallest dimensionality in space (well-defineds in place) all these points - infinitely many - they are each and everyone into an oscillating on/off - and the overall presence of the smallest dimensionality is a probabilioty existance from 100% On (nearto being absolutely unlikely) and to 0 % On (also nearto absolutely unlikely).
Everything is being expressed via such smallest dimensionalities - and hence everything can be back-related to such "probability-occurrence" of smallest dimensionalities.
Now the triggy point is how to "stabilize" the probability occurrence - in order to get a dynamic Universe - showing a one-way entropy gradient.
Hej Good Elf
Thanks for your reply - and neither do I want to criticize
I always read You with sincere interest - and you may have a point with Chi - however I am not in a position where I can play with ANY kind of background knowledge - so I take the liberty to ponder happily and freely out of the box.
Having that said - I find it much easier and much more logic to follow what Ivars think and suggest - it makes more sense to my brain. Likewise I like the mathematical suggestions made by f.inst Steven - (and Ivars) - and as yet I have not heard arguments against the Pixel-concept - apart from it being experimentally unverified. Pixels are hypothetical - Yes - they are a mind-invention - they are one way of picturelizing - to me nothing is into existance as such - everything is about how we percept and interpret the Everything.
I think that most people accept the idea that when we die we are no longer a percepting part of physical - and then I would like to know what exactly physical is the day that the last human being has vanished from the planet. It is very easy to get this misconception that as long as physical can be communicated and interchanged with other humans - as long as that is feasible - then physical is a very absolute and well-defined being - into real existance and in the form that physicists have choosen as being the correct form. That physical is into existance according to how we humans have learned to describe physical out from experiments. However there exist no such experiment that is not a mind-perception - there exist no such experiment that is not totally dependant on the translation into human perception - there exist no such experiment that is not totally dependant on how information percepts information - we humans are a true interfase.
So I am not overtly impressed about the requirement that "truth" should be limited to what can be experimentally verified. Capeci
Thanks for your reply - and neither do I want to criticize
I always read You with sincere interest - and you may have a point with Chi - however I am not in a position where I can play with ANY kind of background knowledge - so I take the liberty to ponder happily and freely out of the box.
Having that said - I find it much easier and much more logic to follow what Ivars think and suggest - it makes more sense to my brain. Likewise I like the mathematical suggestions made by f.inst Steven - (and Ivars) - and as yet I have not heard arguments against the Pixel-concept - apart from it being experimentally unverified. Pixels are hypothetical - Yes - they are a mind-invention - they are one way of picturelizing - to me nothing is into existance as such - everything is about how we percept and interpret the Everything.
I think that most people accept the idea that when we die we are no longer a percepting part of physical - and then I would like to know what exactly physical is the day that the last human being has vanished from the planet. It is very easy to get this misconception that as long as physical can be communicated and interchanged with other humans - as long as that is feasible - then physical is a very absolute and well-defined being - into real existance and in the form that physicists have choosen as being the correct form. That physical is into existance according to how we humans have learned to describe physical out from experiments. However there exist no such experiment that is not a mind-perception - there exist no such experiment that is not totally dependant on the translation into human perception - there exist no such experiment that is not totally dependant on how information percepts information - we humans are a true interfase.
So I am not overtly impressed about the requirement that "truth" should be limited to what can be experimentally verified. Capeci
Hi Ivars, bukh, DavidD, StevenA, janrinze et al,
QUOTE (Ivars+)
As to connection of quantum physics and "other space" and "other medium", we may not call it consciousness, not to mess too much with various interpretations that immediately arise, but de Broglie, Bohm used physical field that is the field described by wave function, quantum potential, pilot waves and so far I have not read anything that would prove them wrong, though the approach has not been very popular.
Luckily I am not in it for the 'popularity" these theories are on the edge of an envelope of experiment... De Broglie - Bohm Theories are the only ones so far to give anything like a full explanation...
“The issue is whether there is a realistic description of the world,” says Detlef Duerr, a physics professor at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, Germany, and one of the authors of recent papers defending a more clear-cut version of quantum mechanics. “It’s the very naive thing that you would think physics should do: physics should describe what’s going on. Orthodox quantum physics says you can’t do that. You can’t describe what really is going on microscopically.”
Professor Duerr stands behind an alternative quantum theory called Bohmian mechanics, which posits, he says, the audacious idea that reality exists even when we are not observing or measuring it. According to the older, more established version of quantum mechanics that Professor Duerr and his colleagues hope to unseat, particles do not exist in time and space in the same way as larger bodies, which could be described by classical, Newtonian physics. Their locations and speeds are not defined by any objective reality. It is only the act of observing them that somehow creates their location.
[..]
Prof Zeh echoes a common complaint: Bohmian physics is so consistent with orthodox quantum mechanics as to be contrived. Theories should not bend to meet experiments – experiments should prove theories.
In fact, say Prof Duerr and Prof Goldstein, the new research marks a return to a more classical understanding of particle physics that has been ignored for 80 years and it was the textbook quantum theory that was contrived. The debate, as far as he is concerned, is now over.
“Physicists don’t like it so much because it does away with all the romance, all the nice paradoxes, all the nice mysticism,” says Prof Duerr.
Bohmian mechanics has been met with so much resistance because, after all, says Prof Goldstein, scientists are human, too. “This thing that was said for decades to be impossible, it’s not only not impossible, it’s bloody obvious.”
Quantum physics’ new world order - The National June 23, 2008
This is a distillation of recent experimental results where a lot has happened that cannot be explained using "standard theory". These theories are part of an answer that is clearly on the ascendant. As for all new ideas it takes at least two generations for this to be accepted because that is how long it takes for the "old gatekeepers" to die off and be replaced by younger and more vigorous minds. This is the "future" and not the popular present. Most people use "authority" to run their lives and pay no heed to the Universe and what she is saying. I could give many examples of this including examples of squeezed states but I have said it all before and I would only bore others with it again. As a counter point to what you said "so far I have not read anything that would prove them wrong" I would say I have heard nothing and seen no contrary experiments recently that would show that the current model is right.
QUOTE (Quantum physics’ new world order - The National June 23 @ 2008+)
“The issue is whether there is a realistic description of the world,” says Detlef Duerr, a physics professor at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, Germany, and one of the authors of recent papers defending a more clear-cut version of quantum mechanics. “It’s the very naive thing that you would think physics should do: physics should describe what’s going on. Orthodox quantum physics says you can’t do that. You can’t describe what really is going on microscopically.”
Professor Duerr stands behind an alternative quantum theory called Bohmian mechanics, which posits, he says, the audacious idea that reality exists even when we are not observing or measuring it. According to the older, more established version of quantum mechanics that Professor Duerr and his colleagues hope to unseat, particles do not exist in time and space in the same way as larger bodies, which could be described by classical, Newtonian physics. Their locations and speeds are not defined by any objective reality. It is only the act of observing them that somehow creates their location.
[..]
Prof Zeh echoes a common complaint: Bohmian physics is so consistent with orthodox quantum mechanics as to be contrived. Theories should not bend to meet experiments – experiments should prove theories.
In fact, say Prof Duerr and Prof Goldstein, the new research marks a return to a more classical understanding of particle physics that has been ignored for 80 years and it was the textbook quantum theory that was contrived. The debate, as far as he is concerned, is now over.
“Physicists don’t like it so much because it does away with all the romance, all the nice paradoxes, all the nice mysticism,” says Prof Duerr.
Bohmian mechanics has been met with so much resistance because, after all, says Prof Goldstein, scientists are human, too. “This thing that was said for decades to be impossible, it’s not only not impossible, it’s bloody obvious.”
Quantum physics’ new world order - The National June 23, 2008
This is a distillation of recent experimental results where a lot has happened that cannot be explained using "standard theory". These theories are part of an answer that is clearly on the ascendant. As for all new ideas it takes at least two generations for this to be accepted because that is how long it takes for the "old gatekeepers" to die off and be replaced by younger and more vigorous minds. This is the "future" and not the popular present. Most people use "authority" to run their lives and pay no heed to the Universe and what she is saying. I could give many examples of this including examples of squeezed states but I have said it all before and I would only bore others with it again. As a counter point to what you said "so far I have not read anything that would prove them wrong" I would say I have heard nothing and seen no contrary experiments recently that would show that the current model is right.
QUOTE (Ivars+)
I actually do not read any ready made theories of nature, honestly, I do not want to get influenced in my understanding .
Ouch!... not another closed mind? You really can't hope to create a realistic world perspective without reference to nature itself and that needs to be tempered with some pretty cleaver "questions" whose answers should be influencing your "point of view".
QUOTE (bukh+)
Thanks for your reply - and neither do I want to criticize
Actual constructive criticism is "good"... it is negative criticism which is bad and usually has no science associated with it. You can tell that type... all "mouth" and abuse and no "information". The only thing that keeps me here is the constructive criticism and I have not been getting any of that lately so I am beginning to think there is nothing here left for me to say. All minds that are open are open and all minds that are closed are closed tight. If they have any science to criticize about they have not mentioned it to me. So all I usually receive is "personal abuse". I appreciate all your comments as I do others with similar intent.
QUOTE (bukh+)
Pixels are hypothetical - Yes - they are a mind-invention - they are one way of picturelizing - to me nothing is into existance as such - everything is about how we percept and interpret the Everything.
I would agree if we were discussing only Philosophy. This is not Philosophy it is Physics and it is Science and must use experiment otherwise it is not Science. All Science must agree with experiment.
QUOTE (bukh+)
I think that most people accept the idea that when we die we are no longer a percepting part of physical - and then I would like to know what exactly physical is the day that the last human being has vanished from the planet. It is very easy to get this misconception that as long as physical can be communicated and interchanged with other humans - as long as that is feasible - then physical is a very absolute and well-defined being - into real existance and in the form that physicists have choosen as being the correct form. That physical is into existance according to how we humans have learned to describe physical out from experiments. However there exist no such experiment that is not a mind-perception - there exist no such experiment that is not totally dependant on the translation into human perception - there exist no such experiment that is not totally dependant on how information percepts information - we humans are a true interfase.
There is "no correct form"... you are searching for unattainable and absolute Truth. Humans can't know that... all we can do is approach a consistent and refining point of view that explains the physical Universe as we know it and to the level of understanding that we can know. You would know of Gödel's incompleteness theorems... they rule... believe me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27...teness_theorems
Still a lot can be known and a consistent view arrived at... it is not the current view for the reasons I have stated here and in previous posts.
Lets look at that concept...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27...teness_theorems
Still a lot can be known and a consistent view arrived at... it is not the current view for the reasons I have stated here and in previous posts.
Lets look at that concept...
QUOTE (Theorem 1+)
For any consistent formal, recursively enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
QUOTE (Theorem 2+)
For any formal recursively enumerable (i.e., effectively generated) theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
Bingo!... Your search is over when you have arrived at a consistent lie. "Recurse" all you want forever but in the end you will be basically inconsistent because all your ideas are based on shifting sand... the sand of human constructs. This can be formally proved. Our "philosophy" is without any substance in the end. What you can rely on is the Universe "herself"... she is consistent and all our attempts to describe her will be flawed but if we keep answering more and more questions about her the more we know her... the closer to her we become. This is not a g*d it is our true "mother". She bore us to know of her and that is what we are doing. Our experiments ask intelligent questions about her. Her answers reflect our current understanding and takes us to the next step. In this "race" some will be left behind some will be eagerly advancing with an open and prepared mind. Others are darkened by all this knowledge...
QUOTE ("To See a World..."+)
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
[..]
A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the Lies you can invent.
It is right it should be so;
Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know
Thro’ the World we safely go.
Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.
William Blake
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
[..]
A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the Lies you can invent.
It is right it should be so;
Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know
Thro’ the World we safely go.
Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.
William Blake
QUOTE (bukh+)
So I am not overtly impressed about the requirement that "truth" should be limited to what can be experimentally verified. Capeci
It is your choice in the end... right? We have discussed many things and you are aware of your actions so the limits of your knowledge is within you ... of course you may be right but I would not want you to be doing the maintenance on my airplane. Quite frankly would you want someone "with your philosophy" dealing with your personal air safety? he he he!!! All that insurance you can take out will not help you if your plane falls from the sky. Philosophy is like that... the Philosopher takes out the big policy since he knows there is no truth to be found in this flying stuff while the Physicist who is trying to be in possession of all the facts takes a bus instead so a mechanical failure usually only means a short delay (... well compared with his lifetime). 
Cheers
We have discussed many things and you are aware of your actions so the limits of your knowledge is within you ... of course you may be right but I would not want you to be doing the maintenance on my airplane. Quite frankly would you want someone "with your philosophy" dealing with your personal air safety? he he he!!! All that insurance you can take out will not help you if your plane falls from the sky. Philosophy is like that... the Philosopher takes out the big policy since he knows there is no truth to be found in this flying stuff while the Physicist who is trying to be in possession of all the facts takes a bus instead so a mechanical failure usually only means a short delay (... well compared with his lifetime). Cheers
Hej Good Elf
Oh Dear - neither would I trust me doing maintenance on airplanes - and irrespective how well airplanes are being cared for - we see crashes and will continue seing crashes - but perhaps even more serious - the concept behind is not sound. Consumes too much fuel - pollute too much - get crowded in airports - uncomfortable and not well suited for short distances - etc etc - so eventually they will be replaced by better technology - airships perhaps. Imagine a foamy strong cheap structure filled with light air and offering spacious luxury at a few hundred mph - travelling to any destination and with your soul accomodated at arrival. Till then - like you - I take the bus.
I am in fully agreement with Gödel - and Gödels theorems rule - and the question is whom have arrived at a consistent lie ? - probably all of us - but contemporary physics needs some major modifications when looking small-wards and intertangle-wise.
I have not seen convincing ideas about how to define motion - and I have not seen convincing ideas about how to solve the wave-particle duality - and I have not seen convincing ideas about how void should be looked at. Actually I am surprised that so little effort is being directed towards how best to define a "Particle". It would seem that most people are happy to translate their image of a human-scale particle into subquantum - and that most people still see a particle as something well defined which can move in space !
The pixel-concept describe in a simpel concept how everything is rearrangements of dimensionalities in space - and how a dimensionality can be seen as an informational qubit - and how rearrangements logically can be imagined as train-like / domino-like "waves" - and how the definition of a particle vs a wave solely is a matter whether the wave-like rearrangement is propagating in straight trajectories or into circular trajectories relative to the frame that we have choosen for our measurement / the frame that we use for our perception.
I respect Your idea that only "physical experiments" can lead to a better understanding of our mother - but I doubt that such experiments can stand alone - not including mind-experiments.
Oh Dear - neither would I trust me doing maintenance on airplanes - and irrespective how well airplanes are being cared for - we see crashes and will continue seing crashes - but perhaps even more serious - the concept behind is not sound. Consumes too much fuel - pollute too much - get crowded in airports - uncomfortable and not well suited for short distances - etc etc - so eventually they will be replaced by better technology - airships perhaps. Imagine a foamy strong cheap structure filled with light air and offering spacious luxury at a few hundred mph - travelling to any destination and with your soul accomodated at arrival. Till then - like you - I take the bus.
I am in fully agreement with Gödel - and Gödels theorems rule - and the question is whom have arrived at a consistent lie ? - probably all of us - but contemporary physics needs some major modifications when looking small-wards and intertangle-wise.
I have not seen convincing ideas about how to define motion - and I have not seen convincing ideas about how to solve the wave-particle duality - and I have not seen convincing ideas about how void should be looked at. Actually I am surprised that so little effort is being directed towards how best to define a "Particle". It would seem that most people are happy to translate their image of a human-scale particle into subquantum - and that most people still see a particle as something well defined which can move in space !
The pixel-concept describe in a simpel concept how everything is rearrangements of dimensionalities in space - and how a dimensionality can be seen as an informational qubit - and how rearrangements logically can be imagined as train-like / domino-like "waves" - and how the definition of a particle vs a wave solely is a matter whether the wave-like rearrangement is propagating in straight trajectories or into circular trajectories relative to the frame that we have choosen for our measurement / the frame that we use for our perception.
I respect Your idea that only "physical experiments" can lead to a better understanding of our mother - but I doubt that such experiments can stand alone - not including mind-experiments.
Hi Good Elf,
Godels theorem is an interesting thing which I have not been able to crack.
What I am looking for is for what types of logic does it apply? Does it apply for intuitivistic logic? Qubit logic? Continuous logical statements between TRUTH and LIE (1 to 0)?
Truth/lie seems to be a simplification. Even Russel said that sentence
"This exists" involves 3 elements: This, notion of existance and a MIND able to perceive clearly the difference between existance and non-existance.
However, there may be simple minds ( not human, but basic elements of consciousness fields) who are not able to selfpercieve nor perceive others while existing themselves, so for them such sentence has no meaning, is impossible to make such a statement.
I wonder what logic would such elementary consciousness use?
Godels theorem is an interesting thing which I have not been able to crack.
What I am looking for is for what types of logic does it apply? Does it apply for intuitivistic logic? Qubit logic? Continuous logical statements between TRUTH and LIE (1 to 0)?
Truth/lie seems to be a simplification. Even Russel said that sentence
"This exists" involves 3 elements: This, notion of existance and a MIND able to perceive clearly the difference between existance and non-existance.
However, there may be simple minds ( not human, but basic elements of consciousness fields) who are not able to selfpercieve nor perceive others while existing themselves, so for them such sentence has no meaning, is impossible to make such a statement.
I wonder what logic would such elementary consciousness use?
Hej Ivars
To me Gödels theorems are dealing with the very concept of percepting mirrored in the light of grade of complexion.
One can say that Everything - or The Mother - is into existance - but the way this existance is being imagined - understood - is solely up to the percepting body. Perception is about how Something of the Everything interfere with the Everything.
There exist no such thing as an objective way of percepting (in that case it should be how the Mother percepts herself) - so there exist no such thing as a true description of Everything.
Something (including humans) therefore need to select the tools out from which they create their understanding of Everything. And this is where Gödels theorems apply. Humans select their tools - axioms - and use these axioms to define the playing rules for understanding.
A rock probably do not care about Gödel - and the border between this conscious awareness of being into existance and the complexion needed to be capable of "Understanding" is probably a very smooth translation, and Gödel requires a certain capacity of understanding - requires a fairly high degree of complexion.
QUOTE: "I wonder what logic would such elementary consciousness use"
So do I - and therefore I have put this as one out of five axioms.
To me Gödels theorems are dealing with the very concept of percepting mirrored in the light of grade of complexion.
One can say that Everything - or The Mother - is into existance - but the way this existance is being imagined - understood - is solely up to the percepting body. Perception is about how Something of the Everything interfere with the Everything.
There exist no such thing as an objective way of percepting (in that case it should be how the Mother percepts herself) - so there exist no such thing as a true description of Everything.
Something (including humans) therefore need to select the tools out from which they create their understanding of Everything. And this is where Gödels theorems apply. Humans select their tools - axioms - and use these axioms to define the playing rules for understanding.
A rock probably do not care about Gödel - and the border between this conscious awareness of being into existance and the complexion needed to be capable of "Understanding" is probably a very smooth translation, and Gödel requires a certain capacity of understanding - requires a fairly high degree of complexion.
QUOTE: "I wonder what logic would such elementary consciousness use"
So do I - and therefore I have put this as one out of five axioms.
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 18 2008, 08:28 AM)
To me Gödels theorems are dealing with the very concept of percepting mirrored in the light of grade of complexion.
One can say that Everything - or The Mother - is into existance - but the way this existance is being imagined - understood - is solely up to the percepting body. Perception is about how Something of the Everything interfere with the Everything.
Hej bukh
But there must be laws as well. If we are thinking how the most elementary piece of consciousness perceives itself and others, then it should be possible to find out what logic it uses ( can it say I exist, or its dual oscillating existance forbids such logic) .
Once that is found, aggregates of such things will also have consciousness and logic that is predictable, to some extent.
May be we can not imagine how the most complex structure percepts, but may be we can calculate it?
One can say that Everything - or The Mother - is into existance - but the way this existance is being imagined - understood - is solely up to the percepting body. Perception is about how Something of the Everything interfere with the Everything.
Hej bukh
QUOTE
There exist no such thing as an objective way of percepting (in that case it should be how the Mother percepts herself) - so there exist no such thing as a true description of Everything.
But there must be laws as well. If we are thinking how the most elementary piece of consciousness perceives itself and others, then it should be possible to find out what logic it uses ( can it say I exist, or its dual oscillating existance forbids such logic) .
Once that is found, aggregates of such things will also have consciousness and logic that is predictable, to some extent.
May be we can not imagine how the most complex structure percepts, but may be we can calculate it?
Hi Ivars, bukh, DavidD, StevenA, janrinze et al,
Everything we really know is "operational" understanding. Gödel's incompleteness theorems relate to the rigorous process of propositional calculus. The concepts of logic are deconstructionist and relate to the "atoms" of the logic which are the basic assumptions. These units are in some way always flawed because they are always based on even more basic assumption regarding "what we know" or at least "what we think we know". We need not be too "picky" since everything can become very complex when it is analyzed very carefully. It is one of the reasons I take mathematics and especially the art of "analysis" very much with a grain of salt. It is not that mathematics is not a "wonderful thing" but it is a human construct and it is more or less worshiped above the coming and goings of the Universe herself. Of course our arguments must be consistent but Feynman himself stated that his own QED theory was not able to be shown to be self consistent. He then stated that he doubted if his theory could ever be shown to be self consistent....
So it remains to this day... and so do all the other "wonderful constructs of the human mind".
For instance the Schrodinger Equation and a number of other basic wave equations cannot be arrived at by any process other than through a "trial"... a sheer guess if you want to call it that. You would think that such theory should at least be based on some deductive reasoning and a path that provides a sure footing to a "solution"... nope... it does not... so I have been "let down" by that process of mathematical logic as a path toward understanding. The fact it works is the only real "solid ground" that you can say about it... and it only "works" till something better comes along and "works even better". In that sense I rely only on the results of intuitive logic that can be entirely backed up by experiment. That is why I use the analogy of an airplane and maintenance on it being able to be evaluated. This would have been the method Einstein used I feel sure.
Gödel confirms that the process is flawed... our greatest ideas will all have a seed of it's own destruction in it the more concrete we strive to put it on a solid footing. It is like an Uncertainty Principle in it's own right. The best we can hope for is a set of rules derived from "Nature" or the Universe itself that are internally consistent ... until something causes them all to collapse into a pile on the floor and reassemble them again into a different arrangement that makes greater internal organizational sense. All we can be sure of is this collapse will occur from time to time with the best laid and "tidiest" plans of man.
So in the search for a reliable plan to base our judgment on, we need to test our judgment against some "standard" that measures it without fail and that is the Universe herself. If your plane falls from the sky there will be a reason for that based in either the human realm or the mechanical realm... it will not be just "bad luck" or the "g*ds" or demons... it will be a lack of attention to some small detail that was overlooked. It is not as "clean" as mathematics but then again it is more reliable since it has been ratified by something "perfect" as humanity goes regarding a source of ultimate physical Truth ... be it ever so distant and unattainable from our grasp. If we "emulate" it in our Science, we draw closer to it.
Cheers
Everything we really know is "operational" understanding. Gödel's incompleteness theorems relate to the rigorous process of propositional calculus. The concepts of logic are deconstructionist and relate to the "atoms" of the logic which are the basic assumptions. These units are in some way always flawed because they are always based on even more basic assumption regarding "what we know" or at least "what we think we know". We need not be too "picky" since everything can become very complex when it is analyzed very carefully. It is one of the reasons I take mathematics and especially the art of "analysis" very much with a grain of salt. It is not that mathematics is not a "wonderful thing" but it is a human construct and it is more or less worshiped above the coming and goings of the Universe herself. Of course our arguments must be consistent but Feynman himself stated that his own QED theory was not able to be shown to be self consistent. He then stated that he doubted if his theory could ever be shown to be self consistent....
QUOTE
"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965
So it remains to this day... and so do all the other "wonderful constructs of the human mind".
For instance the Schrodinger Equation and a number of other basic wave equations cannot be arrived at by any process other than through a "trial"... a sheer guess if you want to call it that. You would think that such theory should at least be based on some deductive reasoning and a path that provides a sure footing to a "solution"... nope... it does not... so I have been "let down" by that process of mathematical logic as a path toward understanding. The fact it works is the only real "solid ground" that you can say about it... and it only "works" till something better comes along and "works even better". In that sense I rely only on the results of intuitive logic that can be entirely backed up by experiment. That is why I use the analogy of an airplane and maintenance on it being able to be evaluated. This would have been the method Einstein used I feel sure.
Gödel confirms that the process is flawed... our greatest ideas will all have a seed of it's own destruction in it the more concrete we strive to put it on a solid footing. It is like an Uncertainty Principle in it's own right. The best we can hope for is a set of rules derived from "Nature" or the Universe itself that are internally consistent ... until something causes them all to collapse into a pile on the floor and reassemble them again into a different arrangement that makes greater internal organizational sense. All we can be sure of is this collapse will occur from time to time with the best laid and "tidiest" plans of man.
So in the search for a reliable plan to base our judgment on, we need to test our judgment against some "standard" that measures it without fail and that is the Universe herself. If your plane falls from the sky there will be a reason for that based in either the human realm or the mechanical realm... it will not be just "bad luck" or the "g*ds" or demons... it will be a lack of attention to some small detail that was overlooked. It is not as "clean" as mathematics but then again it is more reliable since it has been ratified by something "perfect" as humanity goes regarding a source of ultimate physical Truth ... be it ever so distant and unattainable from our grasp. If we "emulate" it in our Science, we draw closer to it.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 18 2008, 10:49 AM)
Gödel confirms that the process is flawed... our greatest ideas will all have a seed of it's own destruction in it the more concrete we strive to put it on a solid footing. It is like an Uncertainty Principle in it's own right.
Hi Good Elf
That is why I think Godels theorem can be bypassed by having atoms of logic with undefined , or badly defined logical properties.
Always when we try to bring something on more concrete footing it selfdestructs. That is because solid footing for us means yes/no type discrete deterministic algorithms which has timed sequence. Mostly meant to make things repeatable, which in turn is an engineering/production paradigm. Such approach puts a lot of restriction on what we may call understanding. And obviously it does not relate with how nature thinks very well since it freezes development, by definition.
But that is most likely not how Nature thinks. I think nature has no problems to have ambiguous atoms as long as they are able to produce increased complexity as they interact.
If we take the extremes, the smallest piece of Universe has perception, but can not self percept while existing ( or perceive any other smallest thing) , while the biggest has universal perception, having no problem to focus mental attention on zillions parallel processes with ambiguous/probabilistic inputs ( I am not talking about Uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, but uncertainty of existence of smallest indivisibles of Universe).
We are in the middle, so our perception gets baffled when we think about small things with uncertain behavior. But can we calculate their behavior and also the perception of the biggest consciousness? I think we can. But I have no proof yet.
Just the idea of oscillating nature of the consciousness, logic and spatial existence of the smallest indivisible of Universe- infinitesimal spatial dimension.
Spatial dimensions itself oscillate, since their existence can not be permanent due to the fact that their smallest part are indivisibles that can not percept own existence- can not answer question do I exist (spatially) or not since such question is meaningless. But the logical problem it poses constantly is the engine of activity.
The smallest part solve it by oscillations- from spatial presence to consciousness about oneself - with consciousness all the time being behind ( or in front of) existence, phase Pi.
So if spatial presence of infinitesimal spatial dimension is like dy*cos x , y-spatial dimension, where x is some angle in medium between spatial and conscious fields, then its self perception is like dy*I* sin x , and since real time does not exist in this scale, in real time we may perceive such indivisible as superposition :
dy*e^(I*x)
I do not know what the angle of infinitesimal relative to what x is. It measures the level of existence and phase of each of spatial/consciousness parts of smallest indivisible and has a period of 2 *pi . It may be an imaginary angle as well.
So once smallest indivisible has consciousness that perceives its own existence with delay, if we could turn it into a rotation, we could get a standing wave system of self percepting indivisible. That in may opinion is Kolmogorov vortex of spatial dimensions, which must have a mirror vortex in consciousness field (imaginary time?). Since it has a delay Pi between spatial dimensions and consciousness, it must be a boson, and then the spin of such a boson would mark the phase difference between its spatial presence and consciousness.
Hi Good Elf
That is why I think Godels theorem can be bypassed by having atoms of logic with undefined , or badly defined logical properties.
Always when we try to bring something on more concrete footing it selfdestructs. That is because solid footing for us means yes/no type discrete deterministic algorithms which has timed sequence. Mostly meant to make things repeatable, which in turn is an engineering/production paradigm. Such approach puts a lot of restriction on what we may call understanding. And obviously it does not relate with how nature thinks very well since it freezes development, by definition.
But that is most likely not how Nature thinks. I think nature has no problems to have ambiguous atoms as long as they are able to produce increased complexity as they interact.
If we take the extremes, the smallest piece of Universe has perception, but can not self percept while existing ( or perceive any other smallest thing) , while the biggest has universal perception, having no problem to focus mental attention on zillions parallel processes with ambiguous/probabilistic inputs ( I am not talking about Uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, but uncertainty of existence of smallest indivisibles of Universe).
We are in the middle, so our perception gets baffled when we think about small things with uncertain behavior. But can we calculate their behavior and also the perception of the biggest consciousness? I think we can. But I have no proof yet.
Just the idea of oscillating nature of the consciousness, logic and spatial existence of the smallest indivisible of Universe- infinitesimal spatial dimension.
Spatial dimensions itself oscillate, since their existence can not be permanent due to the fact that their smallest part are indivisibles that can not percept own existence- can not answer question do I exist (spatially) or not since such question is meaningless. But the logical problem it poses constantly is the engine of activity.
The smallest part solve it by oscillations- from spatial presence to consciousness about oneself - with consciousness all the time being behind ( or in front of) existence, phase Pi.
So if spatial presence of infinitesimal spatial dimension is like dy*cos x , y-spatial dimension, where x is some angle in medium between spatial and conscious fields, then its self perception is like dy*I* sin x , and since real time does not exist in this scale, in real time we may perceive such indivisible as superposition :
dy*e^(I*x)
I do not know what the angle of infinitesimal relative to what x is. It measures the level of existence and phase of each of spatial/consciousness parts of smallest indivisible and has a period of 2 *pi . It may be an imaginary angle as well.
So once smallest indivisible has consciousness that perceives its own existence with delay, if we could turn it into a rotation, we could get a standing wave system of self percepting indivisible. That in may opinion is Kolmogorov vortex of spatial dimensions, which must have a mirror vortex in consciousness field (imaginary time?). Since it has a delay Pi between spatial dimensions and consciousness, it must be a boson, and then the spin of such a boson would mark the phase difference between its spatial presence and consciousness.
I just thought that in such case of oscillating consciousness ESSENTIAL idea of SPIN would be that spin is created by an ever existing phase difference between a spatial existence of smallest indivisible and its consciousness. one trying to catch other.
How does it sound?
That would mean that spin is a direct physical link to consciousness, of course not to pure one, but the one that exists in balance with spatial dimensions of elementary things. Spin is like a window to physical measurement of consciousness field. And we know that is rather difficult to measure as in matter it tends to have undefined values until measurement, so it is revealing not so much about consciousness field, but in quanta.
But it is there, so once we know it involves consciousness of elementary matter, we may ask what can happen with the OTHER non-spatial side of spin (the consciousness of smallest indivisible ) when it makes formations in somewhat similar way as matter makes formations out of spatial dimensions with spin.
Bosons (photons) then are things with consciousness that has phase difference Pi with their spatial part, and as we see, such combination does not ALLOW spatial dimensions to form lastingly- they form and disappear like a running wave, so no matter is formed on photons way - usually.
Fermions are such combinations of elementary smallest indivisible oscillating consciousness and spatial dimensions that somehow manage to reduce this phase gap to Pi/2 (twisting?Rotation? Self crossing? K- Vortex?) and that seems to lead to persistent presence of spatial dimensions and matter.
Now if we would be able to measure spin in more detailed way going beneath Heisenberg uncertainty or reconstruct what may happen on other side of spin that is not forming spatial dimensions but on contrary makes consciousness dimensions, than we would measure /experiment with consciousness.
How does it sound?
That would mean that spin is a direct physical link to consciousness, of course not to pure one, but the one that exists in balance with spatial dimensions of elementary things. Spin is like a window to physical measurement of consciousness field. And we know that is rather difficult to measure as in matter it tends to have undefined values until measurement, so it is revealing not so much about consciousness field, but in quanta.
But it is there, so once we know it involves consciousness of elementary matter, we may ask what can happen with the OTHER non-spatial side of spin (the consciousness of smallest indivisible ) when it makes formations in somewhat similar way as matter makes formations out of spatial dimensions with spin.
Bosons (photons) then are things with consciousness that has phase difference Pi with their spatial part, and as we see, such combination does not ALLOW spatial dimensions to form lastingly- they form and disappear like a running wave, so no matter is formed on photons way - usually.
Fermions are such combinations of elementary smallest indivisible oscillating consciousness and spatial dimensions that somehow manage to reduce this phase gap to Pi/2 (twisting?Rotation? Self crossing? K- Vortex?) and that seems to lead to persistent presence of spatial dimensions and matter.
Now if we would be able to measure spin in more detailed way going beneath Heisenberg uncertainty or reconstruct what may happen on other side of spin that is not forming spatial dimensions but on contrary makes consciousness dimensions, than we would measure /experiment with consciousness.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "But there must be laws as well. If we are thinking how the most elementary piece of consciousness perceives itself and others, then it should be possible to find out what logic it uses ( can it say I exist, or its dual oscillating existance forbids such logic) . "
May be - however I doubt that human complexion can interfere with smallest dimensions - so I doubt that humans will ever be in position to decode this code - but as long as it is put as an axiom I have no problem with such an open question.
QUOTE: "But there must be laws as well. If we are thinking how the most elementary piece of consciousness perceives itself and others, then it should be possible to find out what logic it uses ( can it say I exist, or its dual oscillating existance forbids such logic) . "
May be - however I doubt that human complexion can interfere with smallest dimensions - so I doubt that humans will ever be in position to decode this code - but as long as it is put as an axiom I have no problem with such an open question.
Hi good elf, ivars, bukh, et al.
I just jumped in and skimmed about ten percent of the sentences in the last several posts, so please forgive me if I repeat anything already hashed-out. I've just some random comments, much indicating I agree with or was enlightened by what I've read in this thread. Sorry for the size of this post but there is so much cool stuff in this thread to comment upon.
On logic: There is no such thing as deductive logic. Everything is based on axioms. Nothing is really proven. Except for "I think therefore I am" ("there is order"), which is the only thing ever proven true deductively. Unfortunately "I think therefore I am" doesn't help much as a "proven" axiom upon which we can base more meaty things like the second "law" of thermodynamics!
On logic: I saw some words in a post or two that ~might~ have meant that there are multiple "logics", although I may have misinterpreted it. In any case surely there is only one logic, which is defined as that consistent set of rules (so we presume) which is the universe itself. How can we, being bound by the rules of the universe, use those rules (i.e. our minds, words, symbols, and computers) to describe a logic that is something outside those rules? To do so would allow us to ~create~ that logic within our minds or a computer or machine. In fact, to say there are more than one sets of rules (like, for example, the set of rules we call "abstract" and the set of rules we call "concrete") is to say they exist, which is to say they interact (for two things that do not interact surely do not exist together), and therefore is to say they are the same set of rules. Thus when we claim we are "using" the square root of minus-one in some mental process, whatever it is we are really doing is still certainly compatible with the rules of the universe, for our neurons certainly obey those rules. Thus there is no difference between "abstract" and "concrete". And the "concreteness" of the universe is nothing more nor less than a set of rules of which we are a part. So the universe is simply order, incarnate: rules perceived as "concrete".
About Goedel: I try to remember that the axioms upon which he based his proof are those we learned from the universe/picked for our "understanding". So if the universe is inconsistent, or if our axioms we chose fail in certain obscure moments, the incompleteness theorem is false. So it can't really be applied to the universe because that is applying the theorem to itself. Talk about circular logic--that's more like a gordian knot! But my point is we can't say things like, "The incompleteness theorem proves we can't prove the universe is consistent", because it might be that the incompleteness theorem is false (because of the possible reasons given here) and someday we really DO prove deductively that the universe is consistent (despite the fact that I said above that there is no deductive logic except "I think therefore I am"--maybe someday I'll be proven wrong, or that proven axiom can be used to prove the universe is consistent). But I admit we should presume it is true until something better comes along!
On understanding things: One realization that helped me immensely in "understanding" non-classical physics, was that humans don't feel they remotely "understand" something until they have an analogy. For example, we teach grade school children that electrons orbit nuclei like planets orbit a sun. But the problem is that all our analogies MUST be classical because we are 100% classical thinkers. Once we realize that there are NO classical analogies for general relativity or quantum mechanics, we can suddenly become comfortable with it. So I lacked in an analogy not because I hadn't found it yet, but because there aren't any such analogies! There is much comfort in knowing that, and it lets one move on to a better understanding. Yet I often see scientists still attempting to describe QM with classical analogies even though classical mechanics is just an inaccurate estimate of a limiting form of QM. I know very little about the carrier wave stuff so I'm probably speaking out of turn--good elf please correct me here--but isn't the idea of a carrier wave rather, er, classical? Not that that automatically makes it wrong, just suspect in my mind.
About the comments about God or gods: I use here the following definitions of "God", "good", and "evil" because they are, IMO extremely pure definitions, and also usually most useful in the majority of conversations. I'm sure they differ from your own, but please allow me to use them for just this post: "God" I say is simply "infinite order", "good" is "that which generally increases the order of the universe" (such as a desire to increase order), and "evil" is the opposite of good.
Thus Nazism was evil because an arrogant organism (humans) attempting to apply a eugenics based on their own judgment of themselves, is doomed to failure. Imagine that "me first" attitude taken as an ideal worldwide. It would result in a reduction of order, I think, because the most arrogant and asocial traits would survive in the race.
Now about whether there is infinite order I say (intellectually speaking): Since the first lesson we've learned from the universe is that there are countless degrees of order of those we can understand (i.e. less order than our own minds), and since every age has seen its perceived limits of the universe expanded (now we are beginning to wonder about branes, information preserved in black holes, a few are wondering about entangled microtubules (me included), and Mach's principle connecting everything in the universe), then Occam's razor obliges the atheist to defend his claim that reality includes some arbitrarily extra mechanism that precludes the existence of infinite order. There may be such a limit! But if so, Occam's razor requires it be fully explained.
On the idea of time, I'll paste a chunck from some of my personal notes here:
On the concept of time and indivisible interactions:
Would you suspect that the various interactions that occur between the objects in our universe can occur in “half-steps”? Or that processes in our universe can be broken down into an infinite number of individual steps? Or that all processes must always occur in at least two or more steps? Of course not! That’s just silly!
Obviously all processes in our universe are comprised of one or more indivisible steps.
The simplest interaction has a single step. For example, the transfer of energy between atoms is often performed in a single step.
Is it surprising that we cannot observe what happens while a single step is taking place? It certainly shouldn’t be surprising. The only way to observe a single-step process is by adding an observation step. Thus we can’t observe a single-step process without making it some other multi-step process.
So it is not so much that there’s something magical about observation of quantum mechanical (single-step) processes. Rather, adding an observation step simply changes the experiment into some other experiment. There’s nothing surprising there, nor in the idea that some processes have no internal steps.
We never worry about what happens “during” a single step interaction because we know that nothing happens during a single step interaction! To say something happens during the interaction is to say there are more intermediate states. All we know is that the state of the system before the interaction and the state after the interaction obeys certain conservation laws, and we have no idea why. There’s no reason to presume there are multiple steps and then worry about whether energy is conserved between each of those internal steps.
We’ve also found that those laws that govern state changes in single-step interactions also govern state changes in interactions that we consider as multi-step interactions but without our bothering to add observation steps between those extra steps. Thus it appears that what we thought were multiple steps was really a single step. For example, if we set up an experiment where energy can be transferred through multiple paths, we presume it will take multiple steps. However experiment shows that the initial and final states of such a system (as long as we don’t add any observation steps in between) don’t mind one bit apparently violating conservation of energy in those alleged intermediate steps-as long as the initial (observed) and final (observed) states obey conservation of energy. So which seems a better view: that energy was not conserved in those alleged intermediate steps, or that the whole thing was really a single step process as far as the rest of the universe is concerned?
Most physicists today view such a process as a single-step process. As with any single-step process, all we know is that energy, among other things, is conserved. We have no idea why things are conserved in a single-step process, but they sure are conserved.
Now we think of time as that thing that prevents us from interacting with objects in the future or in the past. Our view is that if we could interact with future and past objects, then we would view time as something like just another dimension like width, height, or depth-where we can, for example, interact with an object that is north, or east, of us.
But it turns out that single-step interactions happen all the time between future and past objects. We just don’t see them because to view them would mean they aren’t “single-step” processes, because to view them we must add an observation step. If we add an observation step to such a process, we divide the process into two single step interactions, where only one of those single step interactions occurs through time.
It should not be surprising that adding an observation step still does not let us clearly see the through-time nature of the interaction, for exactly the same thing happens when we add an observation step to single step interaction that occurs over some distance, except then it is the through-space nature that gets hidden in one single-step interaction.
Thus a truly closed system (unobserved while it is running) will complete all of its internal steps instantaneously. Specifically, it will complete all of its steps from one external observation (external interaction) to the next, no matter how short a time between those two observations and no matter how many internal steps we presume occurred. Now a truly closed system exists when there are no interactions with the rest of the universe. Thus the initial and final states of a truly closed system can most apparently be observed for very small, simple systems, like a handful of cold atoms. If we observe (interact with) that system at some point and note its internal state, then the very next time we observe it, we will see its final state, no matter how many internal steps we presume occurred between those two observations and no matter how short the time between those two observations. This is one advantage of quantum computing (the other is in a closed system's ability to do whatever parallel processes it takes to get energy to be conserved when the next observation is taken). We can imagine a simple machine that runs to completion instantaneously simply by making sure it does not interact with the universe while it is running-forcing all presumed internal steps to be just one step in the eyes of the rest of the universe.
So it seems entropic time is defined as the "observation rate", or the "interaction rate". Note this should not be confused with particle-behavior time, which simply refers to particle processes where entropy does not change--such as the forward/backward in time nature of matter/antimatter.
-fleem
I just jumped in and skimmed about ten percent of the sentences in the last several posts, so please forgive me if I repeat anything already hashed-out. I've just some random comments, much indicating I agree with or was enlightened by what I've read in this thread. Sorry for the size of this post but there is so much cool stuff in this thread to comment upon.
On logic: There is no such thing as deductive logic. Everything is based on axioms. Nothing is really proven. Except for "I think therefore I am" ("there is order"), which is the only thing ever proven true deductively. Unfortunately "I think therefore I am" doesn't help much as a "proven" axiom upon which we can base more meaty things like the second "law" of thermodynamics!
On logic: I saw some words in a post or two that ~might~ have meant that there are multiple "logics", although I may have misinterpreted it. In any case surely there is only one logic, which is defined as that consistent set of rules (so we presume) which is the universe itself. How can we, being bound by the rules of the universe, use those rules (i.e. our minds, words, symbols, and computers) to describe a logic that is something outside those rules? To do so would allow us to ~create~ that logic within our minds or a computer or machine. In fact, to say there are more than one sets of rules (like, for example, the set of rules we call "abstract" and the set of rules we call "concrete") is to say they exist, which is to say they interact (for two things that do not interact surely do not exist together), and therefore is to say they are the same set of rules. Thus when we claim we are "using" the square root of minus-one in some mental process, whatever it is we are really doing is still certainly compatible with the rules of the universe, for our neurons certainly obey those rules. Thus there is no difference between "abstract" and "concrete". And the "concreteness" of the universe is nothing more nor less than a set of rules of which we are a part. So the universe is simply order, incarnate: rules perceived as "concrete".
About Goedel: I try to remember that the axioms upon which he based his proof are those we learned from the universe/picked for our "understanding". So if the universe is inconsistent, or if our axioms we chose fail in certain obscure moments, the incompleteness theorem is false. So it can't really be applied to the universe because that is applying the theorem to itself. Talk about circular logic--that's more like a gordian knot! But my point is we can't say things like, "The incompleteness theorem proves we can't prove the universe is consistent", because it might be that the incompleteness theorem is false (because of the possible reasons given here) and someday we really DO prove deductively that the universe is consistent (despite the fact that I said above that there is no deductive logic except "I think therefore I am"--maybe someday I'll be proven wrong, or that proven axiom can be used to prove the universe is consistent). But I admit we should presume it is true until something better comes along!
On understanding things: One realization that helped me immensely in "understanding" non-classical physics, was that humans don't feel they remotely "understand" something until they have an analogy. For example, we teach grade school children that electrons orbit nuclei like planets orbit a sun. But the problem is that all our analogies MUST be classical because we are 100% classical thinkers. Once we realize that there are NO classical analogies for general relativity or quantum mechanics, we can suddenly become comfortable with it. So I lacked in an analogy not because I hadn't found it yet, but because there aren't any such analogies! There is much comfort in knowing that, and it lets one move on to a better understanding. Yet I often see scientists still attempting to describe QM with classical analogies even though classical mechanics is just an inaccurate estimate of a limiting form of QM. I know very little about the carrier wave stuff so I'm probably speaking out of turn--good elf please correct me here--but isn't the idea of a carrier wave rather, er, classical? Not that that automatically makes it wrong, just suspect in my mind.
About the comments about God or gods: I use here the following definitions of "God", "good", and "evil" because they are, IMO extremely pure definitions, and also usually most useful in the majority of conversations. I'm sure they differ from your own, but please allow me to use them for just this post: "God" I say is simply "infinite order", "good" is "that which generally increases the order of the universe" (such as a desire to increase order), and "evil" is the opposite of good.
Thus Nazism was evil because an arrogant organism (humans) attempting to apply a eugenics based on their own judgment of themselves, is doomed to failure. Imagine that "me first" attitude taken as an ideal worldwide. It would result in a reduction of order, I think, because the most arrogant and asocial traits would survive in the race.
Now about whether there is infinite order I say (intellectually speaking): Since the first lesson we've learned from the universe is that there are countless degrees of order of those we can understand (i.e. less order than our own minds), and since every age has seen its perceived limits of the universe expanded (now we are beginning to wonder about branes, information preserved in black holes, a few are wondering about entangled microtubules (me included), and Mach's principle connecting everything in the universe), then Occam's razor obliges the atheist to defend his claim that reality includes some arbitrarily extra mechanism that precludes the existence of infinite order. There may be such a limit! But if so, Occam's razor requires it be fully explained.
On the idea of time, I'll paste a chunck from some of my personal notes here:
On the concept of time and indivisible interactions:
Would you suspect that the various interactions that occur between the objects in our universe can occur in “half-steps”? Or that processes in our universe can be broken down into an infinite number of individual steps? Or that all processes must always occur in at least two or more steps? Of course not! That’s just silly!
Obviously all processes in our universe are comprised of one or more indivisible steps.
The simplest interaction has a single step. For example, the transfer of energy between atoms is often performed in a single step.
Is it surprising that we cannot observe what happens while a single step is taking place? It certainly shouldn’t be surprising. The only way to observe a single-step process is by adding an observation step. Thus we can’t observe a single-step process without making it some other multi-step process.
So it is not so much that there’s something magical about observation of quantum mechanical (single-step) processes. Rather, adding an observation step simply changes the experiment into some other experiment. There’s nothing surprising there, nor in the idea that some processes have no internal steps.
We never worry about what happens “during” a single step interaction because we know that nothing happens during a single step interaction! To say something happens during the interaction is to say there are more intermediate states. All we know is that the state of the system before the interaction and the state after the interaction obeys certain conservation laws, and we have no idea why. There’s no reason to presume there are multiple steps and then worry about whether energy is conserved between each of those internal steps.
We’ve also found that those laws that govern state changes in single-step interactions also govern state changes in interactions that we consider as multi-step interactions but without our bothering to add observation steps between those extra steps. Thus it appears that what we thought were multiple steps was really a single step. For example, if we set up an experiment where energy can be transferred through multiple paths, we presume it will take multiple steps. However experiment shows that the initial and final states of such a system (as long as we don’t add any observation steps in between) don’t mind one bit apparently violating conservation of energy in those alleged intermediate steps-as long as the initial (observed) and final (observed) states obey conservation of energy. So which seems a better view: that energy was not conserved in those alleged intermediate steps, or that the whole thing was really a single step process as far as the rest of the universe is concerned?
Most physicists today view such a process as a single-step process. As with any single-step process, all we know is that energy, among other things, is conserved. We have no idea why things are conserved in a single-step process, but they sure are conserved.
Now we think of time as that thing that prevents us from interacting with objects in the future or in the past. Our view is that if we could interact with future and past objects, then we would view time as something like just another dimension like width, height, or depth-where we can, for example, interact with an object that is north, or east, of us.
But it turns out that single-step interactions happen all the time between future and past objects. We just don’t see them because to view them would mean they aren’t “single-step” processes, because to view them we must add an observation step. If we add an observation step to such a process, we divide the process into two single step interactions, where only one of those single step interactions occurs through time.
It should not be surprising that adding an observation step still does not let us clearly see the through-time nature of the interaction, for exactly the same thing happens when we add an observation step to single step interaction that occurs over some distance, except then it is the through-space nature that gets hidden in one single-step interaction.
Thus a truly closed system (unobserved while it is running) will complete all of its internal steps instantaneously. Specifically, it will complete all of its steps from one external observation (external interaction) to the next, no matter how short a time between those two observations and no matter how many internal steps we presume occurred. Now a truly closed system exists when there are no interactions with the rest of the universe. Thus the initial and final states of a truly closed system can most apparently be observed for very small, simple systems, like a handful of cold atoms. If we observe (interact with) that system at some point and note its internal state, then the very next time we observe it, we will see its final state, no matter how many internal steps we presume occurred between those two observations and no matter how short the time between those two observations. This is one advantage of quantum computing (the other is in a closed system's ability to do whatever parallel processes it takes to get energy to be conserved when the next observation is taken). We can imagine a simple machine that runs to completion instantaneously simply by making sure it does not interact with the universe while it is running-forcing all presumed internal steps to be just one step in the eyes of the rest of the universe.
So it seems entropic time is defined as the "observation rate", or the "interaction rate". Note this should not be confused with particle-behavior time, which simply refers to particle processes where entropy does not change--such as the forward/backward in time nature of matter/antimatter.
-fleem
hej fleem
QUOTE: "Obviously all processes in our universe are comprised of one or more indivisible steps."
Yes - physical universe is discrete. And I would like to qualify this a bit further. Because it has to do with Time.
I like to think that Continuous and Infinite - they are not an option in "Physical Universe. The quintessence of being physical is related to the very being of a dimensionality - or lets call it a particle.
And at the same time I like to think that physical is how the EVERYTHING - how INFORMATION has translated itsself into a physical expression. Information is the Everything - and Information can express itsself in (probably) many (infinitely many) ways - and one way of expressing Information is in the form of the Physical Universe. So already at the moment that Information "decide" or choose the physical expression - then the first consequence is that information takes dimensionality. Information in this context can perhaps best be understood or expressed as a binary mathematic system.
So this leads to the first few axioms - firstly that there is a dimensionality - just this dimensionality or spaciousness - without giving any notion about size or shape. And secondly there is a system acting on the dimensionality - segregating the dimensionality into more and more dimensionalities, and each and any of these are being accurately arranged relative to each other - and the system is generating more and dimensions by segregating everything into "smaller and smaller".
So the translation from infinite and continous into discrete happens the very moment that information takes a dimension. This implicate that the binary mathematic system cannot be represented by dimensionless points - any and all numbers have a dimension - irrespective how "small" it may be, any number can always be segregated into smaller - and smaller will always be a dimension. So the system is open and has the potential to continue infinitely - but the very moment that a number is generated by the system, at that very same time it is "born as a dimensionality. So physical will always be discrete - and comprise of a finite number of dimensionalities at that very moment where it is being measured or analyzed.
And all this is relevant to time. Time is not a primary existing being. Time is a derived function - time is secondary to dimensional expressions - so without a change in dimensional expression there is no time.
This implicates that time is strictly related to place - and strictly related to the dimensional change involved in said place.
I like to operate with two different types of time - "objective" time and "subjective" time.
Objective time is the ordering system - the universal ordering system by which dimensions are being created and subsequently ordered relative to each other - and dynamically rearranged in new formations - new dimensionalities. Dimensions in space are arranged in a scalelike fashion - so smallest dimensional change is one smallest dimension On -OFF. And this is timeunit1. Such smallest dimensions are then being arranged in first scale where they together represent a stable cluster - a well-defined informational qubit - a welldefined number of such smallest dimensions sticking together in a formation that is the next size building-block, and so on scalewise bigger and bigger. In our human physical scale the electron (photon) is a natural stable informational qubit. So the number of timeunits1 involved in the smallest change of an electron (positionwise) that can be measured bu human perception is another well-defined time-unit and so on. Every change has a well-defined number of smallets dimensions involved - equivalent to a well-defined number of timeunit1's involved - so time-tick and corresponding change is accurately one-to-one related.
And now we are exclusively talking about universal objective time. We need a G*d's eye to count this time. But Yes - it is discrete and ultimately gowerned by smallest dimensionalities On - Off presentation (and I will revert to this). So universal objective time is ticking all the "time" on a one-way time-line, and with increments defined by size of dimensional change (amount of information) involved at each tick - but always discrete. It is the synchronized universal tick - (in places with higher complexion - smallest dimensions will be smaller and ticking faster - but still synchronized universally)
"Subjective" time is intimately related to an observer - and let us select human being as the observer. Human being is part of universe - is a well-defined informational qubit. It is about how a smaller part of information percepts the surrounding information. It is about how a smaller part of information is capable of interfering with the surroundings and isolate samples that can be stored and translated into consciousness. Subjective time is strictly related to the sampling-procedure. And subjective time is strictly related to how big informational bits are being sampled and how often and how long "time" it takes to make it conscious. Subjective time-line will always be "delayed" and this may give the observer the impression that changes with an objective delay has no subjective delay. Subjective time can give the impression of being objective when measured using identical clocks - so delay is identical. And subjective human time can be used amongst humans with no problem because they percept practically the same.
And now to smallest dimensionalities On -Off. "Changes and Dynamic" is only possible if smallest dimensionalities oscillates in their presence. And I like to think that this On-Off presence is a "continued-probality-expression-between 0 and 1", where a smallest dimensionality is being expressed by point-like (in said scale) presentations in space by an (near) infinite number of spots that accurately define said spacial dimensionality. 0-expression means that there is no one single spot in space defining said dimensionality and 100% expression means that all (infinitelymany) spots are being expressed simultaneously to 100% accurately define the spacial dimensionality. The "time" for the wave-like probability expression it takes from one peak to next peak is timeunit1. This is how continuous non-physical informational world translates itsself into discrete physical world.
And when I say continuous informational world it is with due respect to scale.
QUOTE: "Obviously all processes in our universe are comprised of one or more indivisible steps."
Yes - physical universe is discrete. And I would like to qualify this a bit further. Because it has to do with Time.
I like to think that Continuous and Infinite - they are not an option in "Physical Universe. The quintessence of being physical is related to the very being of a dimensionality - or lets call it a particle.
And at the same time I like to think that physical is how the EVERYTHING - how INFORMATION has translated itsself into a physical expression. Information is the Everything - and Information can express itsself in (probably) many (infinitely many) ways - and one way of expressing Information is in the form of the Physical Universe. So already at the moment that Information "decide" or choose the physical expression - then the first consequence is that information takes dimensionality. Information in this context can perhaps best be understood or expressed as a binary mathematic system.
So this leads to the first few axioms - firstly that there is a dimensionality - just this dimensionality or spaciousness - without giving any notion about size or shape. And secondly there is a system acting on the dimensionality - segregating the dimensionality into more and more dimensionalities, and each and any of these are being accurately arranged relative to each other - and the system is generating more and dimensions by segregating everything into "smaller and smaller".
So the translation from infinite and continous into discrete happens the very moment that information takes a dimension. This implicate that the binary mathematic system cannot be represented by dimensionless points - any and all numbers have a dimension - irrespective how "small" it may be, any number can always be segregated into smaller - and smaller will always be a dimension. So the system is open and has the potential to continue infinitely - but the very moment that a number is generated by the system, at that very same time it is "born as a dimensionality. So physical will always be discrete - and comprise of a finite number of dimensionalities at that very moment where it is being measured or analyzed.
And all this is relevant to time. Time is not a primary existing being. Time is a derived function - time is secondary to dimensional expressions - so without a change in dimensional expression there is no time.
This implicates that time is strictly related to place - and strictly related to the dimensional change involved in said place.
I like to operate with two different types of time - "objective" time and "subjective" time.
Objective time is the ordering system - the universal ordering system by which dimensions are being created and subsequently ordered relative to each other - and dynamically rearranged in new formations - new dimensionalities. Dimensions in space are arranged in a scalelike fashion - so smallest dimensional change is one smallest dimension On -OFF. And this is timeunit1. Such smallest dimensions are then being arranged in first scale where they together represent a stable cluster - a well-defined informational qubit - a welldefined number of such smallest dimensions sticking together in a formation that is the next size building-block, and so on scalewise bigger and bigger. In our human physical scale the electron (photon) is a natural stable informational qubit. So the number of timeunits1 involved in the smallest change of an electron (positionwise) that can be measured bu human perception is another well-defined time-unit and so on. Every change has a well-defined number of smallets dimensions involved - equivalent to a well-defined number of timeunit1's involved - so time-tick and corresponding change is accurately one-to-one related.
And now we are exclusively talking about universal objective time. We need a G*d's eye to count this time. But Yes - it is discrete and ultimately gowerned by smallest dimensionalities On - Off presentation (and I will revert to this). So universal objective time is ticking all the "time" on a one-way time-line, and with increments defined by size of dimensional change (amount of information) involved at each tick - but always discrete. It is the synchronized universal tick - (in places with higher complexion - smallest dimensions will be smaller and ticking faster - but still synchronized universally)
"Subjective" time is intimately related to an observer - and let us select human being as the observer. Human being is part of universe - is a well-defined informational qubit. It is about how a smaller part of information percepts the surrounding information. It is about how a smaller part of information is capable of interfering with the surroundings and isolate samples that can be stored and translated into consciousness. Subjective time is strictly related to the sampling-procedure. And subjective time is strictly related to how big informational bits are being sampled and how often and how long "time" it takes to make it conscious. Subjective time-line will always be "delayed" and this may give the observer the impression that changes with an objective delay has no subjective delay. Subjective time can give the impression of being objective when measured using identical clocks - so delay is identical. And subjective human time can be used amongst humans with no problem because they percept practically the same.
And now to smallest dimensionalities On -Off. "Changes and Dynamic" is only possible if smallest dimensionalities oscillates in their presence. And I like to think that this On-Off presence is a "continued-probality-expression-between 0 and 1", where a smallest dimensionality is being expressed by point-like (in said scale) presentations in space by an (near) infinite number of spots that accurately define said spacial dimensionality. 0-expression means that there is no one single spot in space defining said dimensionality and 100% expression means that all (infinitelymany) spots are being expressed simultaneously to 100% accurately define the spacial dimensionality. The "time" for the wave-like probability expression it takes from one peak to next peak is timeunit1. This is how continuous non-physical informational world translates itsself into discrete physical world.
And when I say continuous informational world it is with due respect to scale.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 10 2008, 06:52 AM)
Hi DavidD, StevenA, janrinze et al,
I have just noticed this "revival"of this topic and I find it quite an interesting effect. Janrinze has referred to the "uncollapse" of a quantum state. There are also some excellent references to this phenomenon by DavidD. Here is another very recent paper on the subject..
I think it can still be downloaded from this site...
Europhysics Letters - Vol. 83 No. 3 (2008)
A free download can be had up to 30 days after publication, I am unsure that this article is still "open". They are very good that way. You just need a login and it is free.
It is clear that even in the event of the most extreme case of a quantum state collapse there is "hope" of revival that exists for some time after the event has occurred. It shows that entangled phenomena are like resonant phenomena with a "quantum history"... which flies in the face of most of the accepted interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Clearly quantum processes are not entirely Markovian and represent at least partially reversible events. The interesting question is does the "unmaking" of a quantum event process at least partially reverse our collective history or does it only reverse the history for the single particle. What about the flow on events from consequential results of an earlier event and the later revival?
This process also has some influence...
EPL Vol. 83 No. 4 (2008)
Localization by entanglement 40002
J. Brand, S. Flach, V. Fleurov, L. S. Schulman and D. Tolkunov
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/83/40002
This phenomenon may be related to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (which is related to the topic in this thread) "Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later"... The "observing later" bit was related to the DCQEE.
Are there any interesting statements to be made here? I originally commented that the two entangled photons were connected by the null geodesic and so the destruction of one of the photons and the state of the surviving photon could be "modified" by random choice of how this "latter days" photon was 'read"... the reading of the photon "forced" the earlier "apparently destroyed" photon to have its "fate" changed. Clearly this "fate" could be considered as a quantum revival.... and potentially a case of "bring back your dead!"... he he he! Maybe the "dead" photon can be resuscitated or is this simply an "echo" of the original photon and not the original photon itself (and what could be the difference) since photons have no creation or destruction limitations (... make as many as you like) unlike other matter wave particles (Fermions) which have very specific conservation laws. All this is breaking one of the underlying tenants of standard Quantum Physics that quantum particles are all Markovian in nature and are effectively interchangable and have no "history".
Back to you on this one...
Cheers
One of the things that I can't figure out is how conscious actions can appear to coherently control physical phenomenon - I decide to life my hand and wallah, it moves.
Of course the typical attempt to explain it as determined previously by physical events since the Big Bang would end up meaning that the Big Bang was similarly predetermined by current conscious desires. Whether or not they're correct, it seems too much of a leap of faith for me to accept.
If we take a more immediately verifiable view then consciousness interacts with an unknown and the classical view of a pure chain of deterministic cause and effect relationships since time figuratively "began" is unnecessary to maintain.
From my perspective there appear to be two spaces - one of physically determined relationships, which is highly ordered, interconnected and compressed that geometrically could be described as an n-polygonal with all vertices at a unit distance (the fundamental unit of time to determine the existance of an inequality or constrast) from each other. This progression gives us point, line, triangle, tetrahedron etc. as dimensions are increased and the number of vertices grows linearly 1,2,3,4,...
On the extreme conscious side of possibilities we have units that are properties that are disconnected and unrelated. They exist as independent and orthogonal relationships - the dimension of a salty taste does not immediately connect with a dimension of the color blue.
If we simply described these independent dimensions in terms of binary properties - they're present or not present in some experience, then this space grows in orthogonal/perpendicular dimensions as point, line, square, cube and various hypercubes as the dimensions are increased and in this case the number of vertices per dimension grows exponentially 1,2,4,8,...
When we add a memory to physical events, this space of physical memory is not the same as the physical events themselves and grows factorially in the number of possible manners in which the physical vertices can be reordered (this I believe is how multiple observers can view the same object from independent perspectives - by counting the quantities of physical objects and only communicating via. quantities and not specific orderings of observations - for example, there as 6 ways to view A, B and C in time and these are ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA and each of these could, for example, be interpreted as viewing the same ABC collection from +x, -x, +y, -y, +z and -z directions and we can even correlate the swappings of elements with physical rotations).
So the number of observers of a set of distinct physical objects can grow factorially, 1,2,6,24,... but that's greater than the space of conscious possibilities with independent dimensions which grows exponentially 1,2,4,8,..., though if we consider reorderings along with exponential possibilities then we have the equivalent growth of n!*2^n and this encapsulates both, but because the relationships between all endpoints is not connected or specified, and realistically noone can see everything from everyone elses perspective, then we have forms like squares without supporting interconnections between all endpoints and these can be compressed or "collapsed" rather indeterminantly into the triangular or linearly growing physical forms so that those degrees of freedom are removed and physical objects are created, but this likely adds new dimensions of possibilities and the process continues, collapsing exponential possibilities from orthogonal spaces into ones in which the relationships are determined, but it could be there's some intermediate form of spacial growth that can describe the two simultaineously or at least approach a much stronger correlation between the two.
I made a similar comment along these lines here: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369710
I have just noticed this "revival"of this topic and I find it quite an interesting effect. Janrinze has referred to the "uncollapse" of a quantum state. There are also some excellent references to this phenomenon by DavidD. Here is another very recent paper on the subject..
I think it can still be downloaded from this site...
Europhysics Letters - Vol. 83 No. 3 (2008)
A free download can be had up to 30 days after publication, I am unsure that this article is still "open". They are very good that way. You just need a login and it is free.
It is clear that even in the event of the most extreme case of a quantum state collapse there is "hope" of revival that exists for some time after the event has occurred. It shows that entangled phenomena are like resonant phenomena with a "quantum history"... which flies in the face of most of the accepted interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Clearly quantum processes are not entirely Markovian and represent at least partially reversible events. The interesting question is does the "unmaking" of a quantum event process at least partially reverse our collective history or does it only reverse the history for the single particle. What about the flow on events from consequential results of an earlier event and the later revival?
This process also has some influence...
EPL Vol. 83 No. 4 (2008)
Localization by entanglement 40002
J. Brand, S. Flach, V. Fleurov, L. S. Schulman and D. Tolkunov
DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/83/40002
This phenomenon may be related to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (which is related to the topic in this thread) "Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later"... The "observing later" bit was related to the DCQEE.
Are there any interesting statements to be made here? I originally commented that the two entangled photons were connected by the null geodesic and so the destruction of one of the photons and the state of the surviving photon could be "modified" by random choice of how this "latter days" photon was 'read"... the reading of the photon "forced" the earlier "apparently destroyed" photon to have its "fate" changed. Clearly this "fate" could be considered as a quantum revival.... and potentially a case of "bring back your dead!"... he he he! Maybe the "dead" photon can be resuscitated or is this simply an "echo" of the original photon and not the original photon itself (and what could be the difference) since photons have no creation or destruction limitations (... make as many as you like) unlike other matter wave particles (Fermions) which have very specific conservation laws. All this is breaking one of the underlying tenants of standard Quantum Physics that quantum particles are all Markovian in nature and are effectively interchangable and have no "history".
Back to you on this one...
Cheers
One of the things that I can't figure out is how conscious actions can appear to coherently control physical phenomenon - I decide to life my hand and wallah, it moves.
Of course the typical attempt to explain it as determined previously by physical events since the Big Bang would end up meaning that the Big Bang was similarly predetermined by current conscious desires. Whether or not they're correct, it seems too much of a leap of faith for me to accept.
If we take a more immediately verifiable view then consciousness interacts with an unknown and the classical view of a pure chain of deterministic cause and effect relationships since time figuratively "began" is unnecessary to maintain.
From my perspective there appear to be two spaces - one of physically determined relationships, which is highly ordered, interconnected and compressed that geometrically could be described as an n-polygonal with all vertices at a unit distance (the fundamental unit of time to determine the existance of an inequality or constrast) from each other. This progression gives us point, line, triangle, tetrahedron etc. as dimensions are increased and the number of vertices grows linearly 1,2,3,4,...
On the extreme conscious side of possibilities we have units that are properties that are disconnected and unrelated. They exist as independent and orthogonal relationships - the dimension of a salty taste does not immediately connect with a dimension of the color blue.
If we simply described these independent dimensions in terms of binary properties - they're present or not present in some experience, then this space grows in orthogonal/perpendicular dimensions as point, line, square, cube and various hypercubes as the dimensions are increased and in this case the number of vertices per dimension grows exponentially 1,2,4,8,...
When we add a memory to physical events, this space of physical memory is not the same as the physical events themselves and grows factorially in the number of possible manners in which the physical vertices can be reordered (this I believe is how multiple observers can view the same object from independent perspectives - by counting the quantities of physical objects and only communicating via. quantities and not specific orderings of observations - for example, there as 6 ways to view A, B and C in time and these are ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA and each of these could, for example, be interpreted as viewing the same ABC collection from +x, -x, +y, -y, +z and -z directions and we can even correlate the swappings of elements with physical rotations).
So the number of observers of a set of distinct physical objects can grow factorially, 1,2,6,24,... but that's greater than the space of conscious possibilities with independent dimensions which grows exponentially 1,2,4,8,..., though if we consider reorderings along with exponential possibilities then we have the equivalent growth of n!*2^n and this encapsulates both, but because the relationships between all endpoints is not connected or specified, and realistically noone can see everything from everyone elses perspective, then we have forms like squares without supporting interconnections between all endpoints and these can be compressed or "collapsed" rather indeterminantly into the triangular or linearly growing physical forms so that those degrees of freedom are removed and physical objects are created, but this likely adds new dimensions of possibilities and the process continues, collapsing exponential possibilities from orthogonal spaces into ones in which the relationships are determined, but it could be there's some intermediate form of spacial growth that can describe the two simultaineously or at least approach a much stronger correlation between the two.
I made a similar comment along these lines here: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369710
Steven - Good Elf et al
QUOTE (Steven): "One of the things that I can't figure out is how conscious actions can appear to coherently control physical phenomenon - I decide to life my hand and wallah, it moves."
One have to take time rigthly into consideration. I like to think that Time have to be distinguished into at least Objective and Subjective Time - respectively.
Objective Time is being the Ordering System, the System that exactly determine how rearrangement of dimensionalities takes place - which pattern follows which - the Universal Time
And Subjective Time is about how complex patterns (like a Human Being) can percept - can get a kind of conscious feeling about what is going on. So FIRST the objective change happens - the arm waves - and secondly as a derived function - and retarded relative to Objective Time - the Human Being get conscoius about the act.
We as humans experience all this kind of actions as something that we have started - but of course it is not as simple as that - nature is not purely deterministic.
QUOTE (Steven): "One of the things that I can't figure out is how conscious actions can appear to coherently control physical phenomenon - I decide to life my hand and wallah, it moves."
One have to take time rigthly into consideration. I like to think that Time have to be distinguished into at least Objective and Subjective Time - respectively.
Objective Time is being the Ordering System, the System that exactly determine how rearrangement of dimensionalities takes place - which pattern follows which - the Universal Time
And Subjective Time is about how complex patterns (like a Human Being) can percept - can get a kind of conscious feeling about what is going on. So FIRST the objective change happens - the arm waves - and secondly as a derived function - and retarded relative to Objective Time - the Human Being get conscoius about the act.
We as humans experience all this kind of actions as something that we have started - but of course it is not as simple as that - nature is not purely deterministic.
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 29 2008, 09:56 PM)
Steven - Good Elf et al
QUOTE (Steven): "One of the things that I can't figure out is how conscious actions can appear to coherently control physical phenomenon - I decide to life my hand and wallah, it moves."
One have to take time rigthly into consideration. I like to think that Time have to be distinguished into at least Objective and Subjective Time - respectively.
Objective Time is being the Ordering System, the System that exactly determine how rearrangement of dimensionalities takes place - which pattern follows which - the Universal Time
And Subjective Time is about how complex patterns (like a Human Being) can percept - can get a kind of conscious feeling about what is going on. So FIRST the objective change happens - the arm waves - and secondly as a derived function - and retarded relative to Objective Time - the Human Being get conscoius about the act.
We as humans experience all this kind of actions as something that we have started - but of course it is not as simple as that - nature is not purely deterministic.
Well at some point there had the to be the "first thing", either that or we get an infinite sequence, in either case something just happened and specifically where or why it happened would, from a finite perspective, appear unknownable.
Though in a similar manner, using solely that logic, this gives a string of uncaused second and third etc. things. So that route would also lead to randomness and indeterminancy.
On the other hand, if we add memory, then though the second thing could still be considered unknown/random, the pairing of the first and second things is not entirely random (the specifics of what were paired was, but the "memory" or pairing of the both was not).
But if we just used some predetermined algorithm for constructing such pairs or larger objects, then the only freedom for any form of intelligence or will to act upon would be that algorithm for constructing those "memories" (that's a possible source of intelligence and will). Though it appears likely there is a fundamental physical form of existance, and you appear to agree also, that is rigidly deterministic. I tend to assume this arises from purely logical relationships though it's much like "dark matter", not the type nebulously witnessed in space, though it may be associated, but simply the closed spacial forms, outside of an interaction with energy that are rigid - like unobserved atoms. Interestingly logical thought is not physically detectable either ... just as conscious experiences aren't, though conscious experiences appear more closely related with changes and flows of energies or accelerations etc., and likely that's the disparity or mismatch in spacial forms that gives the rather chaotic and fractal properties of the physical universe sandwiched between these.
Something regarding my comment regarding the conscious motion of an arm and the possible entry of intelligence and some freedom of motion via. memory could be similar to the property that there's neither control over every atom in ones arm, nor a perfect flow of "energy" in controlling the motion of that material group and if memories arise from groupings of events or objects, then the motion of an arm could be more closely related to grabbing a semi random quantity of some energy and again a semi random quantity of matter and allowing them to mix and getting a semi random quantity of observed change. (I'd prefer to not have to add so much randomness in the mix, but most everything else seems entirely deterministic or completely random and uncontrollable), notice that from the perspective of logic, change can't be described but only rigid material relationships and from the perspective of pure energy/randomness/uncertainty, there is no explaination for logic or relationships and both exist in independent spaces (if you can say that pure energy or randomness is contained by a space, but that's likely not a valid desciption - but logic can only work within rigid spaces, so there's no way to logically define uncertainty - you can only emulate complexity, but not uncertainty with logic, so some components appearing as energy could arise from complexity, but I don't think time could exist solely due to complexity unless it was infinite, in which case the logical description would appear to have to be that it's unknown and random, though for complexity, logic can grow, but infinite complexity would still contain the equivalent of randomness no matter the scale of logic).
Anyway, it could be that conscious will is a coarse tool combining energy and matter together and watching the results settle down (at least that seems pretty close to a human perspective) and I think a good model for this would be combining dimensions that are orthogonal (squares, cubes and hypercubes) into spaces that are fully rigid and interconnected (triangles, tetrahedrons and fully interconnect n-gons in general). Unconnected vertices would be like unfilled orbital shells waiting to absorb a photon, with properties of wavelengths related to the rigid intervening material connecting between them (like an atomic nucleus, which is point like and has rigid bonds interconnecting proton vertices) ... I'm just trying to give some analogies to make physical correlations here.
(Though even assuming the rest is correct, it still leaves the question of how those vague quantities of energy and matter are consciously selected and combined ... there need to be some free parameters to play with ...)
QUOTE (Steven): "One of the things that I can't figure out is how conscious actions can appear to coherently control physical phenomenon - I decide to life my hand and wallah, it moves."
One have to take time rigthly into consideration. I like to think that Time have to be distinguished into at least Objective and Subjective Time - respectively.
Objective Time is being the Ordering System, the System that exactly determine how rearrangement of dimensionalities takes place - which pattern follows which - the Universal Time
And Subjective Time is about how complex patterns (like a Human Being) can percept - can get a kind of conscious feeling about what is going on. So FIRST the objective change happens - the arm waves - and secondly as a derived function - and retarded relative to Objective Time - the Human Being get conscoius about the act.
We as humans experience all this kind of actions as something that we have started - but of course it is not as simple as that - nature is not purely deterministic.
Well at some point there had the to be the "first thing", either that or we get an infinite sequence, in either case something just happened and specifically where or why it happened would, from a finite perspective, appear unknownable.
Though in a similar manner, using solely that logic, this gives a string of uncaused second and third etc. things. So that route would also lead to randomness and indeterminancy.
On the other hand, if we add memory, then though the second thing could still be considered unknown/random, the pairing of the first and second things is not entirely random (the specifics of what were paired was, but the "memory" or pairing of the both was not).
But if we just used some predetermined algorithm for constructing such pairs or larger objects, then the only freedom for any form of intelligence or will to act upon would be that algorithm for constructing those "memories" (that's a possible source of intelligence and will). Though it appears likely there is a fundamental physical form of existance, and you appear to agree also, that is rigidly deterministic. I tend to assume this arises from purely logical relationships though it's much like "dark matter", not the type nebulously witnessed in space, though it may be associated, but simply the closed spacial forms, outside of an interaction with energy that are rigid - like unobserved atoms. Interestingly logical thought is not physically detectable either ... just as conscious experiences aren't, though conscious experiences appear more closely related with changes and flows of energies or accelerations etc., and likely that's the disparity or mismatch in spacial forms that gives the rather chaotic and fractal properties of the physical universe sandwiched between these.
Something regarding my comment regarding the conscious motion of an arm and the possible entry of intelligence and some freedom of motion via. memory could be similar to the property that there's neither control over every atom in ones arm, nor a perfect flow of "energy" in controlling the motion of that material group and if memories arise from groupings of events or objects, then the motion of an arm could be more closely related to grabbing a semi random quantity of some energy and again a semi random quantity of matter and allowing them to mix and getting a semi random quantity of observed change. (I'd prefer to not have to add so much randomness in the mix, but most everything else seems entirely deterministic or completely random and uncontrollable), notice that from the perspective of logic, change can't be described but only rigid material relationships and from the perspective of pure energy/randomness/uncertainty, there is no explaination for logic or relationships and both exist in independent spaces (if you can say that pure energy or randomness is contained by a space, but that's likely not a valid desciption - but logic can only work within rigid spaces, so there's no way to logically define uncertainty - you can only emulate complexity, but not uncertainty with logic, so some components appearing as energy could arise from complexity, but I don't think time could exist solely due to complexity unless it was infinite, in which case the logical description would appear to have to be that it's unknown and random, though for complexity, logic can grow, but infinite complexity would still contain the equivalent of randomness no matter the scale of logic).
Anyway, it could be that conscious will is a coarse tool combining energy and matter together and watching the results settle down (at least that seems pretty close to a human perspective) and I think a good model for this would be combining dimensions that are orthogonal (squares, cubes and hypercubes) into spaces that are fully rigid and interconnected (triangles, tetrahedrons and fully interconnect n-gons in general). Unconnected vertices would be like unfilled orbital shells waiting to absorb a photon, with properties of wavelengths related to the rigid intervening material connecting between them (like an atomic nucleus, which is point like and has rigid bonds interconnecting proton vertices) ... I'm just trying to give some analogies to make physical correlations here.
(Though even assuming the rest is correct, it still leaves the question of how those vague quantities of energy and matter are consciously selected and combined ... there need to be some free parameters to play with ...
)
hej Steven
QUOTE: " but infinite complexity would still contain the equivalent of randomness no matter the scale of logic)."
Absolutely agree -
QUOTE: "Anyway, it could be that conscious will is a coarse tool combining energy and matter together and watching the results settle down (at least that seems pretty close to a human perspective) and I think a good model for this would be combining dimensions that are orthogonal (squares, cubes and hypercubes) into spaces that are fully rigid and interconnected (triangles, tetrahedrons and fully interconnect n-gons in general)."
The 3D Pixel Universe is a construct where You will never get ideal fit - You will always be left with void - and there will always be an entropic force to drive new and unpredictable rearrangements of dimensionalities. Irrespective how accurate you can make a "particle" it will always be made of dimensionalities that can be made smaller and wih an even more accurate building block as the result - and Yes - I know that static as such is not into existance - it is solely a question about scale that gives the illusion of so-called static existance.
QUOTE: "then the motion of an arm could be more closely related to grabbing a semi random quantity of some energy and again a semi random quantity of matter and allowing them to mix and getting a semi random quantity of observed change."
Yes - I think it is a very good way of desribing - that we introduce the concept of semi-random - and that semi-random can take the whole spectrum from nearly totally random and to nearly totally deterministic - and this is again what the 3D Pixel Universe canl offer You. On one hand there will be a well-defined degree of ordered "rigidness" because of well-established repeating patterns IN SAID SCALE - a well defined degree of semi-randomness, that "fill out" the space - and still there will be this bottom-up randomness which is ideal random - because of this nice quality that: "There is always something smaller".
So the conscious mind never know what is coming - and will never know what is coming - and even G*d will never know what is coming - because even G*d cannot know, because G*d has to accept that the smallest can become smaller.
QUOTE: " but infinite complexity would still contain the equivalent of randomness no matter the scale of logic)."
Absolutely agree -
QUOTE: "Anyway, it could be that conscious will is a coarse tool combining energy and matter together and watching the results settle down (at least that seems pretty close to a human perspective) and I think a good model for this would be combining dimensions that are orthogonal (squares, cubes and hypercubes) into spaces that are fully rigid and interconnected (triangles, tetrahedrons and fully interconnect n-gons in general)."
The 3D Pixel Universe is a construct where You will never get ideal fit - You will always be left with void - and there will always be an entropic force to drive new and unpredictable rearrangements of dimensionalities. Irrespective how accurate you can make a "particle" it will always be made of dimensionalities that can be made smaller and wih an even more accurate building block as the result - and Yes - I know that static as such is not into existance - it is solely a question about scale that gives the illusion of so-called static existance.
QUOTE: "then the motion of an arm could be more closely related to grabbing a semi random quantity of some energy and again a semi random quantity of matter and allowing them to mix and getting a semi random quantity of observed change."
Yes - I think it is a very good way of desribing - that we introduce the concept of semi-random - and that semi-random can take the whole spectrum from nearly totally random and to nearly totally deterministic - and this is again what the 3D Pixel Universe canl offer You. On one hand there will be a well-defined degree of ordered "rigidness" because of well-established repeating patterns IN SAID SCALE - a well defined degree of semi-randomness, that "fill out" the space - and still there will be this bottom-up randomness which is ideal random - because of this nice quality that: "There is always something smaller".
So the conscious mind never know what is coming - and will never know what is coming - and even G*d will never know what is coming - because even G*d cannot know, because G*d has to accept that the smallest can become smaller.
QUOTE (SteveA2+Aug 29 2008, 06:56 PM)
So the number of observers of a set of distinct physical objects can grow factorially, 1,2,6,24,... but that's greater than the space of conscious possibilities with independent dimensions which grows exponentially 1,2,4,8,..., though if we consider reorderings along with exponential possibilities then we have the equivalent growth of n!*2^n and this encapsulates both, but because the relationships between all endpoints is not connected or specified ...
I just noticed something interesting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
Notice that the divisor here correlates with the combined exponential and factorial form of spacial growth I mentioned for the volume of a space containing all possible reorderings or similarly unique observer orientations viewing all exponentially possible objects, and that the standard deviation closely correlates with an energy term as well as the fact that these higher moments correlate with higher derivative motions arising from higher dimensional interactions - position, velocity, acceleration, jerk etc.
So we have a form here for the normal distribution closely associated with a uniform energy diffusing in higher and higher dimensions, with the influences diluted into a space containing all possible orientations or observational perspectives of the exponentially growing possibilities of the existances of such energies (now where does the (2k)! term come in?)
To make this simpler, if we had, for example an object in 3 dimensions, it's properties in each dimension can just be described as A, B, and C and these can be seen in any order but an observer needs to see all 3, (plus a repetition of the initial event in order to determine the object to be a closed object representing a specific physical object, but I'll ignore the required repetition to keep it simpler).
So there are 3!=3*2*1=6 possible such objects that can be witnessed as ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA. That's the k! term for the divisor. We also have an additional uncertainty for observers in that some observers may not see all these objects and there are 8 possible manners in which each of these could be witnessed if we include the possibility that they could miss detecting of one or more of these symbols and in the first example, ABC that creates these combinations where "*" represents a "missed" detection: ABC, *BC, A*C, **C, AB*, *B*, A**, ***.
That brings us up to 3!*2^3=6*8=48 possible unique "observational perspectives" of a 3 dimensional object (for which not all are synchronized in time and that can add additional complexities) and that describes the (k!*2^k) term as a divisor, or volume of space, for which the "energy" term (standard_deviation^2k)*(2k)! is being diffused into.
The standard_deviation^2k term is not difficult to understand as the energy is in terms of the variance or standard_deviation^2, and so we have this equivalent to variance^k and if we see the variance in each dimension as a choice of 1 of n possibilities, then the total number of possibilities is n^k, hence if variance=n, then this explains this term, though we still have the (2k)! term as an additional multiple to this energy and I'm not certain what form of information or energy this represents, though it would appear to arise from a potential reordering of a space with double the number of dimensions (which could possibly arise from making relative measurements between observers? ... I don't know)
But here's also something I recently posted regarding using a diffusive model of space instead of the more expansive properties used to describe the Big Bang:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369828
And this also agrees with observations made on this thread regarding classes of galaxies: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22871&hl=
Ok, I apologize now for the interruptions as I don't want to sidetrack the thread but it's hard for me to resist showing how some of the dots can be connected together ... back to the regular programming (Though if someone can figure out where the (2k)! term comes in that would be nice)
I just noticed something interesting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
QUOTE
Moments
...
Higher central moments (of order 2k with μ = 0) can be obtained using the formula
E[x^2k]=(standard_dev^2k)*(2k)!/(k!*2^k)
...
Higher central moments (of order 2k with μ = 0) can be obtained using the formula
E[x^2k]=(standard_dev^2k)*(2k)!/(k!*2^k)
Notice that the divisor here correlates with the combined exponential and factorial form of spacial growth I mentioned for the volume of a space containing all possible reorderings or similarly unique observer orientations viewing all exponentially possible objects, and that the standard deviation closely correlates with an energy term as well as the fact that these higher moments correlate with higher derivative motions arising from higher dimensional interactions - position, velocity, acceleration, jerk etc.
So we have a form here for the normal distribution closely associated with a uniform energy diffusing in higher and higher dimensions, with the influences diluted into a space containing all possible orientations or observational perspectives of the exponentially growing possibilities of the existances of such energies (now where does the (2k)! term come in?)
To make this simpler, if we had, for example an object in 3 dimensions, it's properties in each dimension can just be described as A, B, and C and these can be seen in any order but an observer needs to see all 3, (plus a repetition of the initial event in order to determine the object to be a closed object representing a specific physical object, but I'll ignore the required repetition to keep it simpler).
So there are 3!=3*2*1=6 possible such objects that can be witnessed as ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA. That's the k! term for the divisor. We also have an additional uncertainty for observers in that some observers may not see all these objects and there are 8 possible manners in which each of these could be witnessed if we include the possibility that they could miss detecting of one or more of these symbols and in the first example, ABC that creates these combinations where "*" represents a "missed" detection: ABC, *BC, A*C, **C, AB*, *B*, A**, ***.
That brings us up to 3!*2^3=6*8=48 possible unique "observational perspectives" of a 3 dimensional object (for which not all are synchronized in time and that can add additional complexities) and that describes the (k!*2^k) term as a divisor, or volume of space, for which the "energy" term (standard_deviation^2k)*(2k)! is being diffused into.
The standard_deviation^2k term is not difficult to understand as the energy is in terms of the variance or standard_deviation^2, and so we have this equivalent to variance^k and if we see the variance in each dimension as a choice of 1 of n possibilities, then the total number of possibilities is n^k, hence if variance=n, then this explains this term, though we still have the (2k)! term as an additional multiple to this energy and I'm not certain what form of information or energy this represents, though it would appear to arise from a potential reordering of a space with double the number of dimensions (which could possibly arise from making relative measurements between observers? ... I don't know)
But here's also something I recently posted regarding using a diffusive model of space instead of the more expansive properties used to describe the Big Bang:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369828
And this also agrees with observations made on this thread regarding classes of galaxies: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22871&hl=
Ok, I apologize now for the interruptions as I don't want to sidetrack the thread but it's hard for me to resist showing how some of the dots can be connected together ... back to the regular programming
(Though if someone can figure out where the (2k)! term comes in that would be nice)
QUOTE (SteveA2+Aug 30 2008, 03:23 AM)
(Though if someone can figure out where the (2k)! term comes in that would be nice)
That is easy with lunatics! What is hard is figuring out what you are talking about! I don't uh, know if I told you, uh, but I don't really understand much. These are the things I don't understand: Which "E" is this one and what is it supposed to mean?! What is "moments" and what is "higher central moments"?! Why does that poor "u" look sick?! What is k?!
This is the equation, along with a working assumption that all numbers are both rational and infinite:
The 2k comes from taking an infinitesimal out of 1. (What do you know?! We are back to .9r! )
If you either square an infinity or take out an infinitesimal, you jump to the middle of it because the angle doubles. Visually:
The 2k comes from taking an infinitesimal out of 1. (What do you know?! We are back to .9r! )
If you either square an infinity or take out an infinitesimal, you jump to the middle of it because the angle doubles. Visually:
11111111...
10101010...
11011011...
10101010...
11110111...
10001010...
11111101...
10101010...
...
...
...
plus an infinitesimal (1), which is a complete structure in itself even though it may well belong to another aleph:
1 plus
11111111...
10101010...
11011011...
10101010...
11110111...
10001010...
11111101...
10101010...
...
...
...
equals
equals
...
...
...
010101010...
011111101...
010001010...
011110111...
010101010...
011011011...
010101010...
011111111...
100000000... this is the 1 infinitesimal that you added; it's surrounded by 0's of course.
011111111...
010101010...
011011011...
010101010...
011110111...
010001010...
011111101...
010101010...
...
...
...
but the rest of your mathematical universe got shifted right. All subsequent operations have to take that into consideration. Hence the division by k2.
Factorials are derived from the particular infinity 1.2.3.4.5.6.7... whose lunatic code is 1000000000, which is also the code for, guess...
Zero. The new coordinate in the middle is your sick "u".
Now don't mess it, man, I am only going to tell you this once: that was the answer but what is the question about? That was the answer but what is the question about?
That is easy with lunatics! What is hard is figuring out what you are talking about! I don't uh, know if I told you, uh, but I don't really understand much. These are the things I don't understand: Which "E" is this one and what is it supposed to mean?! What is "moments" and what is "higher central moments"?! Why does that poor "u" look sick?! What is k?!
This is the equation, along with a working assumption that all numbers are both rational and infinite:
QUOTE
Higher central moments (of order 2k with μ = 0) can be obtained using the formula
E[x^2k]=(standard_dev^2k)*(2k)!/(k!*2^k)
E[x^2k]=(standard_dev^2k)*(2k)!/(k!*2^k)
The 2k comes from taking an infinitesimal out of 1. (What do you know?! We are back to .9r!
)If you either square an infinity or take out an infinitesimal, you jump to the middle of it because the angle doubles. Visually:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Higher central moments (of order 2k with μ = 0) can be obtained using the formula E[x^2k]=(standard_dev^2k)*(2k)!/(k!*2^k) |
The 2k comes from taking an infinitesimal out of 1. (What do you know?! We are back to .9r!
)If you either square an infinity or take out an infinitesimal, you jump to the middle of it because the angle doubles. Visually:
11111111...
10101010...
11011011...
10101010...
11110111...
10001010...
11111101...
10101010...
...
...
...
plus an infinitesimal (1), which is a complete structure in itself even though it may well belong to another aleph:
QUOTE
1 plus
11111111...
10101010...
11011011...
10101010...
11110111...
10001010...
11111101...
10101010...
...
...
...
equals
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
1 plus 11111111... 10101010... 11011011... 10101010... 11110111... 10001010... 11111101... 10101010... ... ... ... |
equals
...
...
...
010101010...
011111101...
010001010...
011110111...
010101010...
011011011...
010101010...
011111111...
100000000... this is the 1 infinitesimal that you added; it's surrounded by 0's of course.
011111111...
010101010...
011011011...
010101010...
011110111...
010001010...
011111101...
010101010...
...
...
...
but the rest of your mathematical universe got shifted right. All subsequent operations have to take that into consideration. Hence the division by k2.
Factorials are derived from the particular infinity 1.2.3.4.5.6.7... whose lunatic code is 1000000000, which is also the code for, guess...
Zero. The new coordinate in the middle is your sick "u".
Now don't mess it, man, I am only going to tell you this once: that was the answer but what is the question about? That was the answer but what is the question about?
IAM
QUOTE: "Now don't mess it, man, I am only going to tell you this once: that was the answer but what is the question about? That was the answer but what is the question about?"
To me the question is about how best to express the translation between physical world and math world - and to me it would seem to be obvious that the binary system is the shortest most accurate translation - or the most one to one relationship.
It is nicely visualized by your simple 1 - 0 illustrations - which are dynamic and "shapeless" so it is only needed to think the dimension into it.
Integers are very complicated ways of calculating the binary system - and obviously it is a tremendous task to express physical by using integers - such an operation will always be an approximation - with the binary system the math expression is accurate in the sense that the inaccuracy is well known - because the inaccuracy is precisely linked to the respective scale.
The above express an unqualified guess.
QUOTE: "Now don't mess it, man, I am only going to tell you this once: that was the answer but what is the question about? That was the answer but what is the question about?"
To me the question is about how best to express the translation between physical world and math world - and to me it would seem to be obvious that the binary system is the shortest most accurate translation - or the most one to one relationship.
It is nicely visualized by your simple 1 - 0 illustrations - which are dynamic and "shapeless" so it is only needed to think the dimension into it.
Integers are very complicated ways of calculating the binary system - and obviously it is a tremendous task to express physical by using integers - such an operation will always be an approximation - with the binary system the math expression is accurate in the sense that the inaccuracy is well known - because the inaccuracy is precisely linked to the respective scale.
The above express an unqualified guess.
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.