Pages: 1, 2

woodroyd
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.

We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.
dimazin
QUOTE (woodroyd+Sep 22 2008, 04:46 PM)
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.

We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.

Time is compeling kinetic energy to move objects in space. But energy not completely submits to time. More I do not know anything about time.
Ron
Hi Woodroyd,
I've always liked this short paragraph from Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"

Quote:
If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of
its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind
that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” We have to take into
account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments
of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7
o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my
watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”

This might not fully answer you, but I find it a good starting point!
Peace,
Ron
TracerTong
QUOTE (woodroyd+Sep 22 2008, 04:46 PM)
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.

We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.

I've been looking through motion mountain; a free downloadable physics book, and it says that continuous space and time does not exist. (p.11) This makes sense.

But the wikipedia gives an equation. Equation_of_time
woodroyd
Many thanks for the replies, it is a difficult question and one that I still do not fully understand. Without time nothing exists, within time everything exists.
Rons definition of time is a good example, I also agree with Tracertong that continuous space and time does not exist however we know that time exists because we exist within it.

My next question is 'do we all think that time began with the Big Bang?'

And if it began then and did not exist before could we define 'before the Big bang' as being outside of time or without time or before time.
TheUnknownUniverse
All physicists define time, more or less, as this: It is what you measure on your watch.
Capracus
QUOTE (TheUnknownUniverse+Sep 25 2008, 06:21 PM)
All physicists define time, more or less, as this: It is what you measure on your watch.
Graveyard or swing shift?
rethinker
I asked my neighbor when will I die?

She said you will know in due time without delay.
What the is that suppose to mean?

Even though I have a sharpening business,I feel threatened. Every time she comes over,she asks me to sharpen knives.

She just left and I expect her to be back in an hour.
What should I do?

Oh yea,She seems healthier than me too.

Good Elf
Hi woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (woodroyd+)
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.

We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.
The best way IMHO to think of time is through the concept of "events". These "events" define an "arrow" for time in an "eventscape" of a great number of sequentially connected and dependent events (we call causality). Ron is a very cleaver chap so what he has said is OK by me. After we have "solved" the problem of defining "simultaneity" and comparing things simultaneously then we need to look a little further. In one sense without any events happening at the absolute local level of our Universe then the progress of time relative to other places in the Universe where "more events" are happening define a kind of very primitive "clock". One way to "halt" the relative progress of events is with relative speed. Sufficient relative speed reduces the relative observed occurrence rate of events proceeding in another system under observation. This is relative to formerly synchronized clocks (a hard "ask" in many cases). The moving clock "loses ticks" relative to the stay at home clock.

As a "system" moves away from an observer closer to the speed of light the rate of events progressing in the other observed system "falls" in comparison to the first system. This phenomenon is not something that can be sensed with reference to only one set of synchronized clocks that remain in only a single inertial reference frame. It is a phenomenon that is only recognized by a comparison. In these systems that have measurable differential rates of events the limiting case is when one system is moving at a relative speed close to light, so close that the external observer can't determine the difference between the speed of the system and the speed of light. At the same time as this process of trying to measure this tiny differential speed difference between light and the observed system the measurable events are falling off to such an incredibly low flux that it would become harder and harder to determine the position and momentum of the moving particle. Simultaneously the frequency of these events is falling toward a zero in frequency which cannot be detected using conventional instruments. Since E = hf then these "events" defined by the photon exchange forces in our Universe carry less and less energy ... tending toward zero energy which is not able to be "sensed" using any conventional sensors. Now this is an actual velocity between the frames which is being measured to gain this insight. In most cases we cannot easily measure these stellar and galactic events progressing "far far away". There are no "johnny on the spot" observers and time of transit of light is not "instantaneous" and may take many millions of years. Simultaneity is once again a serious issue.

The extreme of this process leads to no observable events and thus "time" appears to be "relativistically" halted. I would point out that (counter intuitively) this does not happen simply for a particle moving away at almost exactly the speed of light and observed from a single point of view from "behind". Ignoring other effects (due to General Relativity and Doppler shift), the speed of any receding source object (of equally spaced flashes) can never appear to recede in excess of 1/2 the speed of light if observed from a single "rear" vantage point. This is because the "spreading" of light always travels at the speed of light and consider this problem as one involving a series of "chaser lights" draped along a "string" path in space where the globes are spaced at one light second apart and flash in a strict sequence starting at one end (the near end) and progressively flash in that rest frame at one second intervals along the string giving the appearance of a flashing source moving away from the observer at almost exactly the speed of light (as reckoned by using a tape measure laid out along the string). In this case we can actually make this process such that the chaser lights appear to to give an impression of moving at "exactly" the speed of light since nothing is actually moving in this case at all.. Each successive flash of light takes a further second to return to the first observer than the light from the previous flasher light and the effect is to only double the time the flash takes to return to base and so gives the appearance of the "flashing and moving source" traveling at only 1/2 the speed of light (rather than the full speed). Naturally this does not involve any Doppler Shift which would give it away as being not a true source of motion. Still this illustration will show you that the argument is correct and many standard texts also report on these "visual" phenomena.

The only way in which a true moving particle can move so that it "appears" to be receding at nearly the speed of light and suffer the effects of Relativistic Doppler Shift is if "something else" is involved.... In this case it is "Universal Spreading" due to Hubble Shift... frame dragging. It appears that "on average" every point in the Universe is moving away from every other point and depending on a factor that is proportional to the separation at any point in time .... Our entire Universe is continuously "accelerating away from everything else in it". This phenomenon has been known for a very long time and is reported incorrectly in many texts. The true speed of recession of objects must be corrected for Hubble Shift and with some events and geometry is a "serious omission" not to correct. A survey of distant objects show a plethora of objects moving near the speed of light... observed. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is the Universe is a lot bigger than Special Relativity would suggest and has spread a lot more than we might hope for.

With the "onset of the halting of time" at the edge of the visible Universe the visibility of the system will become simultaneously increasingly difficult (understanding that the events of the emission of photons by which the system is seen are reduced dramatically and their frequency is lowering to a Doppler frequency approaching zero. Alternatively if the system is relativistically approaching at near the speed of light the first appearance of the system may be marked by the light "compressed" wavelengthwise along the direction of motion towards the observer so that the closer this system is to the speed of light it remains "invisible" for more and more time of it's travel as V -> C and the "visual onset" of this system in the region of the observer may be close to the first appearance of it locally with all the optical events that the moving system had emitted "compressed" over a very short period of time leading to unusual effects. One such confirming situation is the Jet from M87 which is directed towards our region of space. The light from this continuous emission phenomenon "appears" to be being emitted at a rate of 6 times the rate of light from other more normal sources. If you were "unaware" of Special Relativity then you would consider this light to be moving at six times the normal rate. As it is this effect is due to proper motion of the source (which is incandescent gas ejected in our direction from a black hole at nearly the speed of light "continuously").

This has not considered the effects of Gravity or of mass on time. The effects of mass on time leads to a relative slowing of relative time the deeper the source is "immersed" into the gravitational potential well. This can be confirmed with two synchronized accurate atomic clocks on successive floors of a single building, that is just how accurate clocks have become. The rate of time is measurably different due to gravitational acceleration. This can also be extended through the principle of equivalence to include conventional acceleration also "slows time" as an independent effect to "simple Special Relativity". Piecemeal treatment of Special Relativity can arrive at General Relativistic results. One of them is acceleration affects time because all accelerations are equivalent be they gravitational acceleration or "inertial" acceleration.

The "slowing of time" due to Special Relativity allows us to distinguish two clocks that were initially synchronized and are now in relative motion. There is a necessity to acknowledge here that at some time one of these clocks (or both) were accelerated relative to the other. Some very silly things have been said on this Forum about Relativity and it tends to lead those who do not understand to believe that Relativity (Special and General) is "bunk". Nothing could be further from the truth so be aware that there may be some silly arguments. The adage of "moving clocks run slow" should be restated more accurately "accelerated clocks run slower than less accelerated clocks".

This is the point at which General Relativity meets Special Relativity. By this means you may distinguish two travelers by an examination of their clocks as defining a worldline by virtue of their acceleration histories. The "most accelerated" traveler will "age less" (have less elapsed home time) than the least accelerated traveler (who stays at home) on a "round trip". This is the so called "Clock or Twin Paradox"... actually it is not a paradox at all and is the result of Time Dilation. The introduction of mass and thus acceleration breaks the global symmetry of Special Relativity resulting in only a local interpretation of the phenomenon. This symmetry breaking also results in General Relativity where spacetime curvature entirely defines the geometry of this space. This is clearly linked to the comparison between clocks in different frames.

There are also the possibility of Rindler Foliations in spacetime that define a geometry that differs from much of the rest of the geometry defined so far... I will lead you to read up on this and it also deals intimately wit the passage of time and the linked geometry of space.
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime

As a further amusement you may look here at this article where the WMAP Probe has shown up more interesting geometry in spacetime related to the Cosmic Microwave Background.
A cosmic hall of mirrors
Where I call your attention to this mapping...
2 Angular power spectrum
... and it's interpretation.

So here we started from events defining a primitive clock to the geometry of spacetime and the way this is connected to Special and General Relativity and to Gravitational Red Shift and the way that single points of view of our Universe may "mislead" us into thinking the Universe is smaller than we think to relative time dilation for travelers that undergo large accelerations. We then "touched" on Rindler Foliations and exotic geometry in spacetime connectivity leading to a Universe that may be closed.

So you then had the next question...
QUOTE (woodroyd+)
My next question is 'do we all think that time began with the Big Bang?'

And if it began then and did not exist before could we define 'before the Big bang' as being outside of time or without time or before time.
Time began with the first "clock" in our Universe. That was the first event. The first "event" would require the first appearance of matter in our Universe since photons alone have no mass and without any particle to scatter them there are no events. The photons themselves travel at the speed of light and so "suffer the most extreme form of time dilation and space contraction" that special relativity provides... they move along "null geodesics" in a flatspace which have zero dimensional spatial length and occupy zero time.

This means that before the appearance of mass, infinite time dilation and infinite space contraction are a "singularity" and are not definable events in our Universe... real events only showed up after matter came on the scene probably condensing from out of the primordial "light". At that point "suddenly" we have space and time evolving with that mass on which events can now "operate". So now we have events too that are defining time for us again. Before the big bang is the place where our Universe came from and cannot be defined by a measure of time in our Universe but the event may be relevant to the "mother" Universe from which this influx "we live in" poured from. It is potentially "unknowable" but it is nice to conjecture that our Universe is like a single elementary particle "created" by an event in some other source Universe resulting in "everything" we now see around us. We are all just "hidden behind a very dark wall" that light can no longer penetrate since that "first light".... This may be through Rindler Foliations or through spacetime curvature "closing" our spacetime off as a kind of "compactification".

Maybe we are inside a Black Hole falling and expanding as a sequence of events into time created by this process forever and we call this expanding "droplet" the result of "Hubble Shift"?? The "darkness" being the inside of "our own Black Hole". In space nobody can hear you weeping and your teeth gnashing at the "bottom" of this "bottomless pit"... Still... it's not bad really!

Cheers
wcelliott
QUOTE
help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning.

The Good Elf sounds like he knows his stuff, but I'd just like to add a couple of simple concepts to the mix at a different level (not contradicting anything he said).

Einstein himself argued that the concept of "simultaneity" (two events, separated in space, happening at the same time) was nonsensical, in his book, "Relativity". He argued that it would be a matter of perspective whether those two things happened at the same time or not, so the concept didn't really make any sense.

Then Wolfgang Ketterle (sp?) made a Bose-Einstein condensate about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The basic concept of a BEC is that it's comprised of many particles that are all in the same quantum state, so if you do something to one side of the period, you do it to the whole period simultaneously (as if hitting it from all directions at once). I e-mailed Ketterle when I first read the article and congratulated him on his discovery, telling him that I felt he'd discovered something more significant than he seemed to realize in his comments at the time. (To which he replied that "it's just cold gas with odd properties".) I told him that if it worked like I thought it worked, then it would be a special instance where Relativity might not apply and that he should look for temporal and gravitational anomalies close-by the BEC. He replied that I was a crackpot and told me to quit wasting his time with my e-mails (three, total).

A couple years later, he measured the speed of light "through" a BEC sample and found that the speed of light in a BEC is about what you'd get from a slow-ball pitch, so the index of refraction of a BEC is something like 17,000,000. Glass is about 1.5, give or take, and I think diamond has the highest index of refraction, somewhere around 2. (I'll look it up after I write this.) My thought on this is that he didn't measure really slow light, he actually slowed time down local to the BEC.

But a couple years later, he won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery.

I'm still waiting for him to look for gravitational anomalies.

ANYWAY, sorry about the rant, but sometimes it helps to vent.

The second point I'd like to make about time is that it's assumed to progress uniformly, like soldiers marching in a parade. I think it's more like a New Orleans funeral procession, where they play sad music taking the guy to his grave, then play Dixieland music on the way back, dancing and celebrating his life. (Time being like the mourners dancing down the street on the way back, rather than marching in-step like a parade.) In both instances, the group sets out in the same direction and moves, on-average, at the same rate, but when you get closer to the Dixieland dancers, sometimes they move forward, sometimes they stay in one spot, then they move forward faster than the crowd to catch up. It would explain a lot of otherwise perplexing phenomena in QM.

The next point comes from a literal interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation, where "a system exists in a superposition of all possible states until observed, and that it's the act of observation that forces the system to adopt a single-valued state." A system existing in a superposition of all possible states doesn't sound to me like it's obeying a single clock, like Big Ben, it sounds to me more like time for that system doesn't advance in time until it's observed. At which point the time-frame of the observer determines which of the possible states is "real". (Sorry, I tend to put quotes around "real" a lot.)

And one final point, asking what happens when someone drops out of time - that one is pretty simple to answer (from the perspective of the observers left behind), he never does physically leave. That would defy too many of the most fundamental physical laws. Imagine you're at your desk, feet up, thinking about quitting time, and some alien approaches you and kidnaps you - Poof! Beamed up away from your desk straight into the spaceship. You cruise the galaxy at transwarp speeds, have sex with a green alien slave-girl, save the universe from Ming the Merciless, get a kiss on the cheek from Princess Leah wearing her brass bikini as she puts a medal on your chest, and Ping!, you're back at your desk, feet still up on it, and your boss glaring at you.

Your boss never saw you leave his timeframe, and he's PO'd that you're daydreaming during working hours. Did you actually leave and come back at the same instant, or were you daydreaming? Who can say? One thing, though, is that the laws of the universe that your boss lives in can't be broken from *his* perspective, or it'd violate the basic principles of physics (including Relativity, which says that no one's frame of reference is preferred over anyone else's).

So if you *could* travel in time, like from one time to another and back again, to all observers, you never disappeared.

And to make matters worse, it'd be pointless to tell anyone about your trip, because if you *did* change anything in the past, then it's already been changed in the past of the people who you've come back to. It'd be like me saying that I went back in time and prevented the Third World War, you know, the one back in the 80's where 90% of life on earth was wiped-out in a nuclear holocaust. A simple "thanks" would be adequate, but cash donations are always welcome, too.

If I there had, actually, been a nuclear holocaust in the '80's, and I actually *did* go back in time and stop it from happening, then you'd never have heard of it because in your timeline it never happened. So there'd be no point in me telling you about it, you'd never believe it, because it never happened in your timeline. And the laws of physics that require continuity from one moment to the next would preclude my disappearing and reappearing at a different time. So you never disappear, and you can't bring information back (none that'd matter, at least). Talk about your thankless jobs...

Incidentally, I did actually e-mail Wolfgang Ketterle before he measured the speed of light "through" a BEC, and he did call me a crackpot years before he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. One problem that I'm surprised no physicist has spotted in his explanation of light slowing down by a factor of 17 million or so, is that whenever light encounters a boundary between two media of different indices of refraction, there's a reflection that's proportional to the ratio of the differences between the two indices at the boundary, and the amount of light propagating through the boundary is at most one minus that reflectivity. Light going *through* a droplet of a BEC would be traversing *two* boundaries, so you'd end up with the amount of light on the other side being inversely proportional to the square of the ratio of the indices. What's 1/17million, squared? And just how damned bright *was* that laser he shined "through" the BEC?

My take is that the light never went *through* the BEC, it was delayed in time and tunnelled past it. Since everything "inside" the Bose-Einstein Condensate is in the same state at the same time, and simultaneity in this universe, according to Einstein's reasoning, is nonsense, that whatever's "inside" the BEC, isn't playing in *our* space-time.

As for the question of what happened before the Big Bang, I'd leave that one alone. Steven Hawking has been taking guesses about it all his life, and look what happened to him. Some things we aren't meant to know, and probably shouldn't speculate about. Before the universe began? - That's God's domain, not for us to speculate about. We probably couldn't understand it even if we were told what happened by God himself.

Luckily, it won't be on the Final Exam, either.

Good Elf
Hi wcelliott, woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
The Good Elf sounds like he knows his stuff, but I'd just like to add a couple of simple concepts to the mix at a different level (not contradicting anything he said).

Einstein himself argued that the concept of "simultaneity" (two events, separated in space, happening at the same time) was nonsensical, in his book, "Relativity". He argued that it would be a matter of perspective whether those two things happened at the same time or not, so the concept didn't really make any sense.
This is an old problem... those who never measure systems (Mathematical Physicists) vs those that actually measure systems (Experimental Physicists). Philosophy vs experiment and practicality. In our world Physics is about "all those applications" not about the maths and wondrous spacetime diagrams. Physics is "science" not "philosophy"... where there is a mutual dependence on and between the theory and the experiment... In the end the experiment is the deciding factor and no theory is about to depose the properly contrived experiment... It is always the other way around... theory must give way to experimental results ... which is after all the Universe "herself" speaking "loudly" and authoritatively about herself.

It is important to distinguish one important aspect of Relativity from it's other aspects. Clock synchronization is "most important". While it is quite right to think that there is no "absolute simultaneity" in all circumstances, the mere separation in space does not mean that event simultaneity is always impossible. Global frames of reference are also not possible in Special Relativity but practical local inertial frames of reference are indeed possible and to have a "frame" it must consist of extended sets of points not just a single point at an origin. Special Relativity is of no practical value unless you can "construct" an inertial reference frame that spans the space and the time. This is not just a series of coordinates defined along the X,Y and Z axes but it absolutely must include time as one of the coordinates. The frame defines simultaneous events as events in the one inertial frame all having the same time coordinate. The creation of this frame is provided in Einstein's Theory by the exchange of light flashes between distant centers. A flash of light is emitted from one point and "bounced" off a mirror at the second point in the one inertial frame and then reflected back to source like in certain experiments to evaluate the speed of light. The timing of these three events geometrically define a simultaneous time at distant points and be used to synchronize "distant" clocks in the one inertial frame. This process can be repeated for as many points needed. Relativity then is about comparing the lack of simultaneity "between" relatively moving frames.
Wikipedia: Einstein synchronisation

The "rigidity" of this (or any) "freely falling" coordinate system can be maintained using an interferometer and the constancy of the fringes ensure that the two points are not in relative motion. Frames that are in relative motion cannot guarantee that any simultaneity can be found. That is "one" part of the theory while the other important part is the definition of inertial frames of reference which are a definition of simultaneity within a frame and a means of clock synchronization. Without inertial frames of reference which include time, spacetime could not be tested to be in accord with Special Relativity.

It is also essential to also define a "zero" of time (in a similar way to the way we define a zero in the other coordinates). It may be arbitrary but without having "equivalent measuring rods for space and time" and a "vertex", all practical measurements in physics would be pointless and without any basis of experimental verification. The use of the "measuring rods" must be "corrected" to be local measurements. Unfortunately many measurements of theory are not made locally and hence that is why I emphasized some points in my previous post. Theories are used to fill in the details and that is where a lot of testing must occur.

Experimentally this is what is actually done and all the philosophy does not remove the importance of this principle of measurement. Physics is not a philosophy... it is a natural science and relies on the measurement of natural phenomena. This distinguishes quantum "expectation values" in Quantum Physics which are not measurables from these "physical" system measurables.

Other principles come into play when there is "propagation" or "translation" between frames and then I would point out that electromagnetism has both the near field approach and far field approach to the problem. Recent experiments in Switzerland has highlighted this problem.
World's Largest Quantum Bell Test Spans Three Swiss Towns
Very accurate experiments may be carried out with a high degree of correlation that have tested Special Relativity to the highest possible experimental level of verification even when the system is not ideal the "error" is not in the theory but still in the instruments. Special and General Relativity are used "exclusively" (with extensions) in the GPS system... and resolutions of the order of centimeters are very possible and very practical (over the entire earth's surface) with the right equipment. To do that it requires that we are able to define "simultaneity" of atomic clocks and this is absolutely essential as it is an "everyday" necessity for this stuff to work.

The issue regarding the BEC... It is interesting but I guess the argument is "dispersion" through a "block of refractive material" is not quite the same as the slowing time in empty space. Consider a block of glass... we are unable to survive in that "medium". However there are cases of light's velocity being modified in free space in a vacuum such as in optical vortices. I think that phenomenon needs to be concentrated on at the moment for interesting phenomena but I will certainly give you that BEC's are a very interesting case requiring more investigation. That phenomenon is all tied up with Electromagnetically Induced Transparency and with Negative Refractive Indices, optical wormholes and "invisibility" etc.

Regarding "time travel"... It is not what most people think. There will not be any paradox since events happen and eventscapes are generated and modified on a ad hoc basis. Do not worry yourself with "science fiction" scenarios. They do not happen. Time travel is not something we can "make up as we go along"... some things are permitted while some things are not. The idea of dropping out of time does not "normally" occur. The events generated by time travel are well understood in terms of very standard existing events. I will make an analogy that if everybody believes that there are pixies at the bottom of the garden that does not guarantee that they are really there. In the same fashion what "people say" about how time works is not necessarily the way it really is. What I can say is we can understand events mapping out the way to the future. These "events" I have outlined in an event driven Universe are not paradox... they just do not conform to the conventional form of time travel people "want". I make no apology for the way the Universe actually works and I will not try and bend the rules to fit any "private Idaho". The "experiment" works (the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation)... It is people who refuse to accept that it is true.

Cheers
bukh
Ron

QUOTE: "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7
o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”

Simultaneous events - does that implicate that the small hand and the train are simultaneous together at the same place at that specific time ?
wcelliott
QUOTE
Cheers

I don't disagree with anything you've said, and as I said before, it sounds like you know what you're talking about.

I would, however, take the position that philosophy at some point in physics has its uses, if only in illustrating paradoxes where further research could find more interesting phenomena. And ultimately, once we find the Grand Unified Theory/Theory of Everything, physicists may desire to get back to their original goal of not merely explaining *how* things work, but *why* they work the way they do. That's been abandoned for good reasons for a long time, incorporating the "why's" with the "how's", as the "how's" have generally been fairly accurate even as the "why's" were way off-base (and usually got in the way of progress). Einstein's derivation of Relativity itself was based on a gedanken (thought experiment) if I'm not mistaken, so I don't think they should be abandoned completely.

I've always been interested in how physics implements "barriers" of all sorts. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but last I heard, electrons tunnel through barriers in *zero* time, according to an elapsed-time experiment done in Australia (and no doubt repeated everywhere by now). This doesn't violate Relativity, though, as there's *no point in time* where an electron can be measured traveling faster than the speed of light. It doesn't accelerate up to and then beyond C, it just leaves here and arrives there in the same instant. (Correct me if the experiment has been debunked.) You can't accelerate a spaceship up to and beyond the speed of light, either, but when you start getting close, weird things start happening to the perception of time and space. Theoretically, if there were an infinite power source and you *could* accelerate through C, at the very instant you're passing C, you have no depth in the direction of your velocity, and just after that, the equations describing your various states have that pesky square-root of negative one in them. We know this number from complex algebra as having the meaning of introducing orthogonality to the original frame of reference. Once again, we disappear from this space to a space that is orthogonal to ours. It's interesting to me what happens to gravity when masses have that "square-root of negative one" in them - gravity would become repulsive, right?

So the Big Bang happened (if it did) and some matter was accelerated (maybe) to speeds faster than light, then that matter would repel itself with a force proportional to 1/r2, essentially leaving the ordinary sublight matter (what we're made of) behind as it accelerated away. (Nothing in Einstein's theory that precludes acceleration in objects already going *faster* than the speed of light.) Cosmologists agree upon there being an "inflationary" phase of the Big Bang, but steer clear of explaining where it came from (at least, I haven't heard an explanation). Maybe it's as simple as the matter created had speeds that spanned sublight to superluminal, and the superluminal matter accelerating due to the repulsive gravity had an effect on the normal (subluminal) matter. "inflating" the universe.

Another issue comes to mind, if this were true - would the particles and antiparticles created be entangled? Are the particles in this known/seen part of the universe entangled with their twins at the outer "skin" of this universe?

Just some interesting questions to ponder, I don't know the answers, myself.

bukh
Good Elf

QUOTE: "It is also essential to also define a "zero" of time (in a similar way to the way we define a zero in the other coordinates). It may be arbitrary but without having "equivalent measuring rods for space and time" and a "vertex", all practical measurements in physics would be pointless and without any basis of experimental verification."

I like to ponder about this - in that I think it constitute quite a challenge-

you say: "in a similar way we define a zero in the other co-ordinates".

And then I wonder - what is a coordinate - what is a usefull co-ordinate in space - or in Physical ?

Can we operate a co-ordinate without a yardstick - and how do we define a yardstick -

Can we make a yardstick out from dimensionless points - ?

Can we mathematically construct a scale saying that this is placed here and this is placed there - relative to each other and well-defined in a 3D or a physical context ?

Can we mathematically define a scale so it is not just an enormous amount of figures saying nothing about relative position in space if we do not already have a defined space with a defined yardstick ?

Or put differently - can we accurately and ideally exactly describe a physical event - a physical happening - by use of figures - by use of pure mathematics without having a one-to-one relationship between a figure and a dimension

Can we define or construct a dimension without having already a dimension at hand ?

And in that case - then exactly what IS a dimension ?

Am I asking a right question in the wrong way - or Am I asking a wrong question ? - or ?

Good Elf
Hi wcelliott, bukh, woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Einstein's derivation of Relativity itself was based on a gedanken (thought experiment) if I'm not mistaken, so I don't think they should be abandoned completely.
Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to put a damper on creative thinking. Creative thinking is the source of all wisdom. But in the end this thinking must "fit" our natural environment to be useful. First comes the theory then the experiment. Alternatively the experiment might come first and then we need to do catch up with theory. In the end though it is experiment that decides it the theory is right or wrong. Still it is good to think out of the box... I am going to take some "liberties" in the latter part of this post all in the interest of "serendipity".

IMHO all things are "possible" but not all "questions" can be answered. That is simply because most "questions" that people ask are poorly constructed. This is not meant to be a criticism it is simply a statement of the "human condition". If you can ask the right question then the answer is already within grasp. This because if you understand the question you ask thoroughly then the answer is not too far away. The only thing we must be on the lookout for is being misled by our innate hubris.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
I've always been interested in how physics implements "barriers" of all sorts. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but last I heard, electrons tunnel through barriers in *zero* time, according to an elapsed-time experiment done in Australia (and no doubt repeated everywhere by now). This doesn't violate Relativity, though, as there's *no point in time* where an electron can be measured traveling faster than the speed of light. It doesn't accelerate up to and then beyond C, it just leaves here and arrives there in the same instant. (Correct me if the experiment has been debunked.) You can't accelerate a spaceship up to and beyond the speed of light, either, but when you start getting close, weird things start happening to the perception of time and space. Theoretically, if there were an infinite power source and you *could* accelerate through C, at the very instant you're passing C, you have no depth in the direction of your velocity, and just after that, the equations describing your various states have that pesky square-root of negative one in them. We know this number from complex algebra as having the meaning of introducing orthogonality to the original frame of reference.
Lets fundamentally analyze the problem of "accelerating through the speed of light". Many people "suggest" that this is impossible because the relativistic mass would increase to infinity and there is that old chestnut of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. In actual fact this is all a misunderstanding of physical law... what Einstein himself said about "relativistic mass" was...
QUOTE (Albert Einstein+)
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)^1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

Interpreted this means that "rest mass" is the only "real mass". There is an equivalence of mass and energy but raw energy is not the same as pure mass.
QUOTE (John A Wheeler+)
The preference for invariant mass is stressed and justified in the classic relativity textbook "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler who write,

"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.";

Again we see that the former World expert on "mass" and "gravitation" points the fickle finger of fate at this "misunderstanding". Mass is not connected with any structural change in a body. For instance if the relativistic mass of a body "increased to a million times" it's rest mass and this was an "astronaut", surely you would think he would die of an instant heart attack? ... such would be the load on his vital organs. This does not happen. This is cannot have any relationship to a Theory that suggests that the laws of the Universe are the same "everywhere". Any accelerated person is piecemeal "inertial" if we instantly cut out the acceleration. Then the traveler is suddenly in a rest frame (given some short period for the forces to equalize). This is because the velocity of any particle "relative" to some other moving frame is not clear, unless there is direct "point to point interaction" the influence on nearby bodies probably goes relatively unnoticed.

In fact acceleration is subject to a "constant of integration" which is arbitrary. The Universe is"full" of moving particles. Some of these have a relatively high velocity relative to a particle while others have a low velocity relative to the same particle. You probably have a relative velocity near the speed of light when compared to some distant bodies in space. These bodies have little or no apparent influence on us. The proximity of such bodies should not make any direct difference provided the rest masses of these bodies is small (no huge tidal forces acting). Which velocity "determines" the relativistic mass? Obviously it is all relative and there is no absolute frame of reference to choose. What we really know is that for properly synchronized systems that have been subject to acceleration, a time dilation can be calculated in any case of any two particles so we may be able to, "in theory", compare the rate of time in two different moving frames possibly centered on two separate relatively moving particles.

In the one inertial frame time and distance are fixed rigidly "according to rule". Moving any particle in an inertial frame actually moves the particle "out of the frame"... there is no "inconsequential relative movement"... everything must be accounted for in the end and even small velocities and small accelerations result in a loss of synchronization between formerly synchronized clocks in the frame. Many theoretical approaches seem to suggest that "relativistic effects" may be ignored for very low velocities... wrong... what about "de Broglie Matter Waves"?

Of specific note is the influence of velocity on the de Broglie wavelength of matter particles. As V -> 0 the wavelength of the particle approaches "infinity". More correctly it is expressed in the de Broglie-Einstein Relationship where the wavelength is inversely proportional to the "relative momentum".
Wikipedia: Einstein de Broglie Equation
In fact the "low velocity end of Special Relativity" is every bit as significant as the 'high velocity end"... the particles "at rest" lead to spatial "delocalization". A particle in a box can never actually be at rest. There will always be a wavelength due to the lowest modes of motion and the "unobserved" particle in a box is delocalized as V -> 0. Therefore the particle is no longer a "particle" but a wave and occupies an eigenstate depending on the box geometry.
Einstein and de Broglie Relationships "compared"
Here we see de Broglie's wavelength and frequency compared with Einstein's length and time. These are "reciprocal concepts". With Matter Waves wavelength is to be compared with "reciprocal length" because velocity is to be found in the denominator of the de Broglie relationship and de Broglie frequency is to be compared with time (reciprocal frequency). These are orthogonal properties as mentioned previously.

"Wavelets" accelerated in "particle accelerators" end up looking like point particles rather than wavelets. The harder they are pushed the more they obey particle dynamics. These wavelets could be protons, electrons, neutrons etc... it really does not matter all ave a wavelength or a frequency at any relative velocity but clearly at around zero relative velocity the packet wavelength dominates all aspects of "locality".

So I have argued strongly "against" the idea of Magic in quantum physics. The ability of an electron to tunnel depends on the ability of the wavelet to be sufficiently delocalized and "diffuse" to have a significant portion of it's packet extending beyond any barriers that confine it. The lower the velocity the larger the possibility that the particle can move beyond the barrier. Recall that high energy electron hardly ever move beyond the potential barrier ... consider the electrons in the main ring at CERN... they have enormous energy but are highly confined and never tunnel out of the ring. It is safe to stand near the ring and electrons have almost no possibility to penetrate the walls of the confining vacuum vessel. Alternatively a Bose Einstein Gas at nearly absolute zero degrees Kelvin can "seep" through any wall in a pretty short time. This is because the kinetic energy around absolute zero of electrons or gas particles is very low so the penetrating wavelength is quite long. The point is if you "measure" the velocity of the electrons at the point of penetrating the walls of the vessel, the 'probe" used to measure this system will provide a "kick" to the system sufficient to shorten the wavelength of the particles so much that the chance of it escaping through the wall is reduced to only a tiny minuscule possibility.

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
You can't accelerate a spaceship up to and beyond the speed of light, either, but when you start getting close, weird things start happening to the perception of time and space.
It is not a case of relativistic mass as we have discussed, and it is not a case of any weird perceptual thing... on the contrary... perception is unaltered. Lets say you have been able to accelerate this astronaut to 99.99999999% the speed of light (relatively). In the rest frame of the astronaut things appear relatively unchanged. He feels no perception of speed (except for an external source of radiation coming from the cosmic microwave background that he will now need protection from). This "effect" is such that provided with a source of acceleration, there is "apparently" no upper bound to the speed of the spaceship. Any speed is possible from the point of view of the traveler. So you see there is no "upper speed limit" imposed. The astronaut looks out of the ship through a viewing port and you would indeed see that "Star Trek" effect of stars zipping bye and space will have a tunnel shape as viewed externally. This is not what is seen in the inertial frame of the space ship... there is no change what so ever to what he say "back home".

The clocks all run the same, the length of his ship appears unaltered etc. However on a round trip returning to earth perhaps many thousands of earth years will pass while he will have experienced only a day or two of travel (in an extreme scenario). In actual fact what has happened is as our traveler "zoomed" off into space the ship's clock begin "losing ticks" relative to the stay at home clock. In the extreme case almost all the ticks were lost and our traveler relative to the stay at home "twin" became almost "frozen in time". Time still progressed very slowly but in such a fashion that this "rate" made those external effects possible such as the apparent the external tunnel vision... the Star Trek effect and the effect that there seemed to be no upper limit to speed. For instance if our traveler traveled 100 light years and only one second of ships time ticked away then the speed that the traveler would "reckon" would be 100 light years /sec speed... a light year is the distance light travels in a year.... 1000 trillion kilometers/sec.
Wikipedia: Light Year
Still as far as the twin at home sees is this traveling twin was "frozen" and his trip to an absolute minimum of 100 years to travel 100 light years.... and more like a lot more.

So why can't a "boost" take our traveler past the speed of light just pushing it 0.00000001% faster?? It is simple... time would stop for our traveler and all processes relative to "home" would be "almost" entirely arrested if we could make it reach a relative velocity indistinguishable from C. At the exact speed of light all process would stop with time. There can be no actual acceleration since acceleration is the rate of change of distance with respect to time. No time ... no rate of change... no "push" taking it past the speed of light. All kinetic process relative to the external frame "ceases" at the speed of light. That is why a photon can "last forever" frozen in time as it flies through empty space between the stars. Now in the frame of the traveler "nothing has happened". Relative to other relatively moving objects in the Universe his speed is nothing like C so the effect is not the same. The progression of time between different frames is different depending on the relative velocity while the progress of time in the rest frame of the traveler is as it always is... no perceptible effect. These effects, according to the traveler, are all happening to everybody else but not to him. Now you can appreciate that this is entirely "relative" and continuous phenomena with a singularity at C. In one sense travel at nearly the speed of light is virtually no different to sitting in a comfy chair in your lounge and watching Star Trek... you would have no sense of motion or speed other than what you see on the "external view screen".

Some scientists would say this is "indistinguishable" mathematically from the concept that the mass of the traveler becomes nearly infinite... I totally disagree. Why some scientist say these things is a complete puzzle to me... what I know is they all know this is strictly incorrect. I think it is because some scientist are part scientist and part showman.... but "mostly" nearly all "magician" who want to put on a good entertaining show. Go figure!

So you want to travel faster than light? You can't travel 'faster than light" but you can beat light in a race to some point in space if you take a "shortcut". So you need to first find that shortcut between the two points you need to move between, I suggest translational spatial frame dragging rather than "brute force". Make sure this distance is able to be traversed in the time you want to spend. Failing that calculate what energy you are prepared to "spend". You will get some figure that suggests a maximum amount of mass that can be accelerated to achieve this task. You then need to ensure that your system mass is equal to or less than this figure. You then need to cancel that excess mass such that Force required is sufficiently small due to a sufficiently reduced mass. The mass of a "particle" is the amount of space time curvature the particle produces. This needs to be substantially canceled artificially with some kind of 'field" (a mass canceling field). Electromagnetic "force" must be used to replace this "mass" influence. We know that the trade off is of the order of 10^41, an electromagnetic field (if at all possible) is quite capable of performing this operation exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy.

Technically we still have some problems... he he he! "In theory" it is possible but some form of Electromagnetic Lorentz Symmetry Breaking will be necessary.

So as alternatives we can create a shortcut between points in spacetime, or reduce the mass of a system sufficiently to accelerate it appropriately and the amount of actual acceleration will relate to the time of transit... Alternatively you can build a TARDIS where you can combine space travel with time travel to arrange the greatest flexibility. Cancel time of travel with trading of with travel in space. You can reverse this operation for the return journey. All right these are fanciful but I predict able to be done in the future... maybe not the immediate future.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
So the Big Bang happened (if it did) and some matter was accelerated (maybe) to speeds faster than light, then that matter would repel itself with a force proportional to 1/r2, essentially leaving the ordinary sublight matter (what we're made of) behind as it accelerated away. (Nothing in Einstein's theory that precludes acceleration in objects already going *faster* than the speed of light.) Cosmologists agree upon there being an "inflationary" phase of the Big Bang, but steer clear of explaining where it came from (at least, I haven't heard an explanation). Maybe it's as simple as the matter created had speeds that spanned sublight to superluminal, and the superluminal matter accelerating due to the repulsive gravity had an effect on the normal (subluminal) matter. "inflating" the universe.

Another issue comes to mind, if this were true - would the particles and antiparticles created be entangled? Are the particles in this known/seen part of the universe entangled with their twins at the outer "skin" of this universe?

Just some interesting questions to ponder, I don't know the answers, myself.
I do not think we can accelerate anything "faster than light" but the speed of light is different in different regimes. Without elaboration there is a "near field" with Gravity. This can extend to "infinity" through Mach's Principle. The speed of light in the near field can "infinite". The "near field" is the rest frame of the "virtual photon". The inflationary phase of the Big Bag is still not over. The Universe is still expanding and it is apparently "accelerating". This is due to lateral frame dragging. Any speed is possible when you involve frame dragging. This is inertial acceleration... a bit of a contradiction of terms but nevertheless it does occur because we see it. It is not due to any dumb "explosion" at T = 0. Every point is moving away from every other point. This can be simulated once again by removing he system mass then you can move points where ever you want anytime you want. This results in Rindler Foliations and these foliations may be shortcuts between points in spacetime without recourse to "wormholes" (which are gravitational objects). These "foliations" are a form of electromagnetic wormhole where the mouths of some electromagnetic constructs are connected by spacetime defects called instantons. Travel through these entities may be possible if we could only cancel mass.

There is a fair degree of speculation there but there is also a underbelly of experimental science that indicates to me technical possibilities not beyond our reach. For instance the possibility of "instantaneous communication" is already possible in the near field of matter waves.

If communication then why not transport or at least a telepresence... instantly... to the distant planets for instance, provided a near filed form of communication using the matter wave interferences. That would be "as good as" being there and a lot safer than actual personal interplanetary travel.
World's Largest Quantum Bell Test Spans Three Swiss Towns
Physicists Seek Answers to Quantum Correlations
"Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses" Authors: D. Salart, A. Baas, J.A.W. van Houwelingen, N. Gisin, H. Zbinden
"Connection speeds" for spacelike separation without timelike separations in excess of 10000 times the speed of light have been recorded in the near filed... this being 18 Kms in this case. No laws broken here.

Cheers
wcelliott
In terms of "transluminal technology", let's think about BECs for a moment. The "right side" of the BEC is in the same state as the "left side", as they're in the same state simultaneously. If you could make one the size of a tennis ball, you wouldn't be able to serve it, because the tennis racket would be hitting both sides simultaneously.

Now let's imagine that we can make an envelope of a material that has this BEC property, and that we can climb inside it and seal it up. We'd be isolated from gravitational fields inside the envelope just as something inside an electrically- conductive envelope is isolated from the external electric field (e.g., a Faraday Cage). I'm way out on a limb here, but I think it's possible to make such a material and that it would be isolated from the rest of the universe, and as such, not bound by its laws, including the one that precludes acceleration beyond C.

It's fun to speculate about the nature of this material. You can't do anything to it locally, as it communicates/distributes all forces applied to it globally. You can't cut it with scissors, and you can't wrinkle it (wrinkling is a local phenomenon where the local elastic limit is exceeded and the material remains bent).

Does that ring a bell, or am I just a lot older than everyone else here?

Remember that "foil-like" material the ranch hand said he found at Roswell? Couldn't be wrinkled or cut with scissors. Coincidence?
wcelliott
Oh, and I really like the concept of every particle of normal matter being entangled with its antiparticle at the "outer skin" (event horizon?) that we can't see.

Is there any physics that you know of that would preclude our universe being the *inside* of a black hole in a higher-dimensional universe? Maybe gravity could be what Hawking radiation looks like from inside the black hole.
dimazin
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 28 2008, 03:07 PM)

Cheers

Hi Good Elf.

When I travel in space, I do not disappear of space. When I travel into the future, I do not disappear of present time, I only look more flat.In the Universe all events happen simultaneously in present time.But all is traveling in space and time, changing the present.I have already proved an illogicality of the relativity .AlphaNumeric and Prometheus have not managed to distinctly object.
Good Elf
Hi wcelliott, woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, bukh, BigFairy, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (dimazin+)
Hi Good Elf.

When I travel in space, I do not disappear of space. When I travel into the future, I do not disappear of present time, I only look more flat.In the Universe all events happen simultaneously in present time.But all is traveling in space and time, changing the present.I have already proved an illogicality of the relativity .AlphaNumeric and Prometheus have not managed to distinctly object.
Special Relativity is mostly related to observations between frames not strictly for within framesInside a single rest frame the Laws of Physics are unchanged to those you experience right now. No relative speed will cause any effect "in your frame" to break that symmetry. You may observe "external events" that have an influence on you such as bremsstrahlung for instance coming from "high velocity particles or radiations" which may be due to relative motion of things external to the rest frame of that observer... such as an anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background. These things might be observed when in motion relative to something external. There are also external optical effects that are due to "stellar aberration" and Doppler shift and so forth. All these things (every one) are not properties that you would attribute to events originating in the observer frame which appears always to be at rest. Everything in your observer frame obey the same laws as are found in every other rest frame anywhere in the universe and a relative velocity has no "internal influence" on the observer..

When dealing with phenomena actually within a frame there are different concepts involved but there are ways to define simultaneity in such a frame (I have discussed that above). The Theory of Relativity says nothing about "disappearing anything"... Not sure what you mean by that... nothing "disappears" as far as I understand it. Naturally... if relative velocities near the speed of light are involved then there may be very little time for any "human" observations so recording instruments are the prime method of timing and measuring of these events originating in the other frames. I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say but a frame in which absolutely everything can be considered to be simultaneous is not possible. Any relative motion can severely change the locality of an event through de Broglie Mater Wave phenomena. The very best I can think of to "approach" this concept is to define simultaneity on a single rest frame in which everything is "simultaneously" at rest. In such a case "everything" can be considered to "instantaneously" in "synchronization". Even the slightest relative movement breaks that "symmetry" and leads to a de Broglie wavelength in matter.

I see nothing "illogical" in that. If you could put your point a little better maybe you might like to debate it?

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Is there any physics that you know of that would preclude our universe being the *inside* of a black hole in a higher-dimensional universe? Maybe gravity could be what Hawking radiation looks like from inside the black hole.
It is conjecture but it might be true. The idea that spacetime can be 'torn" to expose the underside of the carpet of spacetime seems "improbable". I prefer to think of spacetime being infinitely elastic... not necessarily linearly elastic. That probably means that spactime can be deformed into hyperspace "bubbles". Some of these bubbles are kept in place with gravity and some of them will be kept in place with electromagnetism. IMHO it is my conjecture based on a number of "behaviors" in physics that while electromagnetism has antisymmetric symmetry and gravity has symmetric symmetry, these are two sides to a universal phenomenon... Electromagnetism resides in "flatspace" and behaves as if it is spreading in a "flatspace" while gravitation and th property of mass is due to spacetime curvature. These may both exist as opposite topological sides of spacetime, one "causing" the other.

The analogies are found in the optical properties of a natural Optical Fourier Transform "Processor" shown here...
Fourier Image processor
... Note the transform plane followed by an image plane... and the possibility of this sequence continuing on and recurring indefinitely.
A different view of an optical Fourier processor removing an artifact of a periodic raster transmission artifact
This represents the way nature moves light from the time domain to the frequency domain and the spatial domain to the reciprocal space domain in an entirely "natural" process. The "diffraction pattern" is just one of these Fourier artifacts and for many it is a mystery but viewed in this way it is so "complete" as wavelets.

As to "all of this" existing in a black hole... who knows... seems plausible ... maybe something like it rather than something exactly the same ... nobody has seen the inside of a black hole.... or is that "everyone" has seen the inside of a black hole??

I would not want to speculate about Hawking Radiation... again who really knows?

Cheers
wcelliott
Funny you should mention the Fourier Transform, as part of my cosmological guesswork/theory involves those entangled antiparticles as being in a "skin" surrounding the universe that we can see as existing in the transform of the particles in this universe.

In an independent research paper I wrote in grad school, I hypothesized that our brain processes vision by recognizing the Fourier transform of the images the eyes see, with the optic nerves acting not so much like a straight cable from the retina to the brain's vision center, but as a Fourier Transform pipeline processor.

http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/neuralarchi...manbehavior.htm

You might be interested.

I got the idea first from taking Computer Image Recogition classes which all pointed out the advantages of doing recognition of objects by their Fourier transform (spectrum), rather than straight pattern recognition of the "sliding template" notion, where you have to compare everything in the image to all possible orientations and sizes and positions of all templates in order to recognize an object. It's much simpler to recognize objects by their Fourier spectra (no translation in X-Y required - if the object has the same spectrum and it's in the FOV of the imager, its spectrum will appear in the spectrum of the image of the FOV).
Good Elf
Hi wcelliott, woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, bukh, BigFairy, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Funny you should mention the Fourier Transform, as part of my cosmological guesswork/theory involves those entangled antiparticles as being in a "skin" surrounding the universe that we can see as existing in the transform of the particles in this universe.
Good guess... I would say in some sense of that conjecture you are surely right.
QUOTE (bukh+)
you say: "in a similar way we define a zero in the other co-ordinates".
And then I wonder - what is a coordinate - what is a usefull co-ordinate in space - or in Physical ?
Can we operate a co-ordinate without a yardstick - and how do we define a yardstick -
Can we make a yardstick out from dimensionless points - ?
[...]
Or put differently - can we accurately and ideally exactly describe a physical event - a physical happening - by use of figures - by use of pure mathematics without having a one-to-one relationship between a figure and a dimension
Lots of questions there about the problem of "reality". Can we represent the nature of our Universe with "simple" tools? Can we do these things? ... of course!... Physics and the processes in our Universe are an Operational Science, it is not a "pure mathematics". It is absolutely required that it fulfill it's destiny... that is to describe the natural Universe around us. We should not become too "precious" about this operations since everything is provisional and evolving. If we find it failing to do what we had hoped for it then we change it.

I have discussed many times why we can never "arrive" at the perfect theory and we should not be too critical that our theory does not predict where every atom should be in the Universe by "dead reckoning" their "trajectories" since the "Big Bang". As I have often stated, and is a known fact, that our "philosophy" is basically flawed and it can never be "entirely patched up" because there will always need to be one or more than one basic premise on which the rest relies on for it's validity. Godel proved that this "residuum" will always exist ... forever. It is not going to be just a tiny "shim" that slightly affects our philosophy, it will change entire paradigms and change the underlying mechanism from time to time allowing a more sublime insight on the nature of reality and making whatever it is easier for mankind to understand in the end. The "complexity" of some of the present theories will one day give way to a more "penetrating" concept that will affect mankind and it's activities through it's influence forever.

I point to particle theory and quantum theory based on an underlying "disorder" being the paradigm of the age. This has led to a certain pessimism and loss of "light". It affects everything and has led to a nihilism and deconstructionism of the Post Modernist Era. Former generations saw a greater order in the universe and thus they saw a greater "light" where now we now see only "darkness", even though by an independent "yardstick" we see "more". I predict that future generations will find that "order" again, an even greater order (a new World order) and then see light where now there is only darkness... and so on and on it goes.

This "understanding" of our age affects everything we do and affects our philosophy and the way we treat others and the way others treat us. So be happy that we know "so much" and that according to our understanding at present... that is as far as we can go until "we become open" to more of the underlying Truth which consequently will allow us to pursue a deeper understanding. Without a coming "New World Order" for each and every new generation there can be no "new light" because there would be no change... it is a natural process of renewal. Many work for it and many work against it. Their reasons we all know and understand. Conservatives fear the new and revisionists hate the old, an eternal struggle where there logically should be none. Religions both fear it and want it... Society craves a leader that will lead them ... they finally get one and it disappoints them ... there is struggle and the leader is deposed and replaced by another.... on and on it goes. Science also "evolves" and renews itself from generation to generation.

It is my firm conviction that the ancients knew the "Truth" to the limit that they were able to understand it... constrained by their culture, allegiances and their religions. We may look back on them now and give a "wry condescending smile" but in their place and in their time a few of them were at the pinnacle of understanding that was possible. Some of them were cannibals and some of them were despots and intensely evil according to current definitions of morality ... but they were the measure of what it was to be called "human".

What allows us to be this smug nowadays is we have a far more open mind that allows more of the truth to become evident. There are still many dark minds in the world, controlled by fear and loathing ... as there always have been. There also have been a number of bright minds that have supplied hope and direction to that dark view of our destiny. A thousand years from now similar descendants of current generations will look back on us with condescending smirks and have a small joke about our total ignorance. It is the way of hubris that man pursues. You are here on a "line" that stretches into the infinite distance and we will only move a short way along it before we must release control and allow another generation to continue on. There is no guarantee that it will advance science, only that a kind of scientific Darwinism will force the efforts of some to an insignificance while others will streak ahead as soon as the constraints are loosened.

I think that the greatest constraints are our expectations we hold for our "g*d" and our political systems and our other ideologies. Science awaits like an obedient genie... infinitely powerful yet constrained and "bottled up" by our limited "needs". When we finally see this world without many of these constraints there will no longer be any limit to what we may attempt to know and understand. Of course these individuals will no longer fit the definition you may wish to currently define as "human"... And for that "future generation" you and I will be defined as "less" than that new definition of "human"... in comparison to them simple chattering and bickering "apes". Around "them" you and I may feel the way your dog feels as it sits on your lap... submissive, apprehensive and "worshipful"... One thing we do not feel is that "understanding" that they would "enjoy" and is "missing" in us by virtue of our "limitations" which we have placed there ourselves.
QUOTE (To see the world... :William Blake+)
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.

To see the world :William Blake

Just had to quote that again... sorry!

Cheers
wcelliott
QUOTE
our "philosophy" is basically flawed and it can never be "entirely patched up" because there will always need to be one or more than one basic premise on which the rest relies on for it's validity. Godel proved that this "residuum" will always exist ... forever. It is not going to be just a tiny "shim" that slightly affects our philosophy, it will change entire paradigms

I agree.

One of the fundamental problems I run into in forums like this that people who've taken Classical Physics ("Newtonian Physics") adopt the underlying notion of the universe being governed by exact laws, a "Clockwork Universe", or in philosophical terms, laws defining "Objective Reality". All Classical Physics supports the notion of the universe being an Objective Reality. The problem is, that's one of the first concepts that gets called into question in Quantum Mechanics.

We live in a universe that has an "Objective Reality" sitting on top of another set of laws that don't support an "Objective Reality" at the quantum scale. People tend to hand-wave this away, saying that QM is confined to the scale of the subatomic particles.

But there are exceptions to that, where QM principles are seen at macroscopic (human-level) scales of distance and time. Currently, most of these exceptions are seen mainly in research labs, but I'm pretty sure that every cell phone has at least on "tunnel diode", which works on the QM principle of tunneling. Used routinely, sold at Radio Shack, everyday common use of a device that works only on QM principles.

As time goes on, there will be more and more of these QM intrusions into our Objective Reality. Quantum computing and quantum cryptography are just two obvious examples.

Eventually, I predict that we'll see how to manipulate quantum properties out of the "quantum realm" by intricate patterns laid out at the nanolevel, acting like holographic lenses bringing the desired quantum phenomena to our macroscopic scale. (Anyone interested in this concept should investigate how those embossed white-light holograms on credit cards work. Fascinating conceptually, with mundane technology. It's just a pattern embossed on a reflective surface, yet it creates a 3D image in color. They've actually found they can make similar white-light holograms in the surface of chocolate, but I'm way off-topic.)

Anyway, the deep philosophical paradigm shift that I expect involves our (conscious entities') deep involvement in the fundamental processes of the universe. I interpret the Copenhagen Interpretation as providing the clue. "A system exists in a superposition of all possible states until observed, and that it's the act of observation that forces the system into a single-valued state." Only conscious entities can "observe", mechanisms can measure only by interaction with the system they're measuring, which makes them part of the quantum system.

We *observe*, and the system resolves itself from the prior observed state to the current-observed state.

Without observations, does time really move forward?

Cheers!
wcelliott
QUOTE
\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$
\$\$ ALWAYS THINK IN DOLLERZ \$\$
\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$

I'd rather make sense.
Good Elf
Hi wcelliott, woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, bukh, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Anyway, the deep philosophical paradigm shift that I expect involves our (conscious entities') deep involvement in the fundamental processes of the universe. I interpret the Copenhagen Interpretation as providing the clue. "A system exists in a superposition of all possible states until observed, and that it's the act of observation that forces the system into a single-valued state." Only conscious entities can "observe", mechanisms can measure only by interaction with the system they're measuring, which makes them part of the quantum system.

We *observe*, and the system resolves itself from the prior observed state to the current-observed state.

Without observations, does time really move forward?
I know that it is a point that many want to believe that our conscious minds influence the outcomes of of events proceeding in the World (Universe?). At the most banal level this is quite true. Human History and it's outcomes are due to the influence of individual minds acting together or singularly to create outcomes. This outcome is different from that if mankind never lived or taken breath in this World. However the outcomes on this planet may not have been so interesting if that alternative were true. This is not the action of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Theory but collective social and physical Darwinism. If mankind was a mindless species and did not control the outcomes on this planet eventually something else would "fill the gap".

There is a long period in planetary history in which there were no minds or organisms at all and "we" as a species have only arrived quite lately. Here is a website that allows us to "calculate"...
Comprehending Geologic Time
As an example put in (as Carl Sagan once did in his Cosmos Series) this Earth and it "times" as a "year" or 365 days long... mankind as a species only arrives on the scene on the last day of the year just under 2 hours from midnight. All of recorded human history from before the the time of the Pharaohs to the present is only just the last remaining two seconds before midnight.

Our entire lives therefore represent just a portion of this small residual figure ... a very small portion of this figure... less than a "blink of the eye". So do we have anything to do with the progress of events in our Universe?... it seems implausible to me since so much was needed before us to bring us to this point in time and most of that remains "unplanned" as it was "unobserved".

I do not think of a benevolent G*d acting in this scheme and us being even a small part of that "divinity" so I think that what we represent is the natural Universe and it's relentless struggle against entropy created "us" to allow the Universe to understand itself. This will have happened many times in this long period and in many different places and it will happen many more times as we move into the uncharted future... the number of these races will increase without limit if these races commonly "survive" or we might be "very lonely" if they cannot get along and pursue this "prime directive". I know that there is this urge to "link" and understand others while some do not want to do this... examples of this process can be seen even on this Forum. This time is a property of the change in our Universe everywhere. How many observers and where are they?... Interesting question. We and they are not "individually" essential to this "plan" so nothing stops if there are no observers, it just ceases to make any sense!... To us to them or to "Gaea" our eternal "mother" and whose principle exists always in our Universe directing in each and every process creating being from non-being, sentience from chaos.
Wikipedia: Gaea (Mythology)
Wikipedia: Gaia Hypothesis (Science)
If you must believe in something believe in this.
Good Bacteria - Metaphor of Gaea
We are part of a holographic whole.

Cheers
iseason
Hi guys

Time is a measurement property only.

Motion without space/time is impossible
Space without Motion/time is impossible
Time without space/motion is impossible

Energy is a result of all of the above and is what they are measuring. None of the above actually exist.

Cheers
Iseason
Firtharn
Time is the ultimate observer based construct that you can't convince the observer out of, even though it can be demonstrated to be at best paradoxical.
wcelliott
I'm not a supporter of the Gaia hypothesis, but there are paradoxes in quantum mechanics that lead me to believe that observers (which isn't limited to humans) influence events.

Any conscious entity would influence events, to the degree that the living being is aware of its environment. (Bacteria may be conscious to some extent of their environment.)

According to my interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation, a universe without life would exist in a superposition of all possible universes until life began (in one of the infinite potential versions of that universe), at which point it would become "real".
yor_on
Ah:)
And let there be time?
Or was it light...
Firtharn
Interesting that all fundamental structures of this universe remain superpostional until an intelligence is impacted. Almost as if all of the structures of the universe were positioned to organize and nurture observers.
rethinker
QUOTE (yor_on+Oct 5 2008, 11:52 AM)
Ah:)
And let there be time?
Or was it light...

According to Time Warner it was Let there be Cable TV~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wcelliott
QUOTE
Interesting that all fundamental structures of this universe remain superpostional until an intelligence is impacted. Almost as if all of the structures of the universe were positioned to organize and nurture observers.

It's a variation on the "multiverse" hypothesis. All unobserved universes still "exist" in some form or another.
tlocity
The nature and physical reality of time is simple. The difficulty in accepting the nature of time is age old. The farmer in the Middle Ages could not grasp the concept of the earth spinning and going around the sun. The farmer saw the sun rise in the east and set in the west. It was obvious to him that the sun was going around the earth. Man trusts the subjective viewpoint and has difficulty seeing anything from another viewpoint. Although we think how dumb those farmers of the Middle Ages were not to realize the true nature of the solar system, we continue to think in the same manner today.

We pride ourselves on being able to have an understanding of Relativity and yet it is a more subjective viewpoint then the sun going around the earth. All of this because a subjective observer see the recording of time on a clock to be relative. We then jump in to try to explain how the whole universe is relative.

Just as more observation showed that the viewpoint of the solar system should be from outside of the system and not subjective we now have more observations that show that we should also look at the universe from the outside.

With observations of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe as indicated by redshift and the Cosmic Background Radiation, the view may now be from outside of the universe.

The nature of the expansion of the universe is seen to be other then a spatial transition. The only explanations for the observation of all distant objects moving away from us is that we are the center of the universe or that all objects are moving outward from the Big Bang in a dimension other then any spatial dimension.

It is interesting that God created the universe in a manner that makes us look like we are the center. This is true of the earth center of the solar system or our observation of all distant objects seeming to move away from us. In something of the same way, the concept of relativity more then ever makes us the center of all we survey and in many ways lets us think we are God.

Our perception of time is our transition outward from the Big Bang. The time dimension in mathematics is known to be perpendicular to all the spatial dimension just as we see the motion of distant objects the result of a transition that is perpendicular to all spatial dimensions.

From the math, we also know that the rate of transition is equal to the speed of light. In math, we multiply time by C to use it with the spatial dimensions. This transition outward from the Big Bang become the primary reference for all other functions in the universe.

I hope this helps some of you understand the nature of time.
wcelliott
QUOTE
The time dimension in mathematics is known to be perpendicular to all the spatial dimension just as we see the motion of distant objects the result of a transition that is perpendicular to all spatial dimensions

Glad to see that you remember the math that deals with orthogonality of dimensions. In complex numbers, this is represented by "real" and "imaginary" components, and complex numbers are easily converted to vectors in two dimensions, with the notation of a point in the two-dimensional space being of the form "a+ib", where "i" is the square-root of negative one (an otherwise meaningless term associated with the orthogonality of b to a).

Take the Relativity equation dealing with effective mass as it approaches the speed of light, and you have the 1/sqrt(C^2 - V^2) term. It's infinite (1/0) when C=V, but when V>C, you have an "i" in the equation - indicating orthogonality. Mass becomes "imaginary" to the original frame of reference.

Another way of looking at a black hole is mass accelerating through C at a boundary we call the Event Horizon. That's when you get that "i" in the effective mass term, relative to the original frame of reference. It's also when mass disappears from the original universe (and appears inside the black hole, with momentum), but momentum implies mass and a velocity vector. What direction is "i"?
tlocity

Wcelliott
I do not understand why you are trying to consider time in terms of complex numbers. Time has the simple relation as seen in terms of velocity. Where velocity = meters per second. The orthogonal nature of dimensions is required because of the independent nature of functions in different dimensions. For example, the action in the x dimension can have no effect in the y dimension without some type of transfer device. Time has this uniqueness by the fact that no action in any spatial direction has any effect on the time dimension.

It seems that our lack of ability to have any control of time is the reason that causes many to deny that time is real and has a physical nature.

The position of any object may be given by x,y,z and ct. Time is the absolute time from the Big Bang and c is the rate of transition.

The speed of light is not the limit of the input of energy into a mass object but after the speed of light, the energy turns into radiation.

Black Holes do not absorb mass. Mass as it approaches the black hole is converted into radiation. In fact an equal amount of mass of the black hole is also converted into radiation.
wcelliott
QUOTE
I do not understand why you are trying to consider time in terms of complex numbers.

I'm not, I was just talking about how the Big Bang would leave matter going outward in all directions (inside our universe) if it were actually a black hole sucking matter through a singularity (in another universe).

Time is anybody's guess, but notice that when you see a "wall of text", the only way to get through it is to start at the first word and going through it, word by word. Narratives always have a beginning, a middle, and an end.

Look at the signature block, below, and you'll see the elements of Responsibility. "Foreseeability" implies causality, which implies an arrow to time. Without causality, there's no responsibility. At the quantum level, what does time do when the system isn't under observation?
Good Elf
Hi wcelliott, woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, bukh, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
I'm not a supporter of the Gaia hypothesis, but there are paradoxes in quantum mechanics that lead me to believe that observers (which isn't limited to humans) influence events.

Any conscious entity would influence events, to the degree that the living being is aware of its environment. (Bacteria may be conscious to some extent of their environment.)

According to my interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation, a universe without life would exist in a superposition of all possible universes until life began (in one of the infinite potential versions of that universe), at which point it would become "real".
OK... the Gaea idea is steeped in Mythology (see previous references) but it is a much better theory than the theory of "g*ds" for which there is no scientific support even though a majority of humans support it irrationally. Gaea requires only that the Universe has underlying and emergent counter entropic processes (self organizing emergent life) that ultimately become sentient and discover their own purpose fulfilling the basic principles that have always existed encoded within these mutually supporting fundamental Laws. These Laws we do not know ... and because of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems we probably will never entirely know.
Wikipedia: Gödel's incompleteness theorems
This "favorable outcome" of our Universe could potentially could be predicted if it were possible to model a Universe using a "facsimile" our basic physical Laws and a powerful computer such that these Laws are always existing and driving evolutionary processes to work together and also independently to support life in all it's forms. Wherever and whenever possible given time, suitable conditions and resource... life will emerge not just once but many times... predictably... even intelligent life. The way the Universe is evolving creates these conditions out of the chaos that was before ... the Big Bang... which is obviously not a place for life, consciousness or those "observers". Even a Universe in "superposition" would also be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics so this idea cannot be automatically invoked. All evolutionists must be closet Gaea supporters since the "processes of life" are counter to general Entropy. As Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park said "Life will find a way" expressing the idea that given any chance at all life and even sentience of any kind will fight chaos and overcome in the end to exist and to survive counter to the overall Entropic Principle (Second Law of Thermodynamics) which only predicts gradual increasing chaos in all systems.... Finally the product of this struggle yields beings like us whose purpose is ultimately "to Know"!
Wikipedia: Second law of thermodynamics
The theory of "observers" either always existing or "self inventing" themselves to create the "already existing Universe that billions of years later finally produce them" by an act of "fiat" (... Fiat Lux) I think is a paradox that does not solve this issue. It is just another "g*d theory" in disguise. It is also a strong argument for "Intelligent Design" which is not any kind of science at all but a "Cosmic Watchmaker" kind of "g*d theory". Gaea is "not a G*d"... "she" is "our true mother" of all living things. The "mythology" has existed as long as sentience existed and "predicts" the latter "gnosis"... the coming paradigm... the "stuff of all the legends" and belief in "g*ds". At first the g*ds, myths and legends and later an actual understanding through the Science and it's verification process of Experiments in which the Universe "herself" speaks to us, directly, about "her" origins... A dialog between the Universe and it's sentient creations that will last until all the stars and Galaxies finally "wink out".

Cheers
wcelliott
Still not a supporter of Gaea, and not convinced that the evolution of life is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and certainly not a supporter of "Intelligent Design". In fact, I argue against each whenever the subject comes up. As an engineer, I can appreciate the extreme "engineering" that goes into the stingers of the Australian box jellyfish. The stingers are basically hypodermic needles packed as helical springs, their energy to shoot into flesh coming from the spring being wound against the natural winding of the spring, including torsion wound against the spring's natural state. It isn't the sort of thing any engineer of this day's technology would attempt, far beyond our capabilities. Coupled with this spring stored in a frangible (think "glass") globe requiring a microscope to see it, also contains the most powerful neurotoxic venom in found in nature. It's a marvel of "design", but the net effect is that a barely aware jellyfish has the ability to kill a swimmer in Australian waters with the slightest contact with its hundreds of tendrils.

What godly purpose would such a creature serve?

When Intelligent Design proponents talk about God's creations, they generally limit themselves to good creatures, cute things, like kittens and puppies. They avoid things like box jellyfish or flesh-eating bacteria.

Evolution works (mostly) as Darwin describes. He left out sexual selection, which allows species to make drastic (and whimsical) evolutionary jumps when times are good (food is plenty and predators scarce). In nature's chaos, there are both good times and hard times. In the history of life on this planet, there've been several mass extinctions where otherwise successful creatures have gone completely extinct through no fault of their own. (Vulcanism, drastic climate change, and meteor impacts being three culprits I can think of off-hand.)

But I think we're off-topic. Time at the human scale marches forward, but at the quantum level, it seems to dance back and forth with only a general trend forward that we can perceive.
Firtharn
Only one person in this thread ever stated that observers have always existed or that they had self invented themselves and then created the universe, Goodelf.

It is obvious that this universe has precipitated observers. These observers exorcise deterministic impact on the universe by their mere existence. Observers exist because of every nuance of every interaction from the big bang forward. Why?
Good Elf
Hi wcelliott, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, bukh, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Still not a supporter of Gaea, and not convinced that the evolution of life is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and certainly not a supporter of "Intelligent Design".
[..]
But I think we're off-topic. Time at the human scale marches forward, but at the quantum level, it seems to dance back and forth with only a general trend forward that we can perceive.
In actual fact this discussion is not actually off topic because entropy and time are probably inextricably linked. I believe in an Event Driven Universe... this is John G. Cramer's Hypothesis based on Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (an additional but prior concept compatible with and behind Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics for which he shared in a Nobel Prize). While I agree that there is some "dancing back and forth" this is the entire point that this "dance" leads to complex lifeforms evolving out of "chaos" not to processes leading to further and increasing "chaos". According to the process of the Law of Entropy (quoting the reference above) "In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe. Thus, while a system can undergo some physical process that decreases its own entropy, the entropy of the universe (which includes the system and its surroundings) must increase overall." What this "Law" omits to specify is to categorically define which process Entropy favors and which process entropy does not favor ... In fact "experimentally" we see with life processes the system for living organisms reduces it's own internal entropy spontaneously at the expense of any other system by spontaneously organizing matter from the disorganized matter surrounding it by a general process of "feeding and growth" and eventually to "evolution" through "natural selection". Quoting Darwin does not help elucidate this point. I am a qualified Geophysicist and Geologist and it is just a "simple theory" based on natural observations (... excellent observations to be sure but it is not a theory to explain "life"). No such theory exists yet but it is a correct observation that life exists and needs explanation from basic principles... maybe not now but someday. One "simple" idea that encapsulates this "collective principle" is Gaea. This explains why the box jellyfish in your example and humans exist as part of that general process of an ecosystem of the Earth. The earth is not created for man and his whims it is a collective process that favors life of which man is only a part. Darwin was a "Minister of the Cloth" and he did not question "why" life is here (G*d put it here!), he only suggested that a process of natural selection occurred to these already living entities. This "natural selection" implies a struggle and a fitness of purpose to exist that is not explained by fundamental existing laws. How this purpose might "strive" at the single molecule level is not known. What we know is this is where life came from (single isolated molecules) now go explain DNA and sexual and asexual replication and the self organization in cells from basic principles with some kind of "mathematical completeness"? "Oops... can't go there... that's taboo since "g*d" created life!".... Not!!

Can you or anyone prove that life is "inevitable" given the initial conditions of the "Big Bang". Random events in nature... purely random events... technically cannot advance the purpose of life since they are by definition "random". This is the underlying hypothesis beneath quantum theory... no exceptions and no omissions. Now... I question this interpretation on ontological grounds alone... it is "wrong"... a child can see this given even simple observations. Others simply put it into the "too hard" basket because they are "closet true believers". So you either believe in a "G*d" or you have a theory "for something else" which you and many others prefer to leave "open". I suggest this is not a tenable position for Scientists. You must come up with a theory about why after a period of time that some systems self organize into "beings like us" that strive to Understand their own existence? Presently we only have examples from our own world to work with so this "theory" is still about just our world. This Gaea theory provides the answer though not a full theory because we cannot know this entirely because of our limited understanding and the structure of our logic as described by Gödel.

If you read some more on the Wikipedia article on the Second Law of Thermodynamics...
Wikipedia: Second law of thermodynamics
You will see a section on life and how time is all part of this overall problem. If we want to solve the mystery of time we must understand "fundamentally" what it means to be here and how the system "works". See the section on "Time's Arrow". This attempt to prove the Second Law of Thermodynamics from first principles failed for some very good reasons (stated below) and this leads to Loschmidt's Paradox where all the Laws of Quantum Physics are reversible yet time does not spontaneously reverse and the technical inability to derive the Second law of Thermodynamics from basic principles alone. Boltzmann attempted to prove that the increase in entropy was inevitable but failed...
It is possible to prove that Boltzmann's H_Theorem is incorrect and the statement "Reversible laws of motion cannot explain why we experience our world to be in such a comparatively low state of entropy at the moment (compared to the equilibrium entropy of universal heat death); and to have been at even lower entropy in the past" is true. What is presently acknowledged as being missing from an understanding of this "phenomenon" is an understanding of "quantum correlation" and of course this leads inevitably to "quantum entanglement" which correlates things in our universe "instantly" connecting distant events by a non-local influence. This can lead to some ideas like that of David Bohm's "Holographic Universe"... a possible missing piece in the jigsaw.

Next there is the section "Applications to living systems" including the statement "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics" and goes on to confirm this is incompatible with the philosophy of Creationists and presumably the theories of the "Intelligent Design" closet believers in a "g*d". So "Gaea" is still a "good scientific bet"! This is because any distributed system that self regulates itself like this by long distance correlation and organization might be viewed by some as a general description of an organism... Human Beings and other living creatures are "organisms" composed of many diverse cooperating cells and chemical substances... both "good" and "bad"... "native" and "foreign" to our being... all required for a holistic operating internal "ecosystem" that all belong to the organism and require and utilize chemical processes with a "long range" entangled "goals" (see that reference on "Good Bacteria" above and here).
Good Bacteria - Metaphor of Gaea
The Earth is full of these systems and the living crust of the earth supports and sustains them down to many Kilometers deep into our world. The atmosphere and the temperature and the various systems interacting seemingly collectively to sustain all life... and in the end... our slowly emerging questioning minds.

All I ask is that people are consistent in their beliefs and that scientists substantiate their "irrational" beliefs with scientific experiments or be prepared to discard them and replace them with something more "substantial". No pressure from me... I don't need this argument. I can point to direct experiment and theoretical analysis to substantiate this view... Perhaps not all of it but a substantial part of it. Maybe we will never have "enough" to convince all ... that does not worry me and it is not my problem.

Cheers

PS: Hi Firtharn... I still think there it is difficult for a scientist to maintain there were "observers" at the Big Bang (in that sense of "minds" observing our "creation"). Your statement alone "It is obvious that this universe has precipitated observers" means they were not there at T=0. Remember science has no exceptions and no additions. We "run" with the "best" theory we currently have and do not try and sneak out from under it by "waving our hands" in a "gesture" and saying "etc.. etc.. "

In the Beginning... there was only Gaea... no observers. Occam's Razor says ... "Only Gaea then why do we need observers?"
Firtharn
I imagine you really could have this discussion without the hindrance of any of the rest of us observers since it seems you read whatever you want, regardless of what was written. My fault anyway for responding off topic.
Good Elf
Hi Firtharn,

The theory of Gaea is not my theory and it has been analyzed by many others. "What I want" is some logically consistent view around which to organize my life and others are free to choose what they will for their lives. I am just adding my 5 cents worth for your consideration.. It is all up to you if you wish to consider it. As I stated entropy and time and thus Gaea are "arguably" not "off topic".

All current observations of our Universe indicate it is "event driven". A model of time based on "events" seems highly probable.

You have not explained what you interpret as your "observer" and what does "exorcise" have to do with this process... do you mean "exercise"? I have indicated that this observer is the observer in many quantum processes proposed by some as being a "mind". If not "mind" should this be called an "observer" and why?

As to being able to have a discussion without others ... I doubt that? As to reading whatever I want regardless of what is written... Interesting statement but you need to be understandable and more specific about what you think I have misinterpreted.

Perhaps you are not looking for anything in what I am saying ... that's OK!

Thanks for your response - I see this is something new for you and I hope you will contribute again.
Cheers
wcelliott
Hi, all.

I'm a fan of Feynman's, and have read his book on QED. I'm also an engineer, so I'm familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics doesn't generally apply to quantum systems for the very reason we've been discussing - It isn't a Law that's derived from quantum principles, it's a "Law" in the sense that at the "Classical Physics" realm, we see no exceptions.

People tend to get confused when discussing life and describing it as counter to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, life obeys the Second Law routinely. We eat food that's appetizing and takes a lot of energy to prepare properly, then generate waste that we'd rather not even think about. Right there, we're acting just like any engine, burning fuel and creating exhaust. Second Law in full-effect.

Not meaning to offend anyone's sensibilities, I'm a believer in God, myself, but I believe in the God of Spinoza, as Einstein did, God the enforcer of natural laws (and in this case, the Ultimate Observer), but my beliefs aren't relevant to the topic, IMO.
iseason

Deleted

Iseason
yor_on
Yes Good Elf.
Your reasoning comes near my own.
Even though you seem to go another way to prove it.
Your thoughts around entropy is very interesting.

To me it is the 'scale differences' that makes me wonder.
That and natures way of self organization.

They seem to fit together.
Somewhat like fractals and chaos.

As for observing creates the universe?
Well, we who discuss it can't help but observe, can we:)
So to me its like a 'closed circuit', sort of.
What we do know is that we have no way of discussing what might be if there were no observers.
Good Elf
Hi yor_on, wcelliott, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, dimazin, bukh, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (yor_on+)
Your reasoning comes near my own.
Thanks for the complement. Time is a strange thing so Entropy is also a very strange thing too.

QUOTE (yor_on+)
As for observing creates the universe?
Well, we who discuss it can't help but observe, can we:)
So to me its like a 'closed circuit', sort of.
What we do know is that we have no way of discussing what might be if there were no observers.
We are certainly observers ... now! "Our Universe" is one of observation and reflection. There is a function difference between the Universe of events and the universe of superimposed wave states in which state collapses create events. There seems to be no smooth transition there. The unobserved states span the space they occupy while the observed states are localized both in time and place.

Cheers
dimazin
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 2 2008, 11:36 AM)
I see nothing "illogical" in that. If you could put your point a little better maybe you might like to debate it?

Hi kind Good Elf.

Let's consider mental experiment: the First brother-twin has left the Earth with speed = v
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2=10
The second brother has remained on the Earth. In ten years the first brother has again come nearer to the Earth., then the second brother has left the Earth and has met the first in system of calculus of the first brother. Who is more older for nine years? According to logic of the relativity the first. Really the second. The relativity is main enemy of development.
overd0g
QUOTE (woodroyd+Sep 22 2008, 04:46 PM)
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.

We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.

There is no such thing as time. Only spacetime.
wcelliott
QUOTE
There seems to be no smooth transition there. The unobserved states span the space they occupy while the observed states are localized both in time and place.

Cheers

I think I'd have put it somewhat differently, that the unobserved states span the space-time they occupy...

Hawking has recently commented that the universe in the moments after the "Big Bang", being unobserved, existed in a superposition of all possible states. In this instance, I suspect he's right.

After all, when we look through telescopes, we're not just looking at things happening far away, but far back in time, as well.

I don't know of anyone who's working the issue of whether quantum entanglement spans time as well as space, but it'd seem odd to me if it didn't.
yor_on
" I don't know of anyone who's working the issue of whether quantum entanglement spans time as well as space, but it'd seem odd to me if it didn't. "
What a lovely idea :)
I have a vauge memory of a 'two slit' experiment I read about testing for something similar.
As I remember it they found a correlation between events in time that could be read as if the photons could communicate 'both ways'.
And no, I don't have the link anymore, my old computer is by now melted down to be resurrected as a hhh 'whatever' :)
But maybe some other recognize it?
bukh
wcelliott

QUOTE: "I don't know of anyone who's working the issue of whether quantum entanglement spans time as well as space, but it'd seem odd to me if it didn't."

Yes - absolutely.

If one define space as something consisting of matter - be it physical matter in the conventional way or be it space-fabric - the discrete medium that expresses physical matter - then time and matter is intimately connected - in that time best can be seen as a strictly derived function - as the ordering process that qualify the successive flash expressions in space - be it observed or unobserved. Observation implicate that observed timeline is always retarded to the objective time-line or universal time line - and observed time is measured with yardsticks that is equivalent to the changes observed or perhaps one better say the changes that are being sampled and retrieved.

These points are being dealt with among others in the 3D pixel universe idea.
wcelliott
QUOTE
These points are being dealt with among others in the 3D pixel universe idea.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this concept imply some sort of "universal aether/ether"?
yor_on
An entangled particle is more difficult to accept for me than an entangled wave :)

A photon is 'split' in two through a prism creating 'mirror images' of itself.
" The PDC crystal reduces each photon frequency in half, since energy etc. must be conserved the only way a crystal can do that is to spit out two photons for every one that comes in. Here the “spin” entanglement shows up in the alignment of polarization. "

But when we talk about particles we go the other way, taking apart a system in where the spin neuter itself out between particles and then moving those particles spatially from each other while still defining them as being entangled if I got it right.

Anyway, as I don't have that experiment available anymore, the only one I know of as for now is this.
wcelliott
QUOTE
An entangled particle is more difficult to accept for me than an entangled wave

It is a challenging concept.

Have you heard of the "dual-slit" experiment, where you send a laser beam towards two slits and get the fringes that imply the photons from one slit constructively/destructively interfere with each other? It's easily explained by using the "wave" part of the "particle/wave duality" concept.

Only a couple of problems with that explanation, though.

You can turn down the laser until you only have a single photon going through the experimental apparatus and still get the exact same fringe pattern. Each photon is somehow splitting itself into two pieces, going through both slits at the same time. Still, it supports the "wave" part of the "particle/wave duality" concept, it just makes you assume that each photon's energy can somehow be split in half (which kinda contradicts the "quantum" part of Quantum Mechanics).

The only other problem with that explanation, though, is that you can replace the laser with a coherent electron beam and get the same phenomenon. Fringes where electrons cancel each other out. But electrons have a known rest mass, making them as material as any solid thing in the universe. If you think about it, you've probably never touched anything other than electrons in your life, as they're on the outside of every atom. Solid as solid can be, yet obeys the same laws as photons.

BTW, Bose-Einstein Condensates also display fringe-behavior when they collide. All atoms, but coherent (in the very definition of a Bose-Einstein Condensate).
yor_on
Can you give me a link to that experiment wcelliott?

If you draw it out to its 'end' it could mean that one photon is enough for a wave interference to be shown, and that would be news to me :)

Also it seems to imply that the slits here act the same as a prism.
Either that or that 'many paths' are a real phenomena.
And that 'two' paths can coexist in the same observation.

This one though?
"The only other problem with that explanation, though, is that you can replace the laser with a coherent electron beam and get the same phenomenon. Fringes where electrons cancel each other out. But electrons have a known rest mass, making them as material as any solid thing in the universe. If you think about it, you've probably never touched anything other than electrons in your life, as they're on the outside of every atom. Solid as solid can be, yet obeys the same laws as photons."

are we still referring to the same experiment.
One electron possibly creating a wave interference?
I really need to read about that one :)

And yes, I seem to have missed colliding Boise Einstein Condensates too.

Cough it up.
the experiments I mean...
Ah, to me I mean :)

Well at least the links.
eyeque
Remember Enschwine's so called friends!!!! Boise Condensation equals Hebrew snout signus secretion on the dotted line `Nose flegmentation'.
yor_on
Yeah I know.
Bo..I..se(e) was it huh :)

-----------
Ah well.
'Probing a Bose-Einstein condensate with an atom laser'?
Is that what you were talking about?
yor_on
Or possibly this?
"The fermions show "anti-bunching" (see "dégroupement" for a French version), i.e. a tendency to avoid each other, due purely to quantum statistical effects. Interactions between the atoms are entirely negligible. This antibunching effect is reminiscent of antibunching of photons, but it is different in that the Pauli exclusion principle (or the exchange anti-symmetry of wavefunctions) forbids more than one atom to occupy the same phase space cell, and thus antibunching is unavoidable.

We have also demonstrated that a diverging atomic lens in the form of a blue-detuned, focussed laser beam, can be used to change the size of the atom source as viewed from the detector. Decreasing the source size and increases the correlation length at the detector. Since the antibunching contrast is limited by the detector resolution, which is not small compared to the correlation length, the defocussing technique allows us to increase the anti-bunching contrast."

anti bunching do seem to produce something similar, but you wrote, if i understand you right, that this 'fringe behavior' would be a wave interference so?

As I understand it this groupings are created according to the Pauli exclusion principle
Which states that " each electron in an atom has a unique set of quantum numbers (the principle quantum number which gives its energy level, the magnetic quantum number which gives the direction of orbital angular momentum, and the spin quantum number which gives the direction of its spin).
If this principle did not hold, all of the electrons in an atom would pile up in the lowest energy state (the K shell). In fact, we now know that that the Pauli exclusion principle holds for not just electrons but for any fermions (half-integer spin particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, muons, and many more.) "

Do you see it as something else?
yor_on
Well :)
That's what it is BF.

As you well know.
Walls of text.
Good Elf
Hi dimazin, yor_on, wcelliott, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, bukh, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (dimazin Oct 9 2008+ 01:23 AM)
Let's consider mental experiment: the First brother-twin has left the Earth with speed = v 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2=10
The second brother has remained on the Earth. In ten years the first brother has again come nearer to the Earth., then the second brother has left the Earth and has met the first in system of calculus of the first brother. Who is more older for nine years? According to logic of the relativity the first. Really the second. The relativity is main enemy of development.
This is always an prickly issue with some since the effects of "General Relativity" and these often quoted "Special Relativity" results are not vectors but scaler quantities. The equation you provided does not actually provide any equalities as shown. Look at the bottom equation shown on this image...
de Broglie and Einstein Equations
This is the effect of time dilation (very simple actually)... Along with "length contraction" are the "real effects" of Special Relativity. Please note that these are "observations" that span two differentially moving rest frames, separated by a relative velocity v, and are not related to any single frame observation. All the other "often quoted" effects cited as "Relativity" are actually simple optical phenomena due to relative proper motion and "dispersion" effects and phenomena due to single observer frame "distortions" and due to a lack of or access to simultaneous observations and recordings in a frame.

Assuming a "Lorentz factor" of 10 then you can see that the time dilation depends directly on "duration". Given that "factor" due to a very short epoch of acceleration (a sudden boost), the "differences" in time (which are amounts) depends on proper time in the frame (where it presumably "coasts" at uniform velocity). It is only relevant if this "boost" is not able to bring the two frames together... in this case it will. There are two "boosts"... the first boost happens at T=0 and lasts (coasts) 1 year in the boosted frame. At home 10 years "pass". After 10 years at home the "stay at home twin" is accelerated (boosted) "up" to the frame of the moving twin and the scaler effect is the same as if the initially accelerated twin was de-accelerated "down" to his sibling. The amount of time "coasting" after acceleration for the second sibling is zero so the amount of difference in time for that process is zero. The time differential remains 1 year to 10 years as expected. Subsequent calculations are irrelevant since the two clocks and travelers are now in the same frame.

Relativity only "usually" tells us how to measure "differences" between frames which are in "relative" motion. In passing... It is a "favorite hobby horse" of mine to discuss the influences of Relativity in the "near field" in the one inertial frame... the low velocity end of Relativity and the influence of de Broglie's Matter Waves... as noted in the first equation (The de Broglie-Einstein Relationship) in the reference image with equations above. Returning... We can "define a time" in the one frame only. A definition that defines time "between" frames only has meaning if a synchronization time has been provided along the way. At that time you "must" conclude that the times are then the same at that one point in time. This is what "relativity" actually means... everything is "relative". There is no technical difference between acceleration and de-acceleration in relativity... it is only a 'convention" of how the direction in space the acceleration is orientated. The direction in time is always the same, time's arrow is always forward in Relativity, only it's relative magnitude can be affected. Just remember these "calculations" relate only to differences between frames and have no "absolute" implications. There is no "absolute time" and we need to define that clock synchronization phase in all cases for any meaning to be ascribed to this process.

Where does all of this come from? General Relativity states that all acceleration is equivalent (General Principle of Equivalence). Inertial acceleration and gravitational acceleration are therefore identical. "Immersion" in a "gravity well" is the same as an acceleration up to a velocity. In that sense a red shift due to inertial acceleration is the same as a red shift due to gravity. This could be provided by being in orbit immersed "some depth" in the "gravity well" around a black hole... just don't ruin this experiment and go in!! While in free fall around the black hole the probe or an astronaut and his clock are "weightless" and "falling freely" but the immersed clock is "red shifted" relative to the "stay at home" clock (and astronaut). It is also subjected to proper motion optical effects which distract many and IMHO are not the "main game" for Relativity. As an extreme example consider the Jet emanating from a Black Hole in M87 and it's "apparent" superluminal velocity. The accelerations will occur by inserting a probe containing a clock into this gravity well and time relative to that clock compared with a clock left behind outside the major portion of the "well" will run "relatively" slow. You have a choice to allow this clock on the outside to join the clock on the inside or to "pull" the clock in the gravity well out of the hole to join the clock outside the hole. This is "substantially the same" (one clock joins the other clock) the accelerated clock runs "relatively slow" but only for the period subsequent to the acceleration and only for differing frames of reference. Naturally when one clock "joins" the other (no matter how this happens) the frames will now be subsequently the same so no further "differential time" or time dilation will occur. This happens to all differentially accelerated clocks regardless of how they are accelerated. We also note this is "primarily" a General Relativistic Effect though it is easy to calculate using Special Relativity.

Please note there are also some optical effects (as noted above) due to proper motion that "self resolve" once you bring the clock together into the one frame. Consider the optical processes as being related to a similar phenomena as placement of a lens and this analogy has it's parallel in "Einstein's Rings".
Wikipedia: Einstein Ring

Cheers
wcelliott
QUOTE
Can you give me a link to that experiment wcelliott?

I don't know if there's one place on-line that spells it out like that, but I got it from Feynman's "Five Easy Pieces" CD set, which was made from recordings of his physics lectures. I think they found another tape, because it's now being sold as "Six Easy Pieces", IIRC. It was the fifth CD of the five-CD set, where Feynman described the two-slit experiment, but pointed out that every common-sense explanation of it (esp., that generally taught in most other college Physics 101 classes) was fundamentally wrong, and that there was still mystery even in the interpretation of the two-slit experiment.

Oh, I lucked-out.

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Can you give me a link to that experiment wcelliott?

I don't know if there's one place on-line that spells it out like that, but I got it from Feynman's "Five Easy Pieces" CD set, which was made from recordings of his physics lectures. I think they found another tape, because it's now being sold as "Six Easy Pieces", IIRC. It was the fifth CD of the five-CD set, where Feynman described the two-slit experiment, but pointed out that every common-sense explanation of it (esp., that generally taught in most other college Physics 101 classes) was fundamentally wrong, and that there was still mystery even in the interpretation of the two-slit experiment.

Oh, I lucked-out.

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself — even though there is only one photon present. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)

"Richard Feynman was fond of saying that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned from carefully thinking through the implications of this single experiment."[7]

Good Elf
Hi yor_on, wcelliott, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, bukh, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
QUOTE (yor_on+)
An entangled particle is more difficult to accept for me than an entangled wave

It is a challenging concept.

Have you heard of the "dual-slit" experiment, where you send a laser beam towards two slits and get the fringes that imply the photons from one slit constructively/destructively interfere with each other? It's easily explained by using the "wave" part of the "particle/wave duality" concept.

Only a couple of problems with that explanation, though.

You can turn down the laser until you only have a single photon going through the experimental apparatus and still get the exact same fringe pattern. Each photon is somehow splitting itself into two pieces, going through both slits at the same time. Still, it supports the "wave" part of the "particle/wave duality" concept, it just makes you assume that each photon's energy can somehow be split in half (which kinda contradicts the "quantum" part of Quantum Mechanics).

The only other problem with that explanation, though, is that you can replace the laser with a coherent electron beam and get the same phenomenon. Fringes where electrons cancel each other out. But electrons have a known rest mass, making them as material as any solid thing in the universe. If you think about it, you've probably never touched anything other than electrons in your life, as they're on the outside of every atom. Solid as solid can be, yet obeys the same laws as photons.

BTW, Bose-Einstein Condensates also display fringe-behavior when they collide. All atoms, but coherent (in the very definition of a Bose-Einstein Condensate).

QUOTE (yor_on+)
Can you give me a link to that experiment wcelliott?

The consideration of the concept of "particle" IMHO is unnecessarily complicated. Once you accept that energy is quantized then the emission and reception of that energy is also quantized. The ability of a "particle" to pass through two apertures is "daft" while the ability of a wave to pass through two apertures in a wall is "obvious". The idea of spreading is not accounted for in the concept of "particle" while the concept of "waves" spreading is clear. The problem should be considered in two steps... the first step is to convince yourself we are speaking not of"particles" but wave packets... packets of "encapsulated energy" traveling at the speed of light. These carry phase information from the source due to "correlation". And then consider how these interact with out world. Photons one at a time travel in modes... they do not travel as "particles"... particles cannot travel "conceptually" in a mode.
Wikipedia: Transverse Mode
Once you understand this you see why you have the Young's Double Slit or actually two pinhole experiment is simply the superposition of "several of these modes" as a composition in three dimensions to provide the result. In the case of Young's experiment we compose two slit arrays of sources and the result is then "obvious". For instance a "slit" is a series of linearly arranged pinhole sources as an "array". Any pattern of these "coherent" sources can be "constructed" or "assembled" like Lego Blocks to provide any phenomena in the world we like. This is the essence of Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics. This is based squarely on underlying classical wave theory that works very well but is not couched in quantum terms. Here is the reference to see what it means if people have "forgotten" or more likely never taught this theory being very a serious omission to their studies.
Three Experiments in One - Fraunhofer Diffraction
Along with Fresnel Diffraction form a consistent non-quantum theory. This idea though is ht basis of Feynman's Many Paths QED.

The "mode" is exactly the same kind of thing as the eigenstate that standing waves take up in space in cavities. The superposition of modes due to sources provide all the solutions to waves in space everywhere. These have nothing to do with traveling particles and cannot be understood in terms of particles or their movements since photons do not travel in "rays"... a misconception that has been passed on for years from physics concocted to explain light phenomena to children in the lower classes in school. Observe this device ... the Fourier Optical Processor for Optically Filtering Analog Images.
Optical Fourier Processor
It is very clear that light rays are not the explanation for the operation of these devices. Light "spreads" as "eigenstates" in cavities. The modes are a spatial indication of the way in which each and every photon actually spreads and the way they are absorbed as quanta at one point is the resolution of the transfer of energy "in packets".

The double slit experiment is simply the superposition of the interference pattern for one slit (at a particular frequency) adjacent to the emission from the second slit. The vectorial sum of the two "uncollapsed" sinc functions (zeroth order Bessel Functions) point by point results in the DSE pattern as an inner product summed over a "slit" for a series of distributed source 'points". The sinc functions (Sin(x)/x) are only the zeroth order Bessel terms. The resolution to any case of a real oscillator has all orders of Bessel functions as we understand for all atomic oscillators which are solutions on a sphere for the generalized spherical harmonic oscillator.

The upshot is each photon spreads as a wavelet "packet" and travels all paths as Feynman would say. Actually it spreads as a single cavity mode and finally "collapses" to a point sink in exactly the statistical way calculated using QED. If each and every site sink are equivalent then over a large number of events they "mark out" an eigenstate mode.
Double slit pattern "developed" from a single slit pair of patterns superimposed and spatially "beating" as separate eigenstates superimposed
Just "ditch" the idea of particles and accept that we have "waves" and everything makes a lot of sense since single wavelets spread and self interfere even when passing through several secondary sources "coherently" (as in Young's Experiment). Actually there is nothing mysterious about this "quantum process" at all except that the development has been made along "particle" lines not wavelet lines. It has been shown mathematically "equivalent" and this is no "surprise" that people are very confused.

Cheers
dimazin
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 10 2008, 11:28 PM)

Hi kind Good Elf.
That is confused and is not clear. We should forbid the relativity. We should hunt tricksters.
wcelliott
QUOTE
Just "ditch" the idea of particles and accept that we have "waves" and everything makes a lot of sense

Ironically, I think Feynman's point was exactly the opposite. He argued that photons were particles when emitted and particles when they hit, and that since Young's two-slit experiment works the same when you use things like atoms, that the "wave" part of the wave-particle duality was the thing that should be abandoned.

But since the math works out the same either way, it may well be that it's all in the way that you look at it.

It's still a bit easier for me to wrap my head around solids being made up of particles than waves, but I haven't a decent explanation for momentum in my own toy theory that starts with the premise that space is where particles can be, and particles are where space isn't. Particles are merely "holes" in space. Unclear why a rip in the fabric of space-time would continue to propagate, ripping the space ahead and the space behind mending itself, all without loss of energy. Still, just because I can't figure it out, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

But back to the matter of time.

Two-D holographic patterns can create 3-D images of objects, but what about patterns in space-time? Can time be one of those two dimensions that can be used to create a 3-D image (or perhaps a 2D+Time image)? We may be rediscovering something stumbled across by Wiccans and Aborigines and Native American "witch doctors" - that chanting or some repetitive action/ritual can influence the future.
Good Elf

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Just "ditch" the idea of particles and accept that we have "waves" and everything makes a lot of sense

Ironically, I think Feynman's point was exactly the opposite. He argued that photons were particles when emitted and particles when they hit, and that since Young's two-slit experiment works the same when you use things like atoms, that the "wave" part of the wave-particle duality was the thing that should be abandoned.

But since the math works out the same either way, it may well be that it's all in the way that you look at it.
Don't get me wrong. Feynman's explanation is a particle paradigm. It works and works well as far as it goes. The wavelet and particle paradigm can give the same answer and it was thought that because that particle paradigm gave the answers that the wave paradigm gave then they were the same. Nothing could be further from the truth since this is why it is having trouble explaining some non-local phenomena nowadays such as entanglement.

There have been many tests of various properties of "non-locality" but the most convincing one is this following example. Here is a recent experiment that shows how this causes a testable situation and shows "entanglement" and "non-locality" are the one "associated" phenomenon and also the idea that entangled particles are in one sense the "same particle" by virtue of "non-locality". Particle theories are local theories and non-locality has to be "bolted on" while wave let theories work by starting from the premise of non-locality.
Nonlocality of a Single Particle Demonstrated Without Objections
Here we can 'possibly understand", without theoretical objection, where a single particle is "non-local" and influence can appear in two places on one particle simultaneously. It is "almost clear" that "fields pervading space" are more fundamental than the idea of discrete "billiard ball" like particle. Download this paper for free from here...
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/3549/1/dunninghamj1.pdf
The idea that a single "particle" can be non-local boggles standard quantum theory yet waves can spread into several instruments before they collapse in one point and be local. The experiment has been 'conceptually" extended to atoms and other quantum objects with mass but it is critical to understand that the photon (and by virtue of de Broglie's matter wave theory) is an entirely "non-local" object.

Cheers

PS: I can provide other examples of "wavelet nature" that cannot be explained by the assumption of "particles".
yor_on
Thanks Wcelliott :)
It's interesting reading you all.
--------

A question (they never ends:)

Did Feynman then see it as particles using the concept of 'many paths' to establish its path in that 'one photon' experiment.
But if that experiment then showed an 'interference pattern' doesn't that mean that there must be two paths available in the same dimension and at the same 'time'.
If so, do that indicate that he was serious on it being a very real way of 'communicating' propagation, not just a way of mathematical description.

As if you have an endless simultaneous rack of points in 3D + time.
And they all were filled with the value of 'existing' for each probability of motion of each observation you choose to make.
(Which naturally leads to the question of what's deciding the outcome of your observation.)

Furthermore, even though we 'in particle mode' macro-wise only can see/observe one 'turn out' per observation.
In QM we actually seem to observe two possible paths 'materializing' as one observation in that one photon/interference experiment.
If all 'pathways' or 'possible points' in our universe is already filled with the 'being/existing' outcome of every observation we choose to make, then what chooses?

Times arrow?
That's not a good answer enough.
We have 'statistics' to prove the probability of a certain outcome.
That to me implies that we have a certain 'something' limiting the outcomes we observe in 'time'.
So what is the delimiter here?
Times arrow and?

-----------

As always, I forgot :)
And how can we observe two outcomes as one observation in QM (one photon/interference)
wcelliott
QUOTE
a single particle is "non-local" and influence can appear in two places on one particle simultaneously. It is "almost clear" that "fields pervading space" are more fundamental than the idea of discrete "billiard ball" like particle. Download this paper for free from here...

Interesting that we discuss the "non-locality" aspect of particles, especially in this thread, where we've already mentioned Bose-Einstein Condensates, and my objections to the conventional interpretation of their characteristics.

In my simplistic "space is where particles can be, and particles are where space isn't" perspective, a BEC is a very interesting phenomenon. Einstein's "Relativity" (the book he wrote) states quite clearly, in lay-men's terms, that part of his derivation of relativity rested on the notion that the very concept of two events separated in space could be considered as happening "simultaneously" was nonsensical.

When I first read about Wolfgang Ketterle actually producing a period-sized BEC in his lab, I e-mailed him (calling his university to get his e-mail address) and congratulated him on his discovery. His reply indicated that he was either being very humble or hadn't fully grasped the significance of his discovery. A BEC is a collection of atoms that, once cooled to a low enough temperature, coalesces into a single-valued quantum state. This means that you can't do anything to one side of that BEC without doing the same thing to the other side at the same time.

By definition, a BEC's *surface* is always in a state of "simultaneity".

This is an exception to the foundation of Relativity, the most annoying aspect of which is that it precludes acceleration (of things with mass) to the speed of light. Star Trek fan that I was, I've always been looking for a way around the cosmic speed limit. (Actually, it's the *second* most annoying aspect of Relativity, the first being trying to answer questions like "If I'm driving my car at the speed of light and hit my high-beams, what happens?")

Anyway, I replied to Ketterle's ambiguous e-mail pointing out the discrepancy between BECs and Relativity, suggesting he look for gravitation or temporal anomalies in the space "local" to the BEC, and his reply made it clear that he wasn't humble at all, and that he considered my point to be of the "high-beams at C" variety and told me to leave him alone. Which I did, and he later measured the speed of light "through" a BEC and found it was 46mph. Which he apparently stated with a straight face, because he ended up with the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery. I didn't get a transcript of his acceptance speech, but I'm fairly certain my name didn't come up.

The reason I say "with a straight face" is that in basic physics there's a principle, based on the Conservation of Momentum, couched in optical terms, which describes how much light penetrates a barrier between two media of different indices of refraction. (The index of refraction of a material is simply the ratio of the speed of light in free space to the speed of light in the material. Glass has an index of refraction of about 1.5. No normal materials go as high as 3.0) A BEC's index of refraction would be about 17,000,000.

The light "penetrating" the BEC would have to traverse two such boundaries, and I forget offhand whether there's another squared term in the equation, but the amount of light that'd make it's way through would be diminished by at least 17,000,000 *squared*.

So how f*ing bright *was* this laser he used to measure the speed of light "inside" a BEC, anyway?

My simplistic view about particles "being where space isn't" actually leads to another simplistic explanation about how BECs surfaces are "non-local" by definition, and that the term "non-local" can be equated to meaning "not here". As in, the atoms that made up the BEC disappear from this universe while leaving the BEC behind as a "hole" in our space.

The simultaneity at the BEC's surface would also imply that BECs conduct gravity the way that superconductors conduct electricity.

Anybody remember that "foil" material they said they found at Roswell, which they could crumble up but not make it stay wrinkled? Wrinkling is a local phenomenon. The stress at the wrinkle exceeds the materials elastic limit, while the material adjacent to the wrinkle's elastic limit isn't exceeded, so it springs back more or less flat. Kinda odd that a farm-hand's imagination could come up with a fish-story that interesting.

But if a material could be made that had this "non-local/not-here" property, and you used it to encapsulate a spacecraft, maybe it wouldn't be subject to the Relativistic Speed Limit of C, as its surface wouldn't actually "be here" in this universe, and could conduct the gravitational/temporal restrictions of Relativity around what's inside.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for Ketterle's apology, but I'm not holding my breath.

Arrow of Time - Doesn't seem to exist at the quantum level, something that frustrates theoretical physicists more than it does me. It kicks-in when we're talking about macroscopic systems where the Laws of Thermodynamics apply. Then you get entropy and all that, and entropy *is* linked to the arrow of time. In quantum systems, it isn't clear that time has a specific arrow. The conventional (particle) interpretation of antiparticles like positrons (as proposed by Feynman) is that a positron is a time-reversed electron. It has an arrow, and it's pointing the wrong way. Feynman's whole point in raising the dual-slit experiment was to illustrate to his students that we haven't figured everything out yet, and the points Yor_on raises are still mysterious.

Sorry for the "Wall of Text", but I find this topic very interesting.
yor_on
No Wcelliot, I find the wall of text intriguing.
And I like your imagination:)

As for your ideas about wrinkles and hulls I do not know.
But I know that when you stop molecules and photons by laser you freeze them.
That as a absolute absence of motion inside a molecule is a definition of absolute coldness if I'm right, and that you stop by using lasers.

You don't stop photons, you cool Atoms. That you do by using laser cooling. When you want to go further you need Cooling by magnetic trapping. And this will give the pre-requisites for a Bose Einstein Condensation. (One can also read this one. It is rather nice with some cool Java™ examples.)

But your question about the energy/brightness of that laser makes sense.
It would have to keep its energy traversing the ultracold condensate,
Also wouldn't this intrusion break the state that existed before?

" My simplistic view about particles "being where space isn't" actually leads to another simplistic explanation about how BECs surfaces are "non-local" by definition,
and that the term "non-local" can be equated to meaning "not here".
As in, the atoms that made up the BEC disappear from this universe while leaving the BEC behind as a "hole" in our space. "

How do you come to this conclusion?
Do you see a BEC as some kind of negation of our spacetime?
Even though we can 'restart' the photons?

"The simultaneity at the BEC's surface would also imply that BECs conduct gravity the way that superconductors conduct electricity."

That at least I will have to think on:)
Btw: When we have stopped the electrons movement, what will we see?

------------

About how that laser might had been allowed to traverse that condensation?
could it have had anything to do with this?

"If an atom is traveling toward a laser beam and absorbs a photon from the laser, it will be slowed (..Read cooled here..)
by the fact that the photon has momentum p = E/c = h/λ.

A conceptual problem is that an absorption can also speed up an atom if it catches it from behind, so it is necessary to have more absorptions from head-on photons if your goal is to slow down the atoms.
This is accomplished in practice by tuning the laser slightly below the resonance absorption of a stationary sodium atom.
From the atom's perspective, the headon photon is seen as Doppler shifted upward toward its resonant frequency and it therefore more strongly absorbed than a photon traveling in the opposite direction which is Doppler shifted away from the resonance."

Just a thought.
bukh
Hi all

QUOTE wcelliott: "This is an exception to the foundation of Relativity, the most annoying aspect of which is that it precludes acceleration (of things with mass) to the speed of light".

Sorry for intruding - and perhaps it is off topic - and if that is the case please ignore.

I have always been intrigued by the question about what a particle is - yes, what IS a particle ?

I like to think that everything best can be seen as waveexpressions - and that waves can show patterns that are particle-like.

So the question about wave-particle duality is solely a question about the pattern - how the waves propagate relative to the observational frame.

And this brings us back to the annoying aspect that things with mass cannot exceed the speed of light (photon).

Since long I have tried to introduce the concept of a 3D pixel universe (some people will already by the word suffer from mild nausea)

The 3D Pixel Universe is based on the idea that space best can be described out from dimensions - and how such dimensions dynamically re-arrange in space, so as to achieve the best overall fit - leaving least free void. Such a dimensionality is a product of space segregating into smaller and smaller ratios - so each dimension is an accurate ratio of whole space - and such smallest dimensions will arrange themselves in ever changing configurations until a certain and well-defined number finds a pattern that cannot be further refined with respect to "fit", and such a pattern will be repeated again and again and thus expressing an oscillating stable "particle-like" dimensionality - which can be said to be scale1. Next step is how such scale1's in a simailar way re-arrange to build a new and bigger scale2 and so on - until we reach the scale that is equivalent to our human physical scale, and said scale is the building blocks for our physical senses - the senses that interfere with the surroundings in the same scale - this scale can also be defined as the scale of the photon.

So photon is the smallest dimensionality or informational qubit that can be percepted by us humans, can be interfered with by us humans.

This is the Pixel-scale, and the pixel-scale is equivalent to to the scale where the building-blocks of the individual pixels (scale pixel-1) have arranged themselves in an optimal fit - they cannot further re-arrange and achieve a better fit - so they have established themselves in a stable froozen repeating oscillating well-defined "particle-structure"

Now it is the Pixels job to arrange themselves in space so as to achieve the best optimal fit in this scale, in order to form the next-following and bigger scale. So the pixel-scale start with free void distributed unevenly all over space - and free void can freely be translated into intra-pixel vacuum - or "variation in pixel size" in order to compensate the free void - anyhow we have a fluctuating gradient all over space - that strives after achieving least void or least gradient. (because Pixels are made via a Russian Doll principle with smaller and smaller - there is a near-to smooth vacuum gradient in the system - with smallest dimensions as the "discreteness" in the system - and one can choose the accuracy by which one want to express any physical expression - simply by choosing how "deep" or how "small" one wishes to describe the system out from)

Now - if one single pixel changes its position (via free void or vacuum) relative to a neighbor pixel - then such a change will spread like a domino effect to neighboring pixels and as such spread as a sperical wave - re-arranging wave. And any and all such outgoing waves will be interfered with by from outside coming like waves - and universe will be such a flux of interfering waves and the building of repetitive stable wave-patterns - standing wave patterns.

Sorry for the long introduction - but the above implicates that any and all physical expressions -via this pixel re-arranging system, will be various grades of straight and bend wave-trajectories. In the case that a wave-trajectory is bend such that it will enter in a kind of circular repeating pattern - then the physical expression will be seen as a particle -(important to stress that all wave-patterns are seen in the well-defined frame of the pixel-grid - because this is the frame of human perception). If the wave-pattern is propagating in a straight trajectory - it is a bosonic expression - and such a bosonic pattern will not be percepted except if it is being interfered with in such a fashion that it is changed into (collapsing) a bend trajectory to form a particle expression (photon to electron)

Photon is propagating over the pixel grid with the speed defined as Pixel dimension times the frequency by which a Pixel can re-arrange - and this oscillating beat is a universal characteristic a universal constant - it takes a certain amount of "objective universal time-beats" defined as a certatin number of re-arranging procedures up in the pixel-construction (via Russian Dolls) to trigger the Pixel re-arrangement. (Timeunit1 or Universal objective time-beat is equivalent to the re-arrangement "tick" of smallest dimensionality). In our physical scale photon is the highest propagational speed because it is a straight trajectory - and a bend trajectory is a retardation - is a repetition - is a particle structure.

Particle mass is equivalent to the number of pixels that express the particle structure in-situ (same place) in its oscillating expression - and kinetic (mass) is the number of pixels involved in expressing relative propagation over the grid. All particles (except those being 100% stationary relative to the pixel grid) will show a certain proportion of potential and kinetic mass, respectively, and an electron acellerated to speed of light will eventually translate into a straight trajectory - and thus eventually translate into a photon - (no potential mass).

So in summary one can say that space-fabric - or vacuum - or the medium - or whatever we like to call it - is being comprised of a nearly ideal "crystalline-like" grid of Pixels (stable particle-structures) - and it is the playing pattern of the pixels that determine the physical expressions that we human percept and measure. The "density" of space fabric is the same all over space - except for a subtle fluctuation in pixel-vacuum or pixel-volume - which-ever one choose to use as the gradient that initiate and gowerns pixel-re-arranging playing in space after the principle of least void (or least vacuum gradient).

Wave and particle is essentially the same - the only difference is the dynamic by which the the waves propagate relative to the observational pixel-frame. What we define as physical matter is wave-patterns that show repetitive patterns - standing wave-patterns - relative to our observational frame which is the 3D pixel grid.
wcelliott
Hi, all.

GE, I think you might be onto something here. The concept has elegance. I feel that String Theory was basically on the right track, except in it's fundamental concepts associated with "strings of energy"(???), vibrating (why?) in all the various modes possible for a 10-D loop, as seen in 3-D+time.

I've got a background in Radar Engineering, and one principle I learned from that experience was that you can't tell a wire from a slit in a solid conductive surface, they both have the same radar cross section (i.e., look the same to the radar). A loop would look the same as a hole the same size, and QM been pretty good at uniting three of the four fundamental laws, with the exception of gravity.

My notion is that gravity is our 3-D space disappearing down the hole, leaving behind the stuff that won't fit down the hole, which is what causes the rim of the hole to vibrate/radiate the unresolved "issues" of the space falling down the hole (causing the other three other unified fundamental laws).

This would lead to each "particle with mass" being like an iceberg, with only the 3-D tip showing in our universe, the other higher-order dimensions hidden beneath the waves (in the higher-order universe). The space falling through the hole gets split (ripped?) three ways, accounting for the other nine dimensions, time being the tenth, common to both universes, 3-D and 9-D.

The "iceberg" notion explains all the fun that the people with particle accelerators are having, tipping one sort of iceberg over and seeing what's on the other side of the 3-D aspect (until they break apart into other icebergs and/or right themselves on their own).

But the one observational principle that seems to apply to QM the way that Thermodynamics applies at the human scale is the notion of survival of information. I forget how this is termed by the theoretical physicists, but it's more fundamental than Conservation of Energy or Conservation of Mass, it's a Conservation-type law that appears to apply at the Quantum level. It was another (better) physicist than Hawking who pointed out that the "Hawking Paradox" forced the need for "Hawking Radiation", because otherwise black holes would consume not only matter but destroy the information about the matter that fell through the event horizon. "Hawking" radiation allows for that information to leave the black hole as the matter disappears from "here", much like a Last Will and Testament serves to allow a dead person to continue to exert his intent after his death.

I think we're both onto something, even though I discuss particles as holes in space and you discuss them as wavelets in space. Information is being transmitted from these holes/wavelets in all directions at all times. Maybe the wavelet is the form that the information takes, created by the resonance of the rim of the hole spanning this universe and the higher-order universe fundamental to the other Grand Unified Theories? (Others have different numbers of dimensions, but all invoke higher-order dimensions.) This one is the most-interesting to me, other than Superstring Theory (that I haven't given up on yet).:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125645.800.html

from Yor_on:
QUOTE
and that the term "non-local" can be equated to meaning "not here".
As in, the atoms that made up the BEC disappear from this universe while leaving the BEC behind as a "hole" in our space. "

How do you come to this conclusion?
Do you see a BEC as some kind of negation of our spacetime?
Even though we can 'restart' the photons?

I'm thinking that BECs are what's left in our space when the particles coalesce into a single condensate, which is a macroscopic-scale subatomic particle.

The macroscopic scale of this "hole" in our space forces the laser photons to "traverse" the BEC by other means, which I feel are more correctly interpreted as a combination of tunneling (which is usually instantaneous - Zero-time) and a time-delay (temporal anomaly), leading to Ketterle's "46mph photons".

I'm just waiting to hear him explain-away the conduction of gravity (if either of us lives so long that he actually does the experiment).
Good Elf
Hi yor_on, wcelliott, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, bukh, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

Interesting story there but there are differences between "Bose-Einstein Materials" and "Fermi-Dirac Materials". The interesting difference between these two is, as far as we know, the former have total even quantum numbers while the latter have total odd quantum numbers. "Perfect" Bose-Einstein Materials like photons can "all" occupy the one state if their other properties are identical such as wavelength. We see this in AM Broadcast "waves" where the number of photons in the one space appears to be unlimited (and lead to signal modulation)... there can be from zero to infinity of them hiding in a single "expanding" eigenstate. Your "interpretation" violates this concept "space is where particles can be, and particles are where space isn't"... that is if you believe a photon is a "particle". Your latter statement indicates an alternative definition to space. I prefer to think along those lines.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
This would lead to each "particle with mass" being like an iceberg, with only the 3-D tip showing in our universe, the other higher-order dimensions hidden beneath the waves (in the higher-order universe). The space falling through the hole gets split (ripped?) three ways, accounting for the other nine dimensions, time being the tenth, common to both universes, 3-D and 9-D.

On the other hand there are many "fermions" with even quantum numbers as well. These have several particle attributes of the true boson ... but not all. The BEC is one of these "objects". I have been "scrambling" to understand these objects a little more. As I see it they remain quite mysterious ... especially during the phenomenon of Bosenova. It appears that little or nothing experimentally is known what happens in the "degenerate" phenomena at the core but the exploded shell and the processes which precede this implosion have been partially documented. I am astonished at what is known about such ephemeral phenomena and "my beanie is off to these guy's". Ultimately composed of individual atoms these "gases" have an interesting property depending on the external "tuning" of the matter wave quantum phase by an impressed magnetic field, which are thought responsible for the mutual repulsion between atoms they can under certain conditions (Feshbach Resonance) be forced to spontaneously collapse into a single Boson State (around the size of a single atom or two or three?). This is followed by an explosion called a Bosenova. This is no big deal and involves very feeble amounts of energy but the suggestion is this relates to a large number of atoms of the original BEC entering or collapsing into a single atomic state 'together" with the failure of the PEP (Pauli Exclusion Principle) and the sudden demise of Space Quantization moving from the fermion state to the "pure boson state". As they do this the energy they have is "shed" to the peripheral atoms causing the explosion in the "shell". After the explosion and the scattering of residual peripheral BEC but the shrinking core remains, there is a permanent after effect... about 1/2 of all the matter has "disappeared" permanently and nobody can find it in the entire apparatus (one proposal is some "rouge dissociation process" of the overlapping states). There have been several proposals but none of these have been "proven" in the several years since the first discovery of this phenomenon in 1999. After an imploded core forms many of the other atoms "follow" sort of like the Pied Piper of Hamelin down into the "vortex" (this is a matter wave vortex). It has overtones of processes involved in "Cold Fusion" "Black Holes" and so forth. I am not suggesting this is a "Black Hole" but it might mean that the imploding matter wave continues and carries a significant portion of the original BEC into an usual state... the literature suggests Ed Witten has proposed this state may be the AdS CFT state (an Anti-de Sitter Space)... a reciprocal space of the condensed Bosonized Fermions the matter wave equivalent to the Fourier Optical Processor I had earlier indicated which is used for photons in which spatial distance is transferred into frequency by a transform to it's reciprocal in the optical or matter wave vortex. Alternatively it might be considered as a "higher dimension" of which we are only aware of the projective space.

There is a strong correlation with Bright Matter Wave Solitons forming in the core of the remnant after the Bosenova which have unusual persistence... see this reference...
Formation of bright matter-wave solitons during the collapse of Bose–Einstein condensates - Simon L. Cornish 30Jan 2006
Strongly Coherent phenomena are associated emanating from these quantum vortices resulting from this "dislocation" not that dissimilar to Young's interference fringes in light but associated with matter wave components. I could say more but I would only be guessing here and I have already extrapolated "enough".
A Consistent Picture of a Collapsing Bose-Einstein Condensate - Masahito Ueda and Hiroki Saito
Feshbach resonances and collapsing Bose-Einstein condensates - J N Milstein, C Menotti and M J Holland
There is an ease and simplicity in the ability to manipulate the quantum wave function which is the de Broglie Matter Wave using Feshbach Resonance but much remains to be understood.

Cheers

PS... Speculation: Regardless of the description of the particle as a "wavelet" or a "hole", what it may be according to the conjecture of Witten it may be communicating with our lower dimensional space through a lower dimensional surface like this image from Alice Through the Looking Glass...
http://f3.yahoofs.com/blog/44bff543z33a766...gYDb8IBoFNtxpF_
Our Universe analogous to a higher dimensional space (three spatial dimensions) communicating via two dimensional "surface" into another "internal" higher dimensional Universe (energetically separate flatspace on the surface of the Anti-de Sitter Universe)... an Anti-de Sitter Space "nested" in higher dimensions resting on our four dimensional continuum. Of course not a universe of light waves but a universe of matter waves possibly "illuminated by light only". This reciprocal space is inverted "inside out" relative to our Universe so big things are small and small things are large connected via T-Duality. Distances become spatial frequency (reciprocal space) and time becomes temporal frequency (reciprocal time)... and vice versa. But be aware these are not "string dimensions" at or around any "Planck Length" but de Broglie matter wave dimensions and their reciprocals are apparently optical wave frequencies experimentally easy to do experiments on as we have been doing for years.

Here is a reference to this "conjecture" in "real linear dimensions" which are incompatible with this concept but could be extended into it.
Check out the article on The Illusion of Gravity - Juan Maldacena, Scientific American.
eyeque
Yor a fantastic good read, why did you delete from you topic two slit experiment my on going two clit bigil experiment problems. Im going to come to you as in the past for your learned knowledge, dont delete my intoxicated rantings. By the way I have never had a sock puppet but vadgsecreationbottler is going to come into the sceans
rethinker

Anyone looked at this?

Peter Lynds Theory of time

[/QUOTE] A radical new theory of time and motion has some of the world's physicists doubting the claim while others laud the 27-year-old college dropout who came up with it, an unknown big thinker named Peter Lynds.

The importance of Lynds' work "resembles Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity," said Andrei Khrennikov, a professor of applied mathematics at Vaxjo University in Sweden and a referee of the journal paper.

Lynds says he's no Einstein. In fact, he is not a fully trained theorist. He has no real academic credentials. But he does appear to have a new career, now that one other theorist compared his work to the groundbreaking ideas of Albert Einstein. [QUOTE]
bukh
rethinker

Looking at Peter Lynds- he claims that: "There isn't a precise instant underlying an object's motion," and "that there are no instants in time related to physical processes", - then there is no such thing as a flow of time, because such a flow inherently requires progression through definite instants -- exactly what Lynds forbids.

To me it means that Peter Lynds is caught in the same trap as al others - namely the idea that continuity and discreteness has to live together - but they cannot - so we have to choose - and I like to think taht if we are to define/describe/communicate/visualize - call it what we like - if we are to do so trhen we have to choose between continuity and infinity on one hand or discreteness and finiteness on the other hand.

And I choose the latter. Physical is essentially characterized by discreteness - it is not possible to translate dimenionlessness into dimension - it ois not possible to translate dimensionless points (like math points) into a geometric dimension -

This implicates that dimension stands over anything else - dimension is and must be at hand axiomatically in oreder to understand and desribe physical world

And that is exactly what the 3D pixel universe idea is about. Time is a derived function - secondary to change - which is the same as motion - and change is discrete - (it is not possible to have dynamic and change in a continuous world) - and discreteness is axiomatically present as dimensions in space - and such dimensions are being defined as ratios of space -

This implicate that space is not defined in terms of size and spzce - and probably never will - but we can define a dimension as a well defined ratio of space - and such ratios - dimensionalities - they are capable of expressing all physical world as we percept and measure it.

Physical is how dimensionalities arrange and re-arrange themselves in space in ever oscillating dimensions in space - but everything is essentially being expressed via smallest dimensions -(and we choose smallness of such dimensions according to the accuracy - the "smoothhness" that we want to use in our description of physical.
yor_on
Ah yes.
This is kind of fun:)

Wcelliott you wrote
"But the one observational principle that seems to apply to QM the way that Thermodynamics applies at the human scale is the notion of survival of information. I forget how this is termed by the theoretical physicists, but it's more fundamental than Conservation of Energy or Conservation of Mass, it's a Conservation-type law that appears to apply at the Quantum level."

Have you seen Zero and Zero equates NonZero

It's very interesting, as well as Good Elf's 'Bosenova' and the following conclusion that "about 1/2 of all the matter has "disappeared" permanently and nobody can find it in the entire apparatus (one proposal is some "rouge dissociation process" of the overlapping states). There have been several proposals but none of these have been "proven" in the several years since the first discovery of this phenomenon in 1999."

Doesn't that strike at the conservation laws and Noether's theorem?
eyeque
yor on? are you to woosie to take me on? I thinmk we were friends under one of my pen names lol! SOL INVICTUS go on,have a go, perhaps in on of my former freindly pennames

We can be friends, the ball is in your court, but your balls will bee neatly cut in half for my tennis fling
Good Elf
Hi yor_on, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, eyeque, rethinker, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, bukh, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (yor_on+)
It's very interesting, as well as Good Elf's 'Bosenova' and the following conclusion that "about 1/2 of all the matter has "disappeared" permanently and nobody can find it in the entire apparatus (one proposal is some "rouge dissociation process" of the overlapping states). There have been several proposals but none of these have been "proven" in the several years since the first discovery of this phenomenon in 1999."

Doesn't that strike at the conservation laws and Noether's theorem?
I did not suggest that the material has been destroyed in any way but may be in a quantum state that can't be measured using conventional instruments. Quantum states are by definition not able to be measured until the state collapses. I am not discussing theory here I am stating experimental facts that do not make too much sense but are interesting. The suggestions are based on some ideas others have had. Most of the papers "suggest" that the atoms have passed into a superimposed state of "pure bosons" which can't be measured. In the case of ordinary matter... space quantization leads to a critical packing density... like oranges in a crate, you can only fit so many in there. If the particles are converted to pure bosons then these laws of space quantization break down and there is no limit to the number of bosons you can pack into some space causing an implosion as all the atoms pack into the one space. The explosion occurs as excess energy is "squeezed" out of the imploding atoms as they cram into that lower energy state and this slight excess "flows" into the remaining uncompressed particles in the surrounding BEC causing the Bosenova blowing away the BEC shell. In some respects this "core" space is "kinda higher dimensional" since it contains "conventional atoms" multiply packed into the one space where formerly only one atom could exist. This core continues to exist and maybe it is a kind of particle trap that can exist permanently for some of the atoms (a quantum state) leading only to a count of one conventional atom where there may be many thousands "tucked away inside" permanently inside of a sort of "Klein Bottle" caused by the quantum vortex.

This might relate to the recent papers on knotting electromagnetic fields check out this reference...
Physicists hope to tie light beams in knots
If you look below these "defects" can be interesting objects and I have linked to a "free range" copy of the paper you can read as well as some notes on this phenomenon.
Linked and knotted beams of light
Supplementary methods 1: Decomposition of the Hopf fields into vector spherical harmonics
.. and an experimental paper that has already demonstrated their practical actualization...
Vortex knots in light 15 Feb 2005
In conclusion this experimental paper says... "In addition to being of fundamental interest, these experiments illustrate topological light shaping that might be used as a topological waveguide for quantum mechanical matter waves, such as Bose-Einstein condensates "... touche!
There is also a link between Chandrasekhar Kendall curl eigenstates and "ball lightning"...
Mechanism of the Atmospheric Ball Lightning Using the Triple Beltrami Equation
Wikipedia: Hopf Fibration
All of these relate to the existence of Bright Matter Wave Solitons caused by electromagnetism. In the case of some versions of the Bosenova these "topological defects" occur with regularity and these events show some of the interesting phenomena related to this. I did not even mention the existence of topological charge. In all cases the concepts of "simple particle" and "conventional space" seem to be inadequate to explain this phenomena. Confusing details for some ... sorry about that but I just tell the story and it is up to those interested to sort out what they need.
QUOTE (fairy+)
woah, wall of text
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
Albert Einstein
Fair comment and I agree... then again I am not Albert Einstein... Sorry... but I am sure you will find some interesting reading there.

Cheers
yor_on
Huh?
who's Woosie??
Me?

(ah, what ever does that mean?:)

Anyway.
"The bigger the hat, the smaller the property"
(A proper reminder to us all that is, and it is Australian too:)

------------

And thanks Good Elf.
Good experiments opens up.
Especially when they can't explain them:)
eyeque
Your-on, how are you mate, its an aussie born pole,

We have had interactions under various of my pen names but never came to blows! Your a gentleman! And thats to your credit. Your handle seems a bit insukting when you adress someone Your-on gives the perception of *****, an insight to kill from a rouge male like me. However under one of my inumerable pen names we were friends! wanna do it again with eyeque?
eyeque
QUOTE (woodroyd+Sep 22 2008, 04:46 PM)
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.

We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.

Whithout the big bang there was no space meaning there was no time.

Withouth gravitron beyond the ends of the universe there can be no distance between objeact, because gravitrons are the basis of space medium as oposed to void, so there would be no time there.
wcelliott
A lot of interesting reading here and linked-to, but so far, it sounds kinda like we're "gravitating" (pun intended) towards the same basic concepts. My simplistic notions of space being where particles can be, and particles being where space isn't, and therefore what we call 'particles' are actually holes in space" probably needs more precision and rigor, but still seems like a reasonable introductory statement to a new understanding of how things work in this universe (and what can be known of what's on the other side of that two-D surface of subatomic particles, and BECs, and Black Holes).

Ed Witten was the physicist I was trying to remember in my last post, the one who pointed-out "Hawking's Paradox" required "Hawking Radiation" to resolve. Odd that Witten's name isn't associated with either recognzing the problem or solving it, but that's just sometimes how things go.

The notion of the Fourier inversion (as matter waves) of this universe being on the other side of particles' "event horizon" is very interesting to me, and does also provide an obscure linkage to Einstein's Relativity's infamous *square root of -1*, as that's the way that the transform works - Fourier transform a data set and it becomes the same data in another, othogonal, dimension. Transform the transformed data, and it becomes the negative of the original data set, IIRC. Two transforms of the data resulting in the same data with a -1 in front of it.

eyeque
You quote too many identities. And it's really bad quantum potential position theory just not to say it without bringing up thease nerds. What the fu-k are you an idiot advertisig these books, Just fu-ck-en say it, do you think im so stupid at fifty i wont get it unless i by a dork name book you flaunt? I'll f-n- crush you at 50. Dont quote nerds!!!!! Just say the jist of what you believe!!!
bukh
wcelliott

QUOTE: "Two transforms of the data resulting in the same data with a -1 in front of it."

Is that the same like saying: particles express waves and waves express particles - and one scale up (down) - or put differently: smaller dimensions re-arrange in space and such re-arranging oscillations can be seen as domino-like waves - and in the next scale these waves can be translated into particle-expressions (standing wave-patterns) so two transforms and one scale change (another Russian doll).
wcelliott
QUOTE
Is that the same like saying:

Sorry, I switched topics back so quickly that you got comprehensional whiplash. My bad.

I was talking again about the sqrt(-1) factor in particles going faster than light (and Relativity's exclusion from *our* universe, thereof.)

What brought it up was GE's comment about how the Fourier Transform of something big is something small (forgive me for the paraphrasing) but basically that the Transforms of the Universe could fit inside its subatomic particles.

I was adding that that would fit with my "non-local = not-here" interpretation, with the stuff "inside" subatomic particles being the Transform of the stuff outside, whether it's a black hole (like what we live in, IMO), a subatomic particle, or a BEC.
Neuralize
Good Elf and all...

A question about time...

QUOTE
It is also essential to also define a "zero" of time (in a similar way to the way we define a zero in the other coordinates).

I have what I think is a simple question unless my understanding is faulty (quite possibly) - in which case it isn't so simple.

Anyway, say we have a location on Earth and a location on an object in space that is exactly one light year away. A laser is set up on Earth and there is a mirror on the object in space. Also, flag poles have been erected at both locations.

Scenario 1
The laser sends a pulse of light toward the mirror. It reaches the mirror a year later, bounces off, and returns after close to exactly two years.

Scenario 2
You'll have to bear with me on this one. A man is blasted off at .9999999999999 the speed of light toward the object that's a light year away. He arrives just about a year later, reaches out his arm and swings around the flag pole. He lets go at exactly the right time and heads for the location that the earth will be at in a year as it revolves around the sun. Another year passes on his return trip and he reaches out for the flag pole and swings around close to exactly two years from the time he was originally blasted off. So, two years have passed for his buddies standing around the flag pole, and by his watch two years have passed for him. Right???
Janus
QUOTE
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.

We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.

Hi Woodroyd

Just simplistically answering your questions the thread has gone off in many tangents.

Time is a unit of measure just like litres, grammes metres, watts etc … all man made and none discovered. When we talk of time beginning with BB … that is only for our own benefit to put events into some sort of order … and the time intervals are based on present day theory … which are liable to change with newer theories that undoubtedly will emerge (if not suppressed by the establishment).

The BB theory came into eminence over the Steady State theory because we discovered that that the universe was expanding. If it is expanding … so the theory goes … then it must have expanded from something very small.

You ask what it is to be beyond time … well to me … the universe does not need time to function it just does. There was no universal clock that said BB must start when it did either.

In Schrodinger’s cat in box thought experiment he introduced us to different time frames of the same event … where the cat was dead or alive … in other words both conclusions were mathematically correct … but we wouldn’t know the true result until we looked in the box. This bred theories of multi-verses and brought probability into quantum theory … the ‘Goldie (Bol) Locks’ theory … whereby we are in a time frame that is just right. Also, Schrodinger’s cat was taken even further by quantum theory … which stated that the cat was not even in the box … until you opened the box and looked in. In other words, for the universe to exist it has to have an observer.

Yes, there is contradiction here. Who is observing the dysfunctional universes? I say no one. Then they cannot exist.

You also state that you would like to picture … the before the beginning. There are many theories. The main theory is that everything that we have in the universe was once squashed to a very small point … believe that and you are very stupid. The verb squashed means that the universe must have been bigger at some point before BB. The big crunch will not happen … all we know so far is that the universe is expanding and it will continue for ever. Therefore there is something missing from the BB theory

My theory is that we started from nothing. Though there are a few people that go along with this theory (Hawking for one) no one has put forward any explanation. Even the church is prepared to accept a beginning from nothing … from which God created himself and then universe …again without the how.

I have voiced my theory on this forum many times (I don’t want to be a bore so I won’t repeat again) … no one has been able to refute it … though it has been dismissed by some.

If any of the newbies would like to hear it … let me know?

Cheers

Janus

eyeque
QUOTE (Janus+Oct 12 2008, 11:36 PM)

In Schrodinger’s cat in box thought experiment he introduced us to different time frames of the same event … where the cat was dead or alive … in other words both conclusions were mathematically correct … but we wouldn’t know the true result until we looked in the box. This bred theories of multi-verses and brought probability into quantum theory … the ‘Goldie (Bol) Locks’ theory … whereby we are in a time frame that is just right. Also, Schrodinger’s cat was taken even further by quantum theory … which stated that the cat was not even in the box … until you opened the box and looked in. In other words, for the universe to exist it has to have an observer.

Yes Janusz

It bread My Potential Position Theory based on Scroedinger
Good Elf
Hi eyeque, Neuralize, bukh, yor_on, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, rethinker, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

I know I will get 'bucketed" for it's length but in order that 40 years of experience be distilled into a soundbyte I need to express a complex idea or two because this is not the same as watching David Suzuki dumbing it down to enable tiny children to understand on TV. Intelligent people need more than that and to do anything less is to treat you all as "fools". I am not about to go there because you are all intelligent people and you deserve more.
QUOTE (bukh+)
Is that the same like saying: particles express waves and waves express particles - and one scale up (down) - or put differently: smaller dimensions re-arrange in space and such re-arranging oscillations can be seen as domino-like waves - and in the next scale these waves can be translated into particle-expressions (standing wave-patterns) so two transforms and one scale change (another Russian doll).

Bukh has it mostly right... the wave particle paradigm could be considered as the same phenomenon expressed as conjugate entities. Here is the same one dimensional entity expressed in reciprocal domains.
Transform pair of impulse and wavelet
Note the LHS is an "impulse" if the horizontal axis (boxcar length = D) is time or it is an expression of dimensional size or length or wavelength while the other entity is on the RHS is an expression of frequency (reciprocal time = 1/D) or wavenumber (reciprocal length). This is not the Dirac Function it is a "real" impulse that has "duration" in time or "extension" as a wavepacket which truncates it spatially.

This is not the measure of simple dimension they are equivalent expressions of the one entity as seen from different domains. Time <--> Frequency or Space <--> reciprocal space. This principle is expressed in this device...
Optical Fourier Processor
Optical Fourier Processors are used to convert our real world optical phenomena into it's reciprocal representation. These entities can be represented on the complex plane as two complex conjugate phenomena orthogonal to each other related through the operator √-1.

As to this function being "infamous", I doubt since all electronics and optics and indeed all serious Radio Technicians already know about through waveguide and antenna theory.

Here is some background reading for eyeque and any others intent on following.
An Intuitive Explanation of Fourier Theory
Fourier Transform and Its Characteristics
The animation in "[Let's confirm] " is interesting (ignoring a representation of the complex plane here) there is a periodic impulse signal (infinite train of pulses) where the period between each fixed pulse is increased from a very small number in time to infinity where there remains only one lone impulse left standing (in the top frame). The transitional relationship between individual spot harmonic frequencies (in the lower spectrum representation) and the way these components "merge" into a continuous waveform from a series of spot frequencies (which roughly is initially in a highly down sampled version of a discrete version of the sinc function) to the top function becoming only one lone impulse function "freed" of lateral constraints (got to be quick to see it) results in that lower decretized version of the sinc function becoming a classical sinc function or continuous function without the individual "spectral lines". The discrete frequencies in the spectra "merge" into a continuous spectrum in the classical limit (individual frequencies becoming continuous sweep of frequencies caused by that sinc function = sin(x)/x) as a single "particle" in the top graph replaces the spatially repeating impulse function or regular train of pulses. In the real world everything exists in proximity to everything else so instead of classical limits which are continuous we have discrete frequencies and the wavepacket contains these individual frequencies. The more confined and compressed the "particle" the more it "spreads" in the frequency line spectrum and the "freer" the particle the fewer the component line spectra and the components merge into a continuum as the "idealized" sinc function instead of a series of discrete lines.
Transform Pairs - note the "comb" below
This roughly conforms to an non-zero width comb function (4) ("teeth" have some thickness). As the "distance" between these impulses are widened (or spread... spatial or temporal period increasing to infinity without increasing the "boxcar" width) then this "process" approaches the second function (2) in this image... the "impulse" or "single tooth" and the continuous sinc function as it's transform. Between these extremes along the one dimensional line we have an analogy of "discrete particles" (represented by those "teeth" in the comb at interval T) spaced further and further apart and this results in "line frequencies" spaced at 1/T as a representation of the one remaining "tooth" as these initially discrete lines in the lower figure become spaced closer and closer together until they merge finally in the limit as the spacing T -> ∞. Just remember this line spectra does not specifically show the relative phases and how they mutually relate. The vertical line is a one dimensional representation and this individual frequency has spatial aspects not shown in this simple graph. For instance to filter a single frequency from an image this frequency has only a single line representation in this graph while in actual fact it has a complex representation and you filter it by removing a circular region at the exact distance in frequency from the zeroth order frequency in it's spatial transform.
Another Fourier Optical Processor actively removing a single spatial frequency element from a 'transparency" using a "frequency mask"
This transform process is also "perfect" and reversible and can be applied any number of times, the operation simply "inverts" the previous operation over and over... unlike many other process in mathematics which are approximations where the "bit at the end" of an expansion is left off this has a upper band limit. Nature does not need to leave any bits off the end of "what she does". A universe of "particles" with "extent" and "spacing" resulting in discrete lines forming spectra depending on the dimensions of the confining "cavity". The smaller the cavity and the more regular the more dramatically spaced the lines. Each "line" is a "frequency". An obvious example is a bell which rings with a fundamental frequency and some multiple overtones which are even multiples of the base frequency. On a oscilloscope showing a line frequency spectra there would be that base frequency "line" and a series of higher frequency 'equally spaced line" overtones. Atoms show this phenomenon strongly where electrons and photons are strongly confined the number of available states are limited and these are enumerated using the principal quantum numbers. This is the "near field" behavior of "photons" and in the far field the photons propagate as "discrete spreading packets", frozen in time, until they are absorbed in some other near field "sink". The release of a photon (electron transition) in the limit is an impulse (the line spectra E = hf) and in the far field this response is expressed unseen as the continuous sinc function a spreading packet. The incoming photon wave sinc packet comes near to an atom or site to be absorbed and in the near field this is the reverse of the first operation the wavepacket is absorbed as a "line"... Symmetry, conservation and a theory that works for all optical X-Ray, Microwave, Gamma Ray and Radiowave frequencies and all kinds of emissions and absorptions including even matter wave particles of all kinds such as electrons and other heavier particles.

The quanta are simply the packet propagating "as a whole" which are emitted and absorbed "entirely"... cannot be emitted or absorbed in part. This is explainable since they must be emitted and absorbed as the "impulse function" (the line or particle)... "there is no part of a line or part of the particle since that would involve "more frequencies" and they are strictly upper band limited (as I have stated previously)... they are just not there in any energy transfer. Splitting a quanta would require "putting in more higher frequencies" which naturally contain more energy. This is like "splitting" a line into two lines or creating two narrower impulses from one broad impulse. Therefore in all processes quanta are emitted as a whole and absorbed as a whole in resonant couples. The "exception" to the rule... and there are always exceptions is the way in which a photon can be "split" into two longer wavelength photons... as in the BBO crystals used in entanglement experiments. The "splitting" is actually doubling the wavelength not shortening it. This is a non-linear operation. Cutting the photon in half in this case means doubling it's size.
QUOTE (eyeque+)
You quote too many identities. And it's really bad quantum potential position theory just not to say it without bringing up thease nerds. What the fu-k are you an idiot advertisig these books, Just fu-ck-en say it, do you think im so stupid at fifty i wont get it unless i by a dork name book you flaunt? I'll f-n- crush you at 50. Dont quote nerds!!!!! Just say the jist of what you believe!!!

Back to an explanation... the operator √-1 really only provides more "dimensions" to the existing phenomena we have placed in space and time. The question as to this additional "dimension" being only a parameter and not an actual dimension need not be answered here. It does appear in Special Relativity and it has an interesting connection. What Fourier theory adds to this are spherical harmonic solutions to the question of where and when you can measure things. Instead of "(x,y)" coordinates we have stationary states expressed globally in terms of Bessel Functions (the x-y coordinates are like point functions and the Bessel Functions like sinc(x) are the function expressed on a distributed "surface" as a "state"). Any point in that "state" could become a "particle" (a reading or a detection by a sensor) if I choose to "read" a value found there and collapse this "quantum superposition" of waves... a wavepacket is then transferred.

In some respects I can choose to read this measurable anywhere except where these states have a "vanishing value". From a probability description of this phenomenon if I choose to read the value of the measurable where the Bessel function's value is close to zero I will never find any readings there (hence a particle is never found there... a zero probability density function). If I choose to measure the value at a "maximum" of this function I will find that I can read a value there "frequently" if many events are available to sample from, the more frequently I can read a value there is an indication of the probability density. What probability does not tell us is where I can read or find a particular single one off event... such as when there is only one photon in a system at a time. That encapsulates the problem with particle paradigms and quantum theory. As I have indicated previously it has been shown that a single particle (photon) can be shown to exist in more than one place around an optical system. This could not occur for a discrete point particle. The fact it is measurable invalidates "particle" theory in that respect.

Particular particles are entangled with other particular particles non-locally this aspect it is not able to be explained using standard quantum theory which is a local theory. Some particles "interfere" as single particles without other particles being available. With coherent sources the distribution of events are distinctly not random as seen in simple holograms. The other issue is you can "squeeze states" and defeat the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship and get results which defy these 'absolutes".

The actual "particle" cannot be expressed as a single point ... for instance nothing "real" in the Universe can be expressed as a single point since everything is "extended" in space. The movement of the membrane of a drum or air in organ pipes depends on almost continuous values in very many places and with individual quantum events we can measure these values in only discrete places leading us to say the particle is there. All my readings of measurables will be single point values. There is no way I can know from a single quantum events what this overall "eigenstate" is because with quantum phenomenon for single events I can only read the value once somewhere on this mathematical eigensurface. What I can do is postulate a way to calculate this eigensurface and then a theory can test to see if the theory matches the experiment.

Quantum theory does not predict the outcome for one event only for ensembles of events. What current statistical quantum theory does not say can be expressed by an understanding of coherent sources where there are no statistics and simply sources and sinks. The spreading of a single quantum wavepacket from a single coherent source has a specific eigenstate that is a solution of the propagation equations in the cavity. The cavity could be from one atomic shell to another or it could be from that one shell "out" to the entire Universe on which a single photon propagates from a discrete source to a discrete sink. To calculate this function you might use Richard Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics where a probability for absorption is derived for all reachable points in space. What this is evaluating is the cavity standing wave states at a particular frequency and deriving a value everywhere the photon may "travel". These cavities are not the pretty ones which have regular solutions that we see for atoms for instance... they are "real world" solutions that take into account all sinks and all sources and all reflections in the space for all paths. Some paths 'cancel" and the probability vanishes. Other paths the probability sums to a large figure. To get a meaningful number the values nedd to be normalized. This means since the sum of all probabilities "everywhere" is 1 then the detection of a photon 'somewhere" is a small fraction of 1 in "standardized units". It will not tell you what happens in one single event but when you measure that one event over and over it does provide you with a value that is in accord with this probability for large numbers of events. This is a problem for electromagnetic waveguides and emitters and absorbers and the possibility of reflectors. In a specifically conditioned experiments a single emitted photon will be absorbed into a single absorber site if the rest of the "cavity" is reflecting limiting the possibilities of absorption to that one site. The laws which govern these single events are easy to derive. There exists single quantum sources (quantum dots) that can be made to emit a single photon on demand and these phenomena above can be instantly checked to be correct. Match the photon "source" to the "load" and a transfer of power or energy will occur even one photon at a time. Nothing is always perfect so sometimes a photon will go somewhere it was not intended to go ... that is a practical design flaw not a failure of the theory.

The zeroth order Bessel Function is the wavelet you see above and is called the sinc function or sin(x)/x an "attenuated" wave. There are other harmonic solutions to any cavity resonant state but this function predominates for a particle being the 'fundamental". Unlike the sine function which is expressed from -∞ to +∞. Everything in the universe has a beginning and an end... the emission of energy starts at some time and ends some time later. It can't be expressed using a sine function. The sinc function shows an exponential fall off (1/x) in amplitude away from the origin (like a ripple on a pond subject to inverse law spreading). Many phenomena in nature will do this such as dipole radiators, earths gravity field, waves spreading in a pond etc. It also expresses the concept of band limited phenomena. Every wavepacket or particle must contain some frequency at which there is a cut off and beyond which there is no further energy to be transferred (so there is no ultraviolet divergence). This includes a concept of a quanta of energy being the sum of a finite set of "Fourier" terms. E = hf for instance expresses this idea as a "wavepacket" (packet of waves). The frequency is the "fundamental" wavelet frequency but "several" other frequencies other than that basic fundamental frequency are required to "truncate" this packet spatially and temporally. In Fourier Theory these are all expressed "harmonically" as sine or cosines or both. The sum of these components result in a truncated packet which is "periodic" on a circle, that is the sum maps repeatedly on to itself... a resonance... a stationary state or eigenstate. In the case of Spherical Harmonics these result we are talking about "higher dimensional" circles or cavities (and even partial resonances in irregular spaces). This theory results in quantum theory and atomic theory which are examples of this truncated phenomena leading to quantization of the energy in packets in resonant states in the various shells.

One way to express this idea was the paradigm of "particles"... tiny indivisible "points" with no size whose path is obviously a "ray".... like tiny bullets. To make this idea work you must work hard and talk about "probability" or "expectation values" and "inner products" in a mathematical expectation space not necessarily related to the space we can relate to ... a Hilbert Space. Working this way it is possible to derive most of the laws of normal physics related through Quantum Theory. What Quantum Theory does not tell us is how individual photons or particles behave as we want to describe them in the "old theory" or classical theory. The old theory is good at certain types of descriptions that particle theory is not so good at... such as resonance and spreading waves. There are no individual paths and there are no individual particle interactions... there are only probabilities. This is the deconstructionist point of view where you understand everything necessary in the universe by breaking it down into the most simple of systems. Unfortunately our Universe is holographic and things repeat their form at different scales and at different distances. One important aspect are the "interferences", these may be mapped using holographic techniques. It just so happens that waves really do exist and are more primary than "particles" which represent the end of a spectrum of interactions that lead to the High Energy Accelerators. At high energy "elementary particles" appear to work like billiard balls. At low energy things work like de Broglie Matter Waves. The wave aspect is minimized (wavelength rapidly shortened) as the momentum relative to the observer frame increases. In the case of photons the photon expands according to the inverse square law until it passes through an aperture or is captured by a sink. In these cases the photon is either "scattered" or passes the barrier and is confined by it as it undergoes a "protective measurement".
"Protective" measurements in quantum mechanics

There has been a growing unease associated with this over the last 80 years. Early on there was quite a lot of objection to particle theory but the clamor has died down. Today it is much harder to fit these square peg particles into the round wavelet holes. The theoreticians have resorted to using a technical "sledge hammer" to make these bits fit. Nobody is sufficiently influential to disagree with this view of the world since it is "very cozy" having "particles" and all. Everyone knows what a "particle" is don't they? Well the idea is under strong scrutiny and the "seams" are showing where the Physicists "stitched things up" long ago. In our hurry to solve all the problems of the Universe we silenced all the naysayers... "shut up and calculate!!". The Lecturers simply would not tolerate an interpretation of our Universe that makes sense using the older ideas of physics and the classical treatments were "dropped" leaving present generation Physicists knowing no other way to process the information other than this turgid mess that is becoming moribund. Anyone who knows this history realizes that we are due for a change again ... as it has done in the past. Huygens had waves, Newton used particles, Maxwell had waves and Schrodinger had Particles. The paradigm is shifting back to waves dressed up in a different "business suit". Everything old is new again... with a new twist... This new "twist" is Quantum Theory and it's place in the Universe of phenomena and how it sits with the old classical theory. The differences from generation to generation express a deeper understanding of what actually exists. This wave-particle "to-ing and fro-ing" is not all happening in the one place there is strong progress associated with each swing of this intellectual pendulum.
Quantum physics’ new world order
Heisenberg, Matrix Mechanics, and the Uncertainty Principle : S Lakshmibala
Some additional information on conjugate variables

Which all is heading toward the idea of how time links into this concept. From the link above that shows and indicates time and space in Relativity are themselves conjugate variables related via the Fourier Transform it would come as no surprise that the comparison between times and space between moving frames also form the relationship as shown. Time is another dimension "similar" to the other dimensions of space. Rotations in spacetime through a complex angle in higher dimensions make some sense of the "single point of view" effects of high relative velocity. The major complication is this "rotation" through an angle θ which is related to the speed of light by the relationship arc sin (v/C). To all external observers this "distortion" appears to a single observer to not appear to be resulting in a relativistic length contraction but only this apparent simple rotation. A number of observers that might take measurements as it passes this "distortion" is really only the result of a length contraction along the direction of motion combined with "Stellar Aberration" after correction for the time between all the various observers. This is why it is so important to have synchronized clocks to be able to measure things accurately since there are no absolutes to be found in this process. As noted... the temporal corrections between moving clocks (after synchronization" show there are just two main phenomena ... Relativistic Length Contraction between frames and Time Dilation. A photon is the extremum of this process and what can be said is any propagating photon is the most extreme case of both these effects where length contraction compresses everything in the forward direction to a singularity and extreme time dilation for photons means photons never age in the "far field". The result of a connection via the Null Geodesic which has zero length along the time axis and zero length along the "distorted" other dimensional axes which have undergone an apparent proper rotation. These are relative times so they cannot relate to times in the one inertial frame in which the phenomenon is not noticed.

So now on to Neuralize's question...
QUOTE (Neuralize+)
You'll have to bear with me on this one. A man is blasted off at .9999999999999 the speed of light toward the object that's a light year away. He arrives just about a year later, reaches out his arm and swings around the flag pole. He lets go at exactly the right time and heads for the location that the earth will be at in a year as it revolves around the sun. Another year passes on his return trip and he reaches out for the flag pole and swings around close to exactly two years from the time he was originally blasted off. So, two years have passed for his buddies standing around the flag pole, and by his watch two years have passed for him. Right???
Wrong... sorry... But you already knew that! Virtually no time has passed for the traveler. He is like the photon and his clock is "virtually" not ticking at all. This is only a comparative "lining up" of time between the two inertial frames. The accelerated frame "run slow" as explained earlier in the thread. The other point is the distance between earth and the flag pole is almost "zero" according how he reckons distance while he travels at .9999999999999C. Together these two facts leads our traveler to the conclusion that he travels a short distance below the speed of light in which he sees "a lot of Star Trek special effects".... The light beam and the traveler arrive back on the earth around the same time with the light always beating any material body traveling a slightly longer path than the Null Geodesic (some time and some distance relative to the travelers rest frame will be traveled). Any "relatively stationary observers" along the way see our traveler "frozen" in time... "well almost"... as he flashes by (rotated away from "all" observers by nearly θ = Π/2 radians. This "means" that events are not proceeding at the rate they might in the travelers own rest frame. Is this a measure of time?... maybe!! However which events do we count... one could be the ticking of the respective clocks. One tick of the travelers clock might equal a thousand ticks of the observer clock. Lets all hope this space ship has a rear window so we can look into it. The "foreshortening" due to length contraction combined with the odd directions light will approach the observer from the moving frame make it always appear as a rotation. Careful measurement and propagation time correction measured "on the spot" (using accurately synchronized clocks) would show (after the event) that this "effect" is actually a length contraction in the direction of motion.

Cheers and I apologize once again
bukh
Good Elf

Thanks - I am enjoying nearly every word that you are putting forward - with the sincere restriction that you use such a lot of knowledge, that I have no chance to understand with my extremely limited physical knowing. And funny - I was just putting my fingers on the keyboard to address the question about transforms and -1 specifically to You - and in the same instant the answer popped up.

QUOTE: "This is the "near field" behavior of "photons" and in the far field the photons propagate as "discrete spreading packets", frozen in time, until they are absorbed in some other near field "sink". ---

The release of a photon (electron transition) in the limit is an impulse (the line spectra E = hf) and in the far field this response is expressed unseen as the continuous sinc function a spreading packet. The incoming photon wave sinc packet comes near to an atom or site to be absorbed and in the near field this is the reverse of the first operation the wavepacket is absorbed as a "line"... Symmetry, conservation and a theory that works for all optical X-Ray, Microwave, Gamma Ray and Radiowave frequencies and all kinds of emissions and absorptions including even matter wave particles of all kinds such as electrons and other heavier particles --

The quanta are simply the packet propagating "as a whole" which are emitted and absorbed "entirely"... cannot be emitted or absorbed in part. This is explainable since they must be emitted and absorbed as the "impulse function" (the line or particle)... "there is no part of a line or part of the particle since that would involve "more frequencies" and they are strictly upper band limited (as I have stated previously)... they are just not there in any energy transfer. Splitting a quanta would require "putting in more higher frequencies" which naturally contain more energy ---"

What you explain in the above is soooo much in line with the ideas of the 3D Pixel Universe - (I know that You are not happy with the concept - anyhow --)

And my first question would be: Can You imagine a wave without a particle - and if not - from where do the "first" particle originate -or put differently - can continuous and discrete live together - or do we need to choose the "tool" by which we try to understand and explain physical -

My question could also be something like: is it possible to create a dimension out from dimensionless points

Or - are we being pushed up into a corner - where dimension is such a mystery to us that we need to select dimension as axiomatically required in order to understand and explain and describe physical - (or less rigoristic - can we think of a better starting axiom ??)

yor_on
wcelliott you wrote "You can turn down the laser until you only have a single photon going through the experimental apparatus and still get the exact same fringe pattern.
Each photon is somehow splitting itself into two pieces, going through both slits at the same time. "

That got me confused for quite some time :)
You see, reading you I got the impression that 'one photon only' could produce interference on its own as it 'split' itself.
but looking around the only experiments I've found was Single photon experiments like this one.
In all of them there must be a accumulation of photons over time to produce this interference.

The question is not if one photon can create a interference pattern here.
The question is rather how they can communicate over time.
Which brings me to that experiment that i had forgotten :)
(and still are waiting for someone to point me too)

It seems that those single photon experiments discuss time more than a single photons innate ability of creating an interference pattern.

---------

And Good Elf, what you wrote now I will have to reread some more times before I would dare to comment :)
wcelliott
QUOTE
wcelliott you wrote "You can turn down the laser until you only have a single photon going through the experimental apparatus and still get the exact same fringe pattern.
Each photon is somehow splitting itself into two pieces, going through both slits at the same time. "

That got me confused for quite some time
You see, reading you I got the impression that 'one photon only' could produce interference on its own as it 'split' itself.
but looking around the only experiments I've found was Single photon experiments like this one.
In all of them there must be a accumulation of photons over time to produce this interference.

My description may have been misleading, but what I meant was that when they run the same experiment with only one photon present at a time, they still end up getting the same pattern *eventually*. They do need many photons to make the pattern apparent, but it's the same interference fringe pattern even though each photon is alone in the experiment at any given time. Each photon is therefore interfering with itself.

And it was Feynman himself who pointed out that this one experiment illustrated one of the most mysterious phenomena in physics, so if it confuses you, you're in good company. It confused him, also (and I don't have a really clear grasp of it myself).
Janus
Hi All

A simplistic answer with analogy can work wonders.

No disrespect meant to you Good Elf … I love all your posts … your spirituality is refreshing in these times. You and a handful of other people are the main reasons why I keep coming back to this forum.

If you see a fist and then your nose starts bleeding and it hurts … you can safely assume that that fist punched you on the nose … err well no … many things could have caused your pain and bleeding … though the fist might be high on your list of suspects.

The two-slit experiment is very similar. All we know is the source and the result. The route that the photon takes has not yet been calculated in quantum theory … and there is the problem.

Lie group theory for example is only concerned with initial position and final state … in fact they cannot even explain the final state … except that the final state is mathematically correct. So, we have no maths that says what happens in between … and we don’t know what the final state represents. This really does me in … physicists are stupid.

Firstly, photons are 2D waves all the time … that is why we cannot hit a photon with a photon … and also why we cannot see them travelling across the universe.
The wave only collapses when we observe them because we haven’t any decent mathematics to observe them with.

There is no problem with a single wave interfering with it self in the two-slit experiment. This can be shown classically in a tank of water … with a vibrating source … and by observing the first ripple interfere with itself as it passes through the slits.

Yes, I know the experiment works also when the photons are like bullets … but we are cheating the experiment … we are observing slices (frames) of time and not seeing the full picture. Anyway, classically this experiment has been explained by probability and marbles.

To conclude, there is no magic in the two-slit experiment … and yes it was the fist that punched you on the nose … if you had seen it coming and new knew the route it was taking … you’d of ducked … and seen the light and not the stars.

Cheers

Janus

wcelliott
QUOTE
Anyway, classically this experiment has been explained by probability and marbles.

And Feynman was mistaken?

I'm skeptical.

They've done the two-slit experiment with things that have mass, but since when does mass "interfere" with itself. Two marbles colliding and the both disappear? And yet it works with electrons, which are material objects (having a rest mass, at least) which are as solid as anything you've ever touched. (Touching something amounts to the electrons in the outer shells of your atoms repelling the electrons in the outer shells of the thing you're "touching".)

I'm going with Good Elf's theories, for now. He seems to know his stuff.
Good Elf
Hi Janus, eyeque, Neuralize, bukh, yor_on, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, rethinker, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong et al,

QUOTE (wcelliott+)
QUOTE
wcelliott you wrote "You can turn down the laser until you only have a single photon going through the experimental apparatus and still get the exact same fringe pattern.
Each photon is somehow splitting itself into two pieces, going through both slits at the same time. "

That got me confused for quite some time smile.gif
You see, reading you I got the impression that 'one photon only' could produce interference on its own as it 'split' itself.
but looking around the only experiments I've found was Single photon experiments like this one.
In all of them there must be a accumulation of photons over time to produce this interference.
My description may have been misleading, but what I meant was that when they run the same experiment with only one photon present at a time, they still end up getting the same pattern *eventually*. They do need many photons to make the pattern apparent, but it's the same interference fringe pattern even though each photon is alone in the experiment at any given time. Each photon is therefore interfering with itself.

And it was Feynman himself who pointed out that this one experiment illustrated one of the most mysterious phenomena in physics, so if it confuses you, you're in good company. It confused him, also (and I don't have a really clear grasp of it myself).
There is no mystery as long as you abandon the discrete "billiard ball" particle theory. If you stand on a beach and watch waves coming onto the shore... a single wave does indeed interfere with itself as it moves through openings and around pylons.. This "wave" is made of uncountable separate particles (the beach wave) though it does have a "particle" quality that a wave devoid of actual particles does not have. Wavepackets are single entities made entirely of waves (wavelets actually)... they are composed of propagating electromagnetic energy in the far field and they "move" at the speed of light. The "electromagnetic core" of the wavepacket is composed entirely of loops of mutually embracing electric and magnetic fields whose existence is "self sustaining" because as a complete loop in free space they are unable to drive a current through any material substance when in the far field. The way the loop is created at the source is the electric and magnetic field lines cross themselves (as charge centers in the source are accelerated by a simple "impulse") as they are emitted (one at a time from a single source) they undergo magnetic and electric recombination or reconnection to form complete loops and storing the energy in the process.

The remaining field lines "snap back into the source" carrying part of the energy back into the source as part of an overall inductive process. The portion of the energy of the field that is now trapped in the now "propagating" loop and according to electromanetic theory the length of that loop cannot shorten and dissipate until the reverse process occurs in a electromagnetic sink which must terminate on "matter" containing charges. When it encounters matter appropriately aligned with internal electrons (a charged species) the loop splits and undergoes further magnetic and electric reconnection and recombines with the electric field lines of the electrons and accelerates them in currents and dissipating the energy of the formerly propagating loop in the near field of the sink by shrinking these field lines along the length of the loop till it is entirely gone. Fields are real and you can see these phenomena occurring in electromagnetic quantum vortices and knotted fields in laboratories around the world. The overall idea is simple once the idea that we are dealing not with particles but with electromagnetism "in all it's glory" as waves and loops of energy ... you know... the kind you can find in any fusion reactor. Magnetic reconnection is very important to those. These reconnections represent changes in eigenstates from one stationary form to another and their almost instantaneous "snapping" from one stable state to the other. Here is a computer graphic showing how field lines are emitted from a single atom when a photon is emitted...
Short quicktime movie from MIT showing a photon emission (moving off to right) and the residual inductive field that eventually will collapse back into the core.
Here is an animation that shows the whole process for a CW dipole radiator.
Light Dipole... Continuous wave excitation
There is more "snap" in the recoil of this "core". Recall that some photons are kilometers in size ... like the ones from Omega Transmitters whose dipole is a few kilometers in length to produce them. The individual photons then expand into space like those "pancakes" with a "skin depth" of an "appropriate distance in conductive salt water" (to communicate with the submerged submarines). They are "big" and they spread in transverse modes.

Continuous wave devices require a continuous source of energy and atomic sources do not have that "supply". The first animation is a single atom and it emits only one photon at a time. The atomic photon emitter is a one shot device. It receives the energy as a single one shot "catch" and it emits the energy the same way as a single "pulse".... Like a pitcher in a ball game. Once it does that it's energy is dissipated until it finds another "packet" to play with.

Drop a stone in a still pond and the "wave" expands from the source of the disturbance. All waves have this inverse square law expansion. Particles are a primitive notion without any actual verification but they are so strong a concept that we do not want to let go of the idea. I ask you to "conceptually" place a "particle" such that it does not move relative to the surrounding observer reference frame and it will expand to fill that void according to the de Broglie-Einstein Equation as momentum -> 0.
de Broglie-Einstein Equation
How can a "particle" do that"? This is an experimental fact not a theory. The simple answer is it can't. We are dealing with waves not particles.

I think Janus is suggesting that I find "a problem" with the two slit experiment. I really don't. I think there are problems for many others with the concept of wave and particle duality. I am looking for a way to embrace all the "lost sense" out of quantum theory. I am not suggesting quantum theory is "wrong"... it is far more subtle than that. Current "particle theory" lacks the "technical machinery" to deal with the real world. The real world is not an "abstract space" and while dealing with the real world in only abstract terms is "fun" for some I feel it is time to show that this view is very narrow and is not the approach to physics we should be pursuing. We should not be trying to fit the real world to the theory... we need to fit the theory to the real world ... of experiment. It does not matter in the end how much theory you can muster to a problem it only takes one critical experiment to crush it. This has happened time and time again to standard interpretations of quantum theory but the lesson is not learned. I now point to someone who has more clout to convince you all this is a futile approach.

One of the most brilliant minds of the 20th Century and a "living legend" was/is Carver Mead... an associate of Richard Feynman and a truly original mind in a world filled with "sheep". A great experimentalist and scientist that would make some comic book characters "weep with envy" (... if they could that is!). He wrote a book on "Collective Electrodynamics" in which this idea is traced to it's logical conclusions. Look him up in Wikipedia.
He summarized these idea in an interview he gave some years ago...
Interview with Carver Mead
In this he states...
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE wcelliott you wrote "You can turn down the laser until you only have a single photon going through the experimental apparatus and still get the exact same fringe pattern.Each photon is somehow splitting itself into two pieces, going through both slits at the same time. "That got me confused for quite some time smile.gifYou see, reading you I got the impression that 'one photon only' could produce interference on its own as it 'split' itself.but looking around the only experiments I've found was Single photon experiments like this one.In all of them there must be a accumulation of photons over time to produce this interference.
My description may have been misleading, but what I meant was that when they run the same experiment with only one photon present at a time, they still end up getting the same pattern *eventually*. They do need many photons to make the pattern apparent, but it's the same interference fringe pattern even though each photon is alone in the experiment at any given time. Each photon is therefore interfering with itself.

And it was Feynman himself who pointed out that this one experiment illustrated one of the most mysterious phenomena in physics, so if it confuses you, you're in good company. It confused him, also (and I don't have a really clear grasp of it myself).
There is no mystery as long as you abandon the discrete "billiard ball" particle theory. If you stand on a beach and watch waves coming onto the shore... a single wave does indeed interfere with itself as it moves through openings and around pylons.. This "wave" is made of uncountable separate particles (the beach wave) though it does have a "particle" quality that a wave devoid of actual particles does not have. Wavepackets are single entities made entirely of waves (wavelets actually)... they are composed of propagating electromagnetic energy in the far field and they "move" at the speed of light. The "electromagnetic core" of the wavepacket is composed entirely of loops of mutually embracing electric and magnetic fields whose existence is "self sustaining" because as a complete loop in free space they are unable to drive a current through any material substance when in the far field. The way the loop is created at the source is the electric and magnetic field lines cross themselves (as charge centers in the source are accelerated by a simple "impulse") as they are emitted (one at a time from a single source) they undergo magnetic and electric recombination or reconnection to form complete loops and storing the energy in the process.

The remaining field lines "snap back into the source" carrying part of the energy back into the source as part of an overall inductive process. The portion of the energy of the field that is now trapped in the now "propagating" loop and according to electromanetic theory the length of that loop cannot shorten and dissipate until the reverse process occurs in a electromagnetic sink which must terminate on "matter" containing charges. When it encounters matter appropriately aligned with internal electrons (a charged species) the loop splits and undergoes further magnetic and electric reconnection and recombines with the electric field lines of the electrons and accelerates them in currents and dissipating the energy of the formerly propagating loop in the near field of the sink by shrinking these field lines along the length of the loop till it is entirely gone. Fields are real and you can see these phenomena occurring in electromagnetic quantum vortices and knotted fields in laboratories around the world. The overall idea is simple once the idea that we are dealing not with particles but with electromagnetism "in all it's glory" as waves and loops of energy ... you know... the kind you can find in any fusion reactor. Magnetic reconnection is very important to those. These reconnections represent changes in eigenstates from one stationary form to another and their almost instantaneous "snapping" from one stable state to the other. Here is a computer graphic showing how field lines are emitted from a single atom when a photon is emitted...
Short quicktime movie from MIT showing a photon emission (moving off to right) and the residual inductive field that eventually will collapse back into the core.
Here is an animation that shows the whole process for a CW dipole radiator.
Light Dipole... Continuous wave excitation
There is more "snap" in the recoil of this "core". Recall that some photons are kilometers in size ... like the ones from Omega Transmitters whose dipole is a few kilometers in length to produce them. The individual photons then expand into space like those "pancakes" with a "skin depth" of an "appropriate distance in conductive salt water" (to communicate with the submerged submarines). They are "big" and they spread in transverse modes.

Continuous wave devices require a continuous source of energy and atomic sources do not have that "supply". The first animation is a single atom and it emits only one photon at a time. The atomic photon emitter is a one shot device. It receives the energy as a single one shot "catch" and it emits the energy the same way as a single "pulse".... Like a pitcher in a ball game. Once it does that it's energy is dissipated until it finds another "packet" to play with.

Drop a stone in a still pond and the "wave" expands from the source of the disturbance. All waves have this inverse square law expansion. Particles are a primitive notion without any actual verification but they are so strong a concept that we do not want to let go of the idea. I ask you to "conceptually" place a "particle" such that it does not move relative to the surrounding observer reference frame and it will expand to fill that void according to the de Broglie-Einstein Equation as momentum -> 0.
de Broglie-Einstein Equation
How can a "particle" do that"? This is an experimental fact not a theory. The simple answer is it can't. We are dealing with waves not particles.

I think Janus is suggesting that I find "a problem" with the two slit experiment. I really don't. I think there are problems for many others with the concept of wave and particle duality. I am looking for a way to embrace all the "lost sense" out of quantum theory. I am not suggesting quantum theory is "wrong"... it is far more subtle than that. Current "particle theory" lacks the "technical machinery" to deal with the real world. The real world is not an "abstract space" and while dealing with the real world in only abstract terms is "fun" for some I feel it is time to show that this view is very narrow and is not the approach to physics we should be pursuing. We should not be trying to fit the real world to the theory... we need to fit the theory to the real world ... of experiment. It does not matter in the end how much theory you can muster to a problem it only takes one critical experiment to crush it. This has happened time and time again to standard interpretations of quantum theory but the lesson is not learned. I now point to someone who has more clout to convince you all this is a futile approach.

One of the most brilliant minds of the 20th Century and a "living legend" was/is Carver Mead... an associate of Richard Feynman and a truly original mind in a world filled with "sheep". A great experimentalist and scientist that would make some comic book characters "weep with envy" (... if they could that is!). He wrote a book on "Collective Electrodynamics" in which this idea is traced to it's logical conclusions. Look him up in Wikipedia.
He summarized these idea in an interview he gave some years ago...
Interview with Carver Mead
In this he states...
“It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.”

Click on the link and read why he says that...

Here is one of many critical reviews of his book...
QUOTE (Collective Electrodynamics "Review" by Conrad.Schneiker of Munir F. Bhatti's critique of Carver Mead's Book+)
Collective Electrodynamics — by Carver Mead (review)
http://www.athenalab.com/

excerpt...
Back in the early-mid 1980s, I had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to repeatedly see Richard Feynman and Carver Mead over the course of several months—both were very down-to-earth but awesome minds. Carver Mead is one of the great technical and entrepreneurial pioneers of VLSI design technology and silicon “neural networks”, among other things. I think Carver’s latest book is a huge (albeit partial) step towards an improved (more realistic) quantum electrodynamics.

Here is one of the Amazon.com reviews “Collective Electrodynamics”, written by Munir F. Bhatti (Los Angeles, CA), with minor {formatting changes, spelling corrections}:

“Despite his preface upbraiding physicists for their work of the past 50–75 years, the main text makes reasonable claims based upon well-founded experimental and theoretical results. The book endorses earlier work of Einstein, Feynman, Riemann, Lorentz, Maxwell, Planck, and others while making computational and conceptual adjustments to accommodate modern experimental results.

Also in the text, Bohr and other die-hard quantum statisticians are continually under attack for their poo-pooing of possible phenomena, algorithms, and concepts behind the observed quantum behavior. Bohr and his clan, apparently, claimed that the statistics made up the whole baseball team of quantum physics—and that we should not, and could not, look further.

In refuting this micro-labotomic approach of Bohr, Dr. Mead makes reference to systems—macroscopic in size—that exhibit quantum behaviors. While he mentions lasers, masers, semiconductors, superconductors, and other systems in the text, the primary results of the book hinge upon experimental results from the field of superconductors. He points out that physics can be split into several areas:

·        Classical Mechanics explains un-coherent, uncharged systems such as cannon balls, planets, vehicles, etc.

·        Classical Electrodynamics explains un-coherent, charged systems such as conductors, currents, and their fields.

·        Thermodynamics explains how macroscopic statistics, such as temperature and entropy, guide the time evolution of systems.

·        Modern Quantum Mechanics tries to explain coherent, charged systems.

Here 'coherent' refers to quantum coherency, where many particles/atoms march to the same drum such as the photons in a laser, or the electrons in a superconductor, or any isolated one or two particles. Another description of coherency is that the states are quantum entangled; their time-evolution depends upon each other.

The thrust of Carver's book: QM applies to all matter—not just small systems or isolated particles—is well made. He brings up experimental data from superconductors to illustrate that the phenomenon of coherent quantum entanglement can, and does, occur at macroscopic scales; and that such behavior is very quantum. Thus he proves, quite convincingly, that quantum mechanics applies to all coherent systems.

He then closes by making some very important points.

(1)  He shows that quantum behavior of such systems can be expressed in quantum language (wave function), relativistic language (four-vectors), or electrodynamics (vector potential, scalar potential) in an equivalent fashion. This is important, as it proves that a superconductor is macroscopic, exhibits quantum behavior, and that these quantitative results agree with those found from the other approaches.

(2)  He makes the point that the quantum and relativistic equations show that electromagnetic phenomena consist of two parts: one traveling forward in time; the other backward in time. Feynman and others have said this for a long time, and he shows how thermodynamics (or un-coherent behavior) forces what we see as only time-evolution in one direction in un-coherent systems.

(3)  He illustrates, modeling single atoms as tiny superconducting resonators, that two atoms that are coherently linked will start exchanging energy. This causes an exponential, positive-feedback loop that ends with each atom in a quantum eigenstate. Thus quantum collapse is neither discontinuous, nor instantaneous; and in fact makes a lot of sense.

(4)  He explains, using four-vectors, that all points on a light-cone are near each other in four space. This point—together with (2)—shows that there's no causality contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, he explains that two entangled particles, such as photons light years apart, can affect each other immediately if one falls into an eigenstate, since the four-dimensional distance between them (R1 dot R2) is zero. Although separated in three space, they're neighbors in four space. Through these demonstrations and proofs, he successfully suggests that there is a way to further develop the 'behavior of charged, coherent systems' such that quantum mechanics and relativity will agree—but the conceptual changes he suggests are necessary and must be further developed. Also, he admits that a better, more appropriate mathematical and computational methods will be needed, since the complexity of coherent systems runs as n^2.

Pleasantly, then, the book makes elegant, defensible, mathematical and conceptual steps to resolve some nagging points of understanding. Also, the narrative gives the best introduction to electrodynamics and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. Since the theoretical criticisms and experimental data are quite valid, his proposed resolutions are eye-opening and valuable. The methods he suggests greatly simplify thinking about complicated quantum/classical problems. New approaches for future theoretical research are also suggested. Despite the dark tone in the preface, the book is positive, enlightening, and well anchored to accepted, modern experimental results and theoretical work.

It's a short book, about 125 pages, and well worth the read. Familiarity with classical and quantum physics, and special relativity, is required to get the most out of it. As you can tell, I enjoyed it tremendously.”
As an introduction to this concept you may want to read a short paper on the subject (this is not an exhaustive description but looks at some basic points... I suggest you buy the complete Book for full satisfaction)...
Collective Electrodynamics I - Carver A. Mead

Cheers
wcelliott
Sounds intriguing. I especially liked the line about "resonant holes".

Which, apparently, I either imagined or you just edited out.

yor_on
Visionaries, that's what you are:)

Good Elf as I hope you know well by now, I don't have any specific mindset, ah, if any?
I'm open for ideas to fill in what that mind ( that should have been there :) left open..
And I've sniffed at the idea of all being waves for a long time.

You make a very persuasive attempt with your and Carver Meads logic.
It's just that in our macro world we do have both, matter and waves, and they behave extremly different.
And some of the ideas he present is very strange to me.

" A piece of wire is a container for electrons. They simply fill out the piece of wire. That’s what all waves do. If you try to gather them into a smaller space, the energy level goes up."

so why do they have a defined state in the atom.
Why do a photon keep its 'shape' in space-time.
Why not one single photon.

And this 'four dimension'.
Is that implying that we are dealing with different 'objects' that 'materialize' themselves in our three dimensions + time?
Or should it be seen as one 'there' splitting/interfering into many 'here'?
And all of them owing the possibility to grow unlimitedly here but being contained/constrained by?

And keep it simple for me Good Elf.
I have trouble getting my socks on in the morning, soo ::))
bukh
Good Elf

Reading the interview with Mead I noticed that he expressed the following:

"Okay. The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is “incoherent” when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system—the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser—they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart."

- Well - "see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart" - !

I am still intrigued by this question - how comes that some waves can be thougt without the existance of particles to express them ?

What is your take on this ?

Good Elf
Hi bukh, yor_on, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, rethinker, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, Janus, eyeque, Neuralize et al,

This is longer still... really sorry now.... I am only regurgitating what others have already done so in many of these areas I am no longer using my own resources but that wonderful resource... the internet. Carver Mead would arguably be called the greatest "experimentalist" of the previous century. I will attempt to interpret some of his ideas unfortunately I will probably end up coloring his concepts with some of my concepts and I am sorry if that should happen. This is a lot of 'speculation" and there needs to be some honest skepticism. On the other hand Quantum Theory so far is a very skeptical business that nobody seems to want to question the why or why not... there is no rime or reason to all of this other than we have been through a period of unprecedented development but IMHO the development is running ahead of the basic physics and logic was thrown out a long time ago in quantum mechanics. It is the old "shut up and calculate" instruction. You can get a way with this view but even those in the field have no "feel" for the practical physics anymore.

There are more mathematical descriptions of these phenomena and you can be well assured that Carver Mead discussed the precursor to all these points with Richard Feynman on a near daily basis over many years as he worked with him on many collaborative efforts shoulder to shoulder. What I would like to say is I "intuitively" understand only some of these concepts but I have not had any "hands on" access to this level of the theory. There are undoubtedly many out there who are more adequate to handle these ideas than I. Unfortunately they are not normally corresponding on this Forum... and no wonder. One interesting place to "dabble" would be Duke University Course Notes for Physics 319 - Classical Electrodynamics II
In particular to look at the sections involving Green's Functions and the way in which they relate to Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... You can find this 'evolving" under the section called "Radiation". You can see that Carver Mead and many other closet experimentalists around the world understand the practical aspect of having advanced and retarded "waves" in our Universe. It is intensely mathematical but it is classical. In the latter section "Green's Function for the Wave Equation" where it speaks of solutions of the Inhomogeneous Wave Equation we can see a discussion of how to solve for the advanced and retarded wavefunctions and how these apparently "unreal" solutions relate to the real world solutions.
QUOTE (yor_on+)
Good Elf as I hope you know well by now, I don't have any specific mindset, ah, if any?
I'm open for ideas to fill in what that mind ( that should have been there left open..
And I've sniffed at the idea of all being waves for a long time.

You make a very persuasive attempt with your and Carver Meads logic.
It's just that in our macro world we do have both, matter and waves, and they behave extremly different.
And some of the ideas he present is very strange to me.

" A piece of wire is a container for electrons. They simply fill out the piece of wire. That’s what all waves do. If you try to gather them into a smaller space, the energy level goes up."

so why do they have a defined state in the atom.
Why do a photon keep its 'shape' in space-time.
Why not one single photon.
Regarding the difference between "matter" and electromagnetic waves... The "photon" which is a wavepacket... and I hesitate deliberately not to call it a "particle" because of it's relatively defined "shape" like an expanding pancake propagating in free space... actually it is more like these patterns as indicated in transverse modes.
Wikipedia: Transverse mode
These are some "directional patterns" from say a laser pointer for instance. The same might come from a dipole radiator with the addition of several directors to collimate the beam a little. There are also spherical sources of coherent radiation such as the simple AM Radio Transmitter in your local community.
Cylindrical Transverse Modes...
What to note is all these represent a single phenomena ... that of spreading photon radiation as a spatial pattern from a compact coherent source. At that soource the phase of the emitted photons are all "fixed". This spatial phase changes as the wavelet propagates in space. I do not want to describe this wave function phase too closely because it is only vaguely connected with electromagnetic phase. An ideal source of coherent radiation physically places the source in a very confined strictly understood position in a highly compact point of origin. This being done if I emit continuous wave radiation from such a compact coherent confined spatial source this pattern emitted can ideally be like the pattern at 00 in this image. More likely what you will get is one of the top line of patterns 00 -> 30. The 00 pattern is usually the most sought after profile and a mask is usually placed in the way of the beam to block that radial variation in the pattern. The pattern 30 is the normal single pinhole diffraction pattern called an Airy Pattern. This is what you measure when it falls on a screen or an array as a varying intensity pattern. A cross section of the 30 pattern gives this profile...
Single Slit Transform pair... Sinc function
That pattern has a subtlety you are not really seeing and it is the fact that the sinc function varies from a positive vector to a negative vector and back to a positive vector ... attenuating all the while. The image can't show that variation and what an image sees is the square of this vector amplitude. What this does to the sinc function is convert it into an "intensity" function (inner product)... the square of the amplitude (an artifact of measurement). This results in twice as many apparent maxima and minima ... interesting to remember.
Ideal Airy Disk
Airy Pattern as a Directional Radiation Intensity pattern showing the "lobes"
This is the single pinhole diffraction pattern. It is not a coincidence that this photon pattern forms in this way. A linear array of pinholes makes a slit and a vector sum of a series of these interference patterns which are all formed from the one source and are in phase with each other, provides the single slit interference pattern. Two sets of these slits spaced a small distance apart give the classic double slit interference pattern shown here superimposed on the "fuzzy" overlap of the two individual slit patterns...
DSE from the Hyperphysics site
Hyperphysics Home
You said...
QUOTE (yor_on+)
" A piece of wire is a container for electrons. They simply fill out the piece of wire. That’s what all waves do. If you try to gather them into a smaller space, the energy level goes up."
Recall almost everything is composed mostly of "empty space" even a wire is "mostly empty space". The difference between a wire which is a conductor and a gas or even an insulator (like a ceramic) is that "some" electrons are free to move around in conduction bands that all the atoms in the wire have in common. These conduction bands are not made of substance they are basically "waveguides" between the atoms composed of that empty space but this space is no longer "insulating" but conducting... able to allow the electrons to move unrestricted by the electrical forces that usually bind them to the central atoms. In this state the electrons are "basically" de Broglie matter waves and they can swell to fill the space which is the entire internal "mostly empty" volume of the wire. The other electrons are in that wire too and they too want to "swell up" and fill the space but they also have a charge which can mutually repel other electrons.

What actually happens is the charge in the wire is neutral overall (no nett forces because there is no nett charge overall). The individual electrons "fill" the wire uniformly, both collectively and individually. Conceptually consider a lone internal electron somewhere inside the conduction band of this wire and consider what forces it may be subject to. From the perspective of that single electron inside that "sea of electrons".. no one electron is attracting it since the charges are no longer concentrated at points and there are electrons to be seen in all directions equally... no tugging in any particular direction, like fish swimming in an ocean the pressure is the same in all directions so fish swim freely even in the bottom of the ocean miles down. If all electrons have swollen due to de Broglie matter wave expansion (they are at rest with near to zero momentum) to "fill" the wire there is no center of attraction or repulsion that "our" lone internal electron can see. All the electrons behave like "ghosts" and they merge their electric fields and pass through each other unopposed in the "sea" of the other electron fields. In another sense of this analogy these "expanded" electrons act like if they were in a Faraday's cage and the charges all effectively reside on the surface where these "virtual charges" are all neutralized by the nuclei surplus charges which coincidentally have also all expanded their outer shells to fill the space and their charge to "effectively" reside on the surface to be neutralized by those electron charges. The residual nuclei also must partially engage in this behavior as well but the main difference is the nuclei are not as free to move being trapped in a crystal lattice (... still... it is basically empty space). The only "forces" that electric fields can exert are gradient forces and the gradient forces we believe an electron exerts is due to the fact that sometimes they appear to be radiating field lines from the electrons which we are told are point sources. According to Carver Mead this is a fiction. In this expanded and merged state of all electrons the field lines have no gradients and respond only to externally applied electric field gradients which are able to move them easily through the wire. These fields come from the battery terminals and are impressed through the wires. You see that from an infinite dense point charge these electrons have "diffused" to become a wave that has spread everywhere bound only by the surface of the wire.

The "energy level" is like that pressure at the bottom of the ocean on the fish... it is there but to fish that are adapted to the pressure in the deep they can't feel it though it represents a potential column of water several miles high. So while electrons are in this "wire shell" composed of mostly empty space the electrons are free to move unopposed as long as they do not try and cross any potential barriers.... for instance if they try and "jump ship" and escape the wire they leave an excess charge behind and this excess will try to "suck that escaping electron back". Wires have these "energy levels" and atoms have these "energy levels"... they are conduction bands confined to what appears to us as being smaller regions of space inside the atoms... Same principle though. In one sense these electrons do not need to behave like "little planets" and whizz around their "central suns" (the nucleus), as long as they remain in these "on shell" conduction bands and not try and move into the "Mott Insulator" between the bands they are free to travel anywhere they are allowed to go. A small point... these bands are not spatial bands entirely though there is a spatial component they can spatially overlap bands from other eigenstates. While little billard balls are confined to "orbitals" electrons are not "billard balls" unless they are moving at high energy like the electrons in a cathode ray tube. In that case these accelerated electrons become compact and behave like High Energy Physics Particles. Electrons, as these diffuse neo-stationary wave spread states, do not need to move much and behave in some respects like a Bose-Einstein Condensate "fluid" with collective properties. That is what Carver Mead appears to be saying. The electrons as a "expanded fluid" "mark out their territory" but still conserve spin and angular momentum like ice skaters in a frictionless "rink". IMHO there are no obvious electric field gradients there either (for reasons given above) so the "expanded" electrons are not subject to any continual acceleration as would be the case in the strict interpretation of the Bohr Model with central charge nucleus and point source electrons in "orbit"... both entities charge species with large field gradients. The "unobserved" particles will once again expand to fill their respective spaces even merging seamlessly in the space once more like "ghosts" merging their fields in the shells.

QUOTE (yor_on+)
so why do they have a defined state in the atom.
I take it you want to conceptualize why the electron take up "states" in atoms such as the "Bohr Shells or orbitals". If I take away all the electrons from a hydrogen atom you still have a proton, a fundamental particle, and you can analyze this object and it's quantum states without electrons... in fact this is the only system for which an exact solution exists because all other "atoms" are subject to perturbation and some computational "error". It is the "naked proton" that yield the eigenstates of atoms. The eigenstates for more massive atoms and atoms with electrons are derived from solutions which involve this single entity. The conduction "shells" are still there even when there are no electrons.

Cast your mind back to the previous post when I discussed the natural phenomenon of "spatial impulse functions" distributed evenly in space. This illustration...
Fourier transform pairs
Number 4 is a "comb" each "tooth" is what could be considered as a "perfect particle"... one with "extent" but "perfect edges" like a billiard ball. Real particles do not have perfect edges, they are "fuzzy", and real quantum objects exhibit spatial "gibbs phenomena" because they are de Broglie matter waves, the fundamental "gibbs phenomena" is the impulse function and real world objects also exhibit this effect.
Spatial spreading of an impulse function from unity to infinity
... click to enlarge....
The matter wave is one of these effects. The transform of this from space into spatial frequency we see equally spaced "matching" spatial line spectra in the matter wave spectrum, alternatively this "translates" into zones or orbitals in which we have a phenomenon like the conduction inside a wire occurring but in "miniature". The difference between what we "see" and what is actually there depends on the nature of this effect as perception. I have demonstrated that with the Fourier Image Processor we have simultaneous views of the world as an image ( spatial intensity) or as spatial frequency... these are the simple relationship between the two and exist in our world simultaneously. We "see" images in our world these are impulse intensities but if I were to show you the spatial frequency equivalent you would not be able to make sense of it. This later "image" of out world are the various frequencies that make it up and are bright specks in "this" complex plane.
This image...
Double slit pattern as "speckle"
is the transform of this "image"
Double slit diffraction pattern
The double slit you see on the left is an image made of a pair of slits illuminated by coherent light that are "in phase"... the "speckle" pattern are individual photons "filling the pattern in" over a "long exposure". Our world makes sense of the double slit which is a spatial brightness pattern but finds the interference pattern incomprehensible because it is a frequency representation and because that is the way our eyes work. Interestingly if our Universe or even a restricted view of the world as "frequency" is "frozen" into an emulsion by direct exposure without a lens then a hologram is formed. This means "almost nothing" to our eyes but if illuminated with a coherent source of the same kind reproduces an image far richer than our eyes can appreciate and a complete three dimensional "reproduction" of the space is formed even if only some small portion of this interference space is used as a secondary source. Both interpretations exist in our universe simultaneously but we ignore one and "respect" the other and use it to interpret our world. A kind of cultural prejudice species with eyes like ours have. Our instruments can record these patterns the same as it can record the picture of your girlfriend but they appear meaningless unless we process them in a "non-cultural way".
Spatial density function....
2D Spatial density function (picture of a man considered as an array of sources with different intensities)
The equivalent Spatial frequency function (1/x)... the transform...
the same picture of a man (spatial frequency view an array of spatial frequencies from zero in the center to infinity at the extreme edge)
Note (by symmetry in a four dimensional universe) that there is also a temporal density view and a temporal frequency view as well rendered as some kind of transform (see the reference from Duke above)... Our brains are not able to process this information sensibly but it is a variation through time seen as a hologram .... the Wheeler-Feynman view... we see this aspect (time) like a "film strip" that we can't reverse and as only a sequence of snaps that our brain processes "sequentially". Somehow there is a possible hologram that might be produced that could include all four dimensions that could potentially capture all aspects of our "spacetime"... I don't know how this might be produced in any consistent way but some technical devices are being made to approach this concept... though in a relatively primitive fashion as a "recording".

Optically these matter wave ripples are sites for emission and absorption since they form resonant cavities in which photons can resonantly be trapped. Electrons can also be trapped in these "cavities" as well and behave like a "particle in a box" and can be solved as an eigenstate solution for Schrodinger's Wave Equation. Increase the spacing between these "particles" significantly and you have a series of unequal but discrete lines that start to differ in amplitude and phase (some spectral "lines" up and some "lines" down... positive and negative frequencies... it is OK when dealing with the complex plane) tending toward the "outline" of the sinc function (sin(x)/x) and in the limit as the separation between particles tend to infinity this "becomes the sinc function... which is a continuous classical function.

Consider for a moment the "emptiness of space" even inside matter. If the nucleus of a complex atom were the size of a very small bowl of cherries in the center of a large major stadium (each cherry representing a fundamental particle) the outer shell of this "atom" would be in the top seats way out in the bleachers on the outer wall. This "atom" is considered by many to be "solid" but in actual fact by this reckoning it is almost entirely empty and the three dimensional "impulse functions" of particles would be almost as distant from the electrons in the outer shell as some planets are from our sun. Space is "real empty"

Think of the charge on an electron like "gravity" and it attracts the "gravity" of oppositely charged species such as protons. The other funny fact is if the spins of electrons are opposite they will attract each other when they are in these orbits. That tiny spin would make no difference if the charge was the dominant "force"... it clearly is not much of an influence in these atoms when the electrons are in these "conduction bands", once again the collective behavior of electrons in these "shells" (or wires or other conductors) dissipate the influence of this mutual repulsive charge in an abnormal way. It has been shown that the electrons in successive "shells" have no apparent influence on the electrons on other "shells" (a "shell" is an eigenstate and not to be though of like a shell around a nut). If "bare charge" was "exposed" there would be a lot of "force" carried from one shell to the next due to repulsion between like "charges". This "force" is not there. The shells are like superconductors and electrons are like "Cooper Pairs". These electrons are not "part of any atom", they are "lodgers". The electrons can come from any other atom they are interchangeable for all atoms. They are like "parasites" and "promiscuous". I would now like to draw a correlation between what I have said and what Wikipedia says about "Cooper Pairs" and you will see the overall point here.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Cooper Pairs+)
In condensed matter physics, a Cooper pair is the name given to electrons that are bound together at low temperatures in a certain manner first described in 1956 by Leon Cooper.[1] Cooper showed that an arbitrarily small attraction between electrons in a metal can cause a paired state of electrons to have a lower energy than the Fermi energy, which implies that the pair is bound. In normal superconductors, this attraction is due to the electron - phonon interaction. The Cooper pair state is responsible for superconductivity, as described in the BCS theory developed by John Bardeen, John Schrieffer and Leon Cooper for which they shared the 1972 Nobel Prize.[2]

The reason for the pairing can be seen from a simplified explanation.[2] An electron in a metal normally behaves as a free particle. The electron is repelled from other electrons due to their similar charge, but it also attracts the positive ions that make up the rigid lattice of the metal. This attraction can distort the positively charged ion lattice in such a way as to attract other electrons (the electron-phonon interaction). At long distances this attraction between electrons due to the displaced ions can overcome the electrons' repulsion due to their negative charge, and cause them to pair-up.

The energy of the pairing interaction is quite weak, of the order of 10-3eV, and thermal energy can easily break the pairs up. So only at low temperatures are a significant number of the electrons in a metal in Cooper pairs. The electrons in a pair are not necessarily close together; because the interaction is long range, paired electrons may still be many hundreds of nanometers apart. This distance is usually greater than the average inter-electron distance, so many Cooper pairs can occupy the same space.[3] Since electrons are spin-1/2 fermions, a [u]Cooper pair is a boson, to which the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't apply[/b], so they are allowed to be in the same state. The tendency for all the Cooper pairs in a body to 'condense' into the same ground quantum state is responsible for the peculiar properties of superconductivity.
Wikipedia: Cooper pairs
Notice this pairing also occurs in atoms "at and above room temperature" but the phenomenon is restricted to the resonant shells (and probably only within conduction bands but there are some qualitative differences to this phenomenon and superconductivity). What has been said there is "close" to the way Carve Mead interprets this phenomenon. Carver Mead worked many years on superconductivity and he has "hands on" experience... I would accept his view as a true experimentalist.

The electrons in atoms "pair up" forming mutually attractive pairs.... "spin pairing" just like "Cooper Pairs" and I suspect for the same reasons. There is an interesting point to note about energy... many people think energy is absolute so the energy in an atom is a fixed quantity and related to some "zero point energy". While there is some truth in the concept that an absence of energy or energy density is an indication of absence of the state (such as a particle) the energy of all states in the Universe do not relate to some "point" at which the energy is zero. This is because energy in all it's forms is strictly relative. The relationship of the amount of energy a state has is a difference between two "levels" with a scale which is conveniently fixed to the zero pointing at the "relatively lower level" and the the other level naturally being the higher level. There is no absolute zero point in potential energy and there is no absolute zero level in kinetic or potential energy and by definition there also are no others either since all energy in all it's forms is either potential or kinetic. Any idea that there are "absolutes in this area violate the Principle of Relativity ... both the Special Theory and the General Theory.

Energy is capacity to do work. The usually unwritten law is if no work is actually done there is "no energy". It is also strictly a binary function... Work is done by one source on another source in the "system". There are many "equivalent" systems you could have "built" but in the end one system and only one system will have that work performed on it. There is no potential energy unless the work is actually done. One of the biggest errors in Physics is the concept of relativistic mass. There is no such thing. There is relativistic energy but not relativistic mass. Einstein wrote this...
QUOTE (Einstein+)
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote...

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

Here is another quote taken from a reference book in the field by JA Wheeler...
QUOTE (Wheeler+)
The preference for invariant mass is stressed and justified in the classic relativity textbook "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler who write,

"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
You can find other references to this problem as well and it is a strange thing that so many physicists speak of such incorrect concepts publicly even to this day. The point I am making here is there are many counter intuitive ideas in physics and they arise in the last 50 years or so simply because there has been a frustration in science which has the effect that supports the idea that "nothing makes sense" and some errors in description of these matters do not change that at all.

"I think" that answers the question about the defined state in an atom for the electron or the photon... if not please explain the question more.

QUOTE (yor_on+)
Why do a photon keep its 'shape' in space-time.
Umm... the photon is sandwiched like jam between the upper speed linit of light and the lower speed limit of light. The photon can't slow down or speed up to "get out of its own way. All it can do is spread... and that it does admirably into one of those transverse modes. It can spread no more than that... that pretty well defines it except for conformally spreading in spacetime which is overall curved due to the presence of matter wave sources.
QUOTE (yor_on+)
Why not one single photon.

Don't actually get this question... Of course there can be one and only one photon.
QUOTE (yor_on+)
Is that implying that we are dealing with different 'objects' that 'materialize' themselves in our three dimensions + time?
Or should it be seen as one 'there' splitting/interfering into many 'here'?
And all of them owing the possibility to grow unlimitedly here but being contained/constrained by?

May have lost your idea here... I just do not get the question if there is any?

Now for Bukh...

QUOTE (bukh+)
"Okay. The quantum world is a world of waves... [..] ... - Well - "see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart" - !
I am still intrigued by this question - how comes that some waves can be thougt without the existance of particles to express them ?

What is your take on this ?

If you mean packets of energy as a "particle" then the exchange of energy is what our universe does best. Photons are the exchange force in our universe at our scale. Clearly everything is pure potential or kinetic energy and the exchange of this is all there really is. The creation of mass can happen from just "two highly energetic photons" and the annihilation of that mass can occur equally as easily releasing those two photons. Matter clearly is composed of "solitons" of energy. Light is composed of "solitons" of energy. Conservation laws prevent the former from easily dissipating and being spontaneously created while the latter are not subject to the same conservation laws and can be created and destroyed on demand. That is the difference between matter (fermions) and photons (bosons). It is also clear that certain properties of fermions can be considered as bone fide bosons when they run around in pairs (like electrons) or form atoms that are natural bosons by a head count of the total fermion quantum numbers. These "composite particles" then apparently partially violate "space quantization laws". Some waves can be knotted as I have referred to previously. These form spacetime "defects" and exhibit some of the properties of mass and that includes "topological charge".

Remember the paper by "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" by Williamson and van der Mark...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
or the paper...
"The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
The Nature of the Electron
The electron is a dancing electromagnetic wave with a certain topology...
Twisted toroidal strip model of the electron
This is called the Hubius Helix. It is a basic model. If the electron has no size why does it have a dipole moment?

Electrons and positrons are "connected" as shown in this "simplified" mud map...
Two "dancing" EM waves at the mouth of two "matched" quantum vortices
These mimic in some way the concept of the Falaco Soliton that you can make in your pool....
Falaco Soliton... analog of electron positron creation... note the "connection"

Cheers

PS: The various "measurables" in quantum systems and the measurables of spacetime are "orthogonal" and have a mutual relationship that is related through the Fourier transform. The more precise you measure one the other become less precise in exactly the way the function and it's Fourier transfor relate to each other. Check this out you will be surprised about how we measure things and how these measurements are not as simple as we might think.
Orhogonal varibles - Conjugate variables and Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty.
the references for this are there as well...
bukh
Hej Good Elf

QUOTE: "The creation of mass can happen from just "two highly energetic photons" and the annihilation of that mass can occur equally as easily releasing those two photons."

Recently (some months ago) we discussed this boson - fermion "interchangability" - where I said that there should be such a free both-way - and You had concerns about that - and I am happy to see that You have apparantly moderated Your mind - because it is mandatory to universal functionability according to the 3D Pixel Universe.

QUOTE: "If you mean packets of energy as a "particle" then the exchange of energy is what our universe does best. Photons are the exchange force in our universe at our scale."

Yes - I agree that Photon is the exchange energy - or I prefer to use the term Qubit - in our physical scale (again with due reference to the 3D Pixels universe) - but my question is more directed towards this very very essential about what a wave IS ? Can we imagine - can we describe - can we get a wave to function without having said wave defined out from discrete "particles" - or "dimensionality" - and I see no way to escape this particular question - because everything become - according to my thinking - very abstract if we avoid that question. And I am not happy at all by this saying that some waves - EM's - can appear and live and interact and transform and - and - just out from no-where - So YES I find it mandatory to include a very very exactly defined MEDIUM. So to put it short - there cannot be a wave without a discrete medium.

And Yes - I agree that exchange of energy is what our universe do best - actually it is all it do - and again better say Information (qubits) instead of energy - because when digging deeper in universe we eventually end up to discus informational exchange and how it is being executed (or how we best can think this process) - and along this line - in order to exchange - in order to translate one expression into another - I cannot think how such processes should be executed if not via wave-interferences. So irrespective how we turn everything we end up in this wave-particle duality - one cannot make sense from waves alone and one cannot make sense from particles alone, a wave must be made from waves and waves must be made from particles - and everything is about how such particles (dimensionalities) communicate in wave-like expressions - and how everything is being scalewise arranged is this duality.

QUOTE: "The creation of mass can happen from just "two highly energetic photons" and the annihilation of that mass can occur equally as easily releasing those two photons."

Yes - thanks - and that also tells us that the difference between massless boson and mass fermion is much more subtle that we normally wants to see it - or has been seeing it for long time. I like to think that everything is about the trajectories that fermionic and bosonic waveexpressions takes relative to our observational frame -(3D Pixel rid) and fermionic very simply can be defined as any trajectory that is not straigt - and straight can be further qualified - to be non-circular - non-repeating within the observayional frame. The word "within" is important - because it implicates that a boson as observed in one frame can translate into a fermion provided that we expand the frame - so on the bottomline everything is according to how it is being observed. (observation does not change anything - but everything is being percepted according to how it is being observed)

QUOTE: "Matter clearly is composed of "solitons" of energy. Light is composed of "solitons" of energy. Conservation laws prevent the former from easily dissipating and being spontaneously created while the latter are not subject to the same conservation laws and can be created and destroyed on demand."

Yep - solitons of energy equivalent to qubits of information. I agree that fermionic expressions are not easily created nor destroyed - in that they represent stable standing wave-patterns (in the observed frame) - and then you say that bosonic expressions can be created and destroyed on command - well - I prefer to say that bosons represent any qubit that is not brought into repetition in situ (relative to the observed frame). I like to see it out from the 3D Pixel Universe where bosonic expressions is the equivalent to the domino-like re-arranging spherical spreading wave executed in the scale of Pixels. It means that a pixel re-arrangingement needs to be triggered - and the triggering mechanism is the floating vacuum-differences in the pixel-system - where differing small vacuum gradients from one pixel to neighboring pixel releases the pixel quake -wave. So this implicates that any from outside coming bosonic waves will serve as disturbances in such vacuum-balances - which best can be seen as an unstable balance - so outfrom- coming bosons serves as initiators - facilitators - catalysators for generating propulsive bosons - (OK I admit that perhaps a longer explanation is required )

QUOTE: "These "composite particles" then apparently partially violate "space quantization laws". Some waves can be knotted as I have referred to previously. These form spacetime "defects" and exhibit some of the properties of mass and that includes "topological charge"."

Sorry - I am a bit lost as to what You are hinting at.

bukh
Good Elf

PS

I forgot to ask why we can see our surroundings when we switch on the light ?

yor_on
"QUOTE (yor_on)
'Why not one single photon.'

Don't actually get this question... Of course there can be one and only one photon."

forget that one Good Elf. I was reading another guy too and you and him had similar (to me that is) ideas. He was discussing Graphene and had an idea of how the electron expanded to fill out the the 'space' in the material depending on it possibly being i a 'groundstate', if I remember it right. Kind of mixed my impressions there, also I was thinking of an earlier discussion I had.

As for the one about dimensions I was just wondering how many dimensions there was to this theory. And also how it looked at time.
Somewhere i got the impression that there was four dimensions, not counting time.
If we are talking of waves, then how many dimensions do they need?
two?
Is that why people refer to graphene consisting of one layer of atoms as two-dimensional?
Anyway, you gave a very good explanation and I think I see some more of your thinking here.
But I will have to read it again, as always:)

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.