Prof Reza Sanaye

My Lady* You were very kind indeed , going to the extent of typing so in-detail to make a point clear to me ( and , I hope , to others). As for commutativity of extensionalities , I gather that you have remained faithful to the traditional sense of the word in common physics literature. the major moot point , I suppose , are the last two lines : " In order to answer the question "what is the momentum of a particle when it passes point x?" you have to answer first the question "Which part of the particle passes x ?", since it does not all appear at x at once. " Here , you have actually brought in the notion of a (wave) packet acting as an (Macro) object. Very interesting .. .. Of course, , , , , the packets themselves move according to some sort of "mechanics". In case they acted within a Field , then they could not have behaved Quantum-ly , to coin a word by your permission. Thence , A question arises because the assumption is that the Schrödinger equation must needs be solved in Minkowskian spacetime. This Problematic is removed in Francis (2014) since the wave function is viewed as a mathematical model rather than an ontological construct, and it evolves in a non-physical affine Minkowski spacetime rather than curved spacetime. When states are measured, they are projected back to real spacetime as and when wavefunction collapses. Yet another point is the fact that QT works without a priori data. It simply has NOT gotten any datum of that kind. How , then , do packets take time to pass , say , point x OR point y or z or so on and so forth ? I should hardly think I am illogical both in following you and in bringing things to a more coherent cogent ship"shape as you always insisted on . . .Am I ?? Of infinite length , Sir . . . . . So how and where can it collapse according to physics' common sense ?

Thank you Sir , for your explanation. And for your deciding to get involved in the clarification discussion. From your statement ,and from Moderator Swansonts' , applying my own understanding of modern physics , I gather that knowledge as such plays no active role in natural inanimate systems, whether classical or quantum – this term enters physics only in conjunction with the observer, experimenter or thinker. Which , in turn , spells that, in theory, calculated/measured values have no relation to the subjective significance level of the result to the observer; that is impossible to evaluate. But we should note that we have potential knowledge, i.e. an expression of the results that an analyst does not have…. but hopes, on average, to obtain from the result(s) PLUS the assumption that full new information will be received after the action. And, it is equal to maximum uncertainties (ie, maximum entropy) that can be predicted to arrive at new knowledge following calculation. It may , furthermore , be noted the time order here becomes of vital importance: The degree of complexity (entropy) of the system can be measured by potential knowledge before its final condition(s) is determined in a calculation. I expect to be corrected by any one of the participants in this seemingly plain , but ( in my opinion ) deep discussion on this specific niche of modern physics IF, OF COURSE , I AM ANYWHERE WRONG. Quote from Studiot : " There are also classical wave packet systems that act in this manner. The Fourier transform, swansont mentioned doesn't only apply to quantum theory. " Are you here propounding an equivalency of physics rules ( at least , one physics rule ) in Micro- and Macro-physics ? I am very keen on knowing about it a little bit more precisely . . .. .as this is one of my most favorite areas in teaching philosophy of science . . . .. . .

Momentum vectors vs position vectors have their own space functions . Do you agree ?

Excuse me Sir , Do you mean HP is or is NOT in the eyes of the beholder ??

The most straightforward “for-dummies” elucidation of the HUP is: The location and velocity of a microscopic particle can never be determined simultaneously together. Of course , an experiment might be structured such that the location of a particle can be estimated. You may also estimate its speed from a separate experiment. But you can never plan things so that both their location and their pace can be precisely determined. If you possibly take the decision to go a bit beyond the "for-dummies" understanding , then I suggest the following link to be followed. I have not edited it. Nor have my PhD students. However , we all found it helpful in our weekly casual debates : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-interpretation-of-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-is-proven-false/

In many areas of Southern Europe , we call this "cousins in distance" . .. . .. May be turned into English as Distant Cousins

quote from iNow : " No. It was a singularity such as those predicted at the center of BHs, but was not from a BH itself. " Singularities have little meaning in maths , let alone in truly objective physix. Big bang seems to be very scarcely different from Creationism ....... The two are intrinsically the same .... __________________________________________________________________ quote from Migl : " There is no upper limit on BH size. There is only a limit to how much you can feed them. Once they 'eat' all close by mass via their accretion disc, they can't overcome farther out stable orbiting material, and stop growing. Direct collapse, however,without going through star lifetimes, is a totally different mechanism." Seems more like a fable . . .these so-called Mechanisms . . . Least to say : they are not mathematically supportable........specially in this order .......... _______________________________________________________________________________________ quote from Migl : " Dark Matter particles may get very close to each other, or even collide, but, since they don't interact via the color force, they will not clump together like quarks in nucleons, or protons and neutrons n the nucleus due to residual. And since they don't interact electromagnetically, they won't clump like electrons and protons in atoms." Do Dark Particles real exist ? Too far-fetched a story.......Even hypothetically .............. had better ( and more reasonable ) do without them ...........

thank you , .......

So apply it , Please . . . . .

GR and QFT , so well-hammered out in view of "some" people , are , in point of fact , clashing badly against one another. Any physicist can see that. Regurgitating nonsense without evidence is also part of modern-day physics. It is Mr Wizard Peer-review that makes it not seem nonsense. CERN guys are synthetically producing particles and sub-sub-particles , smashing previous particles into each other somewhere near the speed of light !! simply to read out their own version of particle physics. Only a blind one cannot possibly see how synthetic ( and overly theorized/mathematized) the whole business goes there in Switzerland/France.

Quote from Airbrush : " Since I was raised by devout Christian parents and attended Christian grammar and high school, I feel I can be critical of my own religious experience. I have an observation about the basis of Christianity, and maybe a look at religion in general. I took my religion seriously throughout grammar school, but by high school I was becoming skeptical. Why did God or Jesus never talk to me in my ... .. ... And so on and so forth . . . ." ________________________________________________________________________ Whether you return back to religion or not , the very fact of doubting it is a positive sign of your character's growth. This means that you are not simply accepting whatever is told you for the mere reason that it was told you. You challenge Authority , AND EVEN IF THEN YOU DECIDE ( OR ARE FORCED ) TO CLING BACK TO CONVENTION & AUTHORITY , AGAIN YOU HAVE NOW ATTAINED A HIGHER level of self- and Authority-understanding . . ..

Then what shall we do when (many more natural AND synthetic) mutations occur every now and then soon after this grandiose public vaccination ?? !! Please do not tell us that they will simply not occur AND please also do not claim that the vaccination process itself shall suffice for any more mutations ........

I can only guess that such huge amounts of "hype" , as you name it , are for purposes of alleviating tension that is rising from left , right , and centre ; AND for bringing back some level of trust into the present Politico_Scientific Establishment . .. .. These vaccines' dangers , as you are quite well explaining , are evident.

Quote from Duda Jarek : So what is kinetic energy in a fluxon ? " In these models we have energy density (Hamiltonian, can be translated to Lagrangian) - usually with some spatial derivatives like stress, temporal for kinetic behavior, and potential (e.g. Higgs-like) ... integrating energy density we get mass of particle, usually scaling as in SR thanks to Lorentz invariance. Unfortunately it is quite tough calculation, I have attached for kink of sine-Gordon a few posts ago. " _________________________________________________________ Keep in mind the Hamiltonian actually refers to absolute energy. In other words, the sum of potential and kinetic energies. The disparity between kinetic and potential energies is known as Lagrangian. Hamiltonian equals total energy in an optimal, holonomic, and monogenic system (the normal one in classical mechanics) when and only when both the limit and the Lagrangian are time-independent and the generalized potential is absent. In any coordinate system, the Lagrangian is optimal for systems with conservative forces and for bypassing restriction forces. Generalized coordinates can be used for ease of use, to take advantage of device symmetries, or to take advantage of the geometry of the constraints. However, in Lagrangian mechanics, a quantity known as the Lagrangian is used to explain the behavior of a system. Both Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics allow you to reduce complicated x, y, and z coordinates to the system's most fundamental properties. The problem is that in mechanics, the term "physical" refers to something that follows the laws of physics and/or is detectable and observable. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are matter or energy. The problem is that the Lagrangian is defined as kinetic energy minus potential energy: L=T-V. As a result, several science students, including myself, will ask, "Why would you do that?" Since energy is preserved, it makes sense to incorporate potential and kinetic energy, so why would you deduct them? Many physicists regard the Langrangian as a more basic phenomenon than energy, despite the fact that it does not appear to correlate to something physical. It's all the coordinates and variations in coordinates here. Acceleration, for example, is called "physical" (in the sense of being measurable), while speeds greater than the speed of light are considered "non-physical". We may , of course , apply cyclic coordinates or symmetries for reducing the number of variables in dealing with how particle physics and macroscopic phenomena look like. Would you offer elucidation(s) on these , please ?

Causality is a very human-centred way of looking at things around us. Events may not be caused much as beings may not. We may start to look at things as being more of "processual" nature rather than causing/being caused. Causal features in human nature can be no other than mere transcendental structures of pure experience. Without (human) experience , no causality can manifest. Moreover , originative causality has something very serious to do with time , too. It is of an absolute temporal nature. This also has to be taken into consideration and explained. For example , Let's remind ourselves that much ( or all ? ) of the difference between observer and the observed vanishes once we stumble upon the "rim-spin" of lots of electric media. I shall feel very grateful towards Tylers100 if (s)he , please , initiates to elaborate on some of these concerns . . . . . . ..

Quote from joigus : " I meant those in the theory of electromagnetism. You seem to think something is not needed in Maxwell's theory. You said: (My emphasis.)" { end of quote} Quote from studiot: " First and foremost fluxions are something Newton invented to do with calculus. We are talking about fluxons.." { end of quote } ___________________________________________________________ I thought I offered enough of examples. Let's talk a bit more on these fluxons. And possibly compare them with phonons , too. Wikipedia says : " In physics, a phonon is a collective excitation in a periodic, elastic arrangement of atoms or molecules in condensed matter, specifically in solids and some liquids. " Phonon, in condensed-matter physics, is a unit of vibrational energy that arises from oscillating atoms within a crystal. ... A phonon is a definite discrete unit or quantum of vibrational mechanical energy, just as a photon is a quantum of electromagnetic or light energy. Photon is a packet of energy. Phonon is deemed to be a unit of vibrational energy. Fluxon is a quantum of electromagnetic flux. Quantum itself has been introduced both for purposes of quantising and for bringing down the level of accuracy to tiniest degree possible ( in fact , thus , bringing "up" the accuracy level). Fluxons , phonons , and photons are similar in that they are not things-in-themselves. Fluxon turns out to be a phenomenon , not even very precisely a unit , standing somewhere in between a unit and a subjective phenomenon ( rather than an object , while many students of physics regard them as objects ). Photon stands for a "corpuscle" or "packet" of energy. You cannot possibly say that adding them together fills any manifold with energy. They are , rather , flowing , , , ,,they are "in pass" . . . .This is when the concept of energy itself has close ties to "Force" ( which is more tangible ). But energy is not force. Energy is the potential to perform "work". And itself turns out to manifest in so many different kinds. The situation with Phonons is even worse. Fluxons can have their own ( not very objective , even epi"phenomenologic) interaction with Magnons , too. In the similar way that photons are particles of light, phonons are particles of sound or heat. ... Photons (particles that carry light and electromagnetic) do not interact with each other if they have different wavelength. However, phonons at different frequencies can mix together and generate superimposed wavelength. Here again we are dealing with "something" in the middle of being either a (cluster) unit or a carrier of "something" else ( this latter , being , say ,energy). Physicists call these basic levels of energy phonons. In a sense, then, “phonon” is just a fancy word for a particle of heat. Which is , in its own semantic turn , becomes a particle of energy [ AND NOT A UNIT]. A masterpiece of hodgepodge of things-in-themselves turned phenomena to be dealt with not unlike "units" !! with varying dimensions . . . . .. . . . . How many more of these are we to witness in near or distant future in post-modern physics ?? !!

So therefore , most of these , contrary to joigus' idea , have nothing to do with Maxwell. It is quaint why joigus regards whatever electricity physics there is , to have been created by the late Maxwell . . ..

Was it Maxwell who invented up Magnetons , Fluxions , Non-linear and dot-dependent Zeeman splitting , minimal coupling , Abrikosov vortices , quantum dot arrays , bulk g-factors , etc etc . . .. . and many many more that the present trend evidently demonstrates will be given birth to in the coming months and years ?? !!!!! In yet other branches of physics , was it Maxwell and his contemporaries who birthed creatures such as Ten !! Dimensions (in , say , string theory ) ??? !!!

First & foremost , these very Magnetons and Fluxions , Sir . .. . .. .. . . .

Very Dear Studiot ; It is, in fact, flux. To be even more precise , it is electromagnetic flux. The negative flux only equals the positive flux in magnitude, so that the net flow or the cumulative flux is null. If a net charge is present inside a closed surface, the overall surface flow is proportional to the load used, positive if positive, negative if negative. Electric flux has SI units of volt metres (V m), or, equivalently, newton metres squared per coulomb (N m2 C−1). Thus, the SI base units of electric flux are kg·m3·s−3·A−1. The dimension can however change when you are actually talking of topological fluxion on manifold(s). You may , for example , go from Dimension-3 to Dimension-2 or even to 1. One should not expect the dimensions all remain the same with these changes. You can even do the reverse and go to higher dimensions , like D-4. I would , however , not introduced this ideatic entitiy into modern day physics. I do agree with you that objective utility must be the criterion. What is the purpose of inviting in even yet more conceptualisations when we have too many of them in physics of electricity ?? !! Seems some PhD theses have to be written some places for filling out positions in some "other" places. I do not agree with the over"mathematisation in general , either. Where are we going with this many sub-sub-branches of physics ( and science in general ) and with so much of theorisationary Mathesis ?? !!

It is NOT a Primary Unit of Energy(PUE).

quote from studiot : " what is kinetic energy in a fluxon ? " ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The total energy at its originary point to surmount the locally barrier-acting manifold and (thus) overcome prospective dissipative effects ( you know , they have to "climb" barriers ).. .. ... ...

quote from duda jarek : "I again recommend sine-Gordon model to understand massive particles - containing rest energy which can be released in annihilation, also working as inertial mass due to Lorentz invariance ... and such particles can only approach the propagation speed c, at cost of energy growing to infinity, it cannot exceed this velocity." [ End of Quote] Many thanks Duda for this hint......... I shall soon start going this way in order to see what types of outcome will possibly manifest . . . . quote from studiot : "what is 'dying away' in a fluxon ?" [End of Quote] I was talking there of the dissipation of kinetic energy. . . . . . ..

Any perturbation of effect on what is normally called "matter" has to have back"wave modified repercussion as an integral part of its function(ing). Atoms under consideration to process imprinting formats of any kind of wave , say solitons or magnetons in this case , ought to be able to revert differing retracting-extending forces over to the lattice created only as a local manifold for emanating vortices in complex line bundles on the general Riemannian manifold(s) . If levels of flux are (to be observed) to die away in units disregarding temporal dimensionality , as for example gauss/cm2 (originally in CGS) or 2 tesla/m2 (SI) , then it would be real interesting to study the composition of two wave velocities v and u in the cases when: v<c and u = c; when v>c and u>c; when v>c and u = ∞; when v = ∞ and u = ∞. What happens with some of the basic laws of physics in each of these cases? Are we to simply dismiss the present symbolization of true Toposes in favor of radically revolutionary mathematical syntaxes ? Can we , then , not make changes mathematically take place but topologically/physically not appear at all ? Have interlocutors in this present discussion thought of these broader schemata of the way (wave) physics is dealt with ?