Mike Smith Cosmos

From the science perspective, I would still be interested in the ultimate BED ROCK ?

 

 

There is a certain Professor of Physics, 'in your neck of the woods' whose quantum statements do suggest One Single , if not THE One single Quantum principle that all the rest of the Universe as we know it depends on .....for its existence ....And at face value its not deep maths..

..........could this be nearing..... .................... .... BED ROCK.

 

.The Prof. I refer to here is :- Professor Richard Wolfson Michigan, Dartmouth, Research widely published, Contributes to Scientific American. Also Book Einstein Demystified. Says in a Series of lectures on Einstein 's Relativity and The Quantum Revolution

Says in so many words :

That Planks Constant as a proportional ratio to frequency in the smallest possible ENERGY QUANTA and if it were not for this, there would be :

No individual matter,

No individual anything ( thus no maths to deal with number of things and all those mathematicians who came afterwards )

No atomic structure

No atomic particles

No Photons

No electron orbitals

No De Broglie Wave

No Bhor orbits

No ..etc etc

No and on and on and on

So there you have it :-

-Bingo Bedrock -

Or at least one or two layers up.

Down two layers

Who or what put in the original chunk to be split up or quantum- ised ?

Who or what set the amount as a Quanta namely Planks Constant h

. h = 6.62606957(29) x 10(to the minus 34) or h bar =1.054571726(47) x (10 to the -34) ?

Good Question

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

Footnote :

Plank said :

Energy = h x f ( where E is Energy in Joules , h is planks constant in joule.seconds , f= frequency cycles/sec)

From which DeBroglie got wavelength from Einstein E=mc squared , and equation above . and so it went on to Bhor, Pauli, Schroeniger Dirac etc etc

It seems like the "spin" is derived from taking the Heisenberg route, no wonder it doesn't have a direct physical meaning, it's just a implied implication of using trigonometric equations to describe trajectories I guess the answer really is "that's just how it works". Although it does in a way seem like if I really investigated it I could in some way relate it to a unit circle or at least visual trigonometric properties, which in a way it has, but not directly for the unit circle. Do you think it is just a coincidence that I can almost perfectly model the truncating by a plane of the polar equation theta=nh(sin2x) it looks nearly perfectly like the highest probability distribution locations in a p orbital? But of course it isn't exactly a coincidence, there are some properties of particles like waves.

I guess what I really want is to see spin pointed out in the Schrodinger version of things while it's happening in some animation, I realize that it will not be in exactly the same form, but there would seem to be some way to calculate it outside of the Heisenberg mathematics as atoms still had the same properties in the experiments done. If I boil it down enough no matter what I will eventually arrive at "that's just how the math works", but I want to see it one step just before that.

As a previous comment by yourself , you spoke of a vibration or oscillation. Where a point such as an electron , vibrating or it could be described as oscillating about a mean point. If then for reasons of trying to represent this vibration one extended the displacement from the mean point , against time, one could represent this as a sine wave. Be it that this is merely a representation against time it looks more like we imagine a wave. However the electron at this stage would not be transmitting an electro magnetic wave or it would be expending its energy. This is not possible unless the electron is able to go to a different energy band. However if it is vibrating or oscillating as part of its nature, then it obviously has a wave like nature. ( An oscillation or vibration being part of the electrons nature). All that is needed is for this vibration or oscillation being in some way creating an actual angular momentum. If the electron is present at an orbital radius r then a circular force would be present as . . --mv(squared)/r as v in one direction is -v in the opposite direction ( 2 separate v's in opposite directions ), however v(squared) remains positive. (spin can be 2) then angular momentum is present, but no loss of energy, until a change of orbit. ?

OK, let's say this happened. Now you'd have to ask why this is the case, what is the nature of the interaction, and what these new particles are, among others. You've just moved everything one level down, but the same issues are present.

 

 

I disagree. There's fairly wide acceptance of "shut up and calculate" to the question of understanding quantum mechanics. Most scientists aren't involved in research into fundamental issues anyway.

This is all a bit sad.

Obviously its good that a lot of scientists are carefully rounding out the current theories. But equally, space must be left for "blue sky" research, which includes the 'Dreamers'. After all it appears indemic in our nature as humans to dream, and as I understand it, at night our brain detaches itself from the more mundane logical day to day problems and issues involving the strong neural links , and explores some of the less used, neural pathways. This is no doubt why we dream sometimes crazy dreams! Sir Bernard Lovell of Godrel Bank Radio telescope fame, once said, "If we do not as a society continue to fund Blue Sky research we will bankrupt our future."

So I am very much interested in seeing the peeling the skins or layers. Who knows that 2 layers down might lurk a big truth which can unlock some of today's problems or scientific queries.

Stephen Hawkins once related how at a conference some Indian lady was supposed to have asked ...." yes Mr Hawkins, but in our culture, the earth and universe is riding on the back of a Turtle ! ". He said , "yes but what is the turtle riding on ? " The Indian lady replied

" Well sir of course .. IT's turtles all the way down !"

From the science perspective, I would still be interested in the ultimate BED ROCK ? or at least a layer or two

There is a certain Professor of Physics, 'in your neck of the woods' whose quantum statements do suggest One Single , if not THE One single Quantum principle that all the rest of the Universe as we know it depends on .....for its existence ....And at face value its not deep maths..

..........could this be nearing..... .................... .... BED ROCK.

.

In reality, nobody. the issue is that you can't find a way to test models' mechanisms at the fundamental level,

Does that necessarily have to be so. : for example if somebody in a stroke of genius said (and they just happened to be right say ) that the electron is not a fundamental particle, but is made up of two particles held together by some clever means or other But Only ever would slit apart if resonated exactly at 50 megahertz and accelerated against a similar particle Only at 2 Kiloelectron volts each , then the would pop apart for a microsecond and then recombine. Surely that could be tested very easily. If it came out as true surely a fundamental working would have been tested as correct.

I am not for one moment suggesting this as a correct speculation ( unless I just had a moment of miraculous inspiration ) However I was trying to suggest underlying fundamentals should be continued to be sought , and not neglected. Like the Higgs for instance, who I understood Peter Higgs thought about it one day walking across the Moors ! ( I think !)

Or have I got hold of, the wrong end of stick ?

SORRY I wrote this post before I read QSA's last 3 comments, who is in fact saying similar things

In reality, nobody. Philosophers, theologians and crackpots pretend to know, however. In physics, the issue is that you can't find a way to test models' mechanisms at the fundamental level, only that the models work to give you the right result.

If that is the case, that frightens me. That's really what I always want to know. That puts me at sea without a Paddle !

On the other hand, that would put the mathematical models, up a notch or two. Meaning the maths IS NOT the fundamental level but a very precise operational descriptor. In another way, its what you have been saying , I believe, on many occasions, That : the models and laws are just tools to predict the operation of " whatever" not the actual mechanism or happening itself.

I still want to have some insight, however as to what is really going on , down there , up there or wherever. When string theory first became widespread in 1980's , I avidly read up on it, and thought this is the fundamental bedrock. ( In terms of Topological surface , dictating the vibration of ultra minute strings. But it all seems to have gone oblivion.

As Regards the QSA Comment and reference sites I have not read it all yet but it sounds like a lot of it is all about 1000's of virtual photons all over the place doing a lot of " Coal Face " activity with a whole new set of laws, and whole new way of going on ?.

Couldn't say, I'm not so familiar Dirac Sea, but based on my research it doesn't seem to apply much to what you're suggesting. It seems to model different energy states of particles and antiparticles, or like an infinite number of them, but something doesn't seem quite right, I am seeing "negative x" where it doesn't make sense, unless that it something to do with the description of antimatter that I think is the quantitative of "anti matter can be thought of as normal matte but with negative energy going backwards in time", or at least that's where I think it comes from, but it does not seem to model the probability density created by interference of two electrons in a system.

Now that is interesting!

the mechanism is an automatic outcome of a more comprehensive theory that was presented before in speculation. but you can read the basic direct answer in this link and ask more questions if you like.

 

http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

EEk, You are coming at me again , That science is all Maths .( as Mr Tegmark has said a couple of times.) I need an Asprin and a good nights' sleep.

http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414

 

Remember that these are models — physics explains how things behave, and not so much what's really, fundamentally, going on.

Thanks for links , But if Physics does " not explain so much what's really, fundamentally ,going on. " then who does ?

the thread is confusing. it is a question in speculation ! then the answer must be mainstream !

 

anyway for a good technical mainstream you can read ZEE's book. he calls the derivation of Coulomb law the 20th century triumph. yet it is only given in terms of energy variation. read 1.4, 1.5

 

http://gr.xjtu.edu.cn/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=21699&folderId=223292&name=DLFE-2506.pdf

 

 

I also have my own "speculative" theory, the mechanism is direct and clear. If you like, I can open a thread about it in speculation.

QSA Great, ! do it here if you like as we are already in speculations. I perhaps should have asked the question in main threads. However I did think there might be some interesting ideas about.

.

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic response regarding strings, and subsequent posts, have been removed. Respond with actual, accepted theory.

 

The short answer is that the way the electromagnetic interaction is modeled is that it is mediated by photon exchange.

So going for the "Rock Face" principle.

Here we have some source of Charge ( Say Positive + ) or Magnetic Pole (say North Pole N).

We are sitting here in space Just ,off the Positive source or small distance off the North magnetic Pole.

A) to a similar Charge or similar magnetic pole at a short distance away.

B) to opposite Charge or opposite magnetic pole.at a short distance away

What prompts any photons to be released? Do they have a quantum energy, frequency etc and what happens to them when they reach the similar or opposite (charge or pole)

And What makes A) the devices to push apart or B) the devices to pull together.

Do the photons push, pull or what ?

It seems like the "spin" is derived from taking the Heisenberg route, no wonder it doesn't have a direct physical meaning, it's just a implied implication of using trigonometric equations to describe trajectories I guess the answer really is "that's just how it works". Although it does in a way seem like if I really investigated it I could in some way relate it to a unit circle or at least visual trigonometric properties, which in a way it has, but not directly for the unit circle. Do you think it is just a coincidence that I can almost perfectly model the truncating by a plane of the polar equation theta=nh(sin2x) it looks nearly perfectly like the highest probability distribution locations in a p orbital? But of course it isn't exactly a coincidence, there are some properties of particles like waves.

I guess what I really want is to see spin pointed out in the Schrodinger version of things while it's happening in some animation, I realize that it will not be in exactly the same form, but there would seem to be some way to calculate it outside of the Heisenberg mathematics as atoms still had the same properties in the experiments done. If I boil it down enough no matter what I will eventually arrive at "that's just how the math works", but I want to see it one step just before that.

The following is slightly speculative , so needs to be read in that context :

Surely this series of experiments ( Stern-Gerlach) has distinct looks of magnets orientating. In view of the magnetic moment caused by electric charge rotation or spin. Surely this is yet another example of a certain measure of actual spin being present in electrons. Be it that most atoms have an equal amount of magnetic moment. Some do not , which I understand are the magnetic materials.

Perhaps the spin is only partial arc, not complete rotation. More a vibration. As has been voiced by your good self SamBridge. The vibration need only be an up and down, or as I am saying a partial Arc vibration. Extended against Time or distance such a vibration becomes a sinusoidal Wave.

The reason for partial arc is because another electron is often present in the same orbital but in equal and opposite direction. ( hence the Tuning fork model ). repulsion Negative to negative .

If necessary this paragraph PinK can be moved to speculation as a new Thread .( What causes Magnetism in Atoms )

A lot of the activity of fundamental particles relies on degrees of attraction or repulsion by such things as + & - ELECTRIC CHARGE or MAGNETIC attraction or repulsion. At the 'Rock Face' , what is actually going on to cause a going towards , or a going away pressure.? This can include other forces such as GRAVITY. Etc

 

Yes. I have already mentioned here "asymmetry-and-monodynamic/page-2#entry724445" --> wiki the Curl_mathematics

 

Is that it-is one story about the angular aomentum. Can you help me to find a raison that I've made an asymmetric topic method ?

 

"Asymmetric" does mean two objects --> M1 and C1 on my pattern.

 

M1 is "the string". C1 is "the charge". The distortion between them create the matter (particle and anti-particle).

 

The energy vector Q is "the needle". So the angular momentum, is in the force of energy.

 

String's Distortion create the mirror to asymmetrically in the vector Q.

In Three lines Simple, Words

What is your end Goal

Thanks for your comments Swansont, Sambridge, Angel123 and Michael from Athens and any others..

I think we are left with lowering the canary in a cage down the mine ( in case of killer gases). That is ..

Before we make positive assumptions about places in the universe dissimilar by too many degrees from our Known environments.

Things like black holes and neutron stars are consistent with existing laws, just as they are.

What about Quasars, Voids, and the initial Singularity or Big Bang

Its time to investigate The Angular Momentum of the electron, "spin" that Niels Bohr used to set up the early description of permissable orbits

 

Hello Sebastian,

 

The reason we say the photon "interferes with itself" is because a photon can be expressed as a wavefunction instead of a discrete particle.

 

None of this is intuitive since we do not experience these effects in our daily lives so it is natural to feel uncomfortable with all of this. In that sense, to get a true understanding you have to delve into the math as there really is no intuitive connection to our experiences.

I think that all that you say is correct, except the last sentence, as quoted above.

I am probably in a silent science minority, as I have and hear this and similar statements said very often. I really wonder if most people are saying " the king has beautiful robes on " when he is naked , but because everybody else can see he has no clothes on but dare not disagree with the majority, they repeat " the king has beautiful clothes on ".

This is not meant as personal criticism , as I hear this repeated over and over.

I am just throwing this comment in here as I wonder if we are not trapping ourselves into a massive mathematical swamp, only to be occupied by mathematicians who are trying to calculate themselves out of the swamp. When what is really needed is an old Door and a Rope

I know quantum physics is amazingly different from everyday life. Its taken about 50 Great Renouned Scientists to take it from 1890, if not before

to the present day and they were not all mathematicians.

All I ask is , give the Ideas, concepts, exploratory models , discussions, reasoning , thinking out of the box, plenty of headroom .

1) Let us begin with the end, " ( the relentless march of time, universal time or local time ? ) " the universe does manifest some irreversibility in terms of universal time

Universal time can be measured as maximal proper time along all geodesic curves connecting an event to the big bang.

Each geodesic curve measures local maximum of proper time. From all such curves connecting an event 'e' to the big bang, we choose the ones

along which absolute maximum proper time is measured. In that way, to each event in space time we can attach a number.

Since this number grows along curves we can say that such a model of space-time has memory. You have to understand, however, the physicists do not like such an

idea because it shows time which is absolute and not relative. For this reason my paper was rejected for several times despite mathematical beauty and simplicity.

On the other hand it is possible that Nature does not really remember what is the absolute maximum time to each event because the theory I presented uses only

the gradient of that time and the gradient is purely local.

 

2) "how can you have negative frequency ?". This question is tantamount to mine. How can we have absolute time ? We can in a mathematical description where the

outcome with physical meaning is the gradient of such a time. The meaningful outcome of negative frequencies will be the reconstructed signal.

A mathematical model has to work. Whether its intermediate products have a physical meaning or not, does not have to bother you as long as the outcome makes sense.

 

3) QM used imaginary functions above the Hilbert space with the self adjoint opertor. The value with physical meaning will not be the imaginary functions. It will be the

square norm of such functions. There are many such examples in physics.

Ok I have sort of followed. Only just...!

1. Which seems to reconcile the notion of universal time "that relativistic physisists don't like" with local time by way of a gradient. That is sort of a dt/DT where t is local time and T is universal time ( or vice versa ) presumably . I like the sound of this 'gradient' idea of time ( is that your idea , and does it act as some form of measurement of entropy and its direction eg + ( plus ) if forward in time increase in entropy - (minus ) if decrease in entropy ' ? negative time ? '.

2. I sort of just about get this one but only just. You might need to go into a little more explanation as to how this fits with "mine" I presume you mean your thesis. Again this gradient of time, I like , as it has connotations of local perceptions of time ? may be.?

3. This one, you really are, going to have to , translate or explain more simply for me. Although I am a physics and maths trained individual, I will still need a bit of a guiding hand through No 3.

However, I am getting a nice flavour, so if you would be so kind as to carry on , I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Keep taking the Asprin

How do Partice Accelerator's work? How do they speed the particles up so that it gets so close to the speed of light? Also what are particle accelerators used for?

If you get a stone on the end of a piece of string/Rope say 2 -3 meters long and swing it around ( do not do this unless your nearest person is a long way from you say 20 meters ). as you go on you find the speed of angular movement increases quite dramatically. This is because the energy you input on the first rotation is added to the second rotation and onward ( apart from air friction ) would build up quite considerably.

Such is the principle of a particle accelerator. The energy is put in each rotation by electric fields (synchronized) . The particles are steered by magnetic fields, and resistance is minimized by reducing the air. The particles can thus reach very fast approaching the speed of light. ( not quite) If they do another in the opposite direction and then let /switch them to collide. All that energy can go to make new particles. ( eg The Large Hadron Collider )

 

The structural foundation of science is the experimentation and results from those preceeding you. Their work cannot be disregarded because I'm expected to be skeptical to all new theories unless and until I can confirm with my own experimentation.

These scientist up through the early part of the last 130 years have done some amazing research and experimentation around your question of Probability and the Quantum. . Lets see if there are any gems which can inspire you.

How about Prince De Broglie and his Wave, Associated with every thing, Neutrino, electron. the earth

.

In my layman interest of QM, I've learned that fundamental particles cannot be imagined in any sensible way compared to our macroscopic world. Thus, I highly doubt that spin, a property of such particles, can also be approached in an intuitive respect.

 

From what I've read, the same mathematical formulation can be applied to an atom's nucleus, something less intimidating as far as how we picture it (even whole atoms and molecules). Could someone provide insight on what maybe these kinds of spin would look like?

I think one thing is certain . Nearly all things we come across, particularly in the Galaxies move and often spin. Everything is moving. Not all but most celestial objects are spinning, even if they are synchronized with a parent body. So as things are captured they spin. The smaller the radius becomes the faster it spins. Then there are quantum restrictions. Most things in the universe are currently captured thus spinning.

What this results in , like magnetic moments, fields etc deserves our closest scrutiny. Its not a casual phenomenon.

If you change the laws too much, all of the sudden stars don't work. So just observing stars in all directions is an indications that the laws can't be very different. There are people checking at a more precise level, but deviations, if they occur, are small.

Yes I could see that, as its all very similar stuff.

But what about the extremes, :- Black holes, quasars, neutron stars, inter galactic space, voids, Big bang etc

If you have rotation control it can sort of act like a loop hole, but not really, you can alter the probability and trace only a localized trajectory, but definitively not the exact trajectory.

You seem to be hinting at those very small dimensions, the 6th dimension I believe, which is supposedly wrapped up in very small regions of space.

The "feed back" as you mention is moderated by gauge bosons, which are also used in string theory, though their transmission can be potentially be described without extra dimensions, they do have a property of a rope where they are predicted to "snap back" to their parent particle upon interaction.

But spin is a pretty hard thing to describe exactly, it doesn't really have a physical meaning, it's not a physical rotation of any sort.

Essentially what we know is that other spin states just can't exist, their existence just isn't supported by the mathematics we use to model them, if they tried to exist with any other spin they just wouldn't exist any more, there isn't enough evidence to support that it's exactly like a rope, a lot of quantum physics isn't really physical at all.

Yes, but to remove the spin totally out of spin would surely be a mistake, as I understand it , there still is actual angular momentum there somehow !

 

You check where you can.

 

You haven't checked gravity everywhere on earth, but it's reasonable to conclude that it's present everywhere.

Fair comment.

But as we are probing now into deep space, time, the very dense ,the very large, and the very small, I'm not sure we can be convinced

to assume the laws of physics are the same every where. I would think " the jury is still out on that one "

Can we ? or am I being unneccessaraly cautious ?

Well, you guys reel in your catch, from the wriggling, jumping quantum fishes. I will try to throw in the odd men/women of the giant quantum story and what they added to the subject.

I was hoping that if anyone has a deep understanding then they MAY be able to provide a basic explanation of the main principles. If you feel you can, then please do; I'm sure it would be considered useful to many on here.

 

Part 2. Einstein

Einstein had been reasoning and researching the nature of atoms, and how they moved about. If anyone has ever done the smoke cell experiment , they will have seen how smoke particles are juggled around by bombarding air molecules ( atoms). Einstein made his break through with looking at pollen grains on water where the same buffeting occurs, in this case by water molecules. He became famous for this and his work trying to understand how light worked . ( He knew of Planks work with light) ( Chunks, Planks constant Very small, Frequency, Energy E=h x F)

Einstein played around with metals and the phot- electric effect . If you shine light of a certain frequency , getting up above red to Violet suddenly electrons are released by the light and a current ( individual or many electrons can flow. ) In chunks.Quanta ( quantum). A lot of Thinking , reasoning and experimenting with light being emitted when energy is supplied , he showed that the light came out in chunks, Quanta ( quantum). These became Known as Light Packets or PHOTONS By graphs of Energy plotted against frequency he produced a minimum frequency and a slope of a graph. The minimum frequency was as mentioned above. up toward Violet, and the Slope of the graph was exactly Planks Constant. Bingo. Einstein became famous for this and his work on motion , and relativity.

Also, Light was seen to spread out across space as individual packets , chunks Quanta/Quatum or photons which remained intact, So the individual packet was as intense on the wave front , as it was when it started its journey. The number of photons were decreased as they spread out across an increasing wave front on a spherical surface. ( like a bubble growing in size, colours go a bit thin) but if you could get at an individual packet , although the density of photons per square meter would be going down as the sphere increased in size, individual photon packet would remain the same as it started its journey. ( this is all to do with the inverse square law and the area of the surface of a sphere having a ( pi r squared )term in it. The early extended history of the light Quanta/Quantum

So much for Einstein part 1 and Quantum Part 2