Mike Smith Cosmos

Yes.

Are Laws of nature are our description of nature doing its job .

In line with my attempted summary posted two places Back ?

Obviously explaining quantum physics is in now way an easy thing to do, but 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.

I have a relatively strong understanding of physics in other areas, but quantum physics still blows my mind.

Keeping nice and simple to begin with, as it spans a lot of different famous scientists over 100 years and counting.:-

I will start the ball rolling by saying the word quanta probably started with :-

MAX PLANK.

Experimenting with the emission of light from hot metal , he solved the strange graph of emission against frequency of light ( red hot , yellow hot etc) by coming up with a formula with a fudge constant that he put in called h Planks constant . Later on in his research , and thinking he reasoned that the radiation, to do with vibrating electrons would come off in 'chunks' , he called them 'quanta.' .

He even worked out a value for the energy of a quanta as being Energy = h x f , in other words the energy coming away in chunks or 'quanta' is his Plank constant multiplied by the frequency of the light radiation coming off.

He did not get famous immediately , but when others including Einstein got hold of it , it made Max Plank and others famous.

So there is where the idea of Quanta or Quantum got its name and a bit of a boost . Many more scientists were to add to this .

Max Plank

In view of all that has been commented in the recent posts, it would seem that we are saying that :-'for what ever reasons', in the first instance

All the contents of the standard model in its current and future form, respond to each other and the fields in which they find themselves, including all the photons involved,

This response can be mathematically described in many ways that we call natures laws often having the name of the discoverer.

We can only say that these responses are true for our initial frame of reference and are the same for other frames of references , provided we have observed and checked that all relevant responses are the same as those in our starting frame of reference.

This then is not a correct assumption, as it is only true , if we have checked that it is true.

That is unless we have some PROOF that the universe is totally identical throughout or else only to the regions that we have observed

I still think most of what you're saying isn't really scientific, saying "for some reason it seems to synchronize" especially doesn't make sense at the atomic level because there's no in between orbitals or frequencies for electrons to transition with, with the pendulums what's more likely is that there is a value of oscillation that is very close to the system being at equilibrium which both attain, the energy lost from a system becomes so much smaller compared to initial losses that eventually they just both look like the same value. If I have X^5+bx^4+cx^3.../ X^5-3x^2-1... vs x^3-5x.../ x^3-X-1..., even though x^5 will always yield a higher value, both systems will asymtote at y=1 and eventually you could set the windows of the graphs so that they both look like the same curve.

I'm not sure we have to be unnecessarily complicated to be scientific all the time. Things seem to settle down to the lowest energy usage , Resonant, bottom of the hill or dip in the curve. I agree to explain something mathematically may be a nightmare at times, but the root concept may be quite simple. Convergence seems to be a very strong driver for nature. This as opposed to a sort of determinism , driven by mechanism.

I know some mathematicians, maybe you are one , believe maths is at the root of all things.Although many years ago I was grounded in maths. I now believe it is similar to accountants. Absolutely vital for a good business to grow, prosper and survive , yet useless without a business idea and model to make up the body of a business. So with math, essential to quantify, describe detail, check performance etc but empty without the key concept drivers. If you are an avowed believer in the sanctity of maths, you may take offence by what I am saying. Which is not my intention or desire. I have enjoyed your arguments , and hope they continue. However I will continue to dig for underlying , principles, concepts and models when possible. If you take me out a distance on maths alone , I will feel that I am being taken out on sheet ice without a hand rail.

No I'm saying they possibly exist as more than 3 dimensional objects.

But what dimension , variable or quality is available to the particle in these other dimensions.

Sorry you have appeared to have answered this above . Need to do a bit more thinking.

Math doesn't equal the universe.

I went for a walk with the Jack Russel dog earlier today and sat on a bench thinking about the subject of the Laws of Physics and Maths.

Two things came to my mind which I believe Einstein was quoted as saying during the great debates on quantum physics at the Early years of the 20th century. The big names of physics battled it out with discussion and argument.

One thing he said " I do not believe God plays dice. " This was to do with the probability aspect of quantum physics. This proved wrong as Einstein agreed later.

Another was " maybe God did not have a choice in how the universe could be created". Namely the rules of mathematics have a habit of demanding certain Maths Rules to be obeyed.

I don't think Einstein was particularly a religious man so he must have been using these points as illustration of the difficulties even these men with their great minds had with modern Physics.

All this gives me encouragement to persist in debating these point of physics as the great masters of physics did in the early 20th Century.

So back to it: -

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where are we ---------------- ?

 

The laws account for different influences, e.g. you have a star with twice as much mass, there will be twice the gravitational acceleration at a given distance from it. The commonality is that the behavior is predicted by general relativity/Newtonian gravitation. Or the energy of electrons in atoms of differing charge being in accordance with QM.

 

For the laws to be different you would have to be deviating from the equations, and that's not been observed. Or, more precisely, any deviations are limited.

Ok Thats fine , so you are saying the influence on anything like the mass of the star ( or 2 x the mass) is following Newtonian F= Gm1m2/d(squared) and general relativisticly responding to the matrix of space time.

So the 'law' or influence is born out of the nature of the matter and the fabric of space-time local to the two masses

. Ok. Well can we be sure that the same amount of matter 'squidged' up into some form of degenerate neutron star type material , finding itself in a particularly distorted area of space time near 73 quasars, with space time doing a loop-de-loop , is going to follow the same natural influence (laws) as the same amount of matter just out half way to Proxima Centurus our nearest neighbour star. ?

If that is so . --------- I concede defeat. __ I------_=O __________ ------------- ( Just for the moment ) -----------------

I don't think they have names, after 4 it just becomes too complex to give dimensions any sort of visual name, they just call those dimensions "dimension n" of a "n" dimensional manifold in "n" dimensional space. With our current framework, light can travel as the way it currently does in 10 dimensional space but not in 3 dimensional space, which explains why the lighting always seems off when I do 3-D modeling. or at least according to the string theory model, I'm not sure if that's exactly true. Essentially the way you just have to think of higher dimensions as just something parametric equations. As one coordinate dimension changes according to a certain equation, the coordinates of the lower dimensions change to sustain the correlation of the position of the object in that n dimensional space. What these dimensions actually are is just unknown, if an object is higher than 3 dimensions, all it means is you need "n" components to describe its location.

So are you saying that particles that are separated in normal geometric 3d space are linked via one of these other two dimensions you talk about.?

As far as I can understand, a particle can be absolutely measured for momentum or location inversely proportional to each other.

 

So if we're measuring an electron's momentum absolutely, then its position is entirely unknowable.

 

However, do electrons not travel at the speed of light? If we nab an electron to measure its position, why can we not assume it was travelling at the speed of light just before we measured it, therefore measuring absolute momentum and position?

 

I'm a quantum rookie, so be kind to me and my ignorant question!

I have a few observation which might be of some use :

As far as I understand

1. the probability wave which is associated with each and every thing no matter how large or how small extends from - infinity to + infinity having almost zero probability at infinity rising in an oscillatory manner of amplitute to a maximum that then falls away in a similar oscillatory manner to minus infinity , be they large like a person or an earth or miniscule like a quark.

The peak amplitude is where we normally are, and infinity or near infinity is where there is the minutest of possibility , none the less a finite real possibility that we could be there. The nature of the waves are such that for objects our size, and the earth the probability wave is of sufficient frequency and distribution, that it falls off to practically zero, just off centre. So we are where we are. For an electron however the probability wave is of sufficient frequency and distribution for one or two or maybe more of its probability amplitude peaks to be somewhere else, than where you think it is. There is an area of electronics called quantum tunneling where electrons appear to escape over or through barriers which appear to imprison them .

2. When the probability is 1:1,000,000,000 or one billionth one might think. well that is as good as not going to happen.

3. There are in the universe many places , where there are billions of opportunities in fact billions upon billions. eg in the center of stars . So unlikely fusion to higher elements occurs because although it is very improbable the 1 in a billion comes around very very often.

4. The Universe is full of Billions of Billions of Stars so even though the conditions for intelligent life to survive are highly highly unlikely ( Here we are )

5 . Pollen is produced in vaste numbers , as is human seed.

So the universe is built around Probability and vast numbers !

In a way your tuning fork analogy makes sense, because you treat both the electrons as one system, but the analogy with tension doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, electron field strength is directly proportional to the energy state, but the repulsion isn't caused by any sort of "movement", and there's nothing that "builds up", it's caused by the exchange of gauge bosons.

Yes, you are probably right. The tuning fork relays, or couples its motion through the cross piece at the bottom of the two arms. Here is where the self coordinating vibration is transmitted. This by tension and compression longitudinal waves. The loose ends are where the large action is.

Its probably the principle of coordinated action is where the model has something to offer to electron pair coordination. There the model might stop, and another one like the rattling kids toy may be more suitable to take up the story.

I believe it was Richard Feynman who said in one of his lectures , when discussing how similar pendulums have a habit of self synchronizing when near each other said:

" its like shoals of fish when they turn nearly instantly. Its Not he said some communication field, its the near neighbor coupling. Each fish has two coupling rules { 1 . i want to be close by 2. i don't want to be closer than 10cm (say) } These coupling rules cause this majical effect when you see shoals of fish turn and shimmer in fantastic formation."

From my personal observations :-

I have come to notice how when many coupling happens between dissimilar pairs there is usually an attractive element and a repulsive element both present .

 

No, because it sounds like you're equating laws with space, or material in space.

 

o.k. that is a fair comment. I was just attempting to pull a few previous comments together probably ineffectively .

I think I am picking up the message that 'things' follow paths according to how 'things' find themselves under influence at the time.

But if that is the case, it very much would support the idea , that if conditions are different at other locations the influence is going to be different, thus the named laws different ?

I f ( I am not sure if you were saying ) maths is the ultimate influence then that is a very heavy subject to argue out ( is maths at the root of everything ). Even if that were thought to be so, it begs the question , are there vaste as yet unexplored areas of maths that behave, or influence under other regions of the universe where conditions are different ?

.

We can't be 100% sure that there are no mechanisms in Nature that violate the second law of thermodynamics.

 

We simply don't know. We should never forget that physics is a collection of models that quantitatively

predict observations

I really feel that in view of your research , you have something very valuable to offer here on the nature of Entropy.

I am not sure i have managed to get my head around what it is you are saying.

Could you possibly make a summary in simple yet accurate form .If you could be so kind. I think there is a fundamental truth lurking in here somewhere and would like to hear more.

When I was doing a degree in telecommunications,we were going through a Fourier analysis of some waveform or other.The professor drew on the board a complete spectrum from negative to positive about the zero axis.( zero hertz ) The positive frequencies were a whole set of lines of various heights. He drew an opposite set of lines on the negative side, saying at the time "we only use the positive ones." ( I think it was something to do with broadband ). I was curious at the time ' how can you have negative frequency ?, it does not make sense '

I never did find out.

Has this anything to do with the past in time ? and entropy , in the past . ? But past to who ? or What ( the relentless march of time, universal time or local time ? )

 

 

Entropy is

You have been working close to your subject and is a big bite .

Could you put the essence of your research in a laymans explanation

Good evening.

 

Do-you want to say there's two states in the same time ?

 

Thank-you

 

and perfectly symmetrical ?

I am proposing that pairs of electrons, ( as in the orbitals , going up in number in stable pairs of electrons ) , that :-

a natural and comfortable state for two electrons is to have opposite spins . (Up and down ) I know their movement is probably very complex, none-the-less they end up with an angular momentum in a direction and the other electron in the opposite direction. I am proposing that two electrons , however they dance about, do so like two arms of a tuning fork which only work by each vibrating in opposite direction motion. IE one arm moves left as the other moves right. Its the only way they can work. With the tuning fork it is built up tension which attracts or repels.With the electron in an orbital there is a repulsion due to electrostatic forces and a movement towards caused by repulsion caused further around the orbital. ( there is a kiddies toy where two swinging balls bounce back and forward rapidly by constantly bouncing off one another while being restrained about a central pivot.)

One can generate similar effects with giro scopes and magnets .

I have done a number of mechanical model experiments , which all seem to work best ( when in free system isolation ) by working symmetrically in opposites . Also by invoking resonant oscillatory harmonic motion. ( circular or partial arc ).

That' s why the skaters Pair can spin together as a pair. or a single can go for a tight leaning circular speed skate around a rink.

 

What we can say definitively is this: The laws of physics are the same everywhere we have been able to observe, which currently reaches out to 13.7 billion lys, and down to the subatomic level.

Are you really sure we ( current body of science research) have (A) observed back to 13.7 billion years with enough observation details to say categorically " hey the laws of physics are behaving exactly as they are right now here on earth. Similarly looking down ( B) at sub atomic levels and find everything is behaving perfectly normally.

B) Well second first. I thought this is what all the fuss is about. Quantum sized stuff is behaving in a very peculiarly unnatural way ( to what we are used to up here at 1 meter high.

A ) Covering the First point , We are finding some peculiar things way back.(part way back 73 quasars occupying 4 billion light years across) and pre- 12 Billion Years , I think is very vague . I appreciate the spectral analysis seems to stack up when we look at individual stars . But the entire body of physical laws will take some checking out to be sure .

I think if I were able to take some time warp, space warp, leap to 13.7 billion years ago relying on ALL the laws of physics

being the same, I would think Twice, or 100 times before going and getting spaghettiified.

However, May be you are perfectly right. I wonder if its not wishful thinking possibly . Not sure there is enough evidence yet .

"Laws" aren't materials like Swan said, they are observations that we observe from matter, they are not "generated" from matter, it's what we scientifically see matter doing. If we observe matter acting a particular way all the time, and find no evidence that it acts differently, then scientifically it is safe to assume it's the same in every location that those laws can describe. For locations such as outside the universe (which don't really exist) or you're imagination, scientific laws cannot describe what happens there. But, there's physics for space and distance, and as far as our observations are concerned, those equations are true for whatever there is space and distance, which we assume based on other observations is the entire universe.

Well I understand what you are saying , and don.t really have a problem with it, apart from your assumption that this "natural" environment is the same throughout the entire universe. to me that is a bit overly Assumptive. ( if that is a legitimate word ) Yes where similar conditions of matter exist ( Star Planet system, Galaxy ) Yes possibly , but what about the spaces ( inter quark, inter star, inter galaxy, inter cluster Voids , and all the heavy stuff ( blackholes, neutron stars, Quasars, dark matter, big bangs )

Can we just say . Oh well nature is the same there ! Humm. I am not sure about that.

Yes it does,

 

Entropy is some sort of statistical memory of spacetime and matter. In big words it means "mess"

always grows in Thermodynamic systems. For the last 10 years I've been working exactly on your

question. Yes, we can say time grows with entropy because we can define a field of time !!! From

each event we can connect a curve to the "big bang" such that the proper time it measures along

it will be maximal. On ordinary geodesic curves on the Lorentzian manifold of spacetime, only local

maximum of proper time is measured. The field of time is absolute maximal time. As such, it defines

a scalar field on the manifold of spacetime. This scalar field has a gradient. Where there is

matter, more than one such curves of absolute maximum proper time intersect and the gradient

becomes discontiuous. Spacetime resolves the discontiuity by quantum uncertainty. A limit

to the quantum theory is a classical one which I also worked on. The theory uses tensors but

is so simple and so revolutionary that I find it very difficult to publish though there is a physics professor

who likes the idea. Currently I try to publish the theory in the Canadian Journal of Physics which

is expected to reject the paper and not due to professional reasons.

If they accept the paper I will have to delete the following link:

http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time

The theory not only explains that spacetime has memory in the form of scalar field but also shows

how the field is defined by matter which is simply a geodesical conflict in spacetime.

Entropy is simply a result of motion of singularities of the gradient of the time field.

The theroy also discusses Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as ordinary matter as

3 solutions of one equation.

Wow! I need to digest this.

On the contrary, if particles don't obey them then they aren't laws. The best evidence we have shows that nature does indeed follow rules we can express with mathematics, which are precisely what laws are.

O.k. So what the consensus of the last few comments are.

That 'nature' as some form of summation of the whole shebang, ( matter, resultant fields, other yet unidentified matter and energy , Mathematical Structure) result in some form of controlling / enforcing environment within which things move and exist.

Does that sound like what you are all saying.

That's interesting, but it does leave me with a few loose ends like: :-

What is the nature of this NATURE environment .:-

. . ( this amalgum of electro-magnetic spacial force energy field like, Maths Matrix 'Soup' )?

How pervasive is it ( eg everywhere, in the region of matter, in the region of energy, charge,etc ) ?

Plus a few things I havn't thought of just at the moment!.

. .

One avenue of investigation that I don't think anyone has mentioned is related to the concept of "quantum decoherence". To quote from the wiki article on this subject:

Does not observation ,include all the other non conscious observations that cause this collapse ?

namely: The universe is going about its business in all its own ways and the ways we know about through our physics. But when one particle or another , makes demand on another particle ( say by shared orbitals or whatever ) THEN such interactions demand more, and thus cause the waveform collapse at that interaction. ? Thus wave form collapsing and re-establishing, is going on Apace all about the universe, and in that way the universe becomes the reality we perceive. Underneath where things work better at the quantum mechanical level, things go about their respective business with all the freedom (offered by the probability wave-function) allows.

I other words , as requested in laymans language :-

.

. " It is the touching of the quantum fields is how the cosmos is being made"

.

Look at the equation for when the wave functions of particles become combined. Do you see the strength dependent on distance? No, you just see the correlation of position. This is the mainstream concept, as far as mainstream theories go I suppose you're right that it's not mainstream yet, though I have seen it mentioned on a couple pop-science shows like nova and one of brian greene's movies.

Do these other two dimensions you talk of have names ? Like location are the x,y,z, coordinates ( 3 dimensions ) and time ( 1 fourth dimension) =4 Dimensions . What are the names of these other 2 dimensions you speak of. Are these 2 of the umteenth string theory dimensions.?

 

The laws of physics don't give you a choice about obeying or not. They're not the type of laws passed by governmental bodies.

. Fine, but where are the physical laws coming from? And what mediates them ?

 

But when you look at the entire closed system (i.e. the universe) entropy always increases. Locally, entropy might, and does, decrease, but you must consider the entire system.

Yes, that is fine, and can see or experience the universe moving in the main flow direction of increased entropy.

However if some local areas have a flow to decreased entropy , then that is interesting in relation to energy flow, states of order, and ? possibly local time ?

 

 

What choice do I have? I'm a man in my late 30's with three children under five

 

Besides, we’re talking about theoretical physics, most of which is currently out of practical possibility to confirm with experimentation.

 

 

There is something you can do. you can experiment with electrons. they are easily available. In wires, on balloons, comb your hair with a plastic comb and pick up tiny bits of dry paper, look at a cathode ray tube, get a spark generator, take it to just striking and light a lighter flame near it and see what happens. make a spark near a radio , set up all manner of experiments with electrons.

Make observations of anything rather interesting.

Then go away and think, think, think.

Come up with a hypothesis.

Try your hypothesis out a few times.

THEN GO AND TELL SOMEONE ABOUT IT.

You will be a happy man ! ( with five kids and a mortgage ) I guarantee it ( I have had 4 daughters and a love of electrons )

I don't think it does.

 

Thermodynamics tells us that from this point forward in time, entropy should increase. But it also tells us that from this point backwards in time, entropy should have been higher.

 

While entropy always increases, it does so in both time directions, so there's no real reason that entropy was lower in the past.

I am not so convinced this is the end of the matter. I am not convinced Entropy always increases. Yes in a lot of circumstances the degrees of freedom increase or are more, and yes in those circumstances, yes heat flows away in a thousand directions, china gets smashed into a 1000 pieces and energy flows out the window and through the walls and we face large energy bills.

But there is a light on the horizon: nuclear fusion happens, life comes into being, molecules and compounds are sticking together all the time, stars form from dust and molecular clouds, planets appear in accretion rings, the universe is being made before our very eyes.

If there is not some order out of chaos going on in a decreasing entropy form , somewhere among that lot "I'll eat my hat. "

 

I think any approach that treats laws as being material/substantial in any way is flawed. In any event, unless you can find a way to test the hypothesis, then this is metaphysics.

Yes ,but with something as fundamental as the laws of physics, and their assumption to be the same in all frames of reference, an which a large section of physics is currently based, deserves some form of explanation as to where they come from , or from where do they spread out from.

The more provable one I would have thought is: That they come out , or are intrinsically bound up in the very nature of matter itself.

Which is fine if that is the general consensus of scientists ! However I find it somewhat odd that it is seldom discussed ( unless I missed something.)

That still leaves the problem of " where matter is scarce or very concentrated " . Are the laws distorted from normal, at these places. ( I would think that was testable, if not already having a little taster proof from the voyager probe, heading out of the solar system.

Or , that the laws shine down from some higher Universal Region, which as you say is a little difficult to test. ( but none the less an option )

So which one or yet another do the consensus of scientists hold to.?

Hang about I have missed out the Platonic Maths / Geometric shapes, casting shadows out of a cave option.

It strikes me as fairly important, as I cannot see a nation of people obeying or being governed by a set of laws that they had no idea where they came from ! So which one are you going for Mr Swansont or anyone else for that matter ?, if I dare to push you slightly

 

 

 

 

The notion that laws could be spread by fields would seem to be counter to the concept of a field, which is the result of a law or laws which describe the field. So it seems to be a circular argument.

 

 

 

Ok so if fields are out for the reason you say.

That leaves by . Laws carried by matter. And as I understand things matter isn't everywhere. or at least very thinly spread in some locations. and yes if matter carries the laws with them, ok but if matter is very thin surely the laws will become thin with them. or distorted.

Or the fabric of space time ? If so how, in what form ?

Or some form of Universal Law web ? Or is there some form of medium , we currently do not accept, that carries the laws ?

. Universal Law Grid If so what is its nature ? .