studiot

No one knows how the Higgs field works or has actually detected it, only that if there is a field with certain properties, there is a recognisable mechanism to acount for mass ie the massive higgs particle. I think we also have to be more careful with energy as opposed to force. Most fields in question are fields of force and no energy needs be extended to maintain or exert said force(s). Lines of fluid flow that end at stagnation points have a residual stagnation pressure, unlike lines of electric force that end on a charge.

Well you got one from me +1

We seem to have reached a religious style impasse with the promoter falling back on a belief system creed whenever faced with the facts. Thank the Lord that the creed of Pope Clement no longer holds sway. @AThinker1 Yet again you have failed to respond when I offered you an example to help distinguish between cause and reason. Since reason is associated with reasoning and rational thinking and, as you say, debate, is it not reasonable that it should be associated with thought ? Whereas a cause can simply be a real physical phenomenon, with no thought involved at all. A cause has to precede an effect in time, by the very nature of the logical proposition/statement structure. A reason may, but does not have to be associated with time at all. Last night I also wondered about trying to apply first order formal logic to catalytic chemical reactions where the catalyst actually take part in the reaction and is initially used up but is then regenerated in a later stage. So do you consider the catalyst to be an antecedent or a consequent ? I also thought we could have a useful discussion about the proper use of probability. Not here but in another thread.

Returning to QM, since this thread allegedly explains QM, What is the cause of pair production and what is the reason why it only occurs to some photons ?

Indeed I have This is why first order logic or the predicate calculus is so limited and quite unsuitable for QM. Your answer reads E if and only if C, or that E can only be the consequent of C Yet you have also told me that E can also be the consequent of D. You cannot have it both ways. Try listening to others and respecting them for also knowing a thing or two.

Then it is not the effect of C. This is not an answer to my question, I am still vwating for that.

But that is not what you said or your version of the propositional calculus says. If you wanted to have a D you should have correctly introduced it. Personally I prefer the word antecedent not cause for reasons I have already explained. And I prefer the word implies which does not necessarily mean causality. It could do for it does not preclude it either. (C ᴠ D) Ͱ E

But you said it was. as I already quoted .

Really, perhaps I misconstrued all these then Seems a pretty devastating attack on all things probabilistic to me (and I expect to others as well) Except that it is just plain wrong. Not in tune with reality, just a band aid. What do you mean by cause ? Could that E have happened or happen without C ?

Calm down Man. Scientists often have to point out that Correlation does not imply causation. But you deny the existence of probability. To me, and in this context, reason is associated with rational thinking or 'reasoning'. Reason is not, and never has been, synonymous with cause, though some use them interchangably. As a general guide a cause for an event forces that event to happen and precedes it in time even if only very very briefly; whereas a reason is a thought about that cause and may happen after both casuse and event are over and done with. So all this Is just typical AI pompous twaddle. It is not meaningless. It just goes too far and tries to do too much. As regards electronic chips, National Semiconductor introduced Trisate logic in the 1970s This was further extended to four value logic in IEEE 1364 which itself is a subset of the 1993 IEEE standard 1164 for multivalued logic systems.

Robin Hood, Robin Hood Riding through the glen Robin Hood, Robin Hood With his merry men.

I though Much was a miller. 😄

The only guaranteed test I know of is to keep an ever growing list of primes, starting with 2. Clearly your test rquirement will be for a number X larger than the largest prime on your list. So starting with 2 successively divide primes from your list into X If no prime on your list divides into X ( ie there is zero remainder) then continue dividing odd numbers greater than your largest prime but less than X until you reach X itself. If none of these numbers divides X then X is prime.

How does that provide a source / sink ? If you think about field lines the condition I described is equivalent to saying the are no 'loose ends' to any field lines. This is different from streamlines in a fluid which can have loose ends, where the flowing fluid comes to a complete halt and a bifurcation occurs.

I think it's just word salad to go with your scampi and chips tonight. I see no maths at all. But I am beginning to see lots of warm fuzzy words being sprinkled about. Emergent, information, coherent node, structural echo, etc

Hear, Hear. The 'I' s have it. 😄 +1 A simple thing but an extension. All this is makeing people more and more lazy, perhaps dumber too. Whilst some are actively promoting two step authentication, 'helpful' programmers ae actively subverting the process. It is becomming ever more difficult to prevent a computer 'helpfully' remembering user names and passwords. I think it is a good mental exercise to remember a few usernames and passwords.

Agreed +1

One of the problems is the variability of the ocurrence of primes. Here is a comments from the beginning of du Sautoy's book.

Many jobs have indeed become obsolete. And the adjustment was for folks to take up different jobs. However this process has not been without its social pain.

The thing about fields is that they need a source and / or a sink or the go on to infinity. So if the soruce / sink is within you 'empty space' or vacuum is that space still empty ? But if it is not, then it must be external or on the boundary yet infinity has no boundary.

Actually I didn't say anything about outputs. I talked about statements which are inputs. But no, tristate logic chips do not work like that. Of course it does an the reason is embedded in a children's nursery rhyme. To rephrase it When the rain was up it was up When the rain was down it was down And when it was only halfway down it was neither down nor up. A beautiful example of second order logic, (which excludes the law of the excluded middle) unlike first order logic which you are employing (aka classical logic). It so happens that I agree with you that 'reason' exists. Reasoning is a much wider process than 'logic' or mathematics and not cecessarily causal in character. I often quote reasoning examples of how to do science without mathematics. But I'm sorry repetition does not improve veracity and 'the burden of proof' lies firmly with the promoter of a hypothesis. But you have not proven anything.

Good question. +1 Here is a rough explanation of the difference between a classical oscillator and a quantum oscillator. Consider first a classical pendulum hung up on the wall, perhaps in a clock. As it swings to and fro it has oscillatory energy. If it is not swinging but hanging stationary , it has exactly zero oscillatory energy. Of course it also has potential energy by virtue of its position in a gravitational field, but we ignore that. There are lots of other things about it we could analyse, but that is the nub of it. Just by being there it has no oscillatory energy and could hang there indefinitely where it naturally comes to rest at the lowest point of its swing or its ground state. Now consider an electron in an atom. Whatever model you choose the electron has to have oscillatory energy just to remain in the atom. This is true for particle in a box wave functions or orbiting electron particles. Beyond that both models allow for a series of increasing oscillatory energy levels. But it must have some eneregy to be in the lowest one, unlike the pendulum. This is called zero point energy. Outside the nucleus, the 'atom' is basically empty ( of material objects) space but with an electric field in it. The pendulum could equally well be in a vacuum or air. Does this help ?

What is informational symmetry please ? I had not thought about the vibration modes of a membrane in this way before, but have observed before that persistent structures appear in fluid mechanics. Indeed there are hypotheses that this is how particles appear in fields. And Professor Sean Carroll is a proponent of the version of Quantum mechanics that proposed one master field of quantum wave function for the entire universe.

I honestly don't know the answer to that. I was alluding to what is known as the old quantum theory, before the 1/2 was added. This was developed from the states of a classic harmonic oscillator (Morse curves I seem to remember) A classic oscillator not only has harmonics it has sub harmonics and a fundamental, which corresponds to the ground state. As far as I know there is no suggestion in QM of equivalent sub levels. Whilst it is possible to have a conduction current by electrons in a vacuum, again as far as I know, holes can't even exist in a vacuum, let alone conduct. The trouble is that the earlier idea of a vacuum as the absence of anything now seems to be rather oversimplistic. We should perhaps be more specific than anything.

Is that why they got the first quantum theory wrong ? Nor is that comment (though true) any reson why the ground state has to be in a vacuum.