Ronald Hyde

Well, I'm certainly glad that someone enjoyed it, I've gained from it, but I do have one more question in the same vein. In #1 I did not use the word Kekule, but I think my description did fit the Kekule representation of benzene. However my description of RB did not require a particular representation, it only required two time varying states that were mirror images of each other. Are there no time varying states that are mirror images of each other, under any circumstances? Thank you for you answer.

Then I shall admit that I'm wrong, and benzene was a bad choice for an example.

You do realize, do you not, that if you could supply enough energy to make one of these states, and it lasted even for a microsecond, that the state could be said to 'exist', in a physical sense, and all of this elaborate explanation would be moot. I know that I'm being very stubborn, and that this bothers you no end, but it's not for the purpose of bothering you, it's the principle of the thing, in this case a physical principal, that may apply throughout Nature.

Now you're the one who's misunderstanding. I did not say your comments were 'derivative', I was refering to the concept of resonance as explained by the other posters. That's just regular quantum mechanics applied to chemistry, finding the ground state of a system etc.. No, I don't know about that. It involves the displacement of a proton, in this case, and exhibits different properties. Hybridisation and resonance are independent concepts, they can happen together, or not. Feynman describes the resonance.

There's more than one way to add Linux to your Windows. One is simply to install it on a old box you have around, because it runs fine with less memory and speed, another is to partition the Windows drive and add it, can be a bit tricky. Another is to get a new hard drive and install Linux on it, and put it alongside your Windows drive. Safe and easy to do, but you need to know how to dual boot with two hard drives, usually just need to add two lines to a text file but you need to know what two lines and whot file.

You caused me to reread the first two pages of the Feynman reference, and he's describing two states which differ in time, being superposed to get two states that differ in energy. The simple fact that they are very long lived states compared to the benzene states or the W boson, doesn't make the other states less 'real', people will still tell you the W boson is 'real'.

I'm Linux all the way, and have been for years. I can do stuff on Linux, and I can download all the software i need for free, and not have to worry about installing it, just get it from the Repository. I'm using PCLOS LXDE, which is fast, nice looking and full of features. It's written to be friendly to people who are used to Windows. It has a great 'shell' which I can write scripts for, that can do most anything I want. MS neglected the Windows shell for years until they discovered they were loosing people to the 'nixes, but their new shell still has a way to catch up.

No, it's not that I'm not interested, not at all. I would not in the least deny their truth. It's that they're all derivative. If you add the fact that benzene has lots of excitations, they can all be derived from what I said in post #1. And if you want another description of resonance, open the Feynman Lectures, Book 3, Chapter 9, where he describe resonance in the context of the Ammonia Laser. And Feynman, one of the reasons I love the way he does things, always works from first principals wherever he can. And that's the difference between my point of view and you guys. I, like the good Dr., like to work from first principals and to find them too. And I don't know if this topic has helped anyone else but it sure has me. I can see much more clearly how the notions in #1 are writ large in the scheme of things, all the way down to the now famous Higgs Mechanism, which is very basic ( there's that word again ) to Existence. And I've also concluded that the parity operator is very much a part of it, it is the only thing I would add to Dr. Feynmans description to make it complete.

I want to know how the World works, and I want everyone who wants to know how the world works to know it too. Isn't that the whole point of the place? I would certainly hope so.

Is there a defined list of points of threads? I haven't seen it. No, 'basis', was meant in the sense of a principal or underpinning, not as a QM basis of states. Confusing perhaps! Benzene can have more states, and the principal still be true. I'm sure that it has a 'fine spectrum' of many states near the lowest state, more analogous to a large nucleus than to say a Deuteron, or the Ammonia molecule. Resonance is a very general thing in Nature, but no matter where it occurs it has certain things in common. And you don't have to know everything about every problem to be able to recognize them.

By being mirror images of each other. In the Feynman Lectures he has quite a long piece about the Ammonia Molecule resonance that occurs in the microwave part of the spectrum. And he describes it in the same way. It's Chapter 9, Book 3, the entire chapter, but the description of the QM interpretation is on the very first page.

That if there exists two states of the same energy that in principle can change among themselves in time, and are quantum mechanically distinguishable, there will be two states that in reality are superpositions of those states and differ in energy. And that forms the basis or Resonance Bonding. And so far nothing said falsifies the original premise. It doesn't matter if the time-changing states last a millionth of a millionth of a second, if they exist in principal the effect occurs.

It's this comment that he made: His comment: . As stated above this is not a real process. My comment: Because it is in principal a possible process that RB occurs. If it were not in principal possible RB will not occur.

For something that doesn't exist, it sure pulls up a lot of links on a Google search. But I guess your views are right and everyone else is wrong. Resonance in quantum mechanics Resonance has a deeper significance in the mathematical formalism of valence bond theory (VB). When a molecule cannot be represented by the standard tools of valence bond theory (promotion, hybridisation, orbital overlap, sigma and π bond formation) because no single structure predicted by VB can account for all the properties of the molecule, one invokes the concept of resonance. Valence bond theory gives us a model for benzene where each carbon atom makes two sigma bonds with its neighbouring carbon atoms and one with a hydrogen atom. But since carbon is tetravalent, it has the ability to form one more bond. In VB it can form this extra bond with either of the neighbouring carbon atoms, giving rise to the familiar Kekulé ring structure. But this cannot account for all carbon-carbon bond lengths being equal in benzene. A solution is to write the actual wavefunction of the molecule as a linear superposition of the two possible Kekulé structures (or rather the wavefunctions representing these structures), creating a wavefunction that is neither of its components but rather a superposition of them. In benzene both Kekulé structures have equal energy and are equal contributors to the overall structure—the superposition is an equally-weighted average, or a 1:1 linear combination of the two—but this need not be the case. In general, the superposition is written with undetermined coefficients, which are then variationally optimized to find the lowest possible energy for the given set of basis wavefunctions. This is taken to be the best approximation that can be made to the real structure, though a better one may be made with addition of more structures.

I'm going to disregard for now your question about the reflexive property etc., because I'll show you something that I've already written that may explain better what is meant. As for the three laws, they are laws that govern the construction of mathematical representations of Nature, and you can construct an infinite number of representations, in infinite time, and they will apply to Nature if you follow the three rules. If you just follow <1> then you are doing pure math and not Physics, but everything you do will be valid in a math context. Computers and Nature (incomplete) You might think that computers and Nature have nothing in common. A computer is this metal box made in a huge factory, with not so much as a piece of wood in it. And Nature is, well, all natural! But they have very much in common. Both are mathematical-logical constructs, both have 'clocks' which govern their operation, and surprisingly, both use binary arithmetic. There are important differences however. The computer is single threaded or can only run a limited number of threads or processes, and it has very limited speed, memory and precision compared to Nature, which can run as many threads as are required. Still, within its limitations, the computer is the ideal tool to simulate Nature, and can, within its limits, mimic Nature exactly. Other computer generated models of Nature have, in my expression, 'too many knobs and not enough lights', that is too many free parameters in and not enough data out. The model we will build has only one knob, it sets the time in natural units when we want to stop running the code. And because the amount of data produced increases with the time, as the Universe gets larger and older, there is no limit to the amount of data. Imagine that you're sitting on a rock in a park, with people around you, and everyone is watching a distant thunderstorm, with lightning flashing, rain pouring down and thunder rolling. Everyone hopes the storm passes them by. After a while the storm stops and a beautiful rainbow appears. You marvel at Nature and her ability to put on such a wonderful show. But Nature sees none of this, Nature only sees numbers and the relations among numbers. You go down the hill to leave the park and on your way you come across a young man in a clearing, he's painting a picture of a bird on his canvas. After a while he steps back and something amazing happens. The bird flaps its wings and flies away. The artist has painted the picture until it becomes the thing being depicted. When you reach the park entrance you see a group of people standing around chatting. You want to ask them all a question which has intrigued you for a long time. You go up and ask them 'What exactly is Time?'. Five of them give ten different answers, two of them give none. None of the answers seem very meaningful. Then as you start to walk away a little old lady in a grey-green sweater walks up to you and says, 'Mister, those people all have it wrong. Time is what changes things.'. That's about as succinct and precise a definition of Time as you will ever receive. You arrive home and turn on your computer. It boots up and you log in to your desktop. Your nice desktop picture appears and all the icons that let you access applications show up. You click on the one for your email. Your friend Gladys has sent an email with a photo of the thunderstorm and the rainbow. You read her message. You marvel at the computers ability to make such beautiful pictures and send you words and sounds. But the computer sees none of that. The computer only sees numbers. Numbers that supply it with information to process, and numbers that tell it how to process that information. The analogy goes much deeper. The rock you sat on was an object, it can be manipulated and changed. The computer uses Object Oriented programming languages. Object is meant in the same sense. You are a process which runs within the much larger process called Nature, your brain is a process that runs inside your body, and your mind is a process that runs inside your brain. In the computer a running program in referred to as a process, and it runs inside other processes, and other processes may run inside it. PS: Read Eugene Wigners: My link

The 'reasoning' you gave is spurious, since 10^25 = the number of unit times per second, and in that form is a dimensional expression. And all your other reasons are spurious too. I gave a very good example of the meaning of <3>, which anyone can understand.

Ah, so it involves another of those 'spontaneously broken' symmetries that seem to happen all the time, e.g. as in ferromagnetism, superconductivity, etc.. There must be some kind of general rule about that? But I still wonder if there might be some way of even momentarily creating the other type of state. I'm guessing that there's some similarity with the Oxygen molecule.

I know about Dimensional analysis too. I also know that it's easy to make up quantities that have no physical significance. I think Planck time is one of those. As for the unit of time, for now that is my very best guess, subject to revision. But there has to be one for a logically consistent Nature. You're the one who keeps citing textbooks, not me. You didn't ask any questions in #22, you made two statements. You keep saying my original post is wrong, but you offer no line of reasoning or any facts at all in support, so it's just an empty assertion.

I really can't give you any exact answer on the time, I've only had the three laws for a couple of months, and only in the last couple of weeks found a 'hook', three actually, into formulating the math. Maybe two weeks, maybe two months. The fact that everything has to be an explicit function of the time means it has to be built from the ground up, you can't just start anywhere you want to, you can only do it one way and you only get one result, no matter how you start. BTW, one of my goals is to run it as a computer simulation, I will probably need some help on this, even if I wrote it, my little machine here would not get very far in time, so a bigger machine would be in order. Any simulation run on any machine should give exactly the same result, up to the time. you might appreciate the philosophical implications of that. So let's hold off on this thread for a while, it's reached the end of any useful result it will have for now.

Thank you for the LaTex link, I was wondering how you did that. I don't mind the feedback, that's what I posted for, but I'm not in a position to answer every question you might ask right here and right now, yet I do know how to connect a lot of dots, too many to handle all at once and the same time. The connection between Boolean logic and the Beta function used in four particle scattering, which is a perfect fit, for example. As for citations, should I cite Wigner for his 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences', which encouraged me to believe that my notion that all physics was really math with certain rules, or maybe Feynmans statements along similar lines? I certainly should, along with George Booles' 'The Laws of Thought', for this is really where I get ideas and important feedback, for you see I've had this notion that the world was essentially a mathematical construct since I was a teenager. I'm not a great reader of the literature, in fact I consider it mostly a great waste of time, between the pressure of publish-or-perish and a largely failed system of peer revue, it abounds with unimportant papers, with no attempt to find first principals, which is what I seek and have found.

I've only got this one post up about this, more or less to test out peoples views on it, and you're all acting like it's the crisis of the Century. Honestly, I am writing stuff down, but it involves a lot of notation, and simple as the three laws are, they involve a lot of possibilities, and things get complicated very fast. I have, right now, three ways of starting out, one is just to derive everything from Boolean logic & math, another is to use Heavisides Unit Step Function and treat the Universe as an initial value problem ( that's how I found it ), and another is to start with representations of the Lorentz group, and I've started on all three, by gosh. These state functions have no time dependence because they are averaged over statistical representations, and I'm well aware of their existence, and they don't in any way negate <2> or any of the other laws. And they and all the other statistical representations of Nature will continue to be needed in the future, for practical calculation reasons, if no other. So please, just be a little patient here, I probably won't be able to post any results here because of the notation limitations, so I'm making a web site, yeah, I can do that too, as fast as I can.

Sure it provides insight. It shows you when to apply the concept, when it will occur and when it will not. And it helps other people have ( not yourself ) a way of seeing and understanding it. And it may not be unphysical at all! It may well be possible to excite a benzene molecule into one or the other states.

What am I missing here? I'm thinking of the polarization states of the photon in the context of the Poincare' sphere. You can use sugar water to rotate the plane of the polarization, but you can't actually measure the plane of polarization either before or after it passes through the filter, without destroying the photon. And whether you use a calcite crystal or sugar water as a filter it just moves the state from one 'position' on the sphere to another, it doesn't destroy it, but it also doesn't provide any information on it's actual state. The Poincare' sphere provides all the information that there is about the polarization, but when we measure it, it's either plane or circularly polarized, so that much of the 'sphere information' is lost or changed. Does this make sense? It does to me, the sphere is the 'basis' that I use when I think about the possible states of the photon.

Notice that I said that when you make a 'naive' calculation that the two time/position states appeared. When you made a full calculation, the the two momentum/energy states appear. So everything that is entailed is there, what are you quibling about? I'm just presenting it two steps, so that people can see what it involves.

The Benzene Molecule This is a description of the 'other kind of bonding' that occurs in Nature, resonance bonding. We all know about Coulomb bonding, the type that is determined by electric charge, and which holds the electrons to the nucleus. Resonance bonding ( RB ) is purely quantum mechanical in its working, it has no classical equivalent. It's very important in Chemistry, but it's important in another way too, for it holds the nucleons together in an atomic nucleus. The requirements for RB to occur are simple and easily met in Nature, so it is a frequent occurence. It needs: Two states with nearly the same energy, which can change back and forth with time. The two states have to be distinguishable, in the quantum mechanical sense of distinguishabilty. Benzene has two states with the same energy, which are distinguishable in the QM sense by being mirror images of each other. Benzene has six Hydrogen and six Carbon atoms, and it has six electronic bonds between the carbon atoms, three double and three single bonds. The single and double bonds can switch between themselves. If we make a 'naive' calculation of the binding energy of benzene we will get a certain value, let's call it the 'zero' energy because it has zero free energy by out calculation. Now one thing about RB is that it doesn't care about the mechanism of how the states swap back and forth, it only cares about the rate, so it is a general mechanism, and only needs the two requirments. Now the rules of QM say that if there are two states that change back and forth with time, there have to be two superpositions of those states which don't change with time, and which are superpositions of the time states, but differ in energy. So our zero of energy gets split into two new levels, by our non-naive new calculation, one above and one below our original zero. The difference in energy is equivalent to a photon well into the ultraviolet range, so that benzene absorbs strongly in UV. We can 'tune' the benzene molecule into the visible range by substituting heavier molecules like Chlorine for some of the Hydrogen. If we attach ionizing radicals like amines and acidics to opposite ends of the benzene, it will have a large electric dipole moment, and be a strong absorber and reflector of visible light, and that is how most dyes are made. If we place two benzene molecules close together they can also have some resonance bonding between them, so that benzene melts and vaporizes tht higher temperatures then other similar sized molecules. We can make molecules with four or eight carbon atoms that are otherwise similar to benzene, but they are not mirror images of each other. They do not exhibit strong bonding.