Kramer

Magnetism is created by "electric charges" in movement, where do you mean they exists and with what charges interacts.?

?????

Swansont

What Planck particle? There is no such thing.
----Sorry “alleged”. But why not such a thing, when you admit a “scientific” dark matter particle, or a neutrino kind as particle of dark matter? ---- Again a straw man.

You use the constants that are appropriate to the equations. You can't stuff them in arbitrarily

What is well known and measured? Which one(s)?
----- They are not arbitrary. Ones may use them as constant and as unity. If you use them as constants you must take them in rate with common unities. If you use them as unities, it is the inverse , common unities in common constants must be in rate with plank unities.

Well, let say “Plank h”, which is used both ways, electric charge “e”, which is used one way. Velocity “C” which is used as velocity of spherical loops: “ C / ( (2*pi) / α )

I don't recall symmetry coming up, and don't see its connection here. Without a connection to physics, it's a straw man. What symmetry is being broken, and how does it cause energies to be the same? (And which energies would that be?)

---- As a lay man I see the broken symmetry this way:

It was an era when all kind of energies had the same value, this mean were the same. After when the mater was cooled this symmetry was broken. Began the profiling of gravity energy apart, different from others which continued to be the same until a another broken symmetry….etc.

The first status I think was the equivalence of plank energies.
But I don’t believe even in this kind of explanation.

No more than using electron-Volts instead of Joules. It's a term of convenience

----- Electron – volt, it is not about unity. It is about the law that links two electric charges between them and distance in physic space:

Ux*rx = 1.439964393 * 10 ^-9 V*m and

Ex = e * Ux = e * 1.439964393 * 10^-9 / rx in eV

Ex = (2.307077057*10 ^ - 28 ) / rx in Jouls
.

Strange

Please click the button marked QUOTE. You might be amazed at what happens.

---- I don’t have any. Where on earth is?

"Believeing" has nothing to do with science. There is no evidence for the particle you describe. It is a figment of your imagination.
----= Right. But in “ speculation” it is “like ones do science” and nobody think It is scientist, but is it a speculator.
(I don’t speak about you or others, you may have credentials for scientist....).

Evidence can be direct experimental fact, indirect using experimental fact, some simple calculations, some reasons, logic, a little out of box, some time far out of box, and ye most ---- figment of imagination, there where nobody inside the box has given “evidence”, the real evidence.

You can speculate all you like, but without evidence it is worthless.

---- It is not for sell, it is an expose of something old in contrast with new brands.

Andy 0816

Maxwell Planck who discovered the constant(h) also introduced a unit system. Both the Planck Constant and the Planck Units are named after him for this reason alone. They are not the same thing.

Units are not constants, constants are not units.
------As I reasoned above, I think, they may be used both ways.

Strange

There is no particle with the planck charge. Electrons, which have the fundamental unit of charge, have a charge of about 1/12 Planck charge.
---- For this I insist that equation that links this particle with the “legitimate ones”, is not right. If you don’t want to see the equivalence of energies, created by the same formulas that used in the common particles, as a pattern for all particles, including alleged Plank particle, I think is a issue of believing.
That may exists as a so called “black hole” particle (some celebrity think), or non exists because is “incinderated” by high temperature as in the formula of an another celebrity I, brought above in this thread, I think is an issue of personal taste.
My speculation is that “alleged corrected Planks constants, exists in alleged “unique sub-particle”, as an unique kind of blocks that structures all common particles.

But you still haven't explained what "violation" you are talking about. (Charge is not energy, by the way.)
----Who say that charge is energy? It creates energy because it is always in movement. Two “ unique particles” evolving toward each other in spherically or helicoidally trajectories create a particle, Mass or mass less depends by arrangements of electric charge and gravity charge.

There is no reason that any particle should have the mass, charge, size or any other property with the value of 1 Planck unit. And none do.

---- Isn’t “h” a plank constant? Why not [“ sqrt (G) * Mpl.* sqrt ( α )] as a factor of ‘gravity ability’ in common particles? Why “h” is eclipsing all other characters?

Again, you are wrong to assign any such meaning to it. As far as I know, all theories that quantize space and time do it at scales much smaller than the Planck length.

----- And just for this we may have : E = h / t => infinity and f = C / t = infinity. O come on.

Swansont

If you rearrange the Planck units — the actual Planck units — the energies will be equal. If you put other values in the equations, you will get different answers. That's how math works.

----- I put others because they fit in the filling vacancies of some puzzles, and at least one of them is well known and measured.

There is no violation of any sort of equal energy concept if you put different values into the equation. There is no justifiable expectation for the value to be the same, because (again) that's how math works.
----- How about break of symmetry? Or you think is a straw man in the debate , as always ignorant do?

There is no particle that has a Planck charge. There is no particle predicted to have the Planck charge.
----- Because Plank charge was a fudge, based on the data of the era.

Andy0816

There is a Planck Constant(h) and then there are the Planck Units. These are not the same thing.

------ Constant “h” was discovered for explanation of other issue of the era. Other constants, that you call Units, I think, were a search for finding the limits of using this constant. And I think the limit is when all kind of energies take the same value..

I can say: 5 Planck Lengths x 6 Planck Lengths = 30 x Planck Area.
Anything you can do with standard metric units, you can do with Planck Units.
It think, it is like, the metron used by Heim, which was unsuccessful tentative for the theory of everything. But I was not able to understand his math. And I suppose that “characteristic distance “ of him, was derived by a formula in which were scrambled some kind of energies. Deal of celebrities. But this is a straw man as say Swansont.

You have a brain your head just like everyone else. The root issue is that you have mistaken beliefs that you are not recognizing as such. If you can do this, clear away the cobwebs of mistaken thought and think instead of Planck Units as Units you will grow in understanding.

---- eh…. Thanks for encouragement…. And for suggestions.

Planck Force in the form of: c⁴/G

C^4/ G = ( G*Mpl^2 / lpl ^2 ) = (G*Mpl / lpl)* (G*Mpl / lpl ) / G

C^4 / G = ( G * Mu^2 / Ru^2) = ( G*Mu / Ru) * ( G*Mu / Ru ) / G

It is algebra and mostly cancellations at that.
----- You think is more comlicated?

Swanson
Yes, you can rearrange the planck energy equation a number of ways. They are all equal, because all you've done is rearrange the equations.
------ Eh no, not rearrange the equations. Those equations are “rearrange” when I had not any idea about existence of Plank constants, except “h”. Playing with classic physics, I ( a lay-man) thought that must be a states, where accelerated mass can bring Newton and Coulomb in one foot. And when after I was known with “Lplank “, I was flattered, it was so close with radius of my “unique particle”,… but not equal. And…..

What is the violation you keep talking about?
You give me an electric charge, equal Qplank found experimentally in one particle and I give up, with violation of equal energies.

Andy

If you are using all Planck Units you get to simplify your formulas. That's the gist of it.

----- It was not my intention for treating Plank constants as “ units “. I was surprised because they seemed to me like have been derived by equivalence of energies.

In this meaning I have treated Plank units as characters of a particle, and as the upper border of physic’s reality, in comparison with E = h*1 as lowest border of Physic’s reality.

Us refers to everyone on this forum.
---- I thought your sentence was a provocative call, by somebody or a group, with bad intentions. Sorry if I was overreacting.

This is the measurement of Planck length.

----- I know that Lpl = sqrt ((( h / (2 * pi) ) * G) / C^3).
You know that I am not a physicist. So tread me like as I am.

I am in dilemma to know: Was Plank, which divided “ h with 2*pi ? Why? I think

C / ( (2*pi) * R ) = f has more meaning. But somebody (celebrity), don’t like it. Why?
I go further: C / ((2*pi) / α ) * R) = f is better.
If you see those doubt meaningless and in eons solved, then, we have different viewpoints, and we have nothing to debate.
Instead, I think in those deviations, linked with plank constants, is something wrong in the basements of fundamentals, in the different manners we see the reality.

Don't think of the length in terms of its metric system value. Think of it as just that equation.
---- I see it as a quantisation of space, and with it as the quantisation of time in “periods”. This, I think give base, to strip physic from metaphysic interpretations.

There could be an alien species having this same discussion on their version of a forum and they would agree with us on the length of a unit as defined in this manner.

I looked into and validated the math to myself about a dozen years ago. So yeah, I've thought about it. There just isn't a whole lot of point to keep thinking about it. Was not all that interesting to get the exact answer I was expecting to get. Stuff you can apply your intelligence to and return with novel understanding is much more worthwhile.
----- I have not any scientific education, to give any contribution in “novels”, and not any intelligence to apply somewhere, except in my doubts --- worthwhile only for sleeplessness.

About your thought on this theme, I am curious to know, what “exact answer were you expecting to get”?

If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.

If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.

Swansont

What do you mean by “equivalence of all kind of energies”? Where does this idea come from? That has to be a real thing for there to be a violation.

THE IDEA come from numerical facts:

Epl.=1956272037 J.

Epl = ( h * C) / (2 * pi * lp)
Epl = (C^4 * lp) / G
Epl = (G * Mp^2 ) / lp
Epl = Mp * C^2
Epl = ((Qp^2) * ?) / (4 * pi * ε * lp)
Epl = kb * T

And from [G * Mp / lp = C^2]

My variant: And relations with Plank constants. Here in Eus--- us for unique subparticle.

Eus = 167113637.7 j. = Epl *sqrt( α )

Eus = e^2 / (4*pi*ε * Rus) => Rus = Lp *sqrt( α )
Eus = (h * C) / ((2*pi /α) Rus
Eus = Mus*C^2
Eus = (C^4 * Rus) / G
Eus = G*Mus^2 / Rus => Mus = Mp * sqrt( α )
Eus = kb*cv2 * Tus => Tus = Tp * sqrt( α )

Here too [G * Mus) / Rus = C^2]

The relations with common elementary particles:
mx = Mus * ( λus / λx )
rx = Rus / ( λus / λx)

No it's not fact. Massless particles are a source of gravity. Chargeless particles exert gravity. There is no equivalence.

----- For inside structure of particle always --- yes, there exists both electric and gravity interactions. For outside depend by structure of particle.

And yes, if your ideas lack falsifiability, then you have not met the burden of the rules. Thread closure for that reason means never bringing the subject up up again.
----- It’s your right to get rid from a nuisance.

Endy0816

This relates back to a previous discussion on Planck units...

They need to do this:

Quote

Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants listed below, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.It is real simple, ensure that the constants G, ħ, c, k_e, k_B , take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of your "corrected" units.

------ I haven’t seen it, in this prism. What this mean? Is it for example:

G / ( Rus^3*Mus^-1*Tus ^-2 ) = 1* (2*pi/α)^2 --- and you think is wrong? Because isn’t “1” ?

If you can do this then by all means, show us. If not however, then you need to reexamine your thinking on the subject.t.

------ “show us” Who are “us”? Have you thought about this subject yourself? About some statements, which do not go further than statements, and needs answers from “us” you? This is debate, not only ascking.

Swanson
That's just it — the units ARE arbitrary. There is no connection with any physical object. There is no object that has a Planck unit of mass or charge or energy, etc. used as a definition. There's no correlation whatsoever. There is no "reality of equivalence" of energies.

---- Now please explain to me this “units ARE arbitrary”. You mean Plank’s units?
Because when I say that electric charge of Plank energy was defined arbitrary, I think that just this was the cause of violation of “ equivalence of all kind of energies”. But this doesn’t mean devaluation of Plank units, devaluation of the idea of equivalence of energies. This means that Plank units must be corrected.

The characters of “unique sub-particle”, corresponds, in one way, as a tentative to correct Plank units, preserving the idea of equivalence of energies. And, on the other hand to find a pattern for all kind of particles, using that in Plank area, and the link or relation of common particles with corrected Plank constants.

It is wrong, in the sense that you are trying to claim an equation supports your idea.
----- I insist in my idea, because it gave, maybe naïve, but reasonable explanation about more of statements of modern physics. Those statements don’t go further than statement like; mass equal energy, mass changed in energy and vice verse, mass change with acceleration, duality mass wave etc. for which I myself am not sure.

If you want to claim that there's a connection, fine. What's your experimental evidence that it's true? Or, how can we test the idea to see if it's true?

---- Experimental evidence? About particles of mass that have gravity, and electric property, and mass-less particles are deprived of them? This is fact. I tried to give an explanation. Give me yours.
Or insisting in experimental evidence, and not in abstract debate, is it a call for to close this post? It’s your right.

There is only one Planck energy
I continue to think that Plank constant were defined in an era of physics, when was not known the value of electric charge, and the calculations were performed in planetary system: (2*pi*L) --- for this they are outdated. And they violate reality about equivalence of all kind of energies in Plank area, including wrong with arbitrary way the electric energy.

Swansont

My point is that putting G/G into in equation does not link it with gravity. Any more than taking the equation for compound interest A=P(1 + r/n)^nt and modifying it to A=PG(1 + r/n)^nt /Gmeans that compound interest has a connection with gravity.

---- In quantum mechanic, method of calculation is statistic. Maybe for this, you use statistical examples. I don’t see any resemblance in treating particles as “ unity”, with your example-sarcastic.
For my thread the common particle is structured by two sub-particles, that posses always electric and gravity ability. To neglect one of this ability I think is wrong.
And they interact with each other in Physics space, that possess too, two kind of property; electric and gravity. So multiplying with constant of gravity (G) both sides: electric charge of particle and (even not evident) electric charge of particle on space (hidden in constant ε ) , is not wrong.

There is only one Planck energy
---I continue to think that Plank constant were defined in an era of physics, when was not known the value of electric charge, and the calculations were performed in planetary system: (2*pi*L) --- for this they are outdated. And they violate reality about equivalence of all kind of energies in Plank area, including wrong with arbitrary way the electric energy.

Swansont

My point is that putting G/G into in equation does not link it with gravity. Any more than taking the equation for compound interest A=P(1 + r/n)^nt and modifying it to A=PG(1 + r/n)^nt /Gmeans that compound interest has a connection with gravity.

---- In quantum mechanic, method of calculation is statistic. Maybe for this, you use statistical examples. I don’t see any resemblance in treating particles as “ unity”, with your example-sarcastic.
For my thread the common particle is structured by two sub-particles, that posses always electric and gravity ability. To neglect one of this ability I think is wrong.
And they interact with each other in Physics space, that possess too, two kind of property; electric and gravity. So multiplying with constant of gravity (G) both sides: electric charge of particle and (even not evident) electric charge of particle on space (hidden in constant ε ) , is not wrong.

Sensei
You misunderstood my objections.

Photon, or kinetic energy of particles is causing gravitation also.
Gravitation doesn't disappear, just because unstable isotope decayed, as long as energy is still there.
Gamma photon will be absorbed by other particles near it.
----- Then I misunderstood your objections.
Photon, as I understand it, is the structure of particles of light. As this, it moves always with C velocity, in linear movement. In your case is not this kind of photon.

But photon can move in circular movement too, as an associate of particles of mass matter (electrons) in their link with other parts (protons) of a complex particle. This kind of photons derive from neutrinos: v and ~v that is [(-e/+g) + (+e / +g)] and

[( -e / -g) + (+e / -g)].

Example:

the structure of hydrogen particle that I suppose is created by electron proton and neutrino.

H = m e + v + mp = 2 (-e/-g) + [(+e) +(+g) + [( -e / +g)] + 2*[( +e / (-g)] =

(-e/-g) + [(=e/-g) +(+e/+g)] + [(-e/+g)*) + ( +e/-g)] + (+e /-g) =

(m e +ph.e) + (ph.m.*mp)

Note that photon of electron (ph.e), in structure, is different by that of photon of proton (ph,m). The photons in complex structures, move in circular movement, because of gravity of sub particles.

The hypothesis of structures created by unique sub-particle, gave possibility of changes of two kind of neutrinos inside a particle, in two kind of photons. But neutrinos have an ample diapason of radius, and with this, of energy. And this difference may be submitted to photons during “decays”.

---- If you want an honest debate, try to give your version of explanation. I think “energy create mass “ --- is a rubber-stamp that explain nothing.
In your example of decay, you (that have more knowledge), must have represented results of decay in terms of particles that have taken changes. This will be the right beginning for a debate.

Swanson

No, I'm not kidding. You've made up a new equation with many new terms.
---- Apologize about new equation, and about terms that I have improvised.
So let see original with my interpretation:

T = [((h/2*pi)*( C/Lpl.)] * [(C^3*C*Lpl) / (8*pi*G)] / ( Mpl.*C^2) * ( kb * 1)

1) 2) 3) 4)
In my interpretation author has used equations of four kind of energies in Plank area because they are equivalent. I don’t dispute here his intention.
I debate here about your rebut that multiplying and dividing with constants it is bogus. Here are C and Lpl. multiplied and divided (canceled).
I make the contrary: multiplied and divided with sqrt(G), for demonstrating that static electric and gravity energy, in Plank area are not only the same, but that “electric charge” and “mass” are linked between them by sqrt (G). And I speculate-- this is not casual.

I would normally assume α is as defined in physics, but in a case like this I can't be sure.
---- Sure you don’t. This is one of disputed point,
Ru, Mu, Euh, EuG, EuE, and EuB are not defined anywhere.

----- Are terms of physic in Plank area that I have named, to differentiate them from Plank originals. It is long past dispute between us about equivalence of energies. Based in this derive differentia’s of Plank constants by the role of “electric charge” real one, toward Plank “charge”.
It is sure that you not only don’t approve them, but even don’t want to debate about them.
Ru= Lpl*sqrt(α) radius of unique sub particles.
Mu=Plank mass *sqrt(α). “ “ “
Euh = Quantum energy of Plank particle * sqrt(α).
EuG = Gravity energy of Plank particle *sqrt(α).

EuE= Einstein energy of Plank particle*sqrt(α)

Eub = Thermal energy of plank particle * sqrt (α)

You said cv2 is a dimensionless constant of some sort, but not defined it further. You've noted that Euh, EuG, EuE, and EuB are some sort of energy terms
--- Don’t say I. ---- it is.

Multiplying by 1 is mathematically allowed. The issue is assigning some kind of meaning in doing so.
Multiplying by G/G does not transform an equation into a gravitational one.
----- I think it need to be allowed.multiplying electric charge and space with the same constant SQRT(G) which supposed to be the same (or quasi) for both.

Sensei

We have isomer isotope with mass m₁. Then it's decaying by isomeric transition to "plain" isotope with mass m₂.

Energy of gamma photon is

Before transition/decay higher mass of isomer was influencing gravity by small factor.

After decay total energy is still the same.

Before decay we had little gravity influence, after we don't have just because photon was emitted?

Makes no sense.

----I am afraid that you misunderstood my (+mx, –mx). They are particles of mater and antimatter.
In your example : Ey = (m1 – m2) * C^2 , equation may reduced in Ey = m3*C^2, which is nothing else but Einstein equation. In this case “m3”, that is difference of masses (m1-m2), must be a mass created by equal fifty-fifty from particles of mater and anti mater. Only they are copable to create photons. Other ways you cant accelerate mass m3
with C velocity.

If gamma photon will be absorbed by some near material (and don't let escape Earth), and heat it, mass-energy of the system will remain constant. And we will have still the same gravitation as before.
---- I think that this happen because photons “absorbed” by earth and transformed in heat, continue to be in status of microwaves--- after De Vien.

If I am not wrong as always?

Swansont

Great. Now define what the rest of the terms in the equation are.

--- There is not any physicist that don’t know what they are as constants, or as physics terms. So please don’t kidding me.

I think will be right if debate will direct in issues:

1--- Is, in this formula, any multiply and divide of constants that have canceled each other?
2--- If yes : why is it allowed for Celebrities, and not for every body?
If not: how comes that it fit exact with my hypothesis that all kind of energies , at least in Plank area are the same?

3---- Let leave aside if here is any real bogus! If you don’t see it!

Swansont

No, it's to point out that you don't know what you're talking about. You claim things to be true that aren't actually true, and yet you think you understand these things.
---- I speak my thought. In hypothesis no body claim for things to be true.

And the relation of these to 'watching with your brains, changing outcomes' is what, exactly?
---- On the right thinking: possibilities of waves of brain interacting with waves of phenomena. In the wrong thinking: supernatural power of human’s intellect.

No, I mean you are going through the motions and doing what you think is science, but since there is no understanding of any of the details, there is only a superficial resemblance.

“ going through the motions ” “even not understanding any of the details” is not wrong, expressing doubt is normal, trying to “sell” any suggestion that support doubt is legitimate. Not buyers, bad for seller and not big deal. There is not any reason for angry reaction.

Like someone jabbering away, pretending to speak a foreign language. You might think it sounds authentic, but anyone who speaks the language isn't fooled.
---- And let “jabber” -- jabbering”. Who, that really know “everything” about the language he speak, sure don’t be fooled. But maybe in the “jabber” are “words” that make “good speaking language” asks himself: do I really know everything?

Then go and find the papers that they've written.

---- Have not any interest, or intention. I like loneness.

I don't recognze the original equation, nor do I know what about half the terms in your variant are.

“half the terms” ?

Your units don't work if the denominator (EuE + EuB) is indeed supposed to be a sum of energies
Sorry! A wrong tipping for (EuE * EuB).

kb *cv2*T does not appear to have units of energy, depending on what cv2 is.
---- Cv2 is a constant, without unity, that equalize thermal energy with mass energy.

Sensei

There is reverse of it in proton-rich nucleus. See my explanation here
http://www.sciencefo...harge/?p=826742
----- Tried to open your “explanation” but was not able. Please, be more specific.

That's quark-model (or any other sub-particles model) must agree with experimental data (decay of neutron, decay of proton-rich nucleus, decay of neutron-rich nucleus etc), than Universe must agree with theory.
If there is disagreement, it's always fault of theory (for well established experimental data).
I agree.
But to be more concrete, will be more convincible. So please, if you have any example where ultimate result of des-integration of any particle, do not respect summa of electric charge or gravity charge in both side of equation that will be a sound argument against hypothesis of unique particle.

In decays of more complex mesons and baryons you will probably find more examples of disagreements.
----- That possible. Till now I have not found, truly I have not tried hard,

Annihilation producing 3+ photons:

(more photons)

How do you solve it?
----- Take in view: In des-integration, number of photons and number of “pair neutrino---antineutrino” that are component of energy, have not any limit in number because it depend of how much energy ( linked with relative velocity) is inserted in the particle.
Example: When you accelerated a particle in accelerator, you infuse to, many photons and neutrino-antineutrino, in form of unique particles. Are they, that when you collide, des-integrates and forms those thousand particles --- of post collide.
If you have any other explanation about this example, please rebut.

Photon with energy is absorbed by material, and two new photons with energies are created.

How do you solve it?
---- Have not thought about it. Believe me, I know that there are many facts that may “annihilate” the hypothesis of unique particles. Find any really true, you may give me peace of mind.

So, in your model gravity is not caused by any particle with G=0 "outside".
Which means photon,
pion+,
pion0
Although they have rest-mass..

---- All experiments that have, in ultimate result, only photons, pair (-e ,+e ) , (v, +~v) ---and whatever (+mx, -mx) may be considered as pairs structured by : ((-e/-g) + (+e/+g)) or ((-e / +g) + (+e /-g)). For outside, they do not display electric charge, but only electromagnetic variable field (wave), results of bi-charges in rotational movements.They do not display gravity.

Swanson

I guess that puts your understanding of evolution at the same level as that of physics, and saying that evolution is under the rules of physics is not the same kind of claim as saying that electrostatics and gravity are connected.
------ Another attempt to show your knowledge supremacy, with what I never had any intend to compete. I never boasted with my knowledge, in both sciences. When I say that rules of physics apply in electrons, protons and molecules of organic objects in the same manner as in inorganic particles that doesn’t mean that two kind of natures science are the same.

watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome” is not part of physics. But you are making the claim in a physics discussion, so it must represent a straw man of physics.

---- Copenhagen interpretations, popping of particles from nowhere, disappears in nothing, annihilation, change of flavors, colors, without any cause etc. they are not only discussions.

You see it done, but you evidently don't understand the meaning behind it, and/or derive meaning that isn't there. Just like cargo cults, building straw airports, thinking it will attract airplane traffic.

---- I am constricted to rebut your “ cargo cults” for attracting airports “traffic”.

You mean that I am interested to attract supporters in my “straw airport”? You are wrong. I think that there are real scientists ( not at all like a lay-man ignorant as me), in our country that work on the idea of Democritis atom, indivisible, indestructible , eterne in time (meaning) , unlimited in space. Kind of my sub-particle; may be diverse, but the same in core idea.

----- You tell me “ about my lack of understanding” or “ derive wrong meaning”.
Here I bring two formulas: with original and my “wrong interpretation”. I would liked your rebut about.
original T = (h / 2*pi) * (C^3 / (8*pi*G) / (kb * M)
My variant
1 = (((h*C / ((2*pi/α) *Ru)) * ((C^2 * C^2* Ru) / G) / ((Mu*C^2) * ( kb *cv2*T)

1 = Euh * EuG / EuE + EuB.

My interpretentions:
1) Manipulation with four kinds of the “same energy”--- Eu
2) Aim: to derive Tu--- inverse proportional with Mu.—Wrong
3) (Mu*C^2) = ( kb*cv2*Tu)

Sensei

Sorry, but WTF does it mean?
---- I have no idea what is WTF.

Like Feynman lines, showing how udd is changing to udu + e- + V

----- I don’t know how happens this miracle that “d “ gave birth (u + e- + V)

You know that Pion+ can decay to Pion0 and positron and neutrino, right?

----- I have not crystallized in myself about structure of “neutrino” and ‘Antineutrino”
In this case neutrino v = (-e / +g) + (+e /+g) and antineutrino ~v = (-e /-g) + (+e / -g)
If this rule go in contradiction with other cases, this means --- something is in core wrong in my hypothesis.

What does mean +g and -g ? If +g-g = 0, their "charges" cancel together? And there is no gravitation from such particle?

For outside particles -- right. For inside particles ---- no .

Swansont

I obviously didn't exaggerate enough. I thought I had given a ridiculous example. Evolution following an inverse-square law makes so much sense.

---- Now your sarcasm is going too far. Your “comparison with evolution” in this thread is what you hate: nothing else but a straw man. About inverse - square law in evolution, I don’t catch your humor. What I know is that in nature every thing began from simplest to most complicated, from smallest to enormous. Evolution is not an exception to those rule, it began from simplest inorganic molecules to most complicated organic. In this meaning evolution is under rules of particles physics.

It's good that you don't believe in straw-man versions of physics.

---- E no ser, are not straw man versions. Instead, nevertheless camouflaged.

A great example of cargo cult science.

----- Pardon my shallow, I don’t catch the meaning of your humor.

I support my sentence, that you rebutted, because i have been surprised that celebrity scientists divide and multiply whole formulas of energies striped by common their radius. Because up and down, it is canceled.

Sensei

What is in that case structure of mesons:
neutral pion ---- = 2* γ = 2* (( - e / - g) + ( + e / + g)) = 2 * (Mun1+ Mun2)

---- = (- me + (+ me)) = (2*(-e/-g)) + ( 2* (+e/+g)) = 2 * Mun1 + 2 * Mun2

Summa active inside of (e) = 4 Summa active for outside = 0

Summa active inside of (g) = 4 Summa active for outside = 0

charged pion+ ----- = μ+ + mνμ~ = (me+ + mνe + mνμ~) + mνμ =

= 2*(M2~) + (M1 +M3) + (M2~ +M4~) + (M1 +M3) =

= (2*( +e/+g ) + ((-e/-g) +(+e/-g)) +((+e/+g) + (-e/+g))) + ((-e/+g)... +(+e/+g))

Summa active inside of (e) = 8 Suma active for outside in static status =2*(+e)
Suma active inside of (g) = 8 summa active for outside in static status = 4*g

= ( (2*Mun1) + (Mun2 +Mun4) + (Mun1 +Mun3) ) + (Mun1+Mun3)

( - e + ~νe + νμ ) + ( νμ )

= 4*Mun1 + 1*Mun2 + 2*Mun3 + Mun4 =
= 4* ( -e/-g) + 1*( +e/+g) + 2+ (+e/+g) + (-e/+g)

charged pion-

neutral kaon short version
neutral kaon long version
charged kaon+
charged kaon-

Leptons 2nd generation:
charged muon+
charged muon-



There is 120+ mesons, and 130+ baryons that you have no idea about their existence..

----- O my my! Are really so mach? I had no idea!

"I am speaking about Planck particle"? Not at all.. It's hypothetical particle, that never has been found experimentally..
----That true. And I am sure never will be found. Even thought they are components of whatever common particle. Are very-very tiny, their radius Run. = Lpl.* sqrt(α)

Who said it's true?

---Nobody
What if attraction is property of any energy?

---I think gravity energy create and attract mass of particles.
Including photons, neutrinos or other neutral particles?
But they travel with speed of light (or close to), so their influence is diminishing quickly (which disallows/make it hard to perform experiments with them)..

Newton's gravity equation is:

F = (E1*E2*G) / (C^2*C^2*r^2)

- In my hypothesis:

F = ((G*Mu^2) / R1) * ((G*Mu^2) / R2)) * G / (C^2 * C^2 * r^2)

E1 * E2

But ((G*Mu^2 * Ru) / ( Ru / R1) = (G*Mu / Ru) * (Mu * Ru /R1) = C^2 * m1

So: F = (C^2 * m1) * (C^2 *m2) * G / (C^2*C^2*r^2)= m1*m2*G / r^2
I don’t see any thing wrong

Insert one in another and you will get:


doubt you know how electricity works..

------ Any-way, hold your doubt.
f.e. if you have NiMH AA battery-accumulator with U = 1.25 V, and 1400 mAh, what does it mean?
Are you truly be able to tell me quantity of electrons it has? And amount of energy it can release?
---- Now don’t be ridiculous.

You have to work with everything at the same time (if they have substructure):
- substructure of photon = (-e / - g) + (+e / + g) => Σ(e) = 0, Σ(g) = 0
- substructure of neutrinos, = ( - e / - g) + ( + e / -g ) => Σ(-e) =0. Σ(-g) =2
- substructure of electron/positron,= ((- e /- g) + (- e / - g)) / ((+e /+g) +(+e /+g))

Swanson

Any more than multiplying and dividing by some biological constant means there's an equivalence between electrostatics and evolution

----- I won’t be surprised. Branch sciences of nature are inter-twined. What I don’t believe is that only “watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome”.
As for multiplying and dividing constants in physic, that is a common play for all physicists, in all times. The rule is that “ result must respects “unities”

Swanson

Any more than multiplying and dividing by some biological constant means there's an equivalence between electrostatics and evolution
----- I won’t be surprised. Branch sciences of nature are inter-twined. What I don’t believe is that only “watching a phenomena your brain may change it outcome”.
As for multiplying and dividing constants in physic, that is a common play for all physicists, in al times. The rule is that “ result must respects “unities”

Sensei

Do you realize it's mass of billions * billions * 13 protons?

(first: note that this is a speculation about the structure of common particles by means of two sub particles)

Now sure “I realize”, but you are speaking about the “Mass” of “Plank particle”

mpl = Empl. / C^2 =

= (sqrt(G) * Mpl.*sqrt(α) *( sqrt(G) * Mpl.sqrt(α) / ( Lpl.*sqrt(α)* C^2) =

= Mpl. (α) * ((G*Mpl. / Lpl.) / C^2) = Mpl (α) *1

Note:

Plank area is the only that has “mass particle” “mpl’. equal with “gravity sub particle “Mpl” which I think are two different concept.

Now compare above with mass of electron particle (me) :

1) me = Eme / C^2 =

= (( sqrt(G) * Mpl. *sqrt(α) * sqrt(G)*Mpl.*sqrt (α) ) / (Re * C^2)

2) me = Eme / C^2 = (( e / sqrt(4*pi*ε) * (e / sqrt(4*pi*ε) ) / ( Re *C^2)

3) me = Eme / C^2 = (( h * ( C / (2*pi / α) * Re ) ) / C^2 ……..

Mass of a particle is considered equal energy / C^2. But what gave to mass the gravity property?

Energy of a common particle is the energy created by interaction of two unique sub particles. The amount of energy is inverse proportional with distance between two sub-particles)


I don't doubt you do, and completely doesn't care about it...

I do care a lot. This thread is just about this “monstrous” Mpl*sqrt(α) as a property of alleged sub particle, which has the duty to create gravity energy on the common particles, the same as the electric charge, create electric energy.
I want to ask:

Why, you don’t rise browns about: e / (4*pi*ε) ^ 0.5 but doubt about sqrt(G )*Mpl.* sqrt(α)
Aren’t they the same as the amount? And their results aren’t with the same unity?

Electric charge (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant “epsilon zero”, result of electric charges (F/m).
Mpl.*sqrt(α) (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant of gravity (G).
Both acting in unison create one--two face energy: electric and gravity energy.

And the mass of particle, that has gravity property, isn’t equal energy divided by C^2?

What gave mass of particles gravity? Why not, gravity energy created by sub-particles. Why suppose it is Higgs?

Electric charge (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant “epsilon zero”, result of electric charges (F/m).
Mpl.*sqrt(α) (of alleged sub-particle) act in a space which posses constant of gravity (G).

Both are in the same foot.

I assume their charges must be -1e and 0e?
And then positron has +1e and 0e?
Otherwise charges wouldn't match completely.
--- Right rebut.

I suppose that “two sub-particle” evolve toward each other in spherical trajectories; create a sphere of their existence which is in rest as whole. This is a common particle in rest status. But nobody has found any particle in rest status. They as whole are always in relative movements. I suppose that relative movements are created by a third sub-particle from an antineutrino (antimatter), or from any photon.
This antimatter sub-particle with “one” of matter sub-particles, create a photon that evolve around sphere like Broil wave, which we measure as Compton wave. So in total we have:

For electron (--) + (--) + (+) = (--) + photon

For proton (+) + (+) + (--) = (+) + photon

? Bosons have full integer spins, f.e. 0, 1.
How two bosons joined together can give spin 1/2 ?

If we would have 1/2 and +-1/2 it can end up 0, or 1.
But if they're integer we will never end up with fractions..

Truly I have not treat this problem; for my hypothesis I tried to fit sign of electric charges and sign of sqrt(G) in right correspondence.

Swanson

All you did here was multiply and divide by G, which cancels. Any claim that this has anything to do with gravity is bogus

----- They are brought here to show that gravity energy and electric energy, of two electric charges and two Plank gravity charges (mass), are equivalent. For Plank area this is indisputable that this fit for Plank length.
But seems that this fit even for whatever distance. And it is the augments of distance between charges that causes diminish of the energy, and with this the mass of common particles.

We have e / ε0 . There is not any cancellation between electric charges of particle with electric charges of space. I think the same for gravity.

Gravity energy --- mass energy, two different concepts.

Speculation by a lay-man

Here are four equations, three of them “relative static” potential energy, between two electric charges and what derive from them, fourth rest energy of electron particle.

1) - - - - ( e / (sqrt (4 * pi * ε ) ) ^2 / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul

2) - - - - ( sqrt ( G) * (Mpl *sqrt(α) ) ^ 2) / Re = 8.187104662*10*-14 Joul

3) - - - - ( e / (sqrt ( 4 * pi * ε * G) ) ^ 2 * G / Re = 8.187104683*10^-14 Joul

4) - - - ( me * C^2) = (Mpl * C^2) * (Lpl / Re) = 8.187104145* 10^-14 Joul

Note:

1-Equation (3) is to show why formal “gravity potential energy” is equal electric potential energy, if taken in consideration constants of gravity field and constant of fine structure.
2- “Re” --- classic radius of electron particle.

Eq.(5) ------- Mpl * sqrt(α) = e / sqrt ( 4 * pi * ε0 * G ) = Mun.

Here Mpl*sqrt(α) = “Mun.” is equivalence “mass” of alleged “unique sub particle”

Electric potential energy is equal “gravity potential energy of alleged Plank mass “Mpl*sqrt(α)”.
And both of them are equal potential static energy of electron particles mass “me”.
So “gravity potential energy of a structure of two Plank “mass* sqrt α”, is equal the potential energy of two electric charges and is equal energy of the electron particle, in rest status, even it that has a mass “me” which is 2.041*10^21 time less than Plank mass (”Mpl”).

Speculation by a lay-man:
1- electron particle is structured in “rest status” by two sub-particles as in Eq.(5).
2- Sub-particle “Mun.” may be considered as a “ boson ?”, instead and different from “+,- W” or “Higgs”, -- able to build structure for all kind of common particles, mass or mass-less.
3- Static status is only “relative toward each other” because the sub-particles supposed to move always in spherical trajectories with C velocity, and after, with V velocity as whole when associated with one third anti matter sub-particle Mun.

Strange

The experiment was found to be completely consistent with the calculations of the theory.

What has this got to do with myths or mysticism? The experiment may be in conflict with your (apparently very confused) understanding of theory but I don't suppose anyone cares about that.

----- That’s more than enough, to close the thread.

Kramer

Exist a flower, which is named by people: “don’t touch—I drop dead”
Exist in theoretic Physic a “wave function” which “collapse” not by “touching” but even-only by watching on it. Kind of “exist a link between “androids psychic and natures phenomena.”

I try to recall by eons some fragment of forgotten knowledge:

Shrodinger invented an equation for side - skip the difficulties created by the principle of Heisenberg about ‘uncertainty of status’ on some physics phenomena inside very tiny volumes of space..

In this equation the “wave function psi” took a legendary importance in quantum physic theory about the ideas of fluctuation energy (quanta) inside tine volume of space in very tine periods of time.

Impossibility to make whatever measurement of phenomena inside the tiny sphere of space, because in whatever attempt to make a measure--- the phenomena ceased to exist, was called “collapse of wave function”.
….. and quantum physic won the fame of some kind of weirdness, that fantasy my create, based or not -- who know , who care?.

And you see a break-throw. Somebody has realised ‘the impossible measurement’, has used the short period of time, between intervention and collapse, for fulfills the measures.. After many measurements, has derived a kind of a law: Path of desire, and display of trajectories of ?.
It was a century myth. It was a century mystic.

Now, that experimenters of Washington University have de-mythed and de-mystifyed the idea of “impossibility of measurement”, moderators jumps on O.P. kind of, his lack of knowledge are the theme of dispute.

Instead , I think, they must debate about this event, which is the theme of thread, and scrutinize the validity of experiment, as expert must do. And made reexamination about their own knowledge on “quanta”. Nobody know for sure what a quanta is!

Big nose
I would say that it is highly unlikely that a lay person could seriously 'rebut' any paper published in a reputable journal these days. The chances are about the same as a 5 year old discovering a new 3rd move in a chess game opening that revolutionizes the game.

----- As a lay man I don’t intend to rebut any paper. But as it has been “published” without any warning “only for scientists audience”, I, the lay man, has the right to know what is the “path of desire”, and what is the meaning of the figure of a clew that seems like a sphere .
And you as mathematician can give any explanation between math concepts of the paper and the link of them with physics reality. The general teaching and what the others must do, is futile.

Swansont

"Big atom" isn't in the article, either.

Artificial atom – big atom ---- isn’t it like to split the hair?

What disregard? I mean, you obviously have misunderstood the paper, so how do you pass judgement on what effects are important or not?

---- If there is absolute not about any kind of moving I admit that I misunderstood.

But -- If there is about “popping ups” things that authors have been able to measure before the things “collapse”, --- here I want an explanation. Because this has to do with movement, has to do with intervals of “time” and of ”space” --- short has to do with movements nevertheless of whatever kind.
So ser. Not I, have misunderstood, opponents have rushed in wrong valuation about importance of my thread.

And if there is something that moves, in whatever kind of movement, this thing needs a name. Mathematics name of what “collapse” is insufficient. This needs a name of real physics things – particle. It is it that experimenter measure, not abstract mathematic concept.

Strange

The phrase "artificial atom" appears in the news article (see links in post 2). This, again, is an analogy.
---- Thanks Strange. This mean a lot to me. I have not been in dream.

I have no idea what that means.
"Einsteinium is a synthetic element with the symbol Es and atomic number 99. It is the seventh transuranic element, and an actinide." (Wikipedia)

---- Again a miss spelling by me for “Einstein’s”. Meaning: Quantum mechanic disregard mass (gravity). Sorry for my grammar.

In the same way energy defines the wavelength of a photon: http://hyperphysics....um/debrog2.html

---- Do you mean De Broil wavelength?. Isn’t it the same as λ = ( (2*pi) / α) * Re) where Re classic radius of electron? Sorry --- I forget that in quantum mechanic Radius Re is “point = zero”. --- A joke about divergences between Quantum and classic..

I have no idea. You haven't mentioned it before. But the Compton wavelength is related to mass, as well.
---- That because the amount of energy of a particle, expressed in whatever physics law, is the same. And the radius is the only factor variable that determines the amount. It is a speculation? --- Yes.

Sorry. No idea what that means, either.
---- What is the result of disintegration of Muon? One electron, one anti- neutrino, one neutrino. This is the concrete base, to think about elementary common particles that are the only participant in the structure of muon. You may say: again a speculation? Yes.

No, he just means that the paper was written for other scientists. That is what scientists do most of the time.

The "paths of desire" article was written for non-scientists. But, as it is trying to describe something very complex that cannot be understood without knowing the relevant science, it used simplifications, analogies and metaphors. This means you cannot tell what the science really is.
----- That exact is what I want to dispute: how far away is going theoretic physic from real concepts of objective reality. And is this based in trust-worth data by nature or are they leaded by metaphysic, premeditated initials.

You seem to think there is some sort of deliberate effort to keep information away from "ordinary people". There isn't. It is just very, very complicated. There is no reason a plumber should be able to do brain surgery.
----- Right. I am a lay man, a plumber. But if somebody tells me that surgeon made surgery of brain to somebody with hocus focus, without opening the cranium, I have the right to know how this “miracle” happened. And Quantum physic has many “weird” issues for dispute.
------ Strange. I like to debate with you, in a friendly debate that close the eye about my grammar and my un-premeditated gaffes.

. As an engineer you have at least a foot on earth.
The link you gave about Felix Black sphere, show me that you may give me the help to understand how math is applied in physic. We can debate about “sphere” created by “formal path of desire, and trajectories, the link of it with Black “sphere”, and an alleged by me “sphere” created by spherical trajectories.

I will not be offended if you are not interested.

Swansont

"Big atom" isn't in the article, either.

Artificial atom – big atom ---- isn’t it like to split the hair?

What disregard? I mean, you obviously have misunderstood the paper, so how do you pass judgement on what effects are important or not?

---- If there is absolute not about any kind of moving I admit that I misunderstood.

But -- If there is about “popping ups” things that authors have been able to measure before the things “collapse”, --- here I want an explanation. Because this has to do with movement, has to do with intervals of “time” and of ”space” --- short has to do with movements nevertheless of whatever kind.
So ser. Not I have misunderstood, opponents have rushed in wrong valuation about importance of my thread.

And if there is something that moves, in whatever kind of movement, this thing needs a name. Mathematic name of what “collapse” is insufficient. This needs a name of real physics things – particle. It is it that experimenter measure, not abstract mathematic concept.

Strange

I have searched the paper and the "paths of desire" news article about this and can't find any reference to a hydrogen atom.

----- That really embarrassing. Have I seen in my dreams about “ big atom and its levels of energy”? I lost the track to re-read the source.

I'm not aware of any particular conundrum around that.
---- Again a fabrication of my fantasy? Are you sure that there is not any problem, and you have a clear concept about discrepancy in this issue, between classic and modern?

It does not disregard the mass. The mass is crucial. For one thing, the mass defines the wavelenght. For another, the reason the electron is stable but the muon isn't is because of mass.

---- But….but .. What about of “ Einsteinium complain: incomplete” ?
---- How mass define wavelength? Again --- am I wrong about the role of Compton radius?
---- About other reason. --- Isn’t “’muon antineutrinos’ dislikes to be associated with electron neutrino, the cause of his escape with most of muons energy stolen? ”

It was pretty clear to me from reading the article and the abstract of the paper that they were not talking about physical paths. And I have no expertise in this subject. (Of course, the concept of abstract state spaces is something I am very familiar with from my work as an engineer.
---- Engineers of contemporary time are without comparison much more qualified.

Swansont

They explained their meaning. The paper was written for other physicists. You've had a physicist and an engineer translate some of it for you, so people not even in that speciality were able to understand it at some level. It was not written as a pop-sci article for a lay audience.

---- This doesn’t mean that lay audience is deprived by the right to question, to ask, to make remark s, even stupid rebut or suggestions. Or was just this what you meant, that science is for scientists, for elite. For lay audience are enough socio- philosophic resumes?

I could not find any mention of Hydrogen in the article, either. I also reject your claim that I have said QM disregards an electron's mass. I suspect that's a misinterpretation on your part. Without any links to back up such a claim I can't say for sure what the specific misunderstanding it.
---- About “ HYDROGEN”, with which I, without intention to derail readers, I asked for excuse. My mistake has been caused by word ‘big atom’, and ‘two points of the sphere’ which gave me idea of H.

---- About electron mass ….?. A point electron with infinite density, an electron with V = C , an electron without radius but only wave-length ---- have been issue for debate in my threads.

People who have spent four years in college, 5-8 (or more) years in grad school, a postdoc or two (or three) and then on to do research probably have a decent handle on the concrete, and tend to work in the abstract. Again, the paper was not written for an audience which lacks any training in physics.
----- I appreciate your lost time and patience for both of interlocutors in this thread. And my many thanks for “ your trying”.
But, without offense, I continue to be very disappointed and confused about “moving of Quanta “ that disregard charge and/or gravity.

Swansont

But, as your earlier questions show, the paper is discussing an abstract concept: quantum state space. You're asking about what matter fills it and such, and the answer is that your questions make no sense. Quantum state space is an abstraction. It's a representation of the quantum state, as a function of some variable, but not of position. It's not a graph of physical space. The trajectories are in variables other than physical space.

Much like you could measure pressure, volume, temperature and perhaps other properties of a thermodynamic system and compare them to each other. The various ways one variable can change with respect to another could be called trajectories, and have nothing to do with motion in physical space.

---- The authors of paper explicitly say that they have simulated a big model of hydrogen atom.
As I know the big conundrum of physics is the movement of electron as a mass particle around proton.

Now, quantum theory consider “electron particle” a “wave”, disregards it’s mass --- you self have reaffirmed that many times, in debates.

So I thought that the experiment was not a general study about quantum status of space, but a concrete example how quantum status of space work between two points (proton –electron ???) .
Short ---- an attempt to deny the particles concrete movement of electron particle in real spatial trajectories and replace it with the surrogate abstract quanta’s movement in the imaginary trajectories in the “ desire path” of quantum status of an imaginary quantum space sphere.
If the author speak about trajectories and paths in a figurative manner, and not about movement, which is an undeniable important physic’s phenomena, I think, is a moral duty of experts to explain what is their meaning.

Of course if they are not offended to illuminate an ignorant.

how can you judge whether one part is important or not?

Because one is concrete the other abstract, And to understand abstract concepts, must begin with concretes.

As to camouflage, it;'s the same sort of way that people speaking a foreign language are using "camouflage" to hide what they say. In that they are doing no such thing and it only sounds like that because you don't speak the language.
---- Even scientists say that know the language with what they communicate, but they quarrel always with each other. Because they don’t understand what they think that understand.

If you want to understand advanced physics, you have to be willing to learn some basic physics. If you aren't willing to do that, then no, I can't speak more simply. These are not simple concepts, and there are things I can't explain in terms you will understand until such time that you learn the relevant physics.
---- That true. But you may explain with “ Einstein peas” if you have clear understanding about ideas. If not --- no! let be no!.

I don't know what you mean by that.
---- Now it’s unimportant.

Strange

This one: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bloch_sphere

1

t is not filled with anything, it is a mathematical abstraction.

Because it is a convenient way of visualising the values.
----Thanks Strange for the link> I will see if it has anything to do with my “Spherical trajectories”

If you unable to read and understand the paper, then I can't help you because I don't understand it either.
---- I appreciate your sincerity.

"Paths of desire" was a METAPHOR in a news report. It has nothing to do with this experiment. IT HAS NO MEANING.

I assume a change in energy. But I don't really understand it.

Of the system they are using: "The qubit consists of two aluminum paddles connected by a double-angle-evaporated aluminum SQUID deposited on double-side-polished silicon."

"Paths of desire" was a METAPHOR in a news report. It has nothing to do with this experiment. IT HAS NO MEANING. They are trajectories in an abstract state space.

Maybe you just need to accept that this is beyond you.
----If I was able to understand the language of metaphors, of paths that are not paths, of trajectories that are not trajectories I had not open this thread.

Strange

This mapping of the changing quantum state onto a sphere is what created the circular paths you are talking about.
1- About what sphere are you talking?

2-What are their dimensions?

3-Of what matter is filled?

4-What are it’s properties.

5-Why quantum state, between two points, must be a spherical?

6- And why circular paths, what move onto them, what cause (push) them to move?

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Gout? Acute inflammatory arthritis>

-- I am sorry --- for miss spelling-- instead for ” Goat”.

On the mountains the wild goats move in strict paths, called “goat paths”. They have traced them. They by “instinct” move on them as ”desired paths” because are less riskiest.

Now you explain me the link between the “goat instinct” and the “desire of quanta”, or at least what we may call scientifically the figuratively “desire”. Is it a force? How is it applied? From what -- to what?

It is a convenient way of representing the changing quantum state: http://comp.uark.edu...apps/index.html

What cause the change of quantum state?

Quantum state of what? Of space?

Spherical because the values of the quantum state can be represented as a pair of angles, which are therefore equivalent to polar coordinates.
---- What confuse me, is that angles, are linked with vectors or polar coordinate, vectors represents some=things, and have their characters. Can you be more specific when we apply math in physic?

They are NOT trajectories in space.
?? But what are “paths o desire” if not trajectories?

Swansont

You emphasized the wrong part. here, let me fix it:
A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.

---- I emphasized ‘path of desire’ and ‘trajectories’ because those are concepts of something more real and concrete, and not emphasized “in quantum state of space” because this part is more abstract to understand people of my category.
It seems to me that some terms in physics used as to camouflage exact that part of quantum physic, which is more weird and out of common sense. And it is exact the most questioned part that need answers, but are dodged with unimportant remarks.

That’s pretty obvious. But here’s a radical idea: how about asking that question at the outset, instead of jumping to a conclusion and asking a question about the implications of that unsupported conclusion?
--- It’s pretty obvious -- that I can’t understand this sophisticated and obscured rebut.
Please can’t you speak more simple and more openly with folk like me?

You have a state represented by a vector of unit length, because the quantity it represents is fixed. But the orientation is not. Fixed length, and pointing in any direction in three dimensions — all of those points will land on a sphere. So that's the natural coordinate system to use.

--- I know what is a unit vector, what is it’s length, and why may represent a fixed quantity. I know that when randomly oriented this vector, the tip of it move in the surface of a sphere. This is simple calculus.
But we have a physic concrete scheme that need explanation.

Swansont

You have yet to provide any context for what circular trajectories you are talking about. This is not the subject of the paper that you referenced (but did not provide a link to; someone else did that???!) "Circular" does not appear in the text.

Is the title of the article from which I have extracted the next quoted phrases:

{The experiments, the first continuous measurements of the trajectories of a quantum system between two points, are described in the cover article of the July 31 issue of Nature.

(Here is the figure of the “web of trajectories”, named by me ‘clew’. I was unable to post the figure)

Murch lab

A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.}

Now if you think that the white lines in the figure are not trajectories, but only fragments of linear trajectories, linked with each other as to give the idea of a circular trajectory, that complicate much more the problem, instead of solving something

"Circular" does not appear in the text.
----Circular are all the trajectories in the figure. Many circles. It is not clear if they are in plane or space, and where are the two points ( what they represent?) in space, around which dance in trajectories the quanta
Just for clarifying those miss concepts I opened this thread, bluntly attracted by title: “line of desire”

Strange

More reading on this confirms what I initially thought. The (roughly spherical) trajectories shown are not positions in space. They are a mapping of the values of the quantum state to a spherical coordinate system

I don’t understand what has to do the ‘mapping of the values of the quantum state’ with "the trajectories and the line of desire".
May be you think that there is a link between the “path and the gout”? applicable in “quantum physics?”

Why in a SPHERICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM?

Strange.

It would appear so, as the experiment you reference confirms the predictions made by theory.

Too much effort to provide a link?

Here: http://www.nature.co..._NatureMagazine

It is an architectural term. It means the paths formed by people walking across lawns or open areas, rather than using the paved paths created for them.

It was used in an article as a metaphor (i.e. it has no real significance) for the fact that particles take the path of "least resistance" rather than a straight line.

And why have you posted this interesting bit of science in "Speculations"? <sigh>
------- I must give an apology: This thread, is a return to the closed thread “What cause curve lined movement of quanta”. And with quanta I intend that chunk of energy, which moves in spherical curve-lined trajectories even being deprived from charge or mass. Short not an “electron particle” which has charge and mass but simple a “wave”.
I am sincerely confused and do not understand how a wave (photon) can change straight- line movement in circular trajectory.

And I wanted the help of specialist. This only for curiosity---to see how deep is my ignorance.

( If I am not wrong) only so-named “black holes” are the only things of nature that “deform space-time” and pave the trace of waves and everything that moves near them in circular trajectory.
I was unable to post the figure of trajectories of quanta, in above mentioned simulation of Murch lab. It looks like a deformed clew of thread. I think a very ugly sphere.

Why in speculation?

Here I display my lack of knowledge with less embarrassment.

Lucius E.E.

Generally as far as the trajectory of a particle is concerned, it benefits to also have the velocity as they're always tangent.

See Here for more information for obtaining a particles trajectory. - http://en.wikipedia....al_acceleration

---The problem is that I am unable to see semblance between particle and wave.

Swansont

Strange, on 27 Aug 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

And why have you posted this interesting bit of science in "Speculations"? <sigh>

Likely because of this (or more specifically, this)

----- I don’t understand what do you mean by “this”.
The truth is that I am interested in this simulation because it is in the same line with the simulation of “ math lab” about “spherical trajectories” of alleged sub-particles in the alleged structure of electron particle.
Has been my first thread in this forum .

It was ridiculed.

Even it was only a speculation.

But I am very satisfied with myself. ----At least it was beautiful sphere, not a clew. Joke.

ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

The experiments, the first continuous measurements of the trajectories of a quantum system between two points, are described in the cover article of the July 31 issue of Nature.

Murch lab

A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.

What is “A PATH OF DESIRE”.

“Desire of who” is the meaning?

Desire of experimenter?

Desire off quanta? --- Men! O men! Only lack of statement that quanta has sex!

If trajectories are not traced by “a particle”, under guide “of charges”, what are they and what guide them?