Edgard Neuman

Ooh ! that gave me some other idea :

Instead of this, what we could use some einstein-rosen-bridge.. picture this : 
We create a loop of particles (that we accelerate) except the loop goes into the bridge, from one end to the other.. so in our universe, we would have only one half of the loop..
Can we then just use the particle speed to accelerate the ship ?
Imagine we could here on earth accelerate the particles, and then somehow release the ship that would use the particles to accelerate. 
I suppose that it wouldn't work either but the reason would be weirder : when we accelerate the particles into the loop, the two bridge would accelerate in the opposite direction and transfer a force to the thing that keep it open.
 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't think this should be in Speculations. Unless you are going to insist that this poor deluded man is right?

It is rather worrying that an engineer boring for NASA should come up with this tosh. But no doubt someone will point out why it doesn't;t work. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that New Scientist published it uncritically. They could have written an educational article explaining why it doesn't work (they employ writers with a background in science, or they used to). But they decided to fall back to their default position of being the Daily Mail of science.

I believed it for ten minutes

I found a more accurate description :
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/10/nasa-inertial-drive-with-a-helical-engine-using-a-particle-accelerator.html

Hi,

Here is a article that explain how the engine would work :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2218685-nasa-engineers-helical-engine-may-violate-the-laws-of-physics/

It relies on a component whose mass is alternatively changing between two values(by changing the energy of the system) 
This topic is not about the question of the engine working or not
(I suppose there could be some relativistic effects associated with the mass changes  that could cancel the whole thing : what is the derivative of acceleration ? and the derivative of curvature ?
In fact when I think about it :
-  It wouldn't work maybe because a device whose mass would be decreasing would accelerate, and decelerate when the mass increase (with the whole conservation of momentum)
- and ...can we change the mass/energy of the system.. as it says in the article ?). 

I'm just wondering : what would be the most effective mass alternating device ? 

What we would need is a thing that could change mass the most while using the smallest space..  we would need to optimize the mass difference by unit of space (kg / m^3).. I suppose we could make a very small atomic component with a rotating thing or charge, and vary the rotation..  or maybe some atom with two energetic state the furthest apart. 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

 

But you didn't answer my question so how can you understand that?

Did you mean the power set of N ?

 

 

I wasn't sure exactly what the symbole mean, i copied pasted it from the article.. the article was indeed talking about the set of subsets, so I supposed that was what the symbol meant..   So I wrote that "I understand that" the power set is the set of subsets... (I just didn't think about infinite subsets)
thanks  

5 hours ago, studiot said:

If you mean the power set of N and N are not in bijection that is not suprising.

The power set is always larger than the original set.
It is a set of subsets and contains individual subsets, one for every member of the original set (N) along with other sets such as N itself.

N can be put in bijection with R.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=Y7aMXePVKO2G1fAPztqtUA&q=power+set+of+N&oq=power+set+of+N&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l5j0i30l5.1166.1838..3256...0.2..0.1118.1570.4-1j7-1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.Aa6pQ8WKKpI&ved=0ahUKEwijk6nQxe7kAhVtQxUIHU5tCwoQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

No I understand that.. the set of subsets.. but isn't my construction a bijection between integers and sets of integer ??
You say the set of subset is bigger meaning you shouldn't be able to build a bijection ?
Each integer give a subset of integer and each subset of integer gives back the integer.. 

 

5 hours ago, uncool said:

Because for any integer n, the corresponding subset of N will be finite.

Which integer corresponds to the set of even integers?

 ok I get it ! It gives me a lot to think about.. (seems still fishy to me that we consider the set of infinite subset and the set of finite subset on the same level.. isn't it strange ? does card(ℕ) belong to ℕ ? shouldn't we make the distinction ?)
Thanks a lot !

Hi,

I read an article about infinities, and as always, I don't get it.
The writer says : "℘(ℕ)" and "ℕ" are not in bijection..

but, it seems easy to me to create a bijection :


You take the binary writing of a number, and you take the rank integer that correspond to each 1

0 <=> {}

1 <=> {0}

2 <=> {1 }
3 <=>  {0 ; 1 }
4 <=> { 2 }

...
259 <=> { 0; 1 ; 8  }
..

etc and so on

you have an integer for each set of integer and vice-versa, isn't it a bijection ?

So what did I got wrong ?

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I know how QED works and I am telling you that without the wave nature in QED you will not get the correct interference patterns.

I'm sorry you don't understand my model. I'll do maybe some computer simulation one day. I've already simulated big classical pools of particles (IfI still can, I will publish here the results, even if they contradict me of course)

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I know how QED works and I am telling you that without the wave nature in QED you will not get the correct interference patterns.

You haven't provided any mathematics that is one of the requirements on this forum.

So i may be right (even if you don't understand how), but nobody while never know because of the rules of the forum ? 
Be the way, anybody (I mean somebody who knows that stuff better than me) can do the math. Please be my guest. (I don't even want to be credited, that's not why I'm here and I respect the work of course)

ok now the censoreship.. Good for you. Blind yourself and punish the others. That's how science works apparently. I'm so used to it, it's not even painfull anymore. 

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That's your numbers to account for the vertical distribution that is not what I asked for.

I know know what the blooming Planck units are.

As I explain you can also view planck constant as frequency of perturbation propagation of the vaccum. (It has to be to fit with wavelength of your model waves). In my model it's like a sound frequency equivalent : the wave of perturbation in the vaccum.. (but different. I don't precisely now how. Picture a sound propagating but with QED interactions)

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Then show your numbers 

Here it is : 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

You know my model has to fit with all the experiments ever done. So yes, that probably the number you're looking for.

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yeah right so you  believe this can somehow account for the difference in the particle streams coming from two slits much like those spray cans then hits a uniform density distribution of photons to create vertical lines on a screen.

Good luck with that. 

This is called the law of big numbers .Learn about that. You only see the stable result, the stable history that remains at the end of mess.
And you have to understand the scale : the plank scale, where vaccuum noise exist is much much smaller that structures like atoms or molecule. A electron, is a very very lonely charge density anomalie in a very otherwise sea of equal proportions of both charges

For the model to work, the vaccum density (the lenght of particle travelling without interactions) should be so small that it can still explain protons etc.. so yes very different scales.

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Really how do these antiparticles survive long enough to even be present with baryogenesis that occurred  shortly after the BB like you stated effectively leaving us with a positive dominant universe. ?

How can they be present in the two slit experiment ?

BECAUSE PHOTON CAN INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER TO GIVE ELECTRON AND POSITRON.
The interaction is symetrical by time inversion of course . The vacuum contains much more photons : they create pairs when they interact. The interaction may still be classical. You know that positron have to be taken into account in any feynman diagram, or as a field in the mainstream theory. So even in your model they are present as virtual particles

I have to explain to you the premise of the model again and again.. ? 
 

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do yourself a favor take two spray cans of paint spray it against  a wall. What pattern do you see ?

PLEASE. FLUCTUATION DENSITY OF VACCUM PARTICLE. BECAUSE A TYPE OF IT CANCELS THE EFFECT OF THE OTHER TYPE, THE WHOLE THING BEHAVE LIKE A WAVE. A WAVE. IN MY MODEL I SEE INTERFERENCES.

If I gave you 10 $, and then I give you 10 anti-$. YOU HAVE NOW 0. THEY MAY BE CLASSICAL AND STILL CANCEL OUT INTO PHOTONS.

And even better : the wave have a frequency depending on the vaccum density..

Just now, Mordred said:

Oh really the very people that proposed VP in the first place couldn't consider it's application in a two slit experiment.

What are you talking about now. 
My picture explain how vaccuum density fluctuation behave like waves. (YES WAVES destructive constructive, reacting to slits. WAVES. ) EMERGING FROM CLASSICAL PARTICLE . YES THATS POSSIBLE.
Your slit experiment problem you try to pin on my model doesn't exist. SORRY.

Just now, Mordred said:

Feymann for one example that showed how to model VP as an internal line on his diagrams couldn't think of how to apply this to the two slit experiment which he himself examined and specifically stated no classical solution is possible. 

NO CLASSICAL SOLUTION IF only accound for real particle, In my model, VP PARTICLE are the vaccum particle. We can go in circle for years this way.

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do you want to try that one again ? As I am not buying it. At 2 7 K the mean average number density of photons would be roughly 400 /cm^3 that includes the antiparticle.

 

You don't understand that thousands of physicists would have considered everyday particle number density in the two slit experiment. They would have considered such a mundane possibility

Even Feymann  considered a classical solution impossible and he is certainly well aware of Brownian distributions.

Because he only account for real particle (air etc..).. In my model they are only SOME LOCAL DENSITY ANOMALY of charges in the vaccum.
 

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Anyone can understand their own imagination land it's perfectly suited to the individual imagining the scenario.

Proving it to others is a different story.

I SAID IT FIT YOUR EXPERIMENTS.  I try but you obvioulsy aren't even able to picture a field of real particle. Even when I use pictures.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Take the mean average energy density then calculate the mean average energy of the VP. There is a formula that then corresponds this to the mean average lifetime that in itself depends on the mean average energy per particle.

It is literally one of the calculations used to calculate the range of a force.

 

And that explain the existence of virtual particle ? The average formula now have powers over matter ?
Are you God ? 

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Take the mean average energy density then calculate the mean average energy of the VP. There is a formula that then corresponds this to the mean average lifetime that in itself depends on the mean average energy per particle.

It is literally one of the calculations used to calculate the range of a force.

 

You can believe pink unicorns fills magic wands with their urine if you want.

That doesn't validate your model

My model fits your experiments, eventhough you don't understand how, I do.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

When you make no effort to supply the mathematics to support your claims? 

Why should I believe any of your claims when you can only supply words and pictures ?

Do what you want ! I now what I choose to believe. (I don't think "you can only supply words and pictures" is a valid criteria, but you do what you want).
Also that is just a model. I suppose some things have to be adjusted. Exactly how the interaction take place, the set of particles and possible interactions (I just have to be globally neutral).. for instance why the Fine-structure constant (1/137) I have no idea.

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You can also account for VP with the mean average lifetime 

No you really can't. You can't say : their maybe a cat in my empty room, so it explain the mess. The cat poped out and it disappear, only because, according to probabilities "there may be a cat in my room" . You just can't use your stastical description of reality to explain existence of thing (that not a "classical" or "quantum principle" that's the DEFINITION OF WHAT PROBABILITIES ARE.). Sorry. "I'm hungry and poor. but according to probabilities the average money is 10000 $ per person in america. I'm in america : let's spend that money then !" .NO YOU CAN'T.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do you want to try that one again ? As I am not buying it. At 2 7 K the mean average number density of photons would be roughly 400 /cm^3 that includes the antiparticle.

 

 So you're talking about the temperature ASSOCIATED with a field of real photon using the black body formula. Is there a black body emiting those photons ?  You know that real photon are photon with the right energy to interact. Black body interaction are real, but a body can be plonged into photon and only the right one interact. Do you understand that or not ? 
 

22 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I've explained you HOW MY MODEL RESPECT THE SLIT EXPERIMENT, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW.
So somebody requested a visual aid :

Well now that's enough talk.
If you can't understand that, and how it is SIMPLER IN EVERY WAY. How you can deduce your physics from as statistical result of vaccum interaction.. If you don't see how to explain scattering, wave behavior, and everything from my model, this is just hopeless. I've inform you, use your brain or not, I don't care. I've done my part.

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Sorry phone spell check Brownian 

Again you still need to still account for temperature to number density.

Unless your particles are not standard model particles 

Temperature is the measure of particle (real) agitation. if the scale of the brownian noise created by the vaccum is much smaller, it may not change agitation mass at atome or molecule scale. Because at larger scale than the noise, it statically flatten.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

 

How high is this density that somehow magically avoids contributing to temperature ? 

I told you one can take a black body temperature and calculate the number density of particles. Yet your higher density is not detectable by the same means ?

 

For the noise to appear and Planck scale, it is very HIGH. I've told you that, now understand what is the planck scale, and what density you need for brownian like noise to appear at that scale.

I've explained you HOW MY MODEL RESPECT THE SLIT EXPERIMENT, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW.
So somebody requested a visual aid :

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Yes precisely the particles themself has a wavefunction the Compton wavelength and the DeBroglie wavelength. The former for bosons such as the photon the latter for fermions.

 This is part of wave particle duality. Your model specified never ever apply a frequency.

You were very clear about that throughout your thread but in the same breath claim the mathematics is the same as the mainstream views. Which it cannot be because the mainstream view accepts waveparticle duality.

You said that I cannot create a double slit experiment without wavelenght. I explained to you a a wave behavior can emerge from a classical particle system where some particle cancel the other one.
So I don't trust you on that. You will have to show me math  

Quote

 This is a contradiction to your premise.

By the way I did have a student try the experiment in a vacuum as opposed to open air. The results don't change under density change.

You did not understand that at some point I was talking about the fact that light travel slowly in air (that a difference I didn't invent. Have you heard about diffraction?). Just to make you realize than LIGHT interact with everything WHILE it travels. IT CHANGE STATE. The photon that HIT your screen IS ALREADY NOT the photon you emitted, your WAVE IS ALREADY a statistical result of a complex set of interactions.  So interacting with the vacuum in my model  is just a version of that.
But you did not really read, as usual.

Quote

The number density of particles contribute to the temperature so how does your vacuum not contribute to temperature ?

Oh trust me I know more about how particles contribute to temperature than you do. You can calculate the number density of each particle species of a blackbody temperature via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics..

I was asking you because I want you to explain how your model accounts for this factor.

At 2.7 k the blackbody temperature correlates to roughly 5 protons per cubic metre. You can run the numbers for photons but the number density is quite low. Though significantly higher than protons.

Now that's a good question. You need to realise that in my model, the density is so high that the noise is shown at planck scale (obviously if the noise replace quantum foam)
So maybe, that's just at much higher energy. High enough that this particles don't move anything.. You measure real temperature caused by real particles. The particle of the vaccuum are just like the virtual particles in yours : their effect cancel out. 
In your model : how do you account for the effect of virtual particle from the vacuum ? That's your answer.
 

Quote

I still want to know how you distinquish your model vacuum from the SM model. Without changing the temperature.

There is a measurable field : the density of the vacuum. 

Quote

Before you state antiparticles those statistics account for those as well the degrees of freedom for photons is S=2 in terms of the Bose Einstein statistics as a result.

Please note the difference in interference patterns if light consisted of particles vs if light consisted of waves. You still haven't answered why the slit size matters...

http://cs-exhibitions.uni-klu.ac.at/index.php?id=254

If the is two kind of particle in this vacuum that cancels out each other  : WAVEs can emerges from their classical behavior.
PLEASE NOTE THAT and check it mathematically if you doubt. Wave interferes with the slit the same ways yours do. 

Quote

self interference has been tested well beyond the Young experiment.

I said FROM THE START, that my model should FIT the Slit experiments. THANKS FOR READING.

Quote

here is the two slit with the interference pattern mathematics via Hyugens Principle

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/interference.pdf

it details interference and diffraction something that doesn't involve a corpuscular theory of light.

you can read up on to different tests on this link where it shows that diffraction and interference are described by waves while the photoelectric effect by the particle view. It then details the Complementary Principle.

https://web.phys.ksu.edu/fascination/Chapter17.pdf

You fail to understand that waves can emerge from a classical set of object for some reasons. You know sound can be describe using regular newtonian mechanic of molecules, right ? ?(yes it's a totally different type of waves, and no I'm not saying that quantum wave are sound analogue in my model, read english please)

Quote

I am not aware of any classical explanation that can cover quantum tunnelling all explanations I have ever come across involve require the wave nature of a particle.

 

I gave you one. The particle you get at on side is just not the SAME ONE that the one that disappear at the other end. It's one from the vacuum that was already there. The whole energy barrier between the two slightly "moves" with the vacuum. And because history and energies of real matter is defined relative to it, you don't measure it. 
I'm sorry your mind is not powerful enought to picture my first post and those sentences. It's pretty clear : the vacuum act as a network, the matter runs on it.


The fact that you just come back with things we already discussed, you didn't understood my answers and didn't even take the time to check it, is annoying. Of course I know my model have to pass the double slit experiment. 

Read what I wrote MONDAY : 

Quote

If you can't understand my idea, why do you answer ? I put this in "speculation" for a good reason. I'm not here to receive a lesson on the classical accepted theory. I'm here to propose an alternative. In my theory, particle are not wave. They are particle. The wave behavior emerge from the statistical properties of a void "full" of particles.  
As always, you people are not able to understand me.. and decide you don't even want to try. How should I react ? I'm just sorry.

. The wave behavior emerge from the statistical properties of a void "full" of particles.  
. The wave behavior emerge from the statistical properties of a void "full" of particles.  

DID YOU READ THAT OR NOT ? 

And I'm going further now. Because the wavelength of particle in your model are statistical oscillation of average density of vacuum particle in mind, you can probably get the equation giving the frequency of particle (planck equations) from the density of the vacuum and the mass of the perturbation (the particle) (in that case, the planck constant would really be a variable of the density of the vacuum I talk about). And if you assume that the density of the vaccuum is in fact the cause of the local gravitational field, you can probably understand how energy of particle vary in a gravitational field, as the way wave propagate in a vaccuum where density locally varies.. 
 

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Why does the slit size change the interference patterns dependent on the beam frequency ?

As long as a wave propagate (A wave in classical particle distribution remember).. it behaves like any other wave.. (it fits your model of course)

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ah yes this mysterious pool you agree particles contribute to temperature right ?

I think you didn't read my responses (I edit often sorry) !

Quote

I can quantantee you cannot get the results of the two slit experiments without the wave nature of a particle.

But you can't prove it and you didn't really did. I can guarantee I can have the results of the two slit experiments without the wave. Take a giant snooker pool, fill it with a huge amount of balls. Now put some sort of ball that annihilate (the same huge amount) the precedente one into two neutral ones, that when they interact recreate the precedents...   (put your slits and the screen) This giant mess is a constant rumble of interactions.. (the number of balls has to be enormous I agree, if the noise (similar to brownian noise) is visible at the planck scale)
NOW Measure the average  of momentum and charge of this pool when it's at equilibrium; You get zero (because the sum of all the vectors are zero, and the charge is zero).. with some local variation at small scale but they cancel out at bigger scale.. 
Now throw a unique new ball into this pool from the emitter point, and measure the average speed of everything as all incredible number of interaction cascade in the pool..  and still measure the average momentum of portions of space, as you could put a detector in it that would remove one ball..
WHAT DO YOU GET ? Are you SURE there are no wave ? Something, at least, that would somehow look like a sound wave but with charges and photons ? 
That's all I've been trying to explain : this image works.. 

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ah yes this mysterious pool you agree particles contribute to temperature right ?

In one comment, I explained what temperature is. Temperature is the measure of isotropic kinetic energy of matter (mass). You don't seem to know that.