Edgard Neuman

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So how do you get two hits onto the detection screen when you send only one particle.

You have ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PARTICLE EVERYWHERE IN THE POOL. Even in the real word, The screen is constantly shaked by a enormous amount of particles from air.. the screen is shaking because of thermic energy, electron of atom are repulsing each other, photon are flying everywhere (that only the real part of it)... all the sound from around the earth are shaking the lab.. Cosmic rays, neutrino from the sun are everywhere. You don't get a image because ON average, the whole laboratory is globally stable, and the whole thing is neutral, the photon have not the right energy to become lastly part of the screen. And all that is not even part of  my image of pool yet.

I think I know what you miss. The law of big numbers. Everything (not even in my model) is only stable because effects of local event stastically cancels each other in the long run. You feel the pressure of the air ? But you're skin is bombarded by air molecule, right ? 

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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.. 

Just now, Mordred said:

Why should I when it's not a standard model you haven't a single formula that can be tested to ensure its validity ?

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

So why do you answer if you don't understand my answers ? That's scary ! Go do something else ! I never invited you.

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Not under the quantum description of a particle you haven't.

Can you please make the intellectual effort OF PICTURING what I'm talking about ? That will save me so much time ! Aren't you able of picturing those particle evolving and their statistical properties in your mind ?? 
It's like you turn in round not understanding it. If the particle is scattered between all the others : can you tell where it is ?  how would you describe where the blue ball you added is in a pool of thousand of blue balls absolutely identical ? 
It's like you talk about math, but you never understood statistics and the effect of interchangeability of particle. Now if a red ball is the opposite, can the probability oscillate ? Picture it in your mind.

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Oh boy how to describe particle scatterings without waveforms or constructive destructive interference. In the the quantum regime lol don't think that's possible

HUM That's actually easy I've  done it here.. several explanation of that.  (but at last you really honestly ask the question ?)
If you have both particle of opposite effect in your vacuum.. any particle you add would interact with any of them and all its charges (I call electric charge, momentum etc).. are actually scattered between all those particles. (It's very easy to simulate on a computer : i've done it, also I wasn't sure about the rules for interaction between photons)
Destructive interference.. As I said, once the charge are scattered, they propagate in all this via interactions : positron electron=> photons... photons => positron eletrons.. so yeah, there is a wave here. (If the void is a neutral medium, density of electron or positron acn statistically oscillate easily : and those density of both could interfere as any wave would) 

In fact, when light travel into air, for instance.. how can it go slower ? (you talk about permittivity of EM fields, but at this scale, you really have van der valls field of air molecules)..It go slower because the momentum spends a fraction of its time into electrons.. (I bet your equations didn't teach you that)... 

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

You mean they gave Penzias and Wilson a Nobel prize for finding the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background ( 2.7 deg ) and it was undeserved ?

I see where you're going there. When you get the photon, you use a detector right ? The detector if made of something that have the right frequency to react with the photon.. when two atoms exchange a photon of light. What happen ? The energy carried by the photon (In my model, I suppose it's not it's frequency, but of course a value) is the right one to change the state of a atom. If it's not the right one, it goes through. It become real, when the new state is stable. (that's why energy is quantified) other wise the photon is not used and go on. Or it is indeed received by the electron but it stay on its same orbit and it's new momentum is transmitted to the core of the atoms also (via EM constant interactions with it) and so the whole atom has now acquired a little random speed (in other word, the photon has been converted into thermal  energy.. it's the invert of black body radiation). I think the photon are different because of the value of energy.. that also need more thinking. (indeed, you just need to replace the current feynman diagram and suppose the virtual photons are real).. 

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Actually I can post an Arxiv article detailing the nature of Fourier transforms and the HUP but it's heavily math intensive.

Good reply earlier Migl +1

The 3blue1brown video is perfectly clear for my poor brain... but as I said, I don't believe in this explanation.. You can prove something imply something, but that don't work the other way around. If you prove that wave function imply uncertainty, you did not prove uncertainty imply wave function, nor something else doesn't also explain uncertainty.. (I insist think about the logic of what I say, instead of taking me for a fool)

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You can have field energy densities that has nothing to do with charge. For example temperature

Temperature is carried by mass. (Temperature is the statistical measurement of small scale anisotropic kinetic energy of real particles. .. you seems to think a vaccuum can have a temperature.. nope)
Usually I restrain my model to "electron photon positron" (for simplicity)..
but of course the simple rest-mass is important also... the vacuum need to have no other effects that what we observe.. matter antimatter would need have no effect, or perfectly anitropics effects.. yep that deserve some thinking

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Since you don't use math...

A sine wave of wavelength L, implies that the momentum P=h/L is known exactly, but the sine wave is infinitely long, implying the particle could be anywhere.
A wave packet can localize the position, but needs to be built up of waves of varying wavelengths to produce the interference resulting in a packet.
So, localizing position makes momentum more indeterminate, while determining momentum makes position indeterminate.

In the case of a classical billiard ball it is trivial to measure both its position and speed to a great deal of accuracy. Remember, we put people on the moon. That would be extremely difficult to do if we couldn't verify their position and speed accurately.

And I didn't ask what the observational evidence could be due to.
I asked why there isn't any.

"In the case of a classical billiard ball it is trivial to measure both its position and speed to a great deal of accuracy. "
For a single classical particle. How do you do that? I'm interested ! 
Imagine a interaction of a single photon and a single electron and nothing else (you know the rules of conservation of momentum and kinetic energy). You get one on them in your detector (and how do you measure the position of this incoming one? I'm curious also)
If I put you blind folded, the hand linked behind your back in a empty room with a helium balloon, and you can only feel the energy of the impact. Can you tell where the balloon is at all time ? I'd be curious to know how ? Sixth sense ? 

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Correct but better to use the terms vacuum or field as space is simply volume ie the three spatial components of spacetime 4d with time as the fourth independent variable (dimension or degree of freedom)

I can use the term "vacuum".. if it's less confusing

2 minutes ago, Art Man said:

Well then, how can Edgard's "void" be valid if it is packed densly with matter and anti-matter particles? If a "void" has something in it then it isn't a void anymore, it's a "space".

If the void is filled with N electron and N positron its charge is "0". If the photons are isotropically distributed, their effect on charges are "0". 

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do a Fourier transform on a wavefunction then tell us the uncertainty doesn't exist.

My model doesn't include waves and that's not what I ask. Can you or not derive the uncertainty principle from interactions. Because If you can, I don't need fourier transform prooves. (I've seen a video about your argument from 3blue1brown a while ago)
By the way. OF COURSE A WAVE HAVE NO DEFINED POSITION. Thanks for the info. (the opposite would be a punctual wave.. good luck with that)

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

You are incorrect about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
It is a direct result of the wave nature of particles, and yes it can also apply to composite particles of any size, but increasing size makes the effect negligible.

I don't think so. SORRY. Is this MATH or you opinion about why the uncertainty principle exist ? Can you prove it ? DEFINE YOU MODEL CLEARLY.
I can also be explain by the quantity of information you can get from a system. Eventhough, It could also be a simple statistical effect of THE NOISE created by the void particle in my model. THINK REALLY. >>REALLY<<. ABOUT IT.  I WANT A TRUE CONTRADICTION HERE. GO AHEAD, IT'S YOUR CHANCE ! 
 

Quote

Without this wave nature, as in the case you describe, there is no HUP.

So please consider a classical interaction (a snooker interaction if you will). AND PLEASE CONSIDER THE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED TO A BALL FROM AN OTHER. REALLY DO IT. PLEASE. USE MATH. I'M WAITING.

Quote

And what about observational evidence of these real particles filling the void ?????

I ALREADY answer to that NUmerous time : THEY ARE THE  EM FIELD (the force), the produce the noise (casimir and unruh)... how many time do I have to answer to THE SAME QUESTION ??? You don't even read my answers.. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think the rules you signed up for, require you to answer questions posed to you ( 4 times now, I believe ).
If you're not going to answer questions regarding your conjecture, the mods might as well shut it down.

You would then never know if I'm right, but that don't seem to bother you.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Oh really my job involves exercising testing and teaching those mathematics.

and so ? My life involve thinking about these thing constantly without math and respect logic, because nobody seems to be able to seriously prove my wrong, eventhough I really understand and doubt about everything you say. 
Everybody has his specialities.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Whoever claimed I invented the theory involving particle production ? Don't confuse someone describing mainstream physics as the inventor.

You really need to study mainstream physics would you like a few YouTube videos as the math isn't something you understand ?

If you prefer I can give you the formulas under QFT for particle number densities to energy density relations and give you the mean lifetime formula for particles.

Unlike you I can provide the math under mainstream physics for every statement I ever make in any post I ever do on any forum

 

No I mean you (people).. physicists, ok
And now condescending. I'm sorry, you didn't own a lot of my respect (Ok if you really own the maths, I could learn that in several years of intensive work. BUT WHY? you obvioulsy don't understand the full meaning of the equation you use).. 
Although you seem to doubt it, WHAT I SEE IS PERFECTLY CLEAR IN MY MIND, and I know the limits (and you don't bring contradiction).. so I don't even need to learn more. My model involve classical balls, and yet, i can see how to get the results of your physics (ok if I had to consider relativity, that would be trickyer, but would change the nature of it)

7 minutes ago, Art Man said:

I agree with this statement. It seems that fundamentally, because the theory is based on physical factors that impossibly dont exist there is nothong to argue.

you didn't quote my answers as I requested.. can you please do all the job ?

ok, this one :

Quote

I said numerous time, that the result is the same, and the math is the same, it's your interpretation of the void using "virtuality" that is wrong. Results don't contradict me, because I don't contradict Feynman diagrams.. 

and then :

Quote

You need the simplest interpretation, and mine is simpler, (even though you don't seem to understand why)
In my model, I repeat. You have a void full of classical particles of opposite charges constantly interacting with each others, and that all cancels out. And sometime, somewhere, some of them are "added" in this constant mess.
No need for virtuality : they are all the same
No need for "randomness from nowhere" : actual randomness of the actual particles of the void
No need for "parallel histories"  a big bunch of particle like the medium i'm describing can actually carry charges different ways
An explanation for "quantum darwinism" : in your model, you don't now why parallel histories don't explode exponentially. In my, it's simple : the particle are real, and so the information carry by a peace of void space is actually limited. 
You can also explain "spooky action", if you agree that measurement on system are made on particle carried by the void : you can "move" the void. You can make a particle disappear here, and suddently suppose that an other one is the one "added"..

I'm sorry, but that's definitely simpler.
So I don't know if I'm right, but you definitely didn't convince me the contrary.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I have no issue with VP or particles popping in and out of existence as a result of field densities. The term is inaccurate under physics definitions so shouldn't be used.

If you want the quantum vacuum that term would also work 

"particles popping in and out of existence as a result of field densities"
So your field (a mathematical tool you invented to describe reality) describe the probability of finding a particle, and now the field explains the actual apparition of them ? (so when I create the field of Poson, which is globally null because I invented this particle, but fluctuate, because this particle obey the uncertainty particle, you think Poson will pop out when needed during Gason (another particle I invented) interaction ?) Think about it. Really. I'm just saying : they are already there, and they don't pop (ok they change state). That's all I say. 

In my model, of course the rules of photon-electron-positron interactions are respected (and all others, I just speak about the simplest).. .. so yes, this "void" would be filled with isotropy high energy photon, and they would constantly interact to create short life electron and positron (and others particle, I just talk here about the simplest case) that would rapidly get back to photons.

6 minutes ago, moth said:

If you could define what you mean by void and real as in "real particles" it might help.

Sometimes you say the void is filled with real particles and that is hard to understand.

void of ordinary matter and particles (what you call "real particles")... but of course possibly fields (in my model : the field are actually carried by the particles of the void : in yours it's carried by...magic ?)

5 minutes ago, Art Man said:

You asked for a direct quote.

 

 ? Are you all going nuts ? You are quoting me .. I agree with myself.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I told you. You haven't defined a premise to your model. Not one that can possibly work in the quantum regime. Classical only physics are useless in the quantum world of particles.

QM didn't get created just for the sheer fun of it. It got created to explain those situations that 

COULD NOT EXPLAINED using classical physics.

UNLESS the void of (matter) is actually full of particle.. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but obviously you didn't even bother think to about it, and you are here only to annoy me with you doctorate. If you don't doubt, why do you even read anything ? 

"Classical only physics are useless in the quantum world of particles."
NO. If you have a FULL POOL OF CLASSICAL BALL, and TWO TYPE OF BALL THAT CANCEL EACH OTHER : YOU CAN HAVE A WAVE IN THE PROBABILITIES.  
PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN FOR 1 SECOND.

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Perhaps you should study physics terminology then. You can google my responses

Switching between mainsteam definitions and model definitions of words is a dumb and fake technic you all use for some reason.
My definition of the word VOID is pretty obvious and coherent all along this thread. If you didn't get it correctly, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE ANSWERING ME ? 

The fact that I have to endure all this nonesense, and incoherence (pure fallacious methods) in your reasoning is pretty annoying. Please respect the premise of the model.  You can tell to idiots you have 2 doctorates, if you can't respect the hypothesis of a problem, you will never convince me of anything at all (you lost already a lot of points)

1 minute ago, Art Man said:

That was quickly shot down with references to other theories that prohibit such replacements within the equation because they are fundamentally co-dependent in order to operate correctly.

hum ? WHERE EXACTLY DID THAT HAPPEN ? AND WHAT WAS MY ANSWER ? 
You can quote ! Go ahead I'm ready to read ! 

14 minutes ago, moth said:

It sounds like you are conflating the measurement  effect with Heisenberg uncertainty 

The problem, I don't know your mainstream theories are mixed up and what is enough to explain experimental results.
If you can infer the uncertainty principle from the laws of conservation of charges (and momentum etc, symmetries) during a interaction, than the two are the same thing.

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy. Hence it doesn't exist in our universe as the HUP applies via zero point energy. The Higgs field exists at 246 GeV/m^3. It is not applicable to describe an EM field nor a gravitational field.

You realize how complex and different all theories you use in the same sentence. I'm sorry, I certainly don't believe you understand all the details of what you are talking about. 

"A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy. Hence it doesn't exist in our universe as the HUP applies via zero point energy."

Now you are shifting the definition of the void (IS IT REALLY A SMART MOVE? or the proof you don't really use logic ?). "A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy" that is certainly not the premise of my model (it's precisely the OPPOSITE). What i called void is simply a void like you can try to create in labs. A void of what you would call REAL matter. 

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Told you the void should be replaced with field a void is too subjective to vacuum energy levels. Is it a void with 246 GeV/m^3 just with the Higgs field ?

I have no idea. I suppose the void would really be packed with particle, for the quantum effect to apply at very low scale...first you need a perfectly symmetric network of particles and interactions (I suppose the actual one is correct, I know the model has to fit with all the results of passed experiments, of course)  : you want to be able to build a stable void (since we can observe and create almost empty space everywhere).. so you don't want some interaction to be unbalanced. 

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What your stating makes no sense when it comes to particle production. Where you must apply QM not classical physics. The very attraction repulsion nature of quantum particles is part of the problem

Please. In a classical dark room. A classical ball. YOU WANT TO TELL WHERE IT IS, using your head ? Can you tell where it is ? No. You touch it : IT BOUNCE. Now it's somewhere else. The information you get is obtain via a (purely classical !!!!!!!!!!!!!) interaction. AND STILL. YOU HAVE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. 
SO in that thought experiment can you then USE THE PRINCIPLE to suppose that the classical ball is wavy ? And the room, if empty, isn't really ? 
NO. SO if you can't use It here, why can you then use it in reality ? YOU CAN'T. YOU HAVE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE THAT IS TRUE HERE, AND YOU HAVE ALSO PERFECTLY EMPTY ROOMS EVERYWHERE. 
The uncertainty principle talk about the information you get from a particle via interaction, IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE PARTICLE.

Before answering take the time to understand the full logic of my argument. 
 

8 minutes ago, Art Man said:

What is the purpose of "virtual particles"? Since they don't really exist how can they be valid within physics (the study of existence)? Additionally, what good would a "virtual particle" be when its values arent even equal to its "real" equivalent?

virtual particle are necessary (if you don't use my model) to explain the results of most quantum experiment. If you don't have something between electrons, how do they repulse each other ? The mainstream model uses virtual particles, my model simply state that the virtual particle were already here and are as real as the "real ones" (they are in the void).. 
but anyway you need something to carry the interaction. 

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That's not the only reason behind wavefuctions in QM or QFT. In the macro world you wouldn't even bother applying it as it's negligible.

In the quantum world is the only regime it applies and like it or not experiment evidence proves it's a fundamental property of our universe.

I DIDN'T APPLY QFT. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU NOT TO. A "classical ball" in a "classical room". 

Why is it so complicated ?
My last argument is "you can have uncertainty principle, in a classical situation, where you know IT CAN'T imply any quantum behavior".. So if something doesn't apply something else in a situation, it doesn't at all. Never.