Jump to content

Edgard Neuman

Senior Members
  • Posts

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edgard Neuman

  1. Because at one point you gave me the classical argument ("the uncertainty principle imply that the void can't be empty").. That's just wrong. If I put you in a ordinary macroscopic dark room, and I ask you to locate a ordinary light ball with your head, you can tell me where it was, and if it was, but you can't be sure about both, because that's all "the information you get from the interaction". CAN YOU THEN USE THIS TO PROVE AN EMPTY ROOM ISN'T EMPTY ? HUMMM.. NOPE. Can you use it to prove that a ordinary classical ball behave like a wave ?? HMMM NOPE. If I have to explain you that the uncertainty principle talks about WHAT YOU KNOW from the ball, and not the ball itself, imagine the whole lot of things you got wrong because you didn't really understand the meaning of the equation, and the reason WHY it's true (the amount of information you obviously get from a single particle interaction) So please, so called experts, stop bothering me with your nonsense.
  2. I forgot that you don't really read nor think. So I will copy and paste : "If I put you in a ordinary macroscopic dark room, and I ask you to locate a ordinary light ball with your head, "
  3. And yet when I say "in a classical room", "a classical ball" , you want to apply QFT. You can't even respect the premises of a model. Maybe you should start to doubt yourself ? Don't you think ?
  4. funny how you obviously don't understand anything, so your comments don't really matter to me.
  5. (You didn't even understand the argument. WHY DO I WRITE HERE ?... The hypothesis are "IN A CLASSICAL ROOM", "A CLASSICAL BALL", so QFT don't apply here.) so now every classical room have classical balls in it ? Go on, use you math ! And in some alternate universe, all empty rooms are filled with cake instead right ? Isn't what the infinite feynman diagram tends to prove ? And in some universe, I'm immortal ! My heart, when it will start to fail, somewhere it won't. You can study your math universe, let me study the actual one.
  6. "your theory implies that there is a void which contains a hard copy of information that is the "story of reality" and this void gives birth to new _______? " In my theory, the void is full of classical particles with classical trajectories... that's what carry information... picture the feynman diagram, and then picture that all possible paths are the results of actual particles instead of virtual ones...
  7. I'll give you an other example of how bad you use math. At one point you gave me the classical argument ("the uncertainty principle imply that the void can't be empty").. That's just wrong. If I put you in a ordinary macroscopic dark room, and I ask you to locate a ordinary light ball with your head, you can tell me where it was, and if it was, but you can't be sure about both, because that's all "the information you get from the interaction". CAN YOU THEN USE THIS TO PROVE AN EMPTY ROOM ISN'T EMPTY ? HUMMM.. NOPE. Can you use it to prove that a ordinary classical ball behave like a wave ?? HMMM NOPE. If I have to explain you that the uncertainty principle talks about WHAT YOU KNOW from the ball, and not the ball itself, imagine the whole lot of things you got wrong because you didn't really understand the meaning of the equation, and the reason WHY it's true (the amount of information you obviously get from a single particle interaction) So please, so called experts, stop bothering me with your nonsense.
  8. It was actually the anwser to "why do I have to explain" that if my model is right, the void can be more empty, and then the void would carry much less information, much less paralel histories, and then particle here wouldn't behave like wave. So the real answer of "why do I have to explain" is because you don't really know what your talking about. Sorry I had to explain in more details. As I said, IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL BOOK, Feynman talks about possible classical PATHs and classical interactions. But you didn't really understand that, so how can you understand what I'm saying? Because you don't know what you are talking about. Do I have to copy and paste my several explanation of what is the same and what is different ? Actually, no I'm not doing physics, I'm here to propose a model (an interpretation of the physics) that seems to fit with several results and I propose a way to test it. I'm not doing for you, sorry to disappoint. As I always do, I will probably get off this forum for months, go on trying to understand reality (to really understand it, not playing with letters like you do), and explain it back to people after, and if you understand it or not, if it the form please you or not; that's not my problem. To be really honest, each time I come here, I sincerelly hope that somebody can provide a real contradiction (like the result of an experiment) that wouldn't fit my ideas (that happened sometime, for instance, I used to think dark matter wasn't real and relativity wasn't valid at large scale until somebody observed a dark galaxy.(but even that fact got recently challenged as a possible observation error).. I used to think life began with metabolism until I discovered ribozom where made of ARN.. I can change my mind when somebody have REAL arguments) .. But all I get is "I don't understand" "you need math" "it's not science" (and I have to write the same thing at least 10 times before you actually understand the meaning and implications of each sentence).. what do I care about your opinion of my ways ? How does it contradict anything ?
  9. That's not a valid contradiction, and I see no math here. You seems to be unable to even understand what I'm talking about. I'm sorry. We can go hours like this, you don't prove anything, you just write "I don't trust you cause I don't see math, and I'm unable to read english and picture model physically".. Sorry for you.
  10. Because it would then probably fit with the gravitationnal field.. because the simple fact that you could then go to a space where the density of the void is very low, and where particle DON'T behave like waves anymore. And your "quantum wave" description would be proven wrong (because this particle would not behave like this at all) Because if your piece of space can only carry 1 history in your diagram, then this history is the history of a classical particle. Why do I have to explain that to you ?
  11. "you don't know how to make sense of it." So how a function describing the probability of an event can be the cause of the event. You imply you understand how this non sense magic can happen, I'm curious. The current theory is several level of abstraction. I speak about the result of experiments, not your pyramid of interpretation of it. We can go like this for hours. All I see is a lot of contradiction, some math you don't even now what they really describe and how the equation relate to reality. From the beginning, you should understand the words "wave of probality of presence of something" for what It means, and not confuse it with the thing itself.. but it's all scrambled eggs in your minds, I suppose. If the feynman diagram give results, you take the same diagram, you replace the world "virtual particle" with "particle that were already there as part of the void". And you get the same results. You see ? No contradiction except in your flawed interpretation of all this. You don't even seem to understand the object you are talking about. You have a feynman diagram : you can suppose of INFINITY of scenaris that explode for ever in time OR you can suppose a finite (but big) number of scenaris by unite of space. Why would you suppose it would give different results except in extremes cases ?? Can you please think before writing ?
  12. I told you it's an arbitrary value, but I suppose next it's the value of the gravitationnal field. And I told you in my model it's related to the quantity of information the void can carry, the actual number of paralel stories in the feynman diagrams. SO ONE DAY. You will measure how much states a quantum circuit can ACTUALLY have, and so you will deduce how many particle are in the void. Please, use your brain to understand what I say before answering, because you don't seem to. That is not math. And nothing you say contradict my model.
  13. I'm going to try to explain it AGAIN. If you have space filled with actual electrons, and actual positrons and actual high energy photons, that are globally isotropic and of charge 0. You have : a medium that carry waves. You don't need to "quantify" : the electron are real and durable, they don't split into "parts". If you had a electron into this void, you have one more, and while it interact, because the interaction conserve charge, you will always have "one more" positive charge (and its momentum etc).. and so you have your feynman diagram when you try to describe where it is. (because all the particle of your void are identical). Really, is it that hard to picture a pool of blue and red balls, and to understand that if you had one blue ball, it become undistinguishable from those that where already there, but still what ever happen (and you can describe the repartition of the balls in the pool and because red balls cancels blue balls in very interaction, you get a wave ), you will still have "one more". ???
  14. Because, when there are 1000001 electron and 1000000 positrons (in fact, there is mostly photons in the result of interactions I suppose), and the interactions conserve charge, there while always be 1 electron more. That's simple law of big numbers. So you while never detect durably "2" electrons. NO. I don't. My model give the same results, because there are a lot of particles in the void and what you observe is the global effect of all those particles. I'm really starting to wonder if you even understand what you are talking about. I understand (eventhough I don't master math as you pretend you do) what you talk about and say, but you don't seem to understand what I'm saying and what it would imply. If you don't understand what I propose, why do you answer ?
  15. I already know what a virtual particle is, thanks. All I see is a construction of concept that relate to each other without even caring about paradoxes. So is the photon "the vector of impulsion" that interact punctually with electrons like in the Feynman diagram. OR the manifestation of two EM fields, that are also descirption of forces and carrying energy ? And how does it all make sens in your mind ? Is the field made of virtual photons ? But then how photon can be quantas of the field ? I'm really trying to put it in a coherent picture but I just can't. (I'm not talking about the holographic principle here.. nope. In my model, information is carried by particles of the void) So for instance how many energy (in Joule) is in a cube meter of space ? (on earth)
  16. It's the number of void particles.. the energy density of the void. It's a scalar field : it can have arbitrary values, but of course would behave somewhat like a expanding gas . As I said, I suppose next it could be in fact the explanation for GR, so its variation could be equal to the gravitational field.
  17. 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.
  18. As I said, the difference between my model and yours, is that in my model, the capacity of the void to carry information (the alternates stories in Feynman diagram) is NOT infinite. (And the fact it is finite, is enough to give a explanation for quantum darwinism : it give the "width" of particle family tree) And it will be measurable one day or the other. Do you even read what I write ?
  19. 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..
  20. So you have "real" interaction and virtual interaction ? How do they differ ? (And why the hell can't you see that if you just overcome your "void must be void" feeling and accept that maybe everything is real, all become simpler and the result is the same ? can you try to test this idea ?) It seem to me that you are not understanding the obvious paradox : your field can't describe the probability of presence of a particle and be at the same time the creator of it. You can make probability about where are the sheeps in the field, but you can't then pretends sheep are manifestation of ripple in the probability field. And Feynman, in his book, obvioulsy never pretends that. My model doesn't have this paradox. You have a lot of particle, that are cancelling each other, and variation in average properties of those real particle are what you call a particle. No paradox. It even explain why the diagram works : because it's actually happening. And electric field and magnetic field for instance, are easy to understand : they also are properties of the mass of particles of the void. In my neutral space, you can still for instance have anisotropy of photon (some "wind") .. that would manifest precisely the way the electric field does. It simply that there, the cancellation of photon is unbalanced. And (ironically) may I ask : where is the math in your link ? (I had to)
  21. so is there a field of virtual particle and a field of real ones ? You use the hypothesis that they are different in nature : you so need two fields. I'd like to see that. I understand the integration of complex path along space, and the "or" and "and" usage of probabilities (I don't need the details, I understand the concepts)
  22. so is it a new type of "charge" (the "being real" charge ?)... and why would it still work if the particle where real ? And are real particles different in nature of the virtual ones ? And how can you accept that without asking questions from the start ? And if the particle where actually real, wouldn't it still work ? Let me sum the situation : - you have a magical void where thing can pop out and become "real" sometimes, and some other time the opposite - you have thing called real that appear to behave "exactly as if" they were swimming in a pool of particle (the virtual ones) - you have the unruh effect, and the quasimir effect And you don't suppose for a second that maybe the interpretation of all this is wrong ?
  23. The fact that you seem able to understand what I'm saying, but still not trying to check where there would be actual inconsistency with reality, or contract me with some discutable proof is astonishing.
  24. (That is what is represented by the Feynman diagrams.) That's not "math", that what people told you the diagrams represent.
  25. I'm not going to do math, and honestly I really don't feel the need to. You're just annoying.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.