Edgard Neuman

Just now, Mordred said:

How does that possibly relate to quantum voids and VP and particles hrmmm ?

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.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

You haven't established a premise. Your opening post involves three theories that apply to QFT.

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, "

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Ah that's why I have two physics degrees one in particle physics and posted that complex math for you which you could have used to describe a void by taking the next step to propogators instead of operators 

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 ? 

Just now, Mordred said:

Funny nothing you described has anything to do with Feymann path integrals. Those paths are simply probability functions using calculus of variations.

funny how you obviously don't understand anything, so your comments don't really matter to me.

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well considering I could model the ball under Lattice gauge of solids and then apply the uncertainty principle to that lattice gauge under field treatments. It is possible to describe any macro object under QFT if its practical to do so.

(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. 

"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... 

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.

37 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. It wasn't a contradiction. It was an explanation. Your vague ideas are not scientifically testable. Science doesn't work by having convincing pictures.

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.

Quote

2. As you have no math for your model (apart from 'the math is the same' but 'your "quantum wave" description would be proven wrong') why do you expect math in response.

If you are using the same math (which is a wave description of quantum phenomena) then how can it prove this same math wrong?

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? 

Quote

I do understand what you are saying. I haven't said I don't trust you. I haven't even said you are wrong (well, except for a few places, where you were factually inaccurate!). I haven't said I want to see math. I haven't said I am unable to visualise your word pictures.

I am saying that pictures are irrelevant. Verbal descriptions are irrelevant.

Because you don't know what you are talking about. 

Quote

This is science. If you want an idea to be taken seriously, then you need a mathematical model. 

When I say you are using the same model but it produces different results, you say the results are the same.

When I say that if the results are the same then you can't test your idea, you say the results are different.

Do I have to copy and paste my several explanation of what is the same and what is different ? 

Quote

I am not saying your idea is wrong. I don't care if you are right or wrong. I am saying that you are not doing science. OK?

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 ?

Just now, Strange said:

Because this is all too vague to be scientifically testable.

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.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. So let's say we measure that. How do we know if it agrees with your theory, the current theory or someone else's theory?

 

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 ? 

"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.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Again, if it gives the same results, then you can't distinguish it from current theory. 

But you said it can be distinguished because it gives different results ("the difference between my model and yours, is that in my model, the capacity of the void to carry information is NOT infinite").

So, either it gives the same results or it doesn't. Which is it?

 

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.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Again, if it gives the same results, then you can't distinguish it from current theory. 

But you said it can be distinguished because it gives different results ("the difference between my model and yours, is that in my model, the capacity of the void to carry information is NOT infinite").

So, either it gives the same results or it doesn't. Which is it?

 

 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 ? 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

You appear to be mixing up the quantum description (photons) with the classical description (oscillating electric and magnetic fields). These are different models.

This seems to contradict your claim that "I already know what a virtual particle is, thanks."

I really suggest you study some more instead of assuming it must all be wrong because you don't know how to make sense of it.

Having "particles of the void" that carry information is not part of the standard model, so the math cannot be the same.

That is a bit of an open question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

If you had a model that gave an answer, then that would be amazing. Unfortunately, you don't have a model ...

 

 

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.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

You know the biggest problem is that everyone thinks a physics model is complex and can be simplified. When they don't take the time to understand a mainstream model they think it's wrong and try to simplify it 

Physics doesn't make a model complex without good reason. The complexity comes with the flexibility of its predictive nature.

When is it going to occur to you that mere words isn't a model ?

That is not math. And nothing you say contradict my model.

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". ??? 

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is a subjective opinion. But you would still need to show that your interpretation is compatible with experiment. Like, the fact we cannot detect virtual particles (except indirectly in some special cases).

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. 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

As I said, you would need to quantify this.

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 ?

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

BTW: please do go and read the articles from Prof Strassler. I'm sure you will find them interesting, and it might open your mind to the depth and complexity of the subject.

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.

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Good guess and you are correct there have been boundary studies on how much quantum information a finite space can hold

Funny the math I posted provides that already

(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) 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

That would require different math. 

For example (as I said before) you would need math to say exactly what this limited capacity is.

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. 

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Then if there is no distinction we don't need your interpretation do we ?

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.
 

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 ? 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not really. I don't think "interaction" was the right word. Manifestation, maybe? But it is the same underlying field. Particles (real ones) are "permanent" perturbations of the field. Virtual particles are transient "ripples" in the field that either carry force between "real" particles or just have temporary existence (because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).

Read the article by Prof. Strassler.

1. I don't have "void must be void" feeling (whatever that is. We know there is no such thing as a void because of the non-zero energy of "empty" space, and the uncertainty principle.

2. How can we know it is simpler until you have a simpler mathematical model? (And if, as you say, the math is the same, then how is it simpler?)

3. How do we test this idea with no model? (And if the math is the same, then the predicted results of any test will be the same.)

And yet, quantum theory is enormously successful. So it appears your conclusion is wrong.

(Strictly speaking, the field doesn't describe the probability; the wave equation does.)

 

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.. 
 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes. Virtual particles are misnamed; they are not really particles: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

 

No. They are just different types of interactions of the (same) field.

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)

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Do you want me to give you the math behind each diagram ? Trust me the math comes first not the diagrams

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)

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, I mean the diagrams represent the virtual particles. They would be different diagrams (to represent the different math) if all the particles were real.

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 ? 

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.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are the one claiming to have a new theory. I am just pointing out that a scientific theory requires a mathematical model and testable predictions.

How can you know it doesn't contradict your idea, when you have no mathematical model?

Then it isn't the same. If it were the same, you would only have virtual particles. (That is what is represented by the Feynman diagrams.)

(That is what is represented by the Feynman diagrams.)
That's not "math", that what people told you the diagrams represent.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because you haven't shown the math for it.

I'm not going to do math, and honestly I really don't feel the need to. You're just annoying.