Jump to content
Edgard Neuman

a model of quantum gravity

Recommended Posts

The only difference between antiparticle and particles is that they are opposite in charge.

If you had equal quantities of each they would indeed annihilate one another.

 Why do you think I mentioned baryogenesis in my first reply ? There must be some assymetry between the two in order to get a higher percentage of positive matter. Charge is symmetric under rotation translation so charge itself cannot account for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Mordred said:

The only difference between antiparticle and particles is that they are opposite in charge.

I found this explanation (in some wikipedia discussion, so it need to be checked)

"The electron field really describes four different particles: the left-handed electron, the right-handed electron, the left-handed positron and the right-handed positron. Parity-reversal exchanges left-handed particles with right-handed ones. Charge-conjugation exchanges electrons with positrons. Due to CPT symmetry, if you apply parity-reversal, charge-conjugation and then flip the arrow of time, all reactions look exactly the same. This implies that left-handed electrons are "like" right-handed positrons. But neither is the parity-flip of the other. -- Xerxes 18:44, 10 June 2006"

but I also read that a free particle interacting with the void and propagating is a mix of both parity (through self interacting ?)

Quote

If you had equal quantities of each they would indeed annihilate one another.

 Why do you think I mentioned baryogenesis in my first reply ? There must be some assymetry between the two in order to get a higher percentage of positive matter. Charge is symmetric under rotation translation so charge itself cannot account for it.

Baryogenesis happened just after the bigbang, not now. You don't see matter pop out of the vaccum from nowhere. My theory doesn't require symmetry break.. If you add baryogenesis into this, the void would then all turn into matter... there wouldn't be apparent conservation of energy and charges.
You can't break symmetry here or it wouldn't work at all. 

In my idea, the photon that results the annihilation are just dense enough to cause creation reaction.. and the void is in a state of equilibrium between creation and annihilation. (the void is stable as we experience it, not changing)

I know what is the problem : it's hard to imagine a isotropic field of high energy photon , that is so isotropic that it can't be detected.  (unless we call it... the EM field)

In fact the only difference between my theory and the ordinary MQ, is that in my model : all virtual temporary particle you use in Feynman diagram are as real as the real ones we study and are just there in the void all cancelling out themselves globally (a lot of interaction without long term effect), but creating the "noise" and the randomness (and carrying the quantum information). 

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again...

"Wouldn't these properties of the 'void' be measurable, and provide some observational evidence ?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on the baryogenesis, I wasn't expecting a solution for that from you. However in order to have a theory in physics you do need mathematics.

Theories in physics must make testable predictions. Those formulas I placed in this thread still apply so you have a starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

In fact the only difference between my theory and the ordinary MQ, is that in my model : all virtual temporary particle you use in Feynman diagram are as real as the real ones we study and are just there in the void all cancelling out themselves globally (a lot of interaction without long term effect), but creating the "noise" and the randomness (and carrying the quantum information). 

Then show us, in mathematical detail, what the testable predictions of this "only difference" are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2019 at 1:50 PM, MigL said:

Again...

"Wouldn't these properties of the 'void' be measurable, and provide some observational evidence ?"

and again, what is the EM fields  when you assume particle are not quantum wave ? (magnetic force and electric force is observational evidence, how do they exist) I know how it works in the quantum theories : virtual particles carry forces (virtual photons carry forces.. "actual" photons are quanta of the fields)
When you assume the quantum world isn't based on wavy object, then what would be those field ?
What about particles of the void , that are not virtual anymore ? 
If the void is full with some anisotropic field of real photons, their are quantities coming with that : their average direction (the electric field !) and its variations (the magnetic field...).. if a charge is constantly hit by real photon, variation in the field would manifest as forces.

I think their are no mathematical difference between a quantum model where you assume the result is the sum of hypothetical particles that you use in thought implitly in probability equations, and a model where you assume they are actual particles.. when you read how Feynman diagram works,  you see what is summed.. it's just a matter of understanding that those particle could be real as long as the particle filled void could be perfectly balanced so it has no effect. 

But if you really want a difference between my model and the actual model, there is one, that will come soon enough : 
In my model, the void has a real density, and this density while it's not directly mesureable, define the ability of space to carry parallel Feynman paths.. so when the quantum computers will work, we may encounter the limit of complexity a qubit can carry. If quantum computers are limited in the parallel state each part of the circuit can carry, it would be a sign this quantity is limited and it will be mesureable.

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I think their are no mathematical difference between a quantum model where you assume the result is the sum of hypothetical particles that you use in thought implitly in probability equations, and a model where you assume they are actual particles..

You "think" there are no differences? How about proving the two model are mathematically equivalent?

As real particles and virtual particles are very different things I find this argument extremely unconvincing with either mathematics or evidence to back it up.

 

1 hour ago, Edgard Neuman said:

In my model, the void has a real density, and this density while it's not directly mesureable, define the ability of space to carry parallel Feynman paths.. so when the quantum computers will work, we may encounter the limit of complexity a qubit can carry. If quantum computers are limited in the parallel state each part of the circuit can carry, it would be a sign this quantity is limited and it will be mesureable.

So, to make this testable, you need to quantify this "void density" and specify exactly what the "complexity a qubit can carry" is.

Unless these are quantitative predictions, they are not testable.

Of course, doing that would require a model. Which you don't have so ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It would be interesting to see how you plan on modelling an EM field. Even without referencing particles the field values will produce a wave nature.

Modelling requires mathematics. However it seems your main problem with QM is that you don't care for the probability waves. When you get right down to it those probability waves increase the predictive nature of QM. 

For example the wave of a particle gives the probability of locating the position where you would find the properties of a given particle.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Read Feynman book called "the light".. in this book, he explain how the diagram work.. he doesn't talk about wave, but a complex number 
If I remember correctly, the probability, for a photon, for instance, is given by the formula 1/(x²..... -t²)...
(it's the square of the modulus of the complex number)..
I can't make this up, it's in the book.

What you call wave is a construct on the fact that for a given particle, of course the probability across all space integrate to 1 (I call it wavy behavior to speak about this abstract construct you use for a "real particle"...) . but you know the real description of things is the Feynman diagrams, right ? 

4 hours ago, Strange said:

You "think" there are no differences? How about proving the two model are mathematically equivalent?

As real particles and virtual particles are very different things I find this argument extremely unconvincing with either mathematics or evidence to back it up.

 

So, to make this testable, you need to quantify this "void density" and specify exactly what the "complexity a qubit can carry" is.

Unless these are quantitative predictions, they are not testable.

Of course, doing that would require a model. Which you don't have so ...

I don't know what you are trying to prove here, on a forum about science. You want a cookie for your years of study ? You want a nobel prize ? I don't pretend to know what I don't know, I'm just here to propose a different interpretation of things (yes without mathematics). You eather contradict it, or leave me alone.

You can throw complex mathematics at me, if they don't contradict my theories (and they don't, until now I've answered your objections, but you don't seem to care), I've no reason to trust you. 

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

What you call wave is a construct on the fact that for a given particle, of course the probability across all space integrate to 1

You have that the wrong way round. The wave function came first and then the interpretation of it as the probability of finding the particle in a location. But the wave function does a lot more than that.

10 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

but you know the real description of things is the Feynman diagrams, right ?

And, again, the diagrams were invented to make it easier to visualise the underlying math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have that the wrong way round. The wave function came first and then the interpretation of it as the probability of finding the particle in a location. But the wave function does a lot more than that.

And, again, the diagrams were invented to make it easier to visualise the underlying math.

the underlying math is explained in the book.... the sumation of different possible histories.. thanks I know that. So why can't you understand that my model is equivalent ? Do you understand what the diagrams are ? 

and if the probability of presence of a photon is in "1/(x²...t²)" how the hell is this a wave ?

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

So why can't you understand that my model is equivalent ? 

Because you haven't shown the math for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

Because you haven't shown the math for it.

the math are the same of those of Feynman diagrams except instead of having a void empty, you have a void full and particle are not considered to "disappeare" and "appear" from nothing, but being real and still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I don't know what you are trying to prove here, on a forum about science.

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.

18 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

You can throw complex mathematics at me, if they don't contradict my theories (and they don't

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

1 minute ago, Edgard Neuman said:

the math are the same of those of Feynman diagrams except instead of having a void empty, you have a void full and particle are not considered to "disappeare" and "appear" from nothing, but being real and still there.

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Edgard Neuman said:

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

Then you are not doing science. <shrug> I don't really care. It's your loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Edgard Neuman said:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 ? 

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Edgard Neuman said:

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.

Either:

a) you have a different model, in which case you would need to show your math so people can decide if it is consistent with reality or not; or

b) the math is the same in which case there is no difference between your model and the current one.

Saying, "I have a new model but the math is the same" doesn't make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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)

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

And are real particles different in nature of the virtual ones ?

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

 

1 minute ago, Edgard Neuman said:

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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)

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.