Jump to content
Edgard Neuman

a model of quantum gravity

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

So you have "real" interaction and virtual interaction ? How do they differ ? 

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. (He has a whole load of articles introducing wave equations, fields, particles, etc)

15 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

(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 ?)

1. I don't have a "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.)

15 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

It seem to me that you are not understand the obvious paradox your field can't describe the probability of presence of a particle and be at the same time the carrying of the origine of it.

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.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is called virtual photons are represented by the internal lines on a Feymann diagram. While real particles are the external lines. Now the main difference is their mass/energy. A real particle has enough mass/energy to be observable this requires a quanta of action. Action equates the potential and kinetic energy terms and the amount of displacement. Individual VP cannot cause action their mass/energy levels are insufficient no matter how perfect a detector is you will not detect an individual VP. This doesn't mean an ensemble of VP cannot cause action.

  Now as Prof Strauss mentions the term VP is rather a misnomer. VP in QFT represent the field propogators while particles are the field operators. The distinction is that quanta of action I mentioned above.

Share this post


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

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


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

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.

So there is no way to test your idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 ? 

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


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

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. 

That would require different math. 

For example (as I said before) you would need math to say exactly what this limited capacity is. Without that, how do we know if you are correct (someone else may have a different model that also predicts limited capacity for different reasons, so we would need to have quantitative tests).

(I suspect current theory already sets a limit on the information content of a volume of space. So you would need to show how yours was different.)

9 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

You need the simplest interpretation, and mine is simpler, (even though you don't seem to understand why)

Interpretations are irrelevant. There are dozens of different interpretations of quantum theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics) they all describe the same thing (the mathematics) in different ways. None of them are experimentally distinguishable (because they are describing the same mathematics) and none of them can tell us anything about the world.

11 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I'm sorry, but that's definitely simpler.

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny since I have no problem with the particles are field excitations interpretation for me that is the easiest to understand.

 It also covers nearly every particle phenomena including a vast majority of the supposed quantum weirdness that troubled others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


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

 

(I suspect current theory already sets a limit on the information content of a volume of space. So you would need to show how yours was different.)

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

3 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

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. 

Funny the math I posted provides that already at least once you measure a fields energy level the number density will follow

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


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

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


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

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. 

As I said, you would need to quantify this.

Share this post


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

 

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


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

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 ?

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

11 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

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.

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.

12 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

In my model, information is carried by particles of the void

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

14 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

So for instance how many energy (in Joule) is in a cube meter of space ?

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 ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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". ??? 

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 ?

You can shout words and explanations till your blue in the face 

It cannot make testable predictions to check it's accuracy

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

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.

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"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 ? 

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


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

If you have space filled with actual electrons, and actual positrons and actual high energy photons, that are globally isotropic and of charge 0.

All the electrons and positrons would annihilate, resulting in photons.

7 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

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". ??? 

Picturing is easy. Too easy. And useless.

The only way to test your idea is to create a model that produces testable (ie. quantitative) predictions.

13 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

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.

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?

To do that, we need to compare the measured numbers with the numbers produced by each model. That is why you need a model that can produce quantitative (numerical) results.

14 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

That is not math.

And there goes irony.

 

Share this post


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

Edited by Edgard Neuman

Share this post


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

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 peace of space can only carry 1 history in your diagram, this history is the history of a classical particle. Why do I have to explain that to you ? 

Because this is all too vague to be scientifically testable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.