Do all photons have equal energy?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

This discussion is at deadlock.

Isn't 4th dimension time?

Shouldn't you speak about >=5 dimension in the first place?

One electron can occupy x,y,z,t0

other (completely unrelated to 1st) electron can occupy x,y,z,t1

The only difference between them is time dimension. Completely different particles at two different times.

Pauli exclusion is about fermions with equal coords in the all known dimensions in Pauli's time. In 1925 there was known just 4 dimensions.

 

Notice that Sun is moving with time, and galaxy is moving with time, so any single particle in Earth is never at equal x,y,z coords in the "next time".

And t coord might be completely unneeded because x,y,z after Earth rotating around Sun, and Sun rotating around galaxy, and galaxy moving in universe, xyz of any particle (or us) is different. If particle is at rest, its distance to core of Earth pretty much same, but not to center of galaxy, or other objects in universe.

 

[swansont]

This discussion is at deadlock.

Isn't 4th dimension time?

Shouldn't you speak about >=5 dimension in the first place?

derek made it clear ~10 posts back he was talking about 4 spatial dimensions.

One electron can occupy x,y,z,t0

other (completely unrelated to 1st) electron can occupy x,y,z,t1

The only difference between them is time dimension. Completely different particles at two different times.

Pauli exclusion is about fermions with equal coords in the all known dimensions in Pauli's time. In 1925 there was known just 4 dimensions.

Where we see this is in e.g. atoms, whose wave functions are stationary states of the Schrödinger equation. Constant in time. So you can't speak of occupying a state at one time vs another time. It's independent of time.

 

——

 

But now, if you add in some new aspect of a wave function that can be used to distinguish between the states. The ones we already have give us l and m; the new one presumably would add in another quantum number. But we see no evidence of this. Electrons behave as they should if there are 3 spatial dimensions.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

derek made it clear ~10 posts back he was talking about 4 spatial dimensions.

 

 

Shouldn't we see this 4th spatial (non-time) dimension by our own eyes, if it exists?

 

But now, if you add in some new

 

I don't want to add anything, making things even more complex. I want simplify things.

[swansont]

Shouldn't we see this 4th spatial (non-time) dimension by our own eyes, if it exists?

 

I don't know. This is derek w's proposal. Ask him.

 

 

I don't want to add anything, making things even more complex. I want simplify things.

 

This isn't about you.

[derek w]

Exchangeable is a better word. You can't have two electrons in the same place, but if there was a fourth dimension, they could be separated by their fourth-dimensional coordinate. IOW their wave functions would not be identical in 4D, even though they were in 3D.

You can't use the same bit of space to create 2 electrons,each electron must be created out of their own separate bit of space.

If an electron moves it would be the same electron but created out of a different bit of space.

 

A bit like creating a knot out of a bit of string,if I move the knot along the string,it's the same knot but created out of different bit of string.

[swansont]

You can't use the same bit of space to create 2 electrons,each electron must be created out of their own separate bit of space.

If an electron moves it would be the same electron but created out of a different bit of space.

 

A bit like creating a knot out of a bit of string,if I move the knot along the string,it's the same knot but created out of different bit of string.

 

But if you go 4D, it's not the same space. In 3D, it's like having an object in a room, and another object in the room above it. The x and y coordinates are identical, but since z is not, they do not occupy the same space. That concept doesn't change with x, y, and z being the same and w being different. But what we know is the electrons are behaving like objects in 3D space, not 4D space.

 

It's not enough to come up with the idea that "hey, maybe it's 4D!" You have to consider the implications of that and test out the idea.

[derek w]

But if you go 4D, it's not the same space. In 3D, it's like having an object in a room, and another object in the room above it.

If 3D vacuum is at a point of equilibrium,to go away from that point of equilibrium and become 4D requires energy.

 

Taking what you say that "it's like having an object in a room,and another object in the room above it",if electrons are objects in an atom,they can not exist at the same 4D energy level away from the point of equilibrium 3D.

 

 

The only difference between a 3D vacuum and an atom,is that energy is put into the vacuum to create a 4D atom.

Edited April 6, 2013 by derek w

[swansont]

If 3D vacuum is at a point of equilibrium,to go away from that point of equilibrium and become 4D requires energy.

 

If that's your thesis, then go ahead and show that this is true. Any experiment that has demonstrated this?

 

[Dekan]

The Electron must be real, because otherwise we wouldn't have electric currents powering our modern devices.

 

The Neutron is also probably real, because it can kill people.

 

Other putative particles, should be regarded sceptically.

 

The idea of 4D, is good in works of fiction.