I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I believe that it is always called the wave function because what we know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
On Jul 18, 7:27 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> Anybody have an opinion?
> Mitch Raemsch
Its physical because it interferes but what its substance is unknown.
> On Jul 18, 7:27 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > Anybody have an opinion?
> > Mitch Raemsch
> Its physical because it interferes but what its substance is unknown.
> Mitch Raemsch
There is no way to define what quantum waves are physically using another physical concept. They stand alone in nature.
A light wave is a dual wave of electromagnetic force. We know it is a double wave of electromagnetic energy. But we don't know quantum waves.
My opinion is that it is not "physical". Although I suppose there's no hard definition of "physical" (is potential energy physical? are fields physical? are particles physical? Answers to these have been different at different times), I think a reasonable definition of "physical" should exclude probability waves. A case in point would be the EPR paradox (followed by Bell's theorem and experimental verification of validity of Copenhagen interpretation), where "collapsing" of a wavefunction happens at superluminal speeds.
IMO, This is sufficiently different from all physical things that we know that we ought to consider matter waves as something not quite physical.
BURT wrote: > I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
by giving inertia its important role in General Relativity, he somehow abandoned it. For Einstein it was about gravitation and time, while it would have been much more clearer if it would have been about inertia and motion.
If Einstein was asked what time was he answered : "time is what you read on a clock", and if then people asked what a clock was he answered : "a clock is a device you read the time on".
As I said before it is about inertia and a clock is an inertiameter. Or an inertial field strength meter, if you prefer.
In a "clock" you accelerate something and deduce the time it is taking to measure "time". Imagine what happens if you lower or increase the inertial field the "clock" is in : if you lower it, it becomes more easy to accelerate mass, and your "clock" runs faster, if you strenghten the inertial field, as really close to a black hole, your "clock" almost comes to a standstill. Finally you realize that a clock is an inertiameter .
So far so good, we have inertia and it can even go to infinity, near a black hole. So I tought, what would happen if you let it go to zero ?
What happens to an object NOT subjected to inertia ?
Newtons law, that an object stay in rest as long as no force acts upon it, no longer applies. The object wriggles, it does not have to stay put anymore. Now, a very smart fellow known as Heisenberg noticed this, that under certain conditions of mass, displacement and velocity, objects do not stay put, they wriggle. Or wave, if you prefer.
Now suppose we make a ball roll back and forth, on a stretch of about a yard or one meter. You have to aim it with another ball in order to make it deflect from its course. As long as the ball moves slowly, you can see where it is, aim and hit it with a reasonable accuracy. If the ball moves faster, you will have to rely on photodetectors and technology to make a hit, but if the ball starts moving at infinite speeds, you end up with pure luck. Hence the probability waves of quantum mechanics.
Understand inertia, and you understand time, space, General Relativity, uncertainty, Quantum Mechanics and the link between them.
(Would you buy, or sponsor my book, or do you know a good publisher or academic promotor ? :-) )
On Jul 19, 12:12 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> BURT wrote: > > I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > Anybody have an opinion?
Of course it is physical. WTF else could it be ? Imagined ? Information ? Some Copenhagen interpretation LSD trip ?
It is physical. Yes it is.
Is it math ?
In my opinion, the only way to model it is by using a tool which "may or may not be mathematics". So, maybe it's math, maybe it's not.
The reason I say this is because mathematics is structured upon things which exist. To model things in physics you need existential indeterminacy, and this is not really mathematics.
Arguably it IS math, and arguably it IS NOT math. It is indeterminate whether it is or not. But this tool.....provides the cleanest way to model everything. It is a valid TOE.
> BURT wrote: > > I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > Anybody have an opinion?
> Yes, even more than that.
> The mistake starts with Einstein. Although he was on the right track, > read the pages from Gravitation,
> by giving inertia its important role in General Relativity, he somehow > abandoned it. For Einstein it was about gravitation and time, while it > would have been much more clearer if it would have been about inertia > and motion.
Einstein didn't *abandon* the principle of inertia. He wisely put on the back burner to adhere to what could be shown by the experiments of his day.
The heurism of energy density in a volume of space-time was far more reliable than trying to guess about an inertial ether which had never been detected.
> If Einstein was asked what time was he answered : "time is what you read > on a clock", and if then people asked what a clock was he answered : "a > clock is a device you read the time on".
So... What is an X? It is an orthogonal displacemet wrt Y.
The reference is not to any paricular clock but rather an imaginary clock that will respect spatial displacements according to a mathematical formalism.
> As I said before it is about inertia and a clock is an inertiameter. Or > an inertial field strength meter, if you prefer.
A rifle and bullet and grid paper might do as well
> In a "clock" you accelerate something and deduce the time it is taking > to measure "time". Imagine what happens if you lower or increase the > inertial field the "clock" is in : if you lower it, it becomes more easy > to accelerate mass, and your "clock" runs faster, if you strenghten the > inertial field, as really close to a black hole, your "clock" almost > comes to a standstill. > Finally you realize that a clock is an inertiameter .
A physical clock can be shown to be a gravity meter. Pound-Rebka-Snider
It detects anisotropy in the inertial field but does not detect the inertial field.
Perhaps including the whole of Harvard tower would make it an inertia-meter. But not just the upper or lower Mossbauer oscillator.
I believe you took the wrong circle, in the circular definition of inertia because an inertia-meter would violate the principle of relativity.
<<...it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
> So far so good, we have inertia and it can even go to infinity, near a > black hole. So I tought, what would happen if you let it go to zero ?
> What happens to an object NOT subjected to inertia ?
> Newtons law, that an object stay in rest as long as no force acts upon > it, no longer applies. The object wriggles, it does not have to stay put > anymore. Now, a very smart fellow known as Heisenberg noticed this, that > under certain conditions of mass, displacement and velocity, objects do > not stay put, they wriggle. Or wave, if you prefer.
> Now suppose we make a ball roll back and forth, on a stretch of about a > yard or one meter. You have to aim it with another ball in order to make > it deflect from its course. > As long as the ball moves slowly, you can see where it is, aim and hit > it with a reasonable accuracy. If the ball moves faster, you will have > to rely on photodetectors and technology to make a hit, but if the ball > starts moving at infinite speeds, you end up with pure luck. Hence the > probability waves of quantum mechanics.
> Understand inertia, and you understand time, space, General Relativity, > uncertainty, Quantum Mechanics and the link between them.
The masses of the universe pull you (by induction force, not radiative force) in all directions. (isotropy)
A local mass spoils the isotropy.
"Gravity there makes inertia here" --E. Mach "Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit" --E. Fudd
>I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot >understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's >aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I >believe that it is always called the wave function because what we >know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of >anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the >mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves >could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
>Anybody have an opinion?
The wavefunction could be using probability to model the average outcome of behaviour that is too complex to explicity model. There is a discussion here of that kind of possibility.
'Process Physics: quantum theories as models of complexity', K. Kitto, http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/ppQTmodelsComplexity.pdf Invited paper for the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics Special Issue on the Physics of Emergence and Organization, Volume 4, Issue 16 I. To be published in the collection: I. Licata, A. J. Sakaji eds. (2008) Physics of Emergence and Organization, World Scientific, In Press.
<Start extract> "....Although traditionally the quantum formalism has only been applied to a very particular set of systems, a wide variety of more novel applications are starting to appear, where quantum theories of macroscopic systems are being created, often quite successfully [51]. For example, different varieties of the quantum formalism have been applied to situations such as: stock market analysis [52]; quantum models of the brain [53, 54]; models of cognitive function and concepts [55, 56, 57]; modelling of the process of decision making in situations of ambiguity [58] etc. This general use (some might argue abuse) of the quantum formalism suggests that it is indeed far more generally applicable than is traditionally considered to be the case, and indeed the above consideration of the form of the quantum formalism suggests a reason for this; there is no mention of macroscopic detectors or microscopic particles in this formalism, and there is no reason to supose a priori that they are necessary. This is merely an historical bias resulting from the discovery of the quantum formalism as a description of a specific class of systems (i.e., microscopic ones).
A clue to this apparent generality of the quantum formalism lies in the theorems, generally attributed to Bell, of nonlocality and contextuality [48].
Each of these theorems rely upon showing that when a quantum system is entangled there exists a set of observables for which it is impossible to consistently assign an eigenvalue i.e., the outcomes of measurements of apparently independent experiments are incompatible. The resolution to this incompatibility lies in a proper consideration of the experimental arrangement; performing one experiment always results in a change of the quantum system and rules out the possibility of performing an alternative one. Thus, it is impossible to completely describe a quantum system without reference to its context. Entangled quantum systems exhibit a form of nonseparable behaviour and should not be considered independently of the set of measurements performed upon them.
This situation shares much similarity with systems exhibiting high end complexity. Such systems should not be considered independently of their context, and may show incompatible results depending upon the measurements to which they are subjected. For example, as was discussed in section 3 the social context in which schizophrenia occurs can have a dramatic effect upon the course of a patients illness. Indeed, different patients may be classified as schizophrenic or not depending upon the culture in which they are being diagnosed [37]. This situation is analagous to the incompatible measurements occuring in the quantum formalism, and hence it is expected that the very well developed quantum formalism could be used to provide models of such contextual dependency during measurement.
This suggests that the quantum theoretic formalism can be understood as modelling generic situations of contextuality where a system cannot be considered reductively as a set of separable subcomponents uninfluenced by their environment, even in cases where two subsystems are spread over a distance [2]. This contextual dependence often manifests itself as randomness arising from a lack of knowledge about the outcome of experiments, which can be used to explain the appearance of randomness in systems exhibiting contextual behaviour, including quantum ones [59]..."
Sue... wrote: > On Jul 19, 1:12 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> BURT wrote: >>> I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot >>> understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like >>> Einstein's aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave >>> made of? I believe that it is always called the wave function >>> because what we know about it is all mathematical. It is a math >>> model independant of anything directly physical. I may have to >>> give way here to the mathematical because I have no understanding >>> of what quantum waves could be physically or as some kind of >>> physical substance. Anybody have an opinion? >> Yes, even more than that.
>> The mistake starts with Einstein. Although he was on the right >> track, read the pages from Gravitation,
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html >> by giving inertia its important role in General Relativity, he >> somehow abandoned it. For Einstein it was about gravitation and >> time, while it would have been much more clearer if it would have >> been about inertia and motion.
> Einstein didn't *abandon* the principle of inertia.
I did not say that.
> He wisely put on the back burner to adhere to what could be shown by > the experiments of his day.
I think that was his greatest mistake, which made him miss the connection with QM later.
> The heurism of energy density in a volume of space-time was far more > reliable than trying to guess about an inertial ether which had never > been detected.
>> If Einstein was asked what time was he answered : "time is what you >> read on a clock", and if then people asked what a clock was he >> answered : "a clock is a device you read the time on".
> So... What is an X? It is an orthogonal displacemet wrt Y.
> The reference is not to any paricular clock but rather an imaginary > clock that will respect spatial displacements according to a > mathematical formalism.
>> As I said before it is about inertia and a clock is an >> inertiameter. Or an inertial field strength meter, if you prefer.
> A rifle and bullet and grid paper might do as well
Albeit less paractical. What is your point ?
>> In a "clock" you accelerate something and deduce the time it is >> taking to measure "time". Imagine what happens if you lower or >> increase the inertial field the "clock" is in : if you lower it, it >> becomes more easy to accelerate mass, and your "clock" runs >> faster, if you strenghten the inertial field, as really close to a >> black hole, your "clock" almost comes to a standstill. Finally you >> realize that a clock is an inertiameter .
> A physical clock can be shown to be a gravity meter. > Pound-Rebka-Snider
But then it would not be a good clock wouldn't ? And not a good inertiameter, but it would measure the inertial gradient. Which is how gravity should ber defined.
> It detects anisotropy in the inertial field but does not detect the > inertial field.
Exactly, you are getting there. Occams razor.
Every (good) clock detects the inertial field, the problem is : all the local (known) physics do too ! That why the inertial field is so important : it influences all of macro physics, and none of Quantum mechanics. That is why the two are so hard to reconcile.
> Perhaps including the whole of Harvard tower would make it an > inertia-meter. But not just the upper or lower Mossbauer oscillator.
No comment.
> I believe you took the wrong circle, in the circular definition of > inertia because an inertia-meter would violate the principle of > relativity.
Not really. What if someone could locally detect rectilinear motion wrt to the preferential frame, the average mass distribution of the universe surrounding the test lab ? It would just be the start of a new level of understanding of physics. I think there also lies the solution in developing a new form of propulsion. But no-one is looking. Best guarantee for not finding. Altough there is ample indication that such a frame exists, if one just stops recanting the relativistic mantra.
> <<...it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which > differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial > frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in > all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special > theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the > same form in all inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>> So far so good, we have inertia and it can even go to infinity, >> near a black hole. So I tought, what would happen if you let it go >> to zero ?
>> What happens to an object NOT subjected to inertia ?
> Then you are not in this universe.
I beg to differ. As inertia increases to infinity if you approach the speed of light, why should'n it decrease if you respect some other configuration of mass, speed and distance ? Like in the Heisenberg equation.
Again, not looking, or not trying is a garantuee for not finding and not understanding.
>> Newtons law, that an object stay in rest as long as no force acts >> upon it, no longer applies. The object wriggles, it does not have >> to stay put anymore. Now, a very smart fellow known as Heisenberg >> noticed this, that under certain conditions of mass, displacement >> and velocity, objects do not stay put, they wriggle. Or wave, if >> you prefer.
>> Now suppose we make a ball roll back and forth, on a stretch of >> about a yard or one meter. You have to aim it with another ball in >> order to make it deflect from its course. As long as the ball moves >> slowly, you can see where it is, aim and hit it with a reasonable >> accuracy. If the ball moves faster, you will have to rely on >> photodetectors and technology to make a hit, but if the ball starts >> moving at infinite speeds, you end up with pure luck. Hence the >> probability waves of quantum mechanics.
>> Understand inertia, and you understand time, space, General >> Relativity, uncertainty, Quantum Mechanics and the link between >> them.
> The masses of the universe pull you (by induction force, not > radiative force) in all directions. (isotropy)
> A local mass spoils the isotropy.
Here you go again, putting gravitation first. Gravitation happens when there is a gradient in the inertial field. Objects want to go to the place with least inertia. Prehaps because they are smaller there.
> "Gravity there makes inertia here" --E. Mach "Kill the Wabbit, Kill > the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit" --E. Fudd
>> (Would you buy, or sponsor my book, or do you know a good publisher >> or academic promotor ? :-) )
> No offence... but no.
I did not address you. You will only buy or read the book if others would agree. You're just another democratic neo-exact-academic. The formula is the theory, no need to explain ? Am I right on this one, or am I right ?
Uwe Hayek.
-- Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd. -- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
On Jul 18, 10:27 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe that physics is about everything physical
If you mean "physical" to mean "material", then you believe wrong. Physics has for a long time dealt with things that are immaterial. Newton, for example, had no *material* concept for what caused gravity and in fact thought of it as action through a distance that he could not explain, but he *could* tell you how strong it was.
An electric field is not material, either, but it's *behavior* (not its substance) is completely accounted for by Maxwell's equations at large scale, and by QED at all scales.
If you think the world is broken down into ONLY material things and mathematical models, then you have shortchanged what physics is about and also shortchanged the variety of things in the universe.
> but I cannot > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> On Jul 18, 10:27 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I believe that physics is about everything physical
> If you mean "physical" to mean "material", then you believe wrong. > Physics has for a long time dealt with things that are immaterial. > Newton, for example, had no *material* concept for what caused gravity > and in fact thought of it as action through a distance that he could > not explain, but he *could* tell you how strong it was.
> An electric field is not material, either, but it's *behavior* (not > its substance) is completely accounted for by Maxwell's equations at > large scale, and by QED at all scales.
> If you think the world is broken down into ONLY material things and > mathematical models, then you have shortchanged what physics is about > and also shortchanged the variety of things in the universe.
> > but I cannot > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> On Jul 19, 8:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 10:27 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I believe that physics is about everything physical
> > If you mean "physical" to mean "material", then you believe wrong. > > Physics has for a long time dealt with things that are immaterial. > > Newton, for example, had no *material* concept for what caused gravity > > and in fact thought of it as action through a distance that he could > > not explain, but he *could* tell you how strong it was.
> > An electric field is not material, either, but it's *behavior* (not > > its substance) is completely accounted for by Maxwell's equations at > > large scale, and by QED at all scales.
> > If you think the world is broken down into ONLY material things and > > mathematical models, then you have shortchanged what physics is about > > and also shortchanged the variety of things in the universe.
> > > but I cannot > > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > > > I believe that physics is about everything physical
> > > If you mean "physical" to mean "material", then you believe wrong. > > > Physics has for a long time dealt with things that are immaterial. > > > Newton, for example, had no *material* concept for what caused gravity > > > and in fact thought of it as action through a distance that he could > > > not explain, but he *could* tell you how strong it was.
> > > An electric field is not material, either, but it's *behavior* (not > > > its substance) is completely accounted for by Maxwell's equations at > > > large scale, and by QED at all scales.
> > > If you think the world is broken down into ONLY material things and > > > mathematical models, then you have shortchanged what physics is about > > > and also shortchanged the variety of things in the universe.
> > > > but I cannot > > > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > > > Anybody have an opinion?
> > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > The quantum wave is immatterial.
> And so is the gravitational field. What problem?
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Right. Einstein thought of his gravity as the immatterial curved space- time.
> > > > > I believe that physics is about everything physical
> > > > If you mean "physical" to mean "material", then you believe wrong. > > > > Physics has for a long time dealt with things that are immaterial. > > > > Newton, for example, had no *material* concept for what caused gravity > > > > and in fact thought of it as action through a distance that he could > > > > not explain, but he *could* tell you how strong it was.
> > > > An electric field is not material, either, but it's *behavior* (not > > > > its substance) is completely accounted for by Maxwell's equations at > > > > large scale, and by QED at all scales.
> > > > If you think the world is broken down into ONLY material things and > > > > mathematical models, then you have shortchanged what physics is about > > > > and also shortchanged the variety of things in the universe.
> > > > > but I cannot > > > > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > > > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > > > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > > > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > > > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > > > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > > > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > > > > Anybody have an opinion?
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > The quantum wave is immatterial.
> > And so is the gravitational field. What problem?
> > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Right. Einstein thought of his gravity as the immatterial curved space- > time.
Newton thought gravity was immaterial, too, three hundred years before that.
> > > > > > I believe that physics is about everything physical
> > > > > If you mean "physical" to mean "material", then you believe wrong. > > > > > Physics has for a long time dealt with things that are immaterial. > > > > > Newton, for example, had no *material* concept for what caused gravity > > > > > and in fact thought of it as action through a distance that he could > > > > > not explain, but he *could* tell you how strong it was.
> > > > > An electric field is not material, either, but it's *behavior* (not > > > > > its substance) is completely accounted for by Maxwell's equations at > > > > > large scale, and by QED at all scales.
> > > > > If you think the world is broken down into ONLY material things and > > > > > mathematical models, then you have shortchanged what physics is about > > > > > and also shortchanged the variety of things in the universe.
> > > > > > but I cannot > > > > > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > > > > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > > > > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > > > > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > > > > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > > > > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > > > > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > > > > > Anybody have an opinion?
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > The quantum wave is immatterial.
> > > And so is the gravitational field. What problem?
> > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Right. Einstein thought of his gravity as the immatterial curved space- > > time.
> Newton thought gravity was immaterial, too, three hundred years before > that.
> > Good point.
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder why defining something by what it is not is a step forward?
> On Jul 19, 12:12 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > BURT wrote: > > > I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > > Anybody have an opinion?
> Of course it is physical. WTF else could it be ? Imagined ? > Information ? Some Copenhagen interpretation LSD trip ?
> It is physical. Yes it is.
> Is it math ?
> In my opinion, the only way to model it is by using a tool which "may > or may not be mathematics". So, maybe it's math, maybe it's not.
> The reason I say this is because mathematics is structured upon things > which exist. To model things in physics you need existential > indeterminacy, and this is not really mathematics.
> Arguably it IS math, and arguably it IS NOT math. It is indeterminate > whether it is or not. But this tool.....provides the cleanest way to > model everything. It is a valid TOE.
On Jul 18, 11:27 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
Without knowing much at all about how a virus infects an animal it is not too difficult to formulate a practical soulution to the spread of avian flu. Poultry enclosures in countries where the virus spreads quickly.
So too, chunks of energy emitted or absorbed by an atomic oscillator are *countable* and subject to ~the law of averages~ where our accuracy can be increase simply by increasing the number of samples.
<< Feynman proposed the following postulates:
1. The probability for any fundamental event is given by the square modulus of a complex amplitude. 2. The amplitude for some event is given by adding together the contributions of all the histories which include that event. 3. The amplitude a certain history contributes is proportional to e^{i S/\hbar}, where \hbar is reduced Planck's constant and S is the action of that history, given by the time integral of the Lagrangian along the corresponding path in the phase space of the system.
In order to find the overall probability amplitude for a given process, then, one adds up, or integrates, the amplitude of postulate 3 over the space of all possible histories of the system in between the initial and final states, including histories that are absurd by classical standards. In calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to another in a given time, it would be correct to include histories in which the particle describes elaborate curlicues, histories in which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth. The path integral assigns all of these histories amplitudes of equal magnitude but with varying phase, or argument of the complex number. The contributions that are wildly different from the classical history are suppressed only by the interference of similar, canceling histories. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Abstract_formu...
See also:
An Introduction into the Feynman Path Integral A short introduction by Christian Grosche to the use of Feynman path integrals in quantum mechanics. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9302097
>>I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot >>understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's >>aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I >>believe that it is always called the wave function because what we >>know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of >>anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the >>mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves >>could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> Without knowing much at all about how a virus infects an animal > it is not too difficult to formulate a practical soulution to > the spread of avian flu. Poultry enclosures in countries where > the virus spreads quickly.
xxein wrote: > On Jul 19, 1:59 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 12:12 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > BURT wrote: > > > > I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > > > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance. > > > > Anybody have an opinion? > > Of course it is physical. WTF else could it be ? Imagined ? > > Information ? Some Copenhagen interpretation LSD trip ? > > It is physical. Yes it is. > > Is it math ? > > In my opinion, the only way to model it is by using a tool which "may > > or may not be mathematics". So, maybe it's math, maybe it's not. > > The reason I say this is because mathematics is structured upon things > > which exist. To model things in physics you need existential > > indeterminacy, and this is not really mathematics. > > Arguably it IS math, and arguably it IS NOT math. It is indeterminate > > whether it is or not. But this tool.....provides the cleanest way to > > model everything. It is a valid TOE. > xxein: Only valid if there is a TOE.
If everything can be reduced to the same building blocks, then the TOE is the theory that describes the building blocks.
-zookumar-
ps: Central banker robber barons and their minions are planning to vanquish 80-90% of the global population (which they have defined as useless eaters) and divide the emptied lands amongst themselves. These would-be pharaohs of the new world order will only fail if the 80-90% extrude their heads from the proverbial sand; muster the backbone to confront their fears; turn the ink against the poisoned pens, the sword against the brigadiers of Psychos and Pathos, the tide against the tumored sea; and take back the reins of humanity (or take for the first time even).
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Googletype "ethericity, Lindemann" and change the world. Capture lightning in a bottle and say "seeya" to fossil fuels, nuclear fuels, wind fuels, water fuels, and leave solar energy alone so it can do its work on Chlorophyll P680 and put some green back on this good earth. --------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Jul 19, 1:59 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 12:12 am, Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > > BURT wrote: > > > > I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > > > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> > > > Anybody have an opinion?
> > Of course it is physical. WTF else could it be ? Imagined ? > > Information ? Some Copenhagen interpretation LSD trip ?
> > It is physical. Yes it is.
> > Is it math ?
> > In my opinion, the only way to model it is by using a tool which "may > > or may not be mathematics". So, maybe it's math, maybe it's not.
> > The reason I say this is because mathematics is structured upon things > > which exist. To model things in physics you need existential > > indeterminacy, and this is not really mathematics.
> > Arguably it IS math, and arguably it IS NOT math. It is indeterminate > > whether it is or not. But this tool.....provides the cleanest way to > > model everything. It is a valid TOE.
> xxein: Only valid if there is a TOE.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Well, it does indeed seem quite odd. And in fact it is a completely quantum leap of logic. To say that :
You want to model randomness as is f it were a fluid, and so you have this fluid dynamics.
But in order to make it work, you need "existential inderetminacy".
So, imagine mathematics as if it were a very thick book. And all of the accepted math is based on things which exist, and there are many such chapters filled with all kinds of logical structures. Somewhere on this book (maybe on the back cover) you have this thing called nonexistence. Now, the approach described above is basically suggesting that there is an entire chapter of that book (or even many chapters) which may or may not exist. It may or may not be part of the book. Just imagine a book which "may or may not" contain an entire chapter. That would be a pretty wierd book. And because nobody can concieve of such a book, that book remains unwritten. Math is specifically written in such a way to avoid creating such a chapter based on indeterminacy because we want a book which exists. We cannot comprehend of an entire chapter which "may or may not belong" in the book.
Well, that is exactly what I would argue is needed to unify physics. And random variables were carefully designed to avoid this very issue, but it MUST be addressed if you want to unify physics. There is NO WAY AROUND IT.
Just because it is mind boggling, does not mean that it is garbage. And no professional scientist in his right mind would side with me because the idea is so radical that it would probably jeapordize careers.
But I think that what I am saying is not so far fetched as ST in ways.....so to me, it is not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, I have a very detailed analysis which seems impossible to argue against.
> On Jul 18, 11:27 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I believe that physics is about everything physical but I cannot > > understand how a quantum wave is a physical thing. Like Einstein's > > aether it looks immatterial. What is the quantum wave made of? I > > believe that it is always called the wave function because what we > > know about it is all mathematical. It is a math model independant of > > anything directly physical. I may have to give way here to the > > mathematical because I have no understanding of what quantum waves > > could be physically or as some kind of physical substance.
> Without knowing much at all about how a virus infects an animal > it is not too difficult to formulate a practical soulution to > the spread of avian flu. Poultry enclosures in countries where > the virus spreads quickly.
> So too, chunks of energy emitted or absorbed by an atomic > oscillator are *countable* and subject to ~the law of averages~ > where our accuracy can be increase simply by increasing the > number of samples.
> << Feynman proposed the following postulates:
> 1. The probability for any fundamental event > is given by the square modulus of a complex amplitude. > 2. The amplitude for some event is given by adding > together the contributions of all the histories > which include that event. > 3. The amplitude a certain history contributes is > proportional to e^{i S/\hbar}, where \hbar is > reduced Planck's constant and S is the action > of that history, given by the time integral of > the Lagrangian along the corresponding path in > the phase space of the system.
> In order to find the overall probability amplitude for > a given process, then, one adds up, or integrates, the > amplitude of postulate 3 over the space of all possible > histories of the system in between the initial and final > states, including histories that are absurd by classical > standards. In calculating the amplitude for a single > particle to go from one place to another in a given > time, it would be correct to include histories in which > the particle describes elaborate curlicues, histories in > which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies > back again, and so forth. The path integral assigns all > of these histories amplitudes of equal magnitude but with > varying phase, or argument of the complex number. The > contributions that are wildly different from the classical > history are suppressed only by the interference of > similar, canceling histories. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Abstract_formu...
> See also:
> An Introduction into the Feynman Path Integral > A short introduction by Christian Grosche to the use > of Feynman path integrals in quantum mechanics.http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9302097
> Sue...
> > Anybody have an opinion?
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
This is very interesting: "The probability for any fundamental event is given by the square modulus of a complex amplitude."
|
