The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?
BURT
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
BURT
Its physical because it interferes but what its substance is unknown.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
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.
Mitch Raemsch
Andrzej Novak
> Anybody have an opinion?
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.
Hayek
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.
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 ? :-) )
Uwe Hayek.
Huang
> 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.
Sue...
> 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.
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.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_energy_tensor
Today, hydrogen, helium and other gasses ARE
detected in the space where he used affine connections.
"The origin of gravity" [and inertia by "equivalence"]
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
>
> 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.
"Space time"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html
>
> 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 ?
Then you are not in this universe.
>
> 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
"The Origin of Gravity"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
>
> (Would you buy, or sponsor my book, or do you know a good publisher or
> academic promotor ? :-) )
No offence... but no.
Learn some more electrodynamics before you
trying to write books about it.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
>
> Uwe Hayek.
Surfer
wrote:
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]..."
<End extract>
Hayek
> 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.
>
> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_energy_tensor
>
>
> Today, hydrogen, helium and other gasses ARE detected in the space
> where he used affine connections.
>
> "The origin of gravity" [and inertia by "equivalence"]
Gravity is but the gradient of the inertial field.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
>
>> 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.
Gibberish.
> "Space time"
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html
>
>> 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
>
It was "Mass thewe govewn inewtia hewe"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html
> "The Origin of Gravity" http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
>
>
>
>> (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 Belgi隴 naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
PD
> 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.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> - Show quoted text -
The quantum wave is immatterial.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
wrote:
And so is the gravitational field. What problem?
>
> Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. Einstein thought of his gravity as the immatterial curved space-
time.
Good point.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
Newton thought gravity was immaterial, too, three hundred years before
that.
>
> Good point.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
BURT
I wonder why defining something by what it is not is a step forward?
xxein
xxein: Only valid if there is a TOE.
Sue...
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.
We can do that because cases of avian flu are *countable*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
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_formulation
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...
Sanforized
> 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.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/transmission.htm
Understanding the transmission vectors is important.
> We can do that because cases of avian flu are *countable*.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
Not particularly countable where migratory birds are involved.
snip
zookumar yelubandi
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).
visit: www.infowars.com
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Huang
>
> - 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.
Huang
> 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.
>
>
> See also:
>
> An Introduction into the Feynman Path Integral
> A short introduction by Christian Grosche to the use
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anybody have an opinion?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is very interesting:
"The probability for any fundamental event is given by the square
modulus of a complex amplitude."
But what is a "fundamental event" exactly ?