Perhaps it would be a good time to explain my view of gravitational
attraction and repulsion.
If you have read my latest additions to my site, you will know that I
believe that e-m radiation cannot actually intersect with other e-m
radiation. Instead, it goes around other e-m waves by the expansion of
the intersection points into 4 dimensional space. In effect, as e-m
radiation "intersects" 3D space is stretched into the fourth dimension
for the moment of intersection and then it retracts back into the
normal 3D space.
I believe that it is this pressure on 4th dimensional space and the
tendency of objects in our 4 dimensional space to move to alleviate
that pressure that is called "gravity".
This of course assumes that particles are constantly emitting e-m
radiation of wavelegths shorter than we can detect. Personally, I think
that this is highly probably because matter is likely composed of
particles smaller than we can detect, too.
It must be assumed that this consistant e-m radiation of matter is
naturally broadcast in harmony or in unison with the e-m radiation of
other matter. In this case, the interference patterns are the e-m
radiation intersection patterns from separate matter, which indicate
the 4D pressure points, (or as Einstein misinterpreted as 'the
curvature of space').
The point of gravity is to reduce the 4th dimensional pressure by
movement of the e-m sources to reduce or eliminate the interference
(intersection) patterns.
The interesting thing is that when the e-m radiations are emitted in
harmony or unison, the interference patterns and 4D pressure may be
reduced by moving the e-m sources (matter) closer together. The
eliminating effect of such movement overbalances the increase in
intersection amplitude seen as the e-m sources move together.
When the e-m sources are not emitting in unison or harmony, the
intersection amplitude (4d expansion amplitude) overbalances the
decrease in intersection of the e-m waves. In this case, the only
method of decresing 4D pressure is for nature to push the matter apart
and rely on the decrease in amplitude to overbalance the increase in
intersections.
Remember that e-m radiation is a vibration of 3D space with all
amplitudes extending into 4D space. This 4D amplitude of e-m does not
create the gravitational pressure. It is just a vibration "through" 4D
space. When e-m 'intersects', additional 4D space is actually created
for a moment -- this causes pressure.
Hope this is understandable. :)
More wild and crazy ideas are on my website at
http://www.stormloader.com/joshua
Peace,
Joshua
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
You (Joshua) have a wonderful imagination. At times, I really do wish I
could view things so radically.
Anyway, I have a quick question concerning the following passage your wrote
bellow:
>This of course assumes that particles are constantly emitting e-m
>radiation of wavelengths shorter than we can detect. Personally, I think
>that this is highly probably because matter is likely composed of
>particles smaller than we can detect, too.
If you are assuming particles are constantly emitting photons(e&m radiation)
at wavelength which we can't detect (damn high energy photons), how and
where do these particles get the energy to do this?? If there continuously
emitting gammas they must be continually excited and thus must be
continually exposed to an "energy source." Do you see any problems with were
this is going?
Cory
I have a quick question for Joshua. You clam, on your web page, to be very
good in mathematics and analytical reasoning. So, have you derived any
equations or somehow modified Maxwell's and Einstein's equations to
accommodate your theory?
Not in my case. I don't propose to read it.
John Anderson
<snip>
My apologies Yeshua, but it is getting late and I don't have the time to
visit your web site and examine in detail (and critique) your ideas. One
thing stands out to me, however.
It appears your premise (above) is not compatible with the well-established
phenomena of optical interference (which dates back to Isaac Newton). If
e-m radiation cannot actually intersect with other e-m radiation, how are
interference patterns formed?
Tom Davidson
Aurora, CO
<snip sensible stuff>
> ...how are interference patterns formed?
When fringe groups meddle according to a plan.
> Tom Davidson
> Aurora, CO
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
I believe you may have misunderstood. I believe that e-m radiation
appears to intersect in three-dimensional space, but is really passing
without intersecting in the fourth dimension.
Peace,
Joshua
> My apologies Yeshua, but it is getting late and I don't have the time
to
> visit your web site and examine in detail (and critique) your ideas.
One
> thing stands out to me, however.
>
> It appears your premise (above) is not compatible with the well-
established
> phenomena of optical interference (which dates back to Isaac
Newton). If
> e-m radiation cannot actually intersect with other e-m radiation,
how are
> interference patterns formed?
>
> Tom Davidson
> Aurora, CO
>
>
For two photons to interact, they must have the same
coordinates, meaning that they must be at the same location.
If they are at the same location, all four coordinates must
be equal. If their fourth coordinate are not equal to that
of other particles, then they are irrelevant to us since
they would never interact with anything else.
IMO, most photons do not interact because they don't have
the same *energy* level. However, there are times when they
do interact, otherwise mirrors and lenses would not work.
I say this because the "empty space" between atoms is immense
compared to the atoms themselves. Most photons in a beam of
light directed at a mirror would go right through without
interacting. Therefore photons directed at a mirror must be
interacting with the photons bouncing between the atoms and
electrons that comprise the mirror. These interactions cause
the incoming photons to be deflected. Just one man's opinion.
Louis Savain
If any one is interested in how the world really works I can recommend
"QED" by Richard Feynman. This is the man's own account of the theory in
which he won his Nobel prize, and it is in many ways the best of his
popular books, because it is the one in which he really is expert, not
just the opinion of a great physicist.
In article <7qhov3$fd4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Speak to each in accordance with his understanding
> Photons do not interact with each other, they can only be emitted and
> absorbed by charged particles. The workings of mirrors and lenses is
> complex. A photon is absorbed by an electron in the mirror or the
> lens. That creates an imbalance in conservation of energy which must
> be restored. Because there are already photons maintaining the
> internal structure of the mirror or lens, (comprising the e.m. force)
> restoration of the balance of conservation of energy is a matter for
> the whole lens or mirror, not simply the electron that absorbed the
> original photon.
Well you may claim that photons do not interact with each other but
simple logic says otherwise. As I explained in my post, if photons
only interacted with the charged particles of a mirror (or any other
object for that matter) then matter would be transparent. Why? Because
the likelihood of photons hitting electrons or any of the other
particles comprising an object is extremely small. Most photons would
just pass right through. Therefore incoming photons must be
interacting with the EM fields that exist between particles. And we
all know that EM fields are composed of radiating "virtual" photons.
> Ultimately conservation of energy dictates the manner in which a
> photon is re-emitted from the structure, and explains reflection and
> refraction.
I agree although I suspect that the interactions involve multiple
intrinsic properties that combine to cause the photons to be absorbed
and re-emitted at specific angles.
> If any one is interested in how the world really works I can
> recommend "QED" by Richard Feynman. This is the man's own account
> of the theory in which he won his Nobel prize, and it is in many
> ways the best of his popular books, because it is the one in which
> he really is expert, not just the opinion of a great physicist.
I'm sure Feynman is an expert at his own theories but I would not
care if a thousand Feynmans claimed that photons cannot interact with
other photons.
Odd that you accept one part of qed, but not another. I assure you qed
has been properly investigated, and its predictions match the behaviour
of light.
>
>> Ultimately conservation of energy dictates the manner in which a
>> photon is re-emitted from the structure, and explains reflection and
>> refraction.
>
> I agree although I suspect that the interactions involve multiple
>intrinsic properties that combine to cause the photons to be absorbed
>and re-emitted at specific angles.
>
>> If any one is interested in how the world really works I can
>> recommend "QED" by Richard Feynman. This is the man's own account
>> of the theory in which he won his Nobel prize, and it is in many
>> ways the best of his popular books, because it is the one in which
>> he really is expert, not just the opinion of a great physicist.
>
> I'm sure Feynman is an expert at his own theories but I would not
>care if a thousand Feynmans claimed that photons cannot interact with
>other photons.
>
If you study quantum electrodynamics, the theory in which EM fields are
composed of "virtual" photons, you will see that the properties of
light, such as reflection and refraction are described properly if
photons only interact with charged particles. Feynman explains the
theory quite well on a popular level.
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
>[snip]
> Odd that you accept one part of qed, but not another.
I'm sure any theory has at least one grain of truth in it.
> I assure
> you qed has been properly investigated, and its predictions
> match the behaviour
> of light.
Predictions are not necessarily indicators of correct
interpretations, only of correct math.
>[snip]
> > I'm sure Feynman is an expert at his own theories but I would not
> >care if a thousand Feynmans claimed that photons cannot interact with
> >other photons.
> >
> If you study quantum electrodynamics, the theory in which EM
> fields are composed of "virtual" photons, you will see that the
> properties of light, such as reflection and refraction are
> described properly if photons only interact with charged
> particles. Feynman explains the theory quite well on a popular
> level.
I'm sure they are described. But "described properly" is far from the
truth IMO. No one should be so willing to accept a theory (regardless
of the fame of its proponents) as gospel but only as a platform for
further understanding. As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small. The area
surrounding charged particles is filled with so-called "virtual"
photons and, IMO, these are the particles mostly responsible for the
electro-chemical and optical behavior of matter including reflection
and refraction.
Louis Savain
Sorry, but this is not true, has no correspondence with the maths, and
would not lead to correct predictions. Feynman's fame comes from his
understanding of the theory, not the other way round. I recommend him
because he explains it well, not because he is famous. Since the only
thing you wish to do is call all scientists jerks, while spouting forth
crap, I do not know why you are on this site at all. Goodbye.
> Well you may claim that photons do not interact with each other but
> simple logic says otherwise.
"Simple logic" says many things that aren't so, unless you feed it
with axioms based on observation.
> As I explained in my post, if photons
> only interacted with the charged particles of a mirror (or any other
> object for that matter) then matter would be transparent. Why? Because
> the likelihood of photons hitting electrons or any of the other
> particles comprising an object is extremely small.
Why? Are you assuming that photons are point particles?
> Most photons would
> just pass right through. Therefore incoming photons must be
> interacting with the EM fields that exist between particles.
Why? EM fields, by definition, act on charges. Photons are neutral.
> And we
> all know that EM fields are composed of radiating "virtual" photons.
Static electric or magnetic fields are composed of virtual photons.
Radiating electromagnetic (EM) fields are composed of *real* photons.
Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other photons
than with electrons?
> I'm sure Feynman is an expert at his own theories but I would not
> care if a thousand Feynmans claimed that photons cannot interact with
> other photons.
I expect the feeling is mutual.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
>[snip]
> Goodbye.
See ya.
>[snip]
> Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other photons
> than with electrons?
Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.
Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some photons will
interact.
You need to understand QED before making such remarks. Then you would
understand what the words you use actually mean, and why your
statements are false. Basically, anyone who uses the word "photon"
without understanding at least the basics of QED is almost certain to
be wrong.
For an elementary and entertaining introduction to the subject:
Feynman, _QED_.
A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
"find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....
Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all. They
are squiggly lines in Feynman diagrams, and represent quantities
whose 4-momentum must be integrated over. In position space that
is equivalent to integrating over all possible positions for their
endpoints. Then there is the sum over diagrams and the overall
symmetrization over Bosons and antisymmetrization over Fermions....
By the way, it is this antisymmetrization which ensures that
a photon will "find" every charged particle in the universe.
In your case, every electron in the mirror....
> The area
> surrounding charged particles is filled with so-called "virtual"
> photons and, IMO, these are the particles mostly responsible for the
> electro-chemical and optical behavior of matter including reflection
> and refraction.
In QED that is blatantly wrong. And I know of no other theory which
really describes photons (well, electroweak theory, but QED is
essentially a subset of it).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
> >[snip]
> > Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other photons
> > than with electrons?
> Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
> many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
> not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
> photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.
Which doesn't answer my question, unfortunately.
*Why* would they go through without hitting anything? Are they too small?
How did you calculate that 99%? What figures did you assume, and why?
> Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
> depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some photons will
> interact.
So can you provide the equivalent calculation for photon-photon
"interaction"?
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
It seems obvious to me but it may be becasue I've been thinking about
it for a while.
> *Why* would they go through without hitting anything?
> Are they too small?
It is because ordinary matter is mostly empty space.
> How did you calculate that 99%? What figures did you assume, and why?
My understanding is that the electrons, neutrons and protons that
constitute a material object take up less than 1% of the volume of the
object. This varies depending on the mass density of the object.
> > Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
> > depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some
> > photons will interact.
>
> So can you provide the equivalent calculation for photon-photon
> "interaction"?
IMO, the duration of a photon-photon interaction is Planck time, an
extremely small value. This accounts for both absorption and decay.
The direction of the motion of the decayed photons depend on their
original velocity and their polarity.
> Louis Savain wrote:
> > As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
> > particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
> > interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small.
>
>[snip]
> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
> "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
> not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....
It's loose because it's crap. I'm sure QED physicists can come up
experimental proof for this voodoo nonsense. I won't hold my breath.
> Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all.
They are point-like to me. All particles are point-like to me. The
moment you give a particle extent you immediately fall into an infinite
regress dilemma. But I would not put it past modern physics. They
love infinite regress.
> They
> are squiggly lines in Feynman diagrams, and represent quantities
> whose 4-momentum must be integrated over.
Feynman must have had a direct link with God who must have
undoubtedly explained to him that photons have sizes that can be
represented by squiggly lines.
> In position space that
> is equivalent to integrating over all possible positions for their
> endpoints. Then there is the sum over diagrams and the overall
> symmetrization over Bosons and antisymmetrization over Fermions....
This sounds like you're reciting from a bible.
> By the way, it is this antisymmetrization which ensures that
> a photon will "find" every charged particle in the universe.
> In your case, every electron in the mirror....
>
> > The area
> > surrounding charged particles is filled with so-called "virtual"
> > photons and, IMO, these are the particles mostly responsible for the
> > electro-chemical and optical behavior of matter including reflection
> > and refraction.
>
> In QED that is blatantly wrong.
I really don't care.
> And I know of no other theory which
> really describes photons (well, electroweak theory, but QED is
> essentially a subset of it).
Well now you have my theory. And my theory does not postulate a
bunch of voodoo photons travelling every possible path as if by magic.
I boggles the mind that so-called intelligent people can believe in
such blatant crap.
This is all just plain wrong in the only theory we have which describes
photons, QED. See my other recent post in this thread for more details.
You seem to be thinking of phostons as pointlike particles, and that
is just plain wrong; they are mathematical abstractions in a perturbative
approximation to QED.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
| A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
| "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
| not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....
It seems to me that properties, similar to the ones attributed by
scientists and theologians of the past to God, angels and so on,
are now attributed by physicists to elementary particles.
| Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all. They
| are squiggly lines in Feynman diagrams, and represent quantities
| whose 4-momentum must be integrated over. In position space that
| is equivalent to integrating over all possible positions for their
| endpoints. Then there is the sum over diagrams and the overall
| symmetrization over Bosons and antisymmetrization over Fermions....
|
| By the way, it is this antisymmetrization which ensures that
| a photon will "find" every charged particle in the universe.
| In your case, every electron in the mirror....
For me it would be almost impossible to believe in such
strangenesses. Do you really believe in these explanations?
Do you think that they agree with Ockham's razor?
Maybe you could profit from studying my short text 'Spacial
extension of elementary particles':
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a07
Cheers
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
Spaceship paradox definitively refuting Special Relativity:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/paradox.html (very short)
I really don't give a rat's behind what photons are in QED. The last
time I looked, mathematical abstractions do not cause people to see
images on their retinae. Photons are real particles. Anything else
has nothing to do with physics. QED's description of photons is a
bunch of chicken shit voodoo that has nothing to do with reality.
>Maybe you could profit from studying my short text 'Spacial
>extension of elementary particles':
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a07
>
If you do not grasp it you could not possibly advance anything more
sensible, since your theory would have to be identical in its
predictions to this one. It would have to use the same mathematics, but
say something different as to how that mathematics is to be interpreted.
For example instead of saying that the photon travels over all possible
paths, that it has a potential to travel over all possible paths, and
that the probability of its travelling over a particular one is given by
a formula whose origin you would have to explain.
QED can be interpreted as the statistical behaviour of point-like
particles in a structure in which time and space are simply numbers
resulting from measurement, not part of a pre-existent manifold. You may
understand what I am getting at if you conceive of a topological
structure built out of Feynman-like diagrams, in which only the topology
of the structure matters, and in which electrons have a property of
time. From particular configurations in the diagrams (photon exchange
and return) metric relations can be built. The process is essentially
the same as radar, so Minkowsky space-time becomes a statistical
property of the structure. It turns out that quantum logic is the
correct statistical analysis for a structure of this type.
The details are in
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906030
An Interpretation of Quantum Logic
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906042
The Fabric of Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906060
The Fabric of Space-time II: Gravity by Photon Exchange
Louis Savain: "Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons,
by many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were not
filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming photons (over 99%
IMO) would go right through without hitting anything."
What you're getting, Louis, is the usual bobbing, weaving, and frustration of
Gurus in current theory, who can't answer objections to the prevalent models.
It's not their fault, because the models themselves are muddled. (Feynman never
pretended to understand QED.)
But your model is just as wrong. Light doesn't consist of countless numbers
of classical "photons", as though they were little fuzzballs, raining along.
Neither does matter consist of the classical particles called "electrons". In
both cases, propagation of the fields is by wave motion. Particle aspects show
up only at the point of interaction. This is obvious, if you consider that
*point* particles can't have any such property as "wavelength". What QED
describes as "photons" or "electrons" means only that the energy and momentum
have to be quantized (and conserved), to match experiment. QED does this ad
hoc.
Thus, a UV light beam from the Sun is described entirely by Maxwell's
equations, as a plane wave - until it hits your arm. At which point the
complete wave system disappears, and is replaced by an energy quantum absorbed
by a speck of your melanin. The same thing applies to electrons. They behave as
a wave system in a two slit experiment, or in an atom, which interferes like
any propagating wave. This is the case even if only a "single electron" was
emitted from a cathode. The particle aspect shows up when the wave hits a
screen, or when the electron is emitted from an excited atom. At which point
the wave function "collapses," and a scintillation or track excitation appears.
The only thing that complicates this, is that the vacuum is dense - with
whatever the waves, themselves, consist of. However, it is also able to create
particles, on occasion, and these can intervene in the muddle. The result is
that a light wave can sometimes do its thing with an electron from the
background, and then regenerate itself as a wave. So a pair of light waves
*can* interact - as you propose, Louis - by using vacuum particles as
intermediaries. -Stan
>[snip]
> In both cases, propagation of the fields is by wave motion.
> Particle aspects show up only at the point of interaction.
I reject continous structures, i.e., infinitely smooth constructs
like waves, as being 100% illogical for many reasons, one of which
being that they require infinity for their every existence. That alone
kills continuity dead in my mind.
> This is obvious, if you consider that *point* particles can't
> have any such property as "wavelength".
True, point particles do not have wavelength but a huge number of
them may indeed behave like waves as has being amply demonstrated by
computer experiments in cellular automata. Although I am an inveterate
aetherist, I completely reject the notion that light is a wave in a
mdedium. Ligth definitely consists of particles of various energy
levels from Planck energy to extremely high levels. I realize that my
arguments here will not sway a wave/continuity enthusiast but so be it.
Louis Savain
-It's all about particles, their intrinsic properties and their
interactions.
Hmm, okay I've not studied QED (though I've read that book by Feynman),
but I've seen path integral derivations in quantum class. First of all,
I *do* find the path integral formulation very elegant. However,
problem with saying the photon actually samples every possible path
is like....okay, in E&M, you have retarded and advanced potentials.
Do people actually think the advanced potentials are physically
meaningful? (I dunno, maybe they do..)
--
Scott Lanning: slan...@buphy.bu.edu, http://physics.bu.edu/~slanning
"I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I
find it delightful." --Richard Feynman
>In article <37CE8D68...@lucent.com>,
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> Louis Savain wrote:
>> > As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
>> > particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
>> > interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small.
>>
>>[snip]
>> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
>> "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
>> not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....
> It's loose because it's crap. I'm sure QED physicists can come up
>experimental proof for this voodoo nonsense. I won't hold my breath.
Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a fair
job of illustrating this.
>> Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all.
> They are point-like to me. All particles are point-like to me. The
>moment you give a particle extent you immediately fall into an infinite
>regress dilemma. But I would not put it past modern physics. They
>love infinite regress.
If two particles are "point-like" then they can approach each other to
any specified distance greater than zero, correct? How do you avoid
the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...
Just curious,
JeffMo
"[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to bottom."
-- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the Philippines
No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
> >> Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all.
>
> > They are point-like to me. All particles are point-like to me.
> > The moment you give a particle extent you immediately fall into
> > an infinite regress dilemma. But I would not put it past modern
> > physics. They love infinite regress.
>
> If two particles are "point-like" then they can approach each other to
> any specified distance greater than zero, correct?
Well, no. You are assuming that distance is infinitely divisible. I
assume a discrete universe with discrete positions for particles. The
Planck length is the most likely candidate for the smallest possible
distance.
> How do you avoid
> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
> separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
> zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...
The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.
> Just curious,
Very insightful questions.
Louis Savain
Hehe...perturbative approximation...I like that. Before we start bombarding
each other with photon torpedos (or perturbative approximations to same, as
the case may be) I'd like to know how the photon proponents imagine them to
have an independent existence. To my mind this inescapably requires some sort
of ether, which would violate special relativity unless some sort of ether
drag was hypothesized.
That means all you do is talk then. Anybody can say what you say.
> The last
> time I looked, mathematical abstractions do not cause people to see
> images on their retinae. Photons are real particles.
1. Says who?
2. What does "real particles" mean exactly?
> Anything else
> has nothing to do with physics.
An opinion.
> QED's description of photons is a
> bunch of chicken shit voodoo that has nothing to do with reality.
An opinion.
--
Jan Bielawski )\._.,--....,'``.
Molecular Simulations Inc. /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
San Diego, CA fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
j...@msi.com http://www.msi.com
-disclaimer-
unless stated otherwise, everything in the above message is personal opinion
and nothing in it is an official statement of molecular simulations inc.
>[snip]
> An opinion.
You know something Bielawski, when you're angry your IQ suddenly
lowers down to room temperature. Like your buddy Tom Roberts, the
defender of establishment crackpottery, you're wasting my time with
your dim witted comments. Ciao!
Tom Roberts wrote:
}
} Louis Savain wrote:
} > Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
} > many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
} > not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
} > photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.
}
} This is all just plain wrong in the only theory we have which describes
} photons, QED. See my other recent post in this thread for more details.
Presumably a post that notices that electrons are in QED as well and
applies the next sentence to them as well as to photons.
} You seem to be thinking of phostons as pointlike particles, and that
} is just plain wrong; they are mathematical abstractions in a perturbative
} approximation to QED.
In article <37CEF949...@dakx.com>
d...@dakx.com writes:
>
>Hehe...perturbative approximation...I like that. Before we start bombarding
>each other with photon torpedos (or perturbative approximations to same, as
>the case may be) I'd like to know how the photon proponents imagine them to
>have an independent existence. To my mind this inescapably requires some sort
>of ether, which would violate special relativity unless some sort of ether
>drag was hypothesized.
Is an ether required to have an electron? Why or why not?
Is it required for a massive vector boson like the Z0?
If an ether is not required for one particle, why should it be required
for another?
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Long time, no see.
Mdern physics shows that we cannot describe point-like particles in a
space-time continuum. Most of the attempts to understand this say that
particles cannot be point-like, but I think it is far more accurate to
say that the space-time continuum cannot exist. It is possible
mathematically to define points in a discrete topological structure, and
to show that the metric relations of space-time approximate properties
of the structure.
The trouble is that that can be calculated and disproved.
> It seems obvious to me but it may be becasue I've been thinking about
> it for a while.
> > *Why* would they go through without hitting anything?
> > Are they too small?
> It is because ordinary matter is mostly empty space.
> > How did you calculate that 99%? What figures did you assume, and why?
> My understanding is that the electrons, neutrons and protons that
> constitute a material object take up less than 1% of the volume of the
> object. This varies depending on the mass density of the object.
What unstated assumption are you making here about the size of the
photons relative to the other particles?
> > > Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
> > > depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some
> > > photons will interact.
> >
> > So can you provide the equivalent calculation for photon-photon
> > "interaction"?
> IMO, the duration of a photon-photon interaction is Planck time, an
> extremely small value.
That's a time, not a probability or a cross-section.
How does your theory calculate the probability of photon-photon interaction?
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
>In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
> jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a fair
>> job of illustrating this.
> No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
>possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
>superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
>exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
>plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
>particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
How does the cascade know not to begin when a detector is placed near
one of the slits? What are the properties of this "particulate
aether?" Does it lead to the same results as the standard model?
In other words, are you objecting only to "patent absurd[ity]" in your
personal opinion, or does this model lead to predictions at odds with
those made by the standard model?
>> How do you avoid
>> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
>> separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
>> zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...
> The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.
Of course it would. Does it also put an upper-bound on maximum
density, say in a neutron star or black hole? Why or why not?
>In article <FHGEq...@msi.com>,
> j...@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:
>>[snip]
>> An opinion.
> You know something Bielawski, when you're angry your IQ suddenly
>lowers down to room temperature. Like your buddy Tom Roberts, the
>defender of establishment crackpottery, you're wasting my time with
>your dim witted comments. Ciao!
Did you read him as angry?
>In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>, JeffMo
><jef...@dipstick.cfw.com> writes
>>
>>If two particles are "point-like" then they can approach each other to
>>any specified distance greater than zero, correct? How do you avoid
>>the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
>>separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
>>zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...
>Hi, JeffMo,
>Long time, no see.
>Mdern physics shows that we cannot describe point-like particles in a
>space-time continuum. Most of the attempts to understand this say that
>particles cannot be point-like,
Louis has already denied this possibility. I was just asking what
seemed to me to be the "next" questions...
>but I think it is far more accurate to
>say that the space-time continuum cannot exist. It is possible
>mathematically to define points in a discrete topological structure, and
>to show that the metric relations of space-time approximate properties
>of the structure.
It is certainly possible to do so. Lately, I've been trying to think
of experiments which do a better job of determining directly whether
space-time is continuous or discrete. Can anybody point to any
research which addresses this, or is it one of these situations where
there are simply two different interpretations that can not be
empirically distinguished at present?
The real trouble is that you are lying since I made it up.
My particulate aether consists of photons of which there are four
types.
> In other words, are you objecting only to "patent absurd[ity]" in your
> personal opinion,
Not just my personal opinion. It should be absurd to anyone with a
grain of common sense. The idea that a particle can be everywhere at
the same time is ludicrous. Children can do better than that. The
reason that supposedly intelligent people are coming up with such
nonsense is that they are playing politics. Any other interpretation
would come dangerously close to some sort of aether. And that is
anathema to the hypocritical priesthood in power. This sort of physics
is what I've been calling "chicken shit physics." It does not belong
in science.
> or does this model lead to predictions at odds with
> those made by the standard model?
The standard model does not make predictions in this context. It is
just interpreting (wrongly) experimental results *after* the fact. The
standard model did not predict the results of the two slit experiment.
> >> How do you avoid
> >> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For
> >> example, as the separation between two oppositely-charged
> >> particles' centers goes to zero, the electrostatic force
> >> between them goes to infinity...
>
> > The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.
>
> Of course it would. Does it also put an upper-bound on maximum
> density, say in a neutron star or black hole? Why or why not?
It does put a maximum limit on "spatial" density. What I mean is
that, at that limit, particles are separated only by the Planck
length. Indeed I am convinced that the aether is a "lattice" composed
of particles at maximum "spatial" density. It does not put a limit on
mass/energy density because there is no upper limit to the mass/energy
of a particle at any position in the lattice. BTW, the whole black
hole business is another example of imagination run wild, not unlike
the single photon going through a quintillion paths at the same time.
I make no assumption about the size of particles since size, IMO, is
a macroscopic phenomenon, having to do with with a collection of
particles. I reject the notion that particles have sizes since that
would introduce a nasty infinite regress problem. You know, the one
that goes "if particle x is made of particle y, what is y made of?
etc..." I absolutely abhor turtle theories.
> > > > Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
> > > > depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some
> > > > photons will interact.
> > >
> > > So can you provide the equivalent calculation for photon-photon
> > > "interaction"?
>
> > IMO, the duration of a photon-photon interaction is Planck time,
> > an extremely small value.
>
> That's a time, not a probability or a cross-section.
> How does your theory calculate the probability of photon-photon
> interaction?
Well since I don't believe that particles have sizes, all that cross-
section stuff is irrelevant to me. Two photons (or any two particles)
have 100% chance of interacting if their positions are equal.
Otherwise the probability is 0.
Actually I think almost all the research in quantum physics does this,
as well as much theorising even as long ago as in Greek times. It is
largely a question of how to interpret the evidence, and also
understanding what are we really doing when we take a measurement.
The classical idea of measurement is that a quantity exists, and then we
come along and try to measure it. A more modern idea is that the
quantity actually is the result of the measurement. The orthodox
interpretation of quantum mechanics, for example, does not permit the
concept of the position of a particle except in measurement.
As the result of measurement is always a whole number in units of the
resolution of the apparatus, we find that all empirical quantities are
discrete. The presumption that there is, in addition, a space-time
continuum, leads to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics and in my view
refutes the notion of an ontological continuum.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906030
completes the idea expressed here
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906042
describes how a particle structure can display the properties of
Minkowsky space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
essentially qed in a discrete structure in which particles are point-
like, but there is no continuum.
"Virtual particles" are something a bit different. They're
basically a name for the internal lines of a Feynman diagram.
What degree of reality one ascribes to them is left to the
reader.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Do not think that it is so original idea. Before you make suggestions
you should recognise that scientific theory has been worked out by
people who are good at having these ideas, and working out what follows,
and that they have done it as a full time job. The principle is even
used in the theory of gluons. And calculations are done on it. In this
case you put forward a theory which could be made rigorous and
calculated in principal, even though you yourself could not calculate
it. No theoretical physicist would actually bother to carry out such a
calculation, since we have a theory which works perfectly, and it is
obvious that yours will not give the same results, and fairly well known
to physicists that it has technical difficulties too subtle to explain
which mean that it can be written off.
Actually the theory does not say that a particle can be everywhere at
the same time. It says it has a possibility that it may go anywhere, and
provides rules for calculating the probability that it does. The rules
involve summing over all space. But no physicist of any merit interprets
the rules as meaning that the particle is really everywhere at once.
> The
>reason that supposedly intelligent people are coming up with such
>nonsense is that they are playing politics.
No, it is because they understand the problem, and because you do not
understand what they try to tell you.
>Any other interpretation
>would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.
No, it is because other theories give wrong results.
>And that is
>anathema to the hypocritical priesthood in power.
There are plenty of physicists who find the ideas of quantum mechanics
unsatisfactory.
>This sort of physics
>is what I've been calling "chicken shit physics." It does not belong
>in science.
Come up with a proper theory then. First you must understand the
problems. It takes most physicists several years to do that. At the
moment you are like someone who has never played an instrument trying to
give a public concert. Quite frankly you are embarrassing. What you are
doing now is chicken shit physics. And there are plenty more like you
scattered across the net. Mostly it is idiots like you that obscure the
way for genuine advances in mathematics and science, as when Gauss threw
Abel's work in the bin, thinking it was from another crank, and when
Cauchy lost Galois' work.
For me that is easier to accept because potentials are usually
things which can't be physically observed. That's kinda how I
think of the quantum wavefunction too; the "particle" isn't
necessarily smeared all over the place but has a probability of
being observed in many different places. Nonetheless I wouldn't
deny the computational utility of, say, thinking of the photon
travelling over all possible paths.
--
Scott Lanning: slan...@buphy.bu.edu, http://physics.bu.edu/~slanning
"I do believe God gave me a spark of genius, but he quenched it
in misery." --Edgar Allan Poe
>[butt kissing stuff deleted]
If there is something worse than an establishment crackpot, it is a
butt kisser. I was under the distinct impression that you had promised
not to respond to my posts. Or did you say goodbye to me out of spite?
Yes. Bielawski and I had our close encounters before. He's feeling
hurt lately for some reason.
I forgot to address this in my previous reply. There is always a
cascade of interactions whenever whenever something is moving in the
aether. In the case of charged particles, the efffect manifests itself
as EM radiation. In the case of a photon it manifests itself also as
EM radiation but with a different signature. This has to do with the
polarity (and other intrinsic properties) of the photon in question.
IMO, in the two-slit experiment, the interference is highly dependent
on the timing of the interactions. The timing varies with distance
from the slits.
You missed this one.
>>What are the properties of this "particulate
>> aether?" Does it lead to the same results as the standard model?
> My particulate aether consists of photons of which there are four
>types.
You missed the last question, too.
>> In other words, are you objecting only to "patent absurd[ity]" in your
>> personal opinion,
> Not just my personal opinion. It should be absurd to anyone with a
>grain of common sense.
Opinion.
>The idea that a particle can be everywhere at
>the same time is ludicrous.
Opinion.
>Children can do better than that.
Opinion.
> The
>reason that supposedly intelligent people are coming up with such
>nonsense is that they are playing politics.
Opinion.
>Any other interpretation
>would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.
Patently false opinion.
>And that is
>anathema to the hypocritical priesthood in power.
Opinion.
>This sort of physics
>is what I've been calling "chicken shit physics."
Opinion.
>It does not belong
>in science.
Opinion.
I have labeled all your statements above, just to make sure. I can
assure you that I have no agenda w.r.t. "aether politics" or "anti-
aether politics," though you needn't believe that, but I just wanted
to illustrate that you gave NO reasoning to support your assertions
above. You simply repeated that same assertion in multiple forms,
coupled with strong emotional and/or pejorative appeals. This is
sometimes, but not always, an indication that very strong opinions are
held that have little substantiation in rational analysis or empirical
fact.
I welcome any expansion you can provide as to why you hold these
opinions so strongly. Or is it just a myopic view that what you find
"ludicrous" holds the status of universal, inevitable truth?
>> or does this model lead to predictions at odds with
>> those made by the standard model?
> The standard model does not make predictions in this context.
Perhaps I misunderstand the context, then. I thought that development
of the current model of the propagation of wavefunctions had been
influenced by many of these "slit" experiments.
>It is
>just interpreting (wrongly) experimental results *after* the fact. The
>standard model did not predict the results of the two slit experiment.
I identified a potential problem with *your* model's ex post facto
re-interpretations, as well, but if you fail to respond, you can
hardly call your model better.
>> >> How do you avoid
>> >> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For
>> >> example, as the separation between two oppositely-charged
>> >> particles' centers goes to zero, the electrostatic force
>> >> between them goes to infinity...
>>
>> > The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.
>>
>> Of course it would. Does it also put an upper-bound on maximum
>> density, say in a neutron star or black hole? Why or why not?
> It does put a maximum limit on "spatial" density. What I mean is
>that, at that limit, particles are separated only by the Planck
>length. Indeed I am convinced that the aether is a "lattice" composed
>of particles at maximum "spatial" density. It does not put a limit on
>mass/energy density because there is no upper limit to the mass/energy
>of a particle at any position in the lattice.
If I understand what you are saying, then we should be able to compute
a maximum rest-mass capacity for any given volume of space, and you
would theorize that singularities do not exist.
If the lattice is already full of particles, how do they move? And
how do we observe particles on top of what is already in the lattice?
> BTW, the whole black
>hole business is another example of imagination run wild, not unlike
>the single photon going through a quintillion paths at the same time.
I wouldn't say the *whole* black hole business is imagination run
wild, because the empirical evidence for black holes or something very
like them is getting stronger all the time.
In any case, how do you reconcile your claim that a given volume of
aether lattice can increase in energy without bound, with your implied
claim of impossibility for the task of packing a volume of space with
sufficient energy to keep light from escaping the neighborhood?
I have been quietly reading this thread and now have a quick question for
Mr. Savain. If you believe electrons are point particles, do you believe
neutrons and protons are also point particles? If, so, then how do you
explain phenomena such as neutron activation, which is a processes by which
a neutron interacts with a nucleus to excite it. Or take fission, for
example. If, as you I think you will say, neutrons and protons are "points"
then there can't be a non-zero probability of these reactions occurring.
But, I bet some of the electricity that your using to post messages was
generated using fission!
Cory
Louis Savain wrote in message <7qn1ca$asj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
> jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <37CE8D68...@lucent.com>,
>> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Louis Savain wrote:
>> >> > As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
>> >> > particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
>> >> > interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small.
>> >>
>> >>[snip]
>> >> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is
>> >> guaranteed to "find" each and every charged particle in the
>> >> universe, pointlike or not. But this phrasing is extremely
>> >> loose....
>>
>> > It's loose because it's crap. I'm sure QED physicists can come up
>> >experimental proof for this voodoo nonsense. I won't hold my breath.
>>
>> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a fair
>> job of illustrating this.
>
> No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
>possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
>superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
>exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
>plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
>particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
>
>> >> Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all.
>>
>> > They are point-like to me. All particles are point-like to me.
>> > The moment you give a particle extent you immediately fall into
>> > an infinite regress dilemma. But I would not put it past modern
>> > physics. They love infinite regress.
>>
>> If two particles are "point-like" then they can approach each other to
>> any specified distance greater than zero, correct?
>
> Well, no. You are assuming that distance is infinitely divisible. I
>assume a discrete universe with discrete positions for particles. The
>Planck length is the most likely candidate for the smallest possible
>distance.
>
>> How do you avoid
>> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
>> separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
>> zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...
>
> The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.
>
>> Just curious,
>
> Very insightful questions.
>
>In article <8YQz3.3229$Fc.3...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
> jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
>> > jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>>
>> >> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time
>> >> do a fair job of illustrating this.
>>
>> > No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
>> >possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
>> >superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
>> >exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
>> >plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
>> >particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
>>
>> How does the cascade know not to begin when a detector is placed near
>> one of the slits?
> I forgot to address this in my previous reply. There is always a
>cascade of interactions whenever whenever something is moving in the
>aether.
But in the case when a suitable detector is placed by one of the
slits, the interference pattern disappears. How do you reconcile this
with your claim here that the cascade of interactions ALWAYS occurs?
> In the case of charged particles, the efffect manifests itself
>as EM radiation. In the case of a photon it manifests itself also as
>EM radiation but with a different signature. This has to do with the
>polarity (and other intrinsic properties) of the photon in question.
> IMO, in the two-slit experiment, the interference is highly dependent
>on the timing of the interactions. The timing varies with distance
>from the slits.
Again, this does not address the disappearance or diminishing of the
interference pattern in the experiments where we attempt to detect
WHICH slit the particle "chose", as opposed to those experiments where
no detector is present, and standard theory goes with the notion that
the possible paths of the particle interfere, giving the pattern.
Maybe it would help if you I could give you references to the
experiments in question, since your answer looks (to me) to be highly
unresponsive. I will attempt to retrieve them over this weekend.
You may not have read one of my posts in which I wrote that I'm an
aetherist. IMO, particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons do
not exist in a vacuum. Matter exists and moves in a 4-D particulate
aether (why 4-D is another story). Indeed, because of my strong
convictions with regard to causality, I believe there can be no motion
at all without an aether providing a causal mechanism. Motion consists
of a series of interactions (absorption/decay). These interactions and
the emitted photons are what causes EM "fields" and even gravity which
I take to be a side effect of EM.
I also subscribe to the notion that no two elementary particles can
interact unless they have equal position. IMO, elementary particles
are constantly interacting with a particulate aether and exchanging
high energy photons. These interactions cause them to be in constant
back and forth motion relative one another. Given enough energy
(temperature) they can be caused to "collide", i.e, be made to have
equal positions. Depending on their properties at the time of
"collision", an interaction will occur. There's more to it than that
but this will do for now.
If you do, how is it possible to reconcile your views on collisions
occurring only when particles have equal positions with the fact from
quantum mechanics that two fermions can't occupy the same space (the wave
function is identically zero in this case)?
Cory
Louis Savain wrote in message <7qpmls$85t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Cory
See below.
> > In the case of charged particles, the efffect manifests itself
> > as EM radiation. In the case of a photon it manifests itself also
> > as EM radiation but with a different signature. This has to do
> > with the polarity (and other intrinsic properties) of the photon
> > in question. IMO, in the two-slit experiment, the interference is
> > highly dependent on the timing of the interactions. The timing
> > varies with distance from the slits.
>
> Again, this does not address the disappearance or diminishing of the
> interference pattern in the experiments where we attempt to detect
> WHICH slit the particle "chose", as opposed to those experiments where
> no detector is present, and standard theory goes with the notion that
> the possible paths of the particle interfere, giving the pattern.
As I said, it has to do with timing. It takes time for particles to
arrive at the detector. In contrast to the QED interpretation, in a
cascade situation there are a lot more than one photon involved. The
emission of a photon sets off secondary emissions in the aether along
the path of travel. These secondary photons in turn set off more
emissions and so on, some of which go through the slits. If the
detector is closer to one of the slits, it receives photons from the
near slit sooner than it gets hit by photons from the far slit. The
phase difference is what causes the different inteference patterns
depending on the placement of the detector relative to the slits. IMO,
the placement of the photon generator will also affect the patterns.
This is not entirely unlike waves in a medium although I don't
subscribe to the oscillating medium interpretation that most aetherists
seem to have embraced. Light IMO, consists of streams of huge numbers
of photons of varying energy levels, which said photons setting off
secondary emissions.
>[snip]
> >The idea that a particle can be everywhere at
> >the same time is ludicrous.
>
> Opinion.
Your reply, too, is an opinion. I take it that you don't think that
the QED claim is an opinion (however patently false) and that you think
you have references to experimental data that can detect a particle in
multiple places at once. But more than experimental data (which can be
fudged and which do not exist in this case), the important thing here
is to provide a *logical* mechanism whereby a particle can have
multiple positions simultaneously, and still be the same particle, let
alone all possible positions. Those of us who are familiar with
Leibniz's "Identity of indiscernibles" can only laugh at the silliness
of it all.
>[snip]
> >Any other interpretation
> >would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.
>
> Patently false opinion.
In your opinion, of course. The fact remains that refusing to allow
for the existence of multiple photons and postulating multiple
simultaneous paths for a single photon is a way to effectively say that
you will not even consider a more plausible interpretation because it
subsumes the existence of an aether. With a single particle doing the
work of a multitude of particles, who needs an aether? This same
reasoning went into the conjuring of so-called virtual photons. Well,
you may not need an aether, but you sure could use a brain transplant.
>[snip]
> I have labeled all your statements above, just to make sure. I can
> assure you that I have no agenda w.r.t. "aether politics" or "anti-
> aether politics," though you needn't believe that, but I just wanted
> to illustrate that you gave NO reasoning to support your assertions
> above. You simply repeated that same assertion in multiple forms,
> coupled with strong emotional and/or pejorative appeals. This is
> sometimes, but not always, an indication that very strong opinions are
> held that have little substantiation in rational analysis or empirical
> fact.
Such a criticism can also be thrown at the proponents of QED's
magical, Alice-in-wonderland, I'm-everywhere particles.
> I welcome any expansion you can provide as to why you hold these
> opinions so strongly. Or is it just a myopic view that what you find
> "ludicrous" holds the status of universal, inevitable truth?
Try asking the same question to the proponents of the multiple-paths
nonsense.
> >> or does this model lead to predictions at odds with
> >> those made by the standard model?
>
> > The standard model does not make predictions in this context.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand the context, then. I thought that development
> of the current model of the propagation of wavefunctions had been
> influenced by many of these "slit" experiments.
If the current model was influenced by these experiments then it
certainly did not predict them. Aren't we putting the cart before the
horse here? Besides, accurate predictions do not imply correct
interpretation but only correct extrapolated math. The Maya could
predict eclipses many years in advance. Does that mean they had an
understanding of gravitational attraction? No. They just had a good
system (realy a collection of clever tricks) for prediction, not unlike
the epicycles of medieval Europe, only better.
> > It is just interpreting (wrongly) experimental results *after*
> > the fact. The standard model did not predict the results of the
> > two slit experiment.
>
> I identified a potential problem with *your* model's ex post facto
> re-interpretations, as well, but if you fail to respond, you can
> hardly call your model better.
My model is better because it does not postulate magical behaviors
for particles that fly in the face of logic.
> >> >> How do you avoid
> >> >> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For
> >> >> example, as the separation between two oppositely-charged
> >> >> particles' centers goes to zero, the electrostatic force
> >> >> between them goes to infinity...
> >>
> >> > The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete
> >> > positions.
> >>
> >> Of course it would. Does it also put an upper-bound on maximum
> >> density, say in a neutron star or black hole? Why or why not?
>
> > It does put a maximum limit on "spatial" density. What I mean is
> >that, at that limit, particles are separated only by the Planck
> >length. Indeed I am convinced that the aether is a "lattice"
> > composed of particles at maximum "spatial" density. It does not
> > put a limit on mass/energy density because there is no upper limit
> > to the mass/energy of a particle at any position in the lattice.
>
> If I understand what you are saying, then we should be able to compute
> a maximum rest-mass capacity for any given volume of space, and you
> would theorize that singularities do not exist.
Now exactly. We would be able to compute a maximum number of
*discrete positions* for each volume of space. Mass (or energy) is a
separate issue because each position can have any number of bosons
(including photons of different energy levels). In addition, as I've
said, there is no limit to the mass of a particle. The mass of an
elementary particle has nothing to do with size. And you are correct,
I do not believe in singularities. What you interpret as
singularities, I reinterpret as "holes" or empty regions in a 4-D
aether (although my mind is not entirely made up on it). Things go in
but do not come out. They just come to complete stop. It would not
surprise me if so-called black holes suddenly disappear from "sight".
Since we only "see" a 3-D cross-section of it, there is no way to know
how far it "extends" in the fourth dimension.
> If the lattice is already full of particles, how do they move? And
> how do we observe particles on top of what is already in the lattice?
IMO, and this has to do with my absolute conviction of the need for
causality, motion cannot take place without interactions. Nothing
moves without cause, regardless of what you (or I) have been taught.
All particles, including photons move by interacting with other
particles in the aether. This is what causes the cascade effect that I
mentioned. The primary purpose of the aether is to facilitate motion,
not to resist it.
> > BTW, the whole black
> >hole business is another example of imagination run wild, not unlike
> >the single photon going through a quintillion paths at the same time.
>
> I wouldn't say the *whole* black hole business is imagination run
> wild, because the empirical evidence for black holes or something very
> like them is getting stronger all the time.
I'm sure there is evidence for something but whether the evidence
supports this laughable singularity business is far from proven.
> In any case, how do you reconcile your claim that a given volume of
> aether lattice can increase in energy without bound, with your implied
> claim of impossibility for the task of packing a volume of space with
> sufficient energy to keep light from escaping the neighborhood?
See above.
Feynman suggested that all particles have finite existence and so are in
some sense virtual.
- Gerry Quinn
Without wishing to support Mr Savain, I would like to support the idea
that electrons and photons are point particles. Neutrons and protons
consist primarily of quarks, but in addition to the three point-like
quarks which identify them, they also "contain" a cloud of "virtual"
point-like particles.
> Do you believe any of the theories on wave mechanics?
I believe only in the existence of particles, their intrinsic
properties and their interactions. I don't believe in continuous
structures such as fields and waves. I amy use them but only as a
convenient way to describe the collective behavior of huge numbers of
"point" particles. I arrived at my convictions regarding continuity
through the rigorous application of logic and by rejecting any solution
that involves an infinite regress or infinity in general. If things do
appear continuous at the macro level, it is because we are not looking
close enough. Any interpretation of physical phemnomena that ascribes
size or extent to elementary particles is flawed. The logical case
against the existence of particle size is unassailable.
> If you do, how is it possible to reconcile your views on collisions
> occurring only when particles have equal positions with the fact from
> quantum mechanics that two fermions can't occupy the same space (the
> wave function is identically zero in this case)?
Well, ask yourself this question: how does a fermion know of the
existence of another in a small region so as to avoid moving into that
region? Do fermions have psychic powers? I don't think so.
Fermions (like every other particle) interact with the aether and the
result of the interactions is a constant streams of radiating particles
(photons) from the loci of interactions. Some of these emitted photons
in turn interact with other fermions causing them move either away from
or toward each other. So these streams are what cause electrostatic
attraction and repulsion between charged particles. Does that mean
that two fermions can never interact? No. In fact I believe (in
constrast to the Bohr model) that electrons in an atom do interact with
the nucleus in a constant back and forth motion. I mean that electrons
do not orbit the nucleus but fall into it, react strongly with it and
are quickly emitted on the other side. They move a very short distance
away from the nucleus and are then pulled back in by radiating
photons. The frequency of this back and forth motion depends on many
factors which, in turn, give materials their disctinctive spectral
signature.
So am I saying that fermions can come together and interact?
Certainly. But they are usually prevented from doing so because of
their interactions with the aether. When they do interact, the
interactions are highly energetic and the decay time may approach
Planck time.
Louis Savain
-It's all particles.
Why start with a perfect set of premises, and then spoil it by
introducing interactions which do not model physical law? And spoil it
more by throwing abuse at theories which do model nature. Everything you
say above is given in
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
but it shows that you only need the photon-electron interaction to get
observable physical law.
> In article <7quke8$duj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_savain@my-
> deja.com> writes
> >In article <8yZz3.4640$J72.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> > "cahrens" <cah...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Do you believe any of the theories on wave mechanics?
> >
> > I believe only in the existence of particles, their intrinsic
> >properties and their interactions. I don't believe in continuous
> >structures such as fields and waves. I amy use them but only as a
> >convenient way to describe the collective behavior of huge numbers of
> >"point" particles. I arrived at my convictions regarding continuity
> >through the rigorous application of logic and by rejecting any
> >solution that involves an infinite regress or infinity in general.
> >If things do appear continuous at the macro level, it is because we
> >are not looking close enough. Any interpretation of physical
> >phemnomena that ascribes size or extent to elementary particles is
> >flawed. The logical case against the existence of particle size is
> >unassailable.
>
> Why start with a perfect set of premises, and then spoil it by
> introducing interactions which do not model physical law?
In your opinion of course. I would rather have my interactions than
become brain dead by entertaining silly notions like particles
following multiple paths simultaneously. My pets can come up with
something better.
> And spoil it
> more by throwing abuse at theories which do model nature.
Modern physics deserves a ton of abuse because they have compromised
their integrity by postulating absurd theories so as to avoid admitting
the existence of something that would give credit to the other camp.
This, again, is what I call chicken shit physics.
> Everything
> you say above is given in
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
> A Theory of Quantum Space-time
>
> but it shows that you only need the photon-electron interaction to get
> observable physical law.
Well, while commending you for your non-acceptance of continuity (one
of the most absurd concepts of physics), I take issue with your
conclusion above, seeing that it is based on what I can only call
superstition. I have already explained why photon-electron
interactions are not enough to explain electrostatic and EM phenomena
unless you are willing to plunge headlong into a pool of absurdities
including voodoo particles. Ignore my explanations at your own
detriment.
I also take issue with your acceptance of modern physics' edict that
the only motion that exists is relative motion. I happen to subscribe
to the exact opposite view: the only motion that exists is absolute
motion. Relative motion is 100% abstract and emerges from the
absolute. This may sound astonishing in view of a century in which all
of us where taught the opposite, but it is a fact (deny it at your own
detriment). The reason for my position on relativity is as simple as
it is unassailable: No particle in nature "gives a hoot" about its
motion or rest relative to any of the other particles. If they did
they would have to be psychic (I would not put it past physics to
postulate psychic particles in view the other absurdities that they
preach). IOW, nature does not "care" about the relative and has no use
for it. And this is just one of the many, many reasons why the
absolute is all there is and why exclusive relativity is totally bunk.
You apparently believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is a
physical discrete space or spacetime existing separately from matter.
I deny the existence of spacetime or any sort of space altogether.
Reality is 100% non-local, IMO: there are only particles, their
intrinsic properties (these include position) and their interactions.
As an aside, there is much more to photons than you (and physicists
in general) realize. A thorough analysis of motion and forces
involving EM and electric phenomena (in the limelight of a discrete
reality) unavoidably leads one to realize that there are 4 types of
photons. There are eight if you count their anti-particle
counterparts. But that's another story.
Louis Savain
Hold on a second! (I missed this the first time around) No
"physicist of any merit" believes that a particle is everywhere at once
and yet they apply rules that "involve summing over all space"? Are
you making fun of me or are you just plain dishonest?
> > The
> >reason that supposedly intelligent people are coming up with such
> >nonsense is that they are playing politics.
>
> No, it is because they understand the problem, and because you do not
> understand what they try to tell you.
They don't understand jack shit and if they did they are doing a hell
of job hiding it.
> >Any other interpretation
> >would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.
>
> No, it is because other theories give wrong results.
Wrong. They've only tried idiotic theories of their own making.
Besides, their theories do not give any result whatsoever since their
theories are absurd and unrealistic. Only their math give good
results. Anyone with time on their hands can extrapolate math
equations to fit experimental results and then claim (wrongly and
dishonestly) that they have a good theory. Big freaking deal! The
real work is not the math but coming up with the correct causal
interpretation, i.e., one which is self-consistent and which does not
fly in the face of logic.
> >And that is
> >anathema to the hypocritical priesthood in power.
>
> There are plenty of physicists who find the ideas of quantum mechanics
> unsatisfactory.
>
> >This sort of physics
> >is what I've been calling "chicken shit physics." It does not belong
> >in science.
>
> Come up with a proper theory then.
I have.
> First you must understand the
> problems.
Which you obviously don't, otherwise you would not believe that a
single photon can be spread probalistically over space. A child can
tell you that this is pure crap.
> It takes most physicists several years to do that.
And how many physicists does it take to screw a light bulb?
> At the
> moment you are like someone who has never played an instrument trying
> to give a public concert. Quite frankly you are embarrassing. What
> you are doing now is chicken shit physics. And there are plenty more
> like you scattered across the net. Mostly it is idiots like you that
> obscure the way for genuine advances in mathematics and science, as
> when Gauss threw Abel's work in the bin, thinking it was from another
> crank, and when Cauchy lost Galois' work.
I'd rather be an idiot than believe in the crap that you and your
heroes teach to the masses, many of which I've uncovered in this
thread. You are not physicists but but a bunch of charlatans and con
artists.
My particles do no such thing. I am pretty sure they behave as you want
them to.
>
>> And spoil it
>> more by throwing abuse at theories which do model nature.
>
> Modern physics deserves a ton of abuse because they have compromised
>their integrity by postulating absurd theories so as to avoid admitting
>the existence of something that would give credit to the other camp.
>This, again, is what I call chicken shit physics.
I share your sentiment, but you should not tar everyone with the same
brush.
>
>> Everything
>> you say above is given in
>>
>> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
>> A Theory of Quantum Space-time
>>
>> but it shows that you only need the photon-electron interaction to get
>> observable physical law.
>
> Well, while commending you for your non-acceptance of continuity (one
>of the most absurd concepts of physics), I take issue with your
>conclusion above, seeing that it is based on what I can only call
>superstition. I have already explained why photon-electron
>interactions are not enough to explain electrostatic and EM phenomena
>unless you are willing to plunge headlong into a pool of absurdities
>including voodoo particles. Ignore my explanations at your own
>detriment.
Your explanation fell over when you talked of photons getting through
the gaps. In a finite discrete model their are no gaps. The formulae
give the laws of physics with only the photon/electron interaction. No
particles spread over space are allowed.
>
> I also take issue with your acceptance of modern physics' edict that
>the only motion that exists is relative motion. I happen to subscribe
>to the exact opposite view: the only motion that exists is absolute
>motion. Relative motion is 100% abstract and emerges from the
>absolute. This may sound astonishing in view of a century in which all
>of us where taught the opposite, but it is a fact (deny it at your own
>detriment). The reason for my position on relativity is as simple as
>it is unassailable: No particle in nature "gives a hoot" about its
>motion or rest relative to any of the other particles. If they did
>they would have to be psychic (I would not put it past physics to
>postulate psychic particles in view the other absurdities that they
>preach). IOW, nature does not "care" about the relative and has no use
>for it. And this is just one of the many, many reasons why the
>absolute is all there is and why exclusive relativity is totally bunk.
I thought you were being silly, but if the conclusion is that the
absolute motion of each particle is zero, then there is something in
that.
>
> You apparently believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is a
>physical discrete space or spacetime existing separately from matter.
>I deny the existence of spacetime or any sort of space altogether.
>Reality is 100% non-local, IMO: there are only particles, their
>intrinsic properties (these include position) and their interactions.
>
No, I believe there is no space-time separate from matter. There are
only particles, their intrinsic properties and their interactions.
The intrinsic properties are very simple. They are only time (discrete
time) and the ability to interact in certain ways. Position is a value
arising from a system of interactions, not a property a particle can
have on its own (except position 0).
If you sum over space, then you believe that a photon can be multiple
places at once. And that is absurd.
> >> And spoil it
> >> more by throwing abuse at theories which do model nature.
> >
> > Modern physics deserves a ton of abuse because they have
> >compromised their integrity by postulating absurd theories so as
> >to avoid admitting the existence of something that would give credit
> >to the other camp. This, again, is what I call chicken shit physics.
>
> I share your sentiment, but you should not tar everyone with the same
> brush.
Maybe but it would cover the vast majority. And the majority is
wrong. They are wrong about time, space, relative motion, absolute
motion, continuity, the aether, virtual photons, etc... How do I
know? Because their theories are absurd. That's how.
>[snip]
> > Well, while commending you for your non-acceptance of continuity
> >(one of the most absurd concepts of physics), I take issue with your
> >conclusion above, seeing that it is based on what I can only call
> >superstition. I have already explained why photon-electron
> >interactions are not enough to explain electrostatic and EM phenomena
> >unless you are willing to plunge headlong into a pool of absurdities
> >including voodoo particles. Ignore my explanations at your own
> >detriment.
>
> Your explanation fell over when you talked of photons getting through
> the gaps. In a finite discrete model their are no gaps. The formulae
> give the laws of physics with only the photon/electron interaction. No
> particles spread over space are allowed.
I agree that there is no gap or space. But we all know that the
atoms that constitute matter cannot possibly make up the entire volume
of matter, however dense. This is the reason why you (and the others)
must sum over space. I don't. I know crackpottery when I see it.
> > I also take issue with your acceptance of modern physics' edict
that
> >the only motion that exists is relative motion. I happen to
subscribe
> >to the exact opposite view: the only motion that exists is absolute
> >motion. Relative motion is 100% abstract and emerges from the
> >absolute. This may sound astonishing in view of a century in which
all
> >of us where taught the opposite, but it is a fact (deny it at your
own
> >detriment). The reason for my position on relativity is as simple as
> >it is unassailable: No particle in nature "gives a hoot" about its
> >motion or rest relative to any of the other particles. If they did
> >they would have to be psychic (I would not put it past physics to
> >postulate psychic particles in view the other absurdities that they
> >preach). IOW, nature does not "care" about the relative and has no
use
> >for it. And this is just one of the many, many reasons why the
> >absolute is all there is and why exclusive relativity is totally
bunk.
>
> I thought you were being silly, but if the conclusion is that the
> absolute motion of each particle is zero, then there is something in
> that.
If something can be zero it can also be other than zero. And no I'm
not kidding. I am absolutely convinced that the only motion that
exists is absolute motion, in sharp contradiction with what you and I
have been taught. I believe that **nothing moves in any sort of
space**. Motion is merely a change in one of the properties of a
particle, in this case, intrinsic position. (I know you disagree about
position but you are wrong) The very fact that position is an intrinsic
property makes it absolute.
> > You apparently believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is a
> >physical discrete space or spacetime existing separately from matter.
> >I deny the existence of spacetime or any sort of space altogether.
> >Reality is 100% non-local, IMO: there are only particles, their
> >intrinsic properties (these include position) and their interactions.
> >
> No, I believe there is no space-time separate from matter. There are
> only particles, their intrinsic properties and their interactions.
If that were true you would know that all physical properties are
intrinsic to particles, since particles is all there is. You would
also know that all physical properties are absolute by their very
intrincity. What we measure as relative motion, is abstract (non-
physical, and non-existent) and depends on the absolute intrinsic
properties of particles.
> The intrinsic properties are very simple. They are only time (discrete
> time) and the ability to interact in certain ways. Position is a value
> arising from a system of interactions, not a property a particle can
> have on its own (except position 0).
I fail to see any logic or sense in this. Time is not an intrinsic
property. Time is the abstract inverse of change and change is the
result of interactions. The more energetic the change, the shorter the
time. Time is just as abstract as relative motion. Neither exists.
They emerge (in our minds) from the physical. It amazes me (but not
all that much) that you've got completely ass backwards. Position is
absolute and intrinsic like all properties. Interactions depend on
positions, not the other way around.
"Absurd" here is just shorthand for the fact that you don't like the
idea. So what? There's nothing illogical about it. There are many
extended objects that are two places at once, from the blanket on your
bed to the Pacific Ocean, and the wavefunction for an electron is just
one more of them. The particle itself, of course, never appears but in
one place. And the wavefuction cannot be detected. So there's not
problem. As well complain that it's absurd that your phone number is
in a number of places across town, all at once and at the SAME TIME.
Gads, how shocking.
> Maybe but it would cover the vast majority. And the majority is
>wrong. They are wrong about time, space, relative motion, absolute
>motion, continuity, the aether, virtual photons, etc... How do I
>know? Because their theories are absurd. That's how.
That's a real good barometer. Wow. Can you calculate what will
happen in a given experiment or situation better than they can with the
"absurd" theories? If not, they're not quite as absurd as you want us
to believe, are they? Does your alternate non-absurd theory give the
ratio of muon to electron g-factor to 10 decimal places? The absurd
one does. How come? If it's wrong and absurd, it's quite a
coincidence that it works so well.
> The reason for my position on relativity is as simple as
>it is unassailable: No particle in nature "gives a hoot" about its
>motion or rest relative to any of the other particles. If they did
>they would have to be psychic
If one part of the universe has an effect on another part, that
means both parts must be psychic? Your logic escapes me.
>> I thought you were being silly, but if the conclusion is that the
>> absolute motion of each particle is zero, then there is something in
>> that.
>
> If something can be zero it can also be other than zero. And no I'm
>not kidding. I am absolutely convinced that the only motion that
>exists is absolute motion, in sharp contradiction with what you and I
>have been taught. I believe that **nothing moves in any sort of
>space**. Motion is merely a change in one of the properties of a
>particle, in this case, intrinsic position. (I know you disagree
>about position but you are wrong) The very fact that position is an
>intrinsic property makes it absolute.
Position isn't an intrinsic property. What's your position in the
universe? Are you near the center? I sense you think you are.
However, I think that I actually may be, and you're off just a little.
Present your evidence. Remember the story of the two physicists two
are on opposite sides of a chasm. The one says "How do I get over
there?" The other one says: "You already ARE over there."
Are you moving, or not? If you're moving, please tell us what part
of the universe isn't. I would like to know, in case I ever get a
galactic speeding ticket.
No, but I would not like to estimate how many physicists are of "any
merit". Feynman, for example, does make clear that qed is only
unexplained rules, and that one should not conclude that the particle is
everywhere from them. As a good physicist he feels unable to claim that
particles are point-like while theory is unexplained and does not make
sense, but I feel that a belief in point-like particles does lie behind
his ideas. Feynman, Dirac, Von Neumann all present versions of quantum
mechanics which sidestep the paradoxes, but they do not substitute
anything instead. That is the boundary of scientific knowledge.
>
>> > The
>> >reason that supposedly intelligent people are coming up with such
>> >nonsense is that they are playing politics.
>>
>> No, it is because they understand the problem, and because you do not
>> understand what they try to tell you.
>
> They don't understand jack shit and if they did they are doing a hell
>of job hiding it.
That may well apply to the majority of physics teachers.
>
>> >Any other interpretation
>> >would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.
>>
>> No, it is because other theories give wrong results.
>
> Wrong.
Now you are being dishonest.
>They've only tried idiotic theories of their own making.
>Besides, their theories do not give any result whatsoever since their
>theories are absurd and unrealistic. Only their math give good
>results. Anyone with time on their hands can extrapolate math
>equations to fit experimental results and then claim (wrongly and
>dishonestly) that they have a good theory. Big freaking deal! The
>real work is not the math but coming up with the correct causal
>interpretation, i.e., one which is self-consistent and which does not
>fly in the face of logic.
>
Good physicists know there is no such theory, and there are a number of
books such as those by Dipankar Home, Jeffrey Bub, D'Espagnat in which
good physicists explain this and what the problems are.
>>
>> Come up with a proper theory then.
>
> I have.
You have not. You have come up with some speculations without any
calculation. When your theory can be proven to lead to observable
physical law it will be a good theory. In fact it is just one of a class
of theories which have been investigated, and which generate false
results.
>
>> First you must understand the
>> problems.
>
> Which you obviously don't, otherwise you would not believe that a
>single photon can be spread probalistically over space.
I do not, I regard the idea as absurd. The formula which sums over space
is only a formula, not a description of a photon. There is a difference.
> I'd rather be an idiot than believe in the crap that you and your
>heroes teach to the masses, many of which I've uncovered in this
>thread.
First you should study long enough to see what we actually teach, not
make a load of false accusations on the sole ground that you do not
understand what we say about one of the formulae.
It is also non-sequitur. I sum over a subset of the natural numbers to
find a probability that the photon is found in a particular position.
The sum is almost the same as an integral over the real numbers, but
neither the natural numbers nor the real numbers constitute "space", and
summing to find a probability that a point-like photon is found in a
position does not constitute splitting the photon itself.
>
>> Your explanation fell over when you talked of photons getting through
>> the gaps. In a finite discrete model their are no gaps. The formulae
>> give the laws of physics with only the photon/electron interaction. No
>> particles spread over space are allowed.
>
> I agree that there is no gap or space. But we all know that the
>atoms that constitute matter cannot possibly make up the entire volume
>of matter, however dense.
??? I thought we both held that there is only matter, no volume. The
concept of volume makes no sense when discussing particles.
>>
>> I thought you were being silly, but if the conclusion is that the
>> absolute motion of each particle is zero, then there is something in
>> that.
>
> If something can be zero it can also be other than zero. And no I'm
>not kidding. I am absolutely convinced that the only motion that
>exists is absolute motion, in sharp contradiction with what you and I
>have been taught. I believe that **nothing moves in any sort of
>space**. Motion is merely a change in one of the properties of a
>particle, in this case, intrinsic position. (I know you disagree about
>position but you are wrong) The very fact that position is an intrinsic
>property makes it absolute.
Position means position in space?? You are going off into your own
absurdities.
>
>
>> The intrinsic properties are very simple. They are only time (discrete
>> time) and the ability to interact in certain ways. Position is a value
>> arising from a system of interactions, not a property a particle can
>> have on its own (except position 0).
>
> I fail to see any logic or sense in this. Time is not an intrinsic
>property. Time is the abstract inverse of change and change is the
>result of interactions. The more energetic the change, the shorter the
>time. Time is just as abstract as relative motion. Neither exists.
>They emerge (in our minds) from the physical. It amazes me (but not
>all that much) that you've got completely ass backwards. Position is
>absolute and intrinsic like all properties. Interactions depend on
>positions, not the other way around.
You will need to think harder about what you mean by position and by
change. Change can only be compared to something, and without time makes
no sense. Position can only mean position in space, which you claim not
to believe in.
What we have in Fig 1 is a typographic, representing the motion of two
streams of "cosmons" or c-ons for short: elementary particles that move at the
speed of light along x. They have no experimental "size" as such, and so would
be termed "point" particles. However, they do have a single property (how many
facets can a point have?) - a collision cross section sig, which affects both
their spatial and timelike collisions. For clarity, c-on tracks forward in
time, as in g, may be termed e-ons (for "bare electrons"). Tracks that go
backwards in time are p-ons (for "bare positrons"). You can view the process by
placing a ruler on the x axis, and moving it up along w.
| Fig 1
w | _
_ _
| \ \ \ |\
/| /|
| \ \ \ \
/ /
| f \ \ \ \
/ / g
| \ \ \ /
/ /
| \ \ \ _ / /
/
| \ \ \ /| / /
/
s | r \ \ \ / / /
/
\ | / _\|_\| \/ / / /
\|/
0---------------------------------------------------------
-------- x
(If your browser scrambles this, I can give a "word" breakdown of the graph.)
Now, if sig were zero, f and g would go on, as is. Thus, f would be
independent of s = w-x, where w(=ct) denotes time, increasing upward; and x is
a space coordinate. Similarly, g would be independent of r = w+x. Functions of
this sort are solutions of a "wave equation" in w and x; meaning only that they
represent a pattern moving at unit speed along x or -x, as a function of w.
If sig is finite, some p-ons in f get knocked, by collisions with e-ons, into
the g stream; and some e-ons from g get knocked into the f stream. We can
account for this by writing
df/ds = k*g, and dg/dr = -k*f,
where k is a constant proportional to sig, and the density of scatterers. These
relations are equivalent to a Dirac equation, which mixes f and g.
Now, suppose we follow the path of a c-on, in Fig 2, which is released as an
e-on at A. At B it gets knocked backwards in time; it is knocked forward again,
at C, and so on. It also suffers spatial collisions, as at F and G, that divert
it as an e-on back and forth along x. In ordinary language, we would say (a la
Bohr) that a pair was created out of the vacuum at C: The positron annihilates
against the original e-on at B, and the new e-on takes its place, going to D. A
similar effect occurs at E, leading to one net e-on appearing at F.
_
| Fig 2 /|
w | /
| G \
| B \
| /\ D \ F
| / \ /\ /
w0 | - - - - - - -/- - - \ - - - - / - -\ - - - - -/ - - -
| / \ / \ /
| A / \ / \ /
| C \/ \ /
| \/ E
0---------------------------------------------------- x
But now, suppose we could "detect" the c-on on one of its tracks AB, CD, EF,
and so on. Since all e-ons are the same we would say that an "electron could
have been seen" at any of several points at time w0. Therefore, the c-on path
generates a "wave function" for the "observable" electron. Since observing the
p-on along BC would require *two electrons* (AB,BC) plus *a positron* (BC) to
exist, when only a single electron was released, this is a no-no, energywise.
Hence the p-on would not ordinarily be detected.
We may also note an automatic conservation effect: that the total c-on path
must be continuous (nothing happens without vertices at B,C,D,E...). What this
means is that if an "electron" was seen at D say, it couldn't be seen at B -
because the c-on had already passed B. Similarly, it couldn't be seen at F,
because the path never got there. It follows that, if a c-on is detected at any
point in x, at the time w0, then it could not be found at any other point.
Classically this is called "collapse of the wave function on measurement".
Continuity of the c-on path is called "conservation of charge" in classical EM.
The "wave" behavior of the particle in the model is evidently the same as in
any other wave description: just ordinary collisional interactions in process.
The effect of spatial collisions at F and G is that a c-on path may result in
particle detection at average speed less than c, as the c-on gets knocked back
and forth in x. Thus, it acquires an effective "mass," pro- portional to its
cross section sig.
| Fig 3
w |
| / H
| /
| /
| G / F
| \ /\ /\ /\
| \ / \ / \ / \
| \ / \ / \ / \
| B \/ \/ D \/ \ E
| /\ + - /\ + - /\ + - /
| / \ / \ / \ /
| / \ / \ / \ /
| / \/ \/ \/
| A / C
|
|
0---------------------------------------------- x
Secondly, Fig 3 explains what is causing the collisions in Figs 1 and 2: the
c-on path itself. And of course, it is clear, from Fig 3, just why the wave
function "collapses on measurement": It doesn't. We have simply rede- fined the
zigzags in Fig 2 as being a "vacuum" effect, rather than part of the the
original c-on path. As a bonus, what QED calls the "sum over paths" is
obviously nothing but a clumsy way of saying that, it takes both kinds of c-on
track to make a complete path: p-ons going "backward", as well as e-ons
"forward" in time. -Stan
PS: I trust this account makes the physics of QM and QED perfectly clear. But
if you have any problems with the analysis, you might check out my "Reality
101" posts earlier, in sci.physics.
| Fig 1
w | _ _ _
| \ \ \ |\ /| /|
| \ \ \ \ / /
| f \ \ \ \ / / g
| \ \ \ / / /
| \ \ \ _ / / /
| \ \ \ /| / / /
s | r \ \ \ / / / /
\ | / _\|_\| \/ / / /
\|/
0---------------------------------------------------------- x
<snip>
> I fail to see any logic or sense in this. Time is not an intrinsic
> property. Time is the abstract inverse of change and change is the
> result of interactions. The more energetic the change, the shorter the
> time. Time is just as abstract as relative motion. Neither exists.
If you are saying the concept "at once" is absurd, then the above becomes a
tautology. But, allowing an abstract mental time that jumps only when there's
a change, what's wrong with a photon being in multiple places at once, as long
as there is no observable change?
In 4-space, photons are confined to light cones and "at once" can be
unambiguously defined as the locus of all 4-points on the light cone. With
this definition there is no absurdity in photons being multiple places at
once. To my mind, the absurdity is rather to think of photons as having an
independent existence.
>[snip]
> >> >Any other interpretation
> >> >would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.
> >>
> >> No, it is because other theories give wrong results.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Now you are being dishonest.
You are taking "wrong" out of context. The context follows.
> >They've only tried idiotic theories of their own making.
> >Besides, their theories do not give any result whatsoever since their
> >theories are absurd and unrealistic. Only their math give good
> >results. Anyone with time on their hands can extrapolate math
> >equations to fit experimental results and then claim (wrongly and
> >dishonestly) that they have a good theory. Big freaking deal! The
> >real work is not the math but coming up with the correct causal
> >interpretation, i.e., one which is self-consistent and which does not
> >fly in the face of logic.
> >
> Good physicists know there is no such theory, and there are a number
> of books such as those by Dipankar Home, Jeffrey Bub, D'Espagnat in
> which good physicists explain this and what the problems are.
Well, the "good" physicists insist that in a double-slit experiment,
a photon goes through both slit at the same time and interferes with
itself to produce an interference pattern. But you say that physicists
claim no such thing and the only reason I can see for this blatant
misrepresentation on your part is that you are making excuses for the
crackpottery of your heroes. Tom Roberts wrote spmething to that
effect in this thread and he was paraphrasing what he had learned in
school, since he is a physicist. Now I have seen the same theory
explained the same way in several books. It is a total mystery how you
are able to explain (without using the multiple-paths hypothesis) the
double-slit, single-photon experiment, while accepting the photon as
being a point particle.
> >> Come up with a proper theory then.
> >
> > I have.
>
> You have not. You have come up with some speculations without any
> calculation.
Not true. See below.
> When your theory can be proven to lead to observable
> physical law it will be a good theory.
Not true. My macro-level calculations are the same as QED. I am not
changing the calculations, I am simply saying that the interpretation
of the double-slit experiment is absurd. Having a correct and logical
interpretation/theory for the double slit phenomenon, is crucial to
further progress. The multiple-path and auto/inteference hypothesis
will not lead to further understanding. It is a stupid hypothesis.
> In fact it is just one of a class of theories which have been
> investigated, and which generate false results.
How could my theory have been investigated since I know it to be
unique. Which class of theories do you know, postulates all of the
following?
1. An aether consisting of a 4-D lattice of photons.
2. Four "spatial" dimensions.
3. No temporal dimension.
4. No space or spacetime.
5. There can be no motion without cause (interactions).
6. No virtual photons.
7. Particles have no extent.
In fact, my aether is needed to satisfy #5, not to serve as a medium
for waves.
> >> First you must understand the
> >> problems.
> >
> > Which you obviously don't, otherwise you would not believe that a
> >single photon can be spread probalistically over space.
>
> I do not, I regard the idea as absurd. The formula which sums over
> space is only a formula, not a description of a photon. There is a
> difference.
So how do you explain the double-slit results with a single photon
going through both slits at once and interfering with itself on the
other side?
> > I'd rather be an idiot than believe in the crap that you and your
> >heroes teach to the masses, many of which I've uncovered in this
> >thread.
>
> First you should study long enough to see what we actually teach, not
> make a load of false accusations on the sole ground that you do not
> understand what we say about one of the formulae.
You should do some studying yourself because what you are advancing,
not only does not make any sense, it also contradicts the very people
whom you admire so much.
I am not saying that "at once" is absurd. Abstract is not synonymous
with absurd. Time is a perfectly logical and useful abstraction.
However time does not explain change. It is the other way around.
Change is a physical phenomenon and from it we get our abstract time
mathematically. One is physical and the other is abstract. They are
inversely proportional to each other. To say that we need time to
explain change is analogous to saying that we need the unemployment
rate (abstract) to explain the unemployed (physical).
> But, allowing an abstract mental time that jumps only when there's
> a change, what's wrong with a photon being in multiple places at
> once, as long as there is no observable change?
The logical problem with being in multiple places at once is that it
wreaks havoc on the identity of particles. Part of what distinguishes
one particle from another is its position. Having multiple positions
gives a particle multiple identities. If that does not bother you, I'm
afraid we are wasting each other's time.
> In 4-space, photons are confined to light cones and "at once" can be
> unambiguously defined as the locus of all 4-points on the light cone.
Since 4-space is a totally abstract construct for the historical
despiction of events, I fail to see how anyone can use it as a
theoretical basis for a physical phenomenon.
> With this definition there is no absurdity in photons being multiple
> places at once.
And I fail to see the logic in that, whether or not one uses 4-space
as an example. In fact, I would say that spacetime forbids particles
to be in multiple places because they would have multiple world lines.
> To my mind, the absurdity is rather to think of photons as having an
> independent existence.
I don't see the absurdity at all. Every particle has independent
existence until it comes into contact with another particle with which
it can interact.
[snip]
You are wasting my time Harris. Big time.
This probability angle that you are pushing to cover up the absurdity
of current theories does not explain the double-slit experiment. QED
theory says that the photon goes through both slits at the same time.
There is no probability of it going to one and not the other. QED says
that it goes through *both* and then interferes with itself on the
other side. It's all crap, of course.
>[snip]
> > I agree that there is no gap or space. But we all know that the
> >atoms that constitute matter cannot possibly make up the entire
> >volume of matter, however dense.
>
> ??? I thought we both held that there is only matter, no volume. The
> concept of volume makes no sense when discussing particles.
The abstract concept of volume makes no sense when discussing a
single particle but it makes perfect sense when discussing a multiple-
particle system. The particles can be arranged in such a way as to
describe what we call volume, however abstract. My argument is that
the electrons, neutrons and protons that make up a chunk of matter make
up an extremely small percentage of its abstract volume. For photons
to react with any of the electrons in that chnk of matter, they would
have to know precisely where that electron is and move toward it.
Otherwise, most of the incoming photons would go right through without
hitting anything. I think you need to get your definitions worked out
before this discussion can be useful. I am beginning to think that I'm
wasting my time.
> >> I thought you were being silly, but if the conclusion is that the
> >> absolute motion of each particle is zero, then there is something
> >> in that.
> >
> > If something can be zero it can also be other than zero. And no
> >I'm not kidding. I am absolutely convinced that the only motion that
> >exists is absolute motion, in sharp contradiction with what you and I
> >have been taught. I believe that **nothing moves in any sort of
> >space**. Motion is merely a change in one of the properties of a
> >particle, in this case, intrinsic position. (I know you disagree
> >about position but you are wrong) The very fact that position is an
> >intrinsic property makes it absolute.
>
> Position means position in space?? You are going off into your own
> absurdities.
Where did I say that "position means position in space"? Or is that
what you are implying? I define position as an absolute intrinsic
property. I believe every particle has four coordinate properties
which together contistute its position. The position property changes
during motion and we interpret this as being motion in space, but that
is an illusion. There is no space.
>[snip]
>
> You will need to think harder about what you mean by position and by
> change. Change can only be compared to something, and without time
> makes no sense.
This is, of course, nonsense. Change physically exists and from
that, we get our abstract concept of time. Time is the abstract
inverse of change. A physical temporal dimension is sheer
crackpottery. Why? because a physical temporal dimension forbids
motion: nothing moves in time. This is one of the reasons why
spacetime is 100% abstract and physically non-existent, it forbids
motion. IOW, nothing moves in spacetime. Deny at your own detriment.
> Position can only mean position in space,
Says who? I can redefine it anytime I want to fit my world view.
> which you
> claim not to believe in.
You claim you don't believe in space either. So how can position
mean position in space in your cosmology? I already defined what I
mean by position.
I think there is absurdity in it, but I also think that that is not what
is described by quantum electrodynamics. It does not describe the photon
as being in all places on the light cone at once, but describes the
probability of the photon being found as being equal in all of those
places.
>To my mind, the absurdity is rather to think of photons as having an
>independent existence.
>
In the sense that a photon is created and is annihilated it is not
independent of the event of its creation or the event of its
annihilation, and is thereby also not independent of any matter in the
universe. But between creation and annihilation it does appear to have
independent existence.
It appears to me that the real problem is with the assumption of the
existence of space-time. Minkowsky space-time is really just a set of
mathematical relationships, not a real thing. The relationships of
Minkowsky space-time can be derived from the interactions of photons and
electrons, treated as sizeless (or point-like) particles. The
interference effects we observe are not classical interference between
waves, but 'interference' between the notion that motion of particles is
relative to co-ordinate systems, while in fact co-ordinate systems are
defined by the motion and interaction of particles.
The mathematics of the idea is abstract, but it does deliver quantum
mechanics.
No, mathematics is just the manipulations allowed by logic. The axioms
of quantum mechanics are simple and work. The question is why. Any
theory must produce the same results, which means the same equations as
quantum mechanics.
>> >
>> Good physicists know there is no such theory, and there are a number
>> of books such as those by Dipankar Home, Jeffrey Bub, D'Espagnat in
>> which good physicists explain this and what the problems are.
>
> Well, the "good" physicists insist that in a double-slit experiment,
>a photon goes through both slit at the same time and interferes with
>itself to produce an interference pattern. But you say that physicists
>claim no such thing and the only reason I can see for this blatant
>misrepresentation on your part is that you are making excuses for the
>crackpottery of your heroes. Tom Roberts wrote spmething to that
>effect in this thread and he was paraphrasing what he had learned in
>school, since he is a physicist. Now I have seen the same theory
>explained the same way in several books. It is a total mystery how you
>are able to explain (without using the multiple-paths hypothesis) the
>double-slit, single-photon experiment, while accepting the photon as
>being a point particle.
>
No, the good physicists only say that the path is unexplained (see
Feynman 'QED'). Not withstanding Tom Roberts or his teachers, if they
say the photon is actually divided on multiple paths they are not good
physicists.
My explanation relies on the non-existence of space time. Space-time is
created out of the patterns created as particles interact. When there
are very few interactions, such as the photon in the double slits
experiment, space-time is badly defined. Its path goes from source to
screen, but if space-time is not well defined you cannot say "where" it
is with respect to the slits.
The interference effects come out of the mathematics (ie the logic) of
describing this structure. There is a circularity in saying where
something is if it participates in creating the space around it, which
leads to "interference" effects.
>> >> Come up with a proper theory then.
>> >
>> > I have.
>>
>> You have not. You have come up with some speculations without any
>> calculation.
>
> Not true. See below.
I do not see any. Nor do I see any indication that you could get
anything like QED from this.
>
>> When your theory can be proven to lead to observable
>> physical law it will be a good theory.
>
> Not true. My macro-level calculations are the same as QED. I am not
>changing the calculations, I am simply saying that the interpretation
>of the double-slit experiment is absurd. Having a correct and logical
>interpretation/theory for the double slit phenomenon, is crucial to
>further progress. The multiple-path and auto/inteference hypothesis
>will not lead to further understanding. It is a stupid hypothesis.
>
>> In fact it is just one of a class of theories which have been
>> investigated, and which generate false results.
>
> How could my theory have been investigated since I know it to be
>unique. Which class of theories do you know, postulates all of the
>following?
>
>1. An aether consisting of a 4-D lattice of photons.
>2. Four "spatial" dimensions.
>3. No temporal dimension.
>4. No space or spacetime.
>5. There can be no motion without cause (interactions).
>6. No virtual photons.
>7. Particles have no extent.
>
> In fact, my aether is needed to satisfy #5, not to serve as a medium
>for waves.
>
> You should do some studying yourself because what you are advancing,
>not only does not make any sense, it also contradicts the very people
>whom you admire so much.
>
All the people I admire so much are dead. They moved science on, but
they did not complete it. They understood what they had done far better
than those who have simply learnt the formulae and accepted a
nonsensical explanation. What I am advancing is compatible with much of
what they said, and even consists of things they said, but none of them
put it into a single picture of the workings of matter.
This thread highlights the unbelievable controversies revolving around the
Copenhagen Interpretation of the Particle/Wave descriptions of light motion.
I say, let's get basic, man, you know, simplify, simplify and simplify...
Gravity is made up of "made up of's".
In short, Gravity ultimately consists of this stuff.
Just call it M.U.O. for short, and move on...
And I challange anyone to refute such a conjecture!
> As I said, it has to do with timing. It takes time for particles to
>arrive at the detector. In contrast to the QED interpretation, in a
>cascade situation there are a lot more than one photon involved. The
>emission of a photon sets off secondary emissions in the aether along
>the path of travel. These secondary photons in turn set off more
>emissions and so on, some of which go through the slits. If the
>detector is closer to one of the slits, it receives photons from the
>near slit sooner than it gets hit by photons from the far slit. The
>phase difference is what causes the different inteference patterns
>depending on the placement of the detector relative to the slits. IMO,
>the placement of the photon generator will also affect the patterns.
I thought the interference patterns totally collapsed when there was a
detector that could definitively ascertain through "which" slit the
particle passed.
JeffMo
"[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to bottom."
-- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the Philippines
>In article <VoVz3.544$r5.2...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>> >> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
>> >> > jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>>[snip]
>> >The idea that a particle can be everywhere at
>> >the same time is ludicrous.
>>
>> Opinion.
> Your reply, too, is an opinion.
Certainly it is my opinion that your statement above is opinion.
However, I was rebutting your assertion that it was "not just [your]
personal opinion" supporting your claims of absurdity. To do so, I
simply showed that all your "support" was WHOLLY opinion-type
statements, and there was no logical support.
>I take it that you don't think that
>the QED claim is an opinion (however patently false) and that you think
>you have references to experimental data that can detect a particle in
>multiple places at once.
Why would you assume this? I fail to see the connection.
>But more than experimental data (which can be
>fudged and which do not exist in this case), the important thing here
>is to provide a *logical* mechanism whereby a particle can have
>multiple positions simultaneously, and still be the same particle, let
>alone all possible positions. Those of us who are familiar with
>Leibniz's "Identity of indiscernibles" can only laugh at the silliness
>of it all.
You appear to be hung up on arguing against a straw man, so I guess we
should just let it drop.
>>[snip]
>> >Any other interpretation
>> >would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.
>>
>> Patently false opinion.
> In your opinion, of course.
It is my opinion, but I will support it, if you like. I have seen
other people in this very thread interpret QED in a way that does not
include the notion of "particles having multiple positions
simultaneously." None of these interpretations has been shown to be
"dangerously close to some sort of aether," whatever that might mean
to you.
>The fact remains that refusing to allow
>for the existence of multiple photons and postulating multiple
>simultaneous paths for a single photon is a way to effectively say that
>you will not even consider a more plausible interpretation because it
>subsumes the existence of an aether.
It may seem effectively so to you. But what of experiments where
interference patterns are built with one emission at a time taking
place, thus eliminating the possibility of multiple interfering
particles?
>With a single particle doing the
>work of a multitude of particles, who needs an aether?
I'm not against aether theories, if they should happen to explain the
situation better than the standard model. Maybe someday they will...
> This same
>reasoning went into the conjuring of so-called virtual photons. Well,
>you may not need an aether, but you sure could use a brain transplant.
I don't think those are available yet.
>>[snip]
>> I have labeled all your statements above, just to make sure. I can
>> assure you that I have no agenda w.r.t. "aether politics" or "anti-
>> aether politics," though you needn't believe that, but I just wanted
>> to illustrate that you gave NO reasoning to support your assertions
>> above. You simply repeated that same assertion in multiple forms,
>> coupled with strong emotional and/or pejorative appeals. This is
>> sometimes, but not always, an indication that very strong opinions are
>> held that have little substantiation in rational analysis or empirical
>> fact.
> Such a criticism can also be thrown at the proponents of QED's
>magical, Alice-in-wonderland, I'm-everywhere particles.
Do you now agree with my assessment? I thought you said before that
it was NOT solely your personal opinion?
Interestingly, how would you respond to the reasoning and empirical
evidence in favor of QED? Do you label ALL the experimental
validation as strictly emotional and/or pejorative?
>> I welcome any expansion you can provide as to why you hold these
>> opinions so strongly. Or is it just a myopic view that what you find
>> "ludicrous" holds the status of universal, inevitable truth?
> Try asking the same question to the proponents of the multiple-paths
>nonsense.
Huh? I would, if I were replying to their posts, and I thought that
the post lacked any substantive support. I want to know *reasons*,
not just restatements of the original assertions...
>> >> or does this model lead to predictions at odds with
>> >> those made by the standard model?
>>
>> > The standard model does not make predictions in this context.
>>
>> Perhaps I misunderstand the context, then. I thought that development
>> of the current model of the propagation of wavefunctions had been
>> influenced by many of these "slit" experiments.
> If the current model was influenced by these experiments then it
>certainly did not predict them. Aren't we putting the cart before the
>horse here?
I suppose we are, in a manner of speaking. That's the way science
works. You make a theory, you test it, and if the predictions fail,
you modify it. What's wrong with that?
The *current* model predicts the results of most *current* tests of
it. Isn't that what you'd expect?
If aether theories only had one chance to get something right, without
modification based on experiment, then they would have been dead long
ago, right?
> Besides, accurate predictions do not imply correct
>interpretation but only correct extrapolated math. The Maya could
>predict eclipses many years in advance. Does that mean they had an
>understanding of gravitational attraction? No. They just had a good
>system (realy a collection of clever tricks) for prediction, not unlike
>the epicycles of medieval Europe, only better.
Uhhhh, in that sense, *we* don't have a good understanding of
gravitational attraction. All science is an exercise in successive
approximation and refinement.
In any case, how are aether theories superior in this respect? Do
they give correct interpretation instead of accurate predictions? Do
they give both? If the latter, it should be possible to show that
some aether theory predicts everything the standard model does, and
then some...
>> > It is just interpreting (wrongly) experimental results *after*
>> > the fact. The standard model did not predict the results of the
>> > two slit experiment.
>>
>> I identified a potential problem with *your* model's ex post facto
>> re-interpretations, as well, but if you fail to respond, you can
>> hardly call your model better.
> My model is better because it does not postulate magical behaviors
>for particles that fly in the face of logic.
This is incomplete, in my opinion. Applying emotionally-charged terms
such as "magical behaviors" or "flying in the face of logic" do not
demonstrate WHAT is considered magical, illogical, etc., and why it is
supposed to be such.
If someone can interpret QED such that the things you consider
"magical" or whatever are avoided, as has been demonstrated above,
then your argument evaporates. Humans are often driven by ideas and
interpretation but the comparison of theoretical predictions with
empirical observation is where we separate the wheat from the chaff.
I think the problem we're having here is that what is "magic" or
"absurd" is often a very subjective determination. What is "magic" to
you*, may simply be good science to someone who understands it.
*This is the proverbial "you", and not meant to criticize "you"
specifically.
>> >> >> How do you avoid
>> >> >> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For
>> >> >> example, as the separation between two oppositely-charged
>> >> >> particles' centers goes to zero, the electrostatic force
>> >> >> between them goes to infinity...
>> >>
>> >> > The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete
>> >> > positions.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it would. Does it also put an upper-bound on maximum
>> >> density, say in a neutron star or black hole? Why or why not?
>>
>> > It does put a maximum limit on "spatial" density. What I mean is
>> >that, at that limit, particles are separated only by the Planck
>> >length. Indeed I am convinced that the aether is a "lattice"
>> > composed of particles at maximum "spatial" density. It does not
>> > put a limit on mass/energy density because there is no upper limit
>> > to the mass/energy of a particle at any position in the lattice.
>>
>> If I understand what you are saying, then we should be able to compute
>> a maximum rest-mass capacity for any given volume of space, and you
>> would theorize that singularities do not exist.
> Now exactly. We would be able to compute a maximum number of
>*discrete positions* for each volume of space. Mass (or energy) is a
>separate issue because each position can have any number of bosons
>(including photons of different energy levels).
I believe this is in direct contradiction to your previous comment.
You had said that the problem with force going to infinity with zero
separation goes away due to zero separation, but now you have revived
the spectre of zero separation.
What is the gravitational "force" between two bosons in the same
discrete position (i.e. separation zero)?
>> If the lattice is already full of particles, how do they move? And
>> how do we observe particles on top of what is already in the lattice?
> IMO, and this has to do with my absolute conviction of the need for
>causality, motion cannot take place without interactions. Nothing
>moves without cause, regardless of what you (or I) have been taught.
>All particles, including photons move by interacting with other
>particles in the aether. This is what causes the cascade effect that I
>mentioned. The primary purpose of the aether is to facilitate motion,
>not to resist it.
Interesting idea, but I'll have to follow that through for awhile.
>> > BTW, the whole black
>> >hole business is another example of imagination run wild, not unlike
>> >the single photon going through a quintillion paths at the same time.
>>
>> I wouldn't say the *whole* black hole business is imagination run
>> wild, because the empirical evidence for black holes or something very
>> like them is getting stronger all the time.
> I'm sure there is evidence for something but whether the evidence
>supports this laughable singularity business is far from proven.
I agree with that. I'm definitely not sure about singularities, and
I'm not even sure how we will EVER decide! ;-)
>> In any case, how do you reconcile your claim that a given volume of
>> aether lattice can increase in energy without bound, with your implied
>> claim of impossibility for the task of packing a volume of space with
>> sufficient energy to keep light from escaping the neighborhood?
>See above.
If an extremely large number of bosons is put into the same discrete
lattice point, can a photon escape the local neighborhood?
>[snip]
> > Well, the "good" physicists insist that in a double-slit experiment,
> >a photon goes through both slit at the same time and interferes with
> >itself to produce an interference pattern. But you say that
> >physicists claim no such thing and the only reason I can see for
> >this blatant misrepresentation on your part is that you are making
> >excuses for the crackpottery of your heroes. Tom Roberts wrote
> >spmething to that effect in this thread and he was paraphrasing what
> >he had learned in school, since he is a physicist. Now I have seen
> >the same theory explained the same way in several books. It is a
> >total mystery how you are able to explain (without using the
> >multiple-paths hypothesis) the double-slit, single-photon
> >experiment, while accepting the photon as being a point particle.
> >
> No, the good physicists only say that the path is unexplained (see
> Feynman 'QED').
It sounds more like bad physicists to me. The moment you assume that
it's a single path by a single photon, you immediately fall into the
trap of a single photon interfering with itself and that is just as
crackpottish and stupid as having multiple paths, if not more so.
All along this discussion you insisted that QED explained it all.
You claimed falsely that QED explained correctly and clearly that it
only involves interactions between photons and electrons, and now,
you're saying that "good" physicists say that the explanation is
unexplainable? What are you? an apologist for charlatanism? This is
what I call butt-kissing in the grand way, amigo. Are you trying to be
accepted by the physics community and get a Nobel prize or something?
If you are, then I agree that butt-kissing is definitely a major part
of the strategy that will get you there.
>[snip]
> My explanation relies on the non-existence of space time.
> Space-time is created out of the patterns created as particles
> interact.
If there is no spacetime (and I agree) how can it be created from
anything?
> When there are very few interactions, such as the
> photon in the double slits experiment,
You are assuming that there are very few interactions. And you are
wrong. There are a huge number of interactions involving photons.
> space-time is badly defined.
> Its path goes from source to screen, but if space-time is not well
> defined you cannot say "where" it is with respect to the slits.
And you call that an explanation? Besides, if spacetime does not
exist, why involve it in any explanation?
> The interference effects come out of the mathematics (ie the logic) of
> describing this structure.
And all along I thought that the effects were due to physical
causes. Are you serious or just confused?
> There is a circularity in saying where
> something is if it participates in creating the space around it, which
> leads to "interference" effects.
But you just said above that space does not exist. Make up your mind
man.
>[snip]
Louis Savain
PS. I can see that this discussion is getting nowhere.
But isn't the 4-distance between creation and annihilation by definition zero,
and doesn't that make these the same event? Or what else could you mean by
"between"? Wouldn't any betweenness introduce the possibility of some other
event changing the endpoint? Can you cite any experiment that suggests a
photon appears to have an independent existence *between* creation and annihilation?
>
> It appears to me that the real problem is with the assumption of the
> existence of space-time. Minkowsky space-time is really just a set of
> mathematical relationships, not a real thing. The relationships of
> Minkowsky space-time can be derived from the interactions of photons and
> electrons, treated as sizeless (or point-like) particles. The
> interference effects we observe are not classical interference between
> waves, but 'interference' between the notion that motion of particles is
> relative to co-ordinate systems, while in fact co-ordinate systems are
> defined by the motion and interaction of particles.
>
I suspect there are an infinity of theoretical basis sets for it, involving
particles, tubes, strings, or buckyballs :-) ... but that to agree with
experiment they would all have to have this property of zero "distance"
between emission and absorption.
> The mathematics of the idea is abstract, but it does deliver quantum
> mechanics.
> Now, Louis, stop preaching for a while and listen up,
You know, at this point, I realize that we are wasting each other's
time. By we, I mean you, JeffMo, and Francis and I. At the very least
I know I'm wasting my time. So count me out. Ciao!
Louis Savain
>>
>> It appears to me that the real problem is with the assumption of the
>> existence of space-time. Minkowsky space-time is really just a set of
>> mathematical relationships, not a real thing. The relationships of
>> Minkowsky space-time can be derived from the interactions of photons and
>> electrons, treated as sizeless (or point-like) particles. The
>> interference effects we observe are not classical interference between
>> waves, but 'interference' between the notion that motion of particles is
>> relative to co-ordinate systems, while in fact co-ordinate systems are
>> defined by the motion and interaction of particles.
>>
>I suspect there are an infinity of theoretical basis sets for it, involving
>particles, tubes, strings, or buckyballs :-) ... but that to agree with
>experiment they would all have to have this property of zero "distance"
>between emission and absorption.
>
If one theoretical basis were established, then it would be possible to
introduce an infinite number of meaningless variations, but I do not
think that is really significant. It does appear to me that there are
sufficient constraints that there is probably only one "sensible"
theoretical basis, and that is particles
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
No, I avoid the trap by saying that it is a single path, but one which
does not pass through co-ordinate space.
>
>>[snip]
>> My explanation relies on the non-existence of space time.
>> Space-time is created out of the patterns created as particles
>> interact.
>
> If there is no spacetime (and I agree) how can it be created from
>anything?
Mathematical relationships can be found in structures created in systems
of particles. Some of these relationships are obey the same formulae as
Minkowsky space-time.
>
>> When there are very few interactions, such as the
>> photon in the double slits experiment,
>
> You are assuming that there are very few interactions. And you are
>wrong. There are a huge number of interactions involving photons.
In toto, of course there are. But as far as the particular photon in the
double slits experiment is concerned, it is emitted and it is absorbed.
That is only two interactions.
>
>> space-time is badly defined.
>> Its path goes from source to screen, but if space-time is not well
>> defined you cannot say "where" it is with respect to the slits.
>
> And you call that an explanation? Besides, if spacetime does not
>exist, why involve it in any explanation?
A full and detailed explanation requires much mathematics.
>
>> The interference effects come out of the mathematics (ie the logic) of
>> describing this structure.
>
> And all along I thought that the effects were due to physical
>causes. Are you serious or just confused?
Absolutely serious. I have calculated all of this in detail, to show
that the laws of quantum mechanics would be found in a structure
consisting only of particles and obeying basic empirical principles
necessary to measurement.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
>
>PS. I can see that this discussion is getting nowhere.
>
For it to go further you would have to study my papers.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906030
An Interpretation of Quantum Logic
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906042
The Fabric of Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906060
The Fabric of Space-time II: Gravity by Photon Exchange
QED only gives a formula saying where the photon is likely to arrive. It
does not say the rest of this unless except in an interpretation which I
also disagree with.
>
>>[snip]
>> > I agree that there is no gap or space. But we all know that the
>> >atoms that constitute matter cannot possibly make up the entire
>> >volume of matter, however dense.
>>
>> ??? I thought we both held that there is only matter, no volume. The
>> concept of volume makes no sense when discussing particles.
>
> The abstract concept of volume makes no sense when discussing a
>single particle but it makes perfect sense when discussing a multiple-
>particle system. The particles can be arranged in such a way as to
>describe what we call volume, however abstract. My argument is that
>the electrons, neutrons and protons that make up a chunk of matter make
>up an extremely small percentage of its abstract volume. For photons
>to react with any of the electrons in that chnk of matter, they would
>have to know precisely where that electron is and move toward it.
That is very definitely a part of the theory. You can understand the
interference effects as being that the photons go to those electrons in
the screen whose position they can find out. Of course discussing things
in terms of photons "knowing" anything is a bit dodgy, but its a manner
of speaking.
>
>> Position means position in space?? You are going off into your own
>> absurdities.
>
> Where did I say that "position means position in space"? Or is that
>what you are implying? I define position as an absolute intrinsic
>property. I believe every particle has four coordinate properties
>which together contistute its position. The position property changes
>during motion and we interpret this as being motion in space, but that
>is an illusion. There is no space.
>
The set of possible co-ordinate properties is immediately definable as
"space". You are swallowing your tail if you define position with no
space.
>> Position can only mean position in space,
>
> Says who? I can redefine it anytime I want to fit my world view.
If you redefine tautology you cease to speak English, and render your
ideas meaningless and their communication impossible.
>
> You claim you don't believe in space either. So how can position
>mean position in space in your cosmology? I already defined what I
>mean by position.
>
You did not do so in any sensible way. Logically your definition was
exactly equivalent to the presumption of pre-existent space-time, and
indistinguishable from it. I defined position as values coming from the
interactions in systems of particles.
If your two remaining working neurons were connected by more than a
spirochete, you might actually get something out of my messages. And
those of others here. As it is, I suppose you're wasting your time
indeed.
Charles, we're wasting each other's time. Thanks for the exchange.
I'm out. Ciao!
I'm even willing to pull a Galileo, and recant my three little graphs, if
you'll only speak with us again. -Stan ["Eppur se mouve."]
Sorry it's futile. I'm not learning much in this thread. Nor is
anyone learning from me. I'll publish my ideas on photons, aether and
gravity on the web when I get some spare time.
-Stan ["Eppur se mouve."]
"Eppur se mouve."? I don't recognize this language? Is that some
southern French dialect? What does it mean?
Latin (or possibly Medieval Italian). Said to be a sotto-voce statement
by Galileo as he recanted in front of the Inquisition his theory that
the earth moves around the sun: "yet it moves" (approximate translation).
Whether or not he actually said this is in doubt....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Ah! It seems that your knowledge of history is much better than your
knowledge of the intrincacies of nature. Anyway, what threw me off is
the spelling of "mouve". I think it should be "muove".
Louis Savain
It only looks like French because of the original poster's
atrocious spelling. It should be "E pur si muove."
>
> Latin (or possibly Medieval Italian).
It's good modern Italian. Galileo did not live in medieval
times -- heck, even Dante wrote pretty modern Italian more than
three centuries before.