Theoretical Physics

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: An Uncertain Answer

Postby hyksos on May 16th, 2019, 12:47 pm 

bangstrom » May 16th, 2019, 12:16 pm wrote:Photons have no mass, and always travel at c, so their associated stopwatches circle at constant rotation under all conditions. The calculations are easier and the formula is smaller.

Photon stopwatches do not circle at a constant rate otherwise light could not have different frequencies. As energy values increase, their rotation rates (stopwatches) spin faster and wavelengths grow shorter. λ = hc/E
[/quote]
For any given photon of a fixed wavelength, its de Broglie wavelength will be a constant, since photons don't speed up and slow down. Pardon me for my word choice.

hyksos » May 15th, 2019, 10:00 pm wrote:
Fundamentally, Energy is the chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole in an interval 3-plane.

Sorry, but this isn't going to fly. The clock hands are not even inside of 3D space. They are complex vectors of the eigenbasis vector of the Schroedinger Wave -- which is sort of like the "peak" or "trough" of the wave.

The clock hands are imaginary and analogous to the Schroedinger wave so no one is claiming the clock hands exist in any kind of space so what are you saying “doesn’t fly” ?

We already know what those clock hands are on Feynman's "stop watches". Faradavian pinholes exist in space outside the lightcone, as it were, still in 3D space as he draws them. There is exactly zero verbiage in Faradave's post about his vectors being complex numbers.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: An Uncertain Answer

Postby hyksos on May 16th, 2019, 1:13 pm 

bangstrom » May 16th, 2019, 12:16 pm wrote:
hyksos » May 15th, 2019, 10:00 pm wrote:
Photons have no mass, and always travel at c, so their associated stopwatches circle at constant rotation under all conditions. The calculations are easier and the formula is smaller.

Photon stopwatches do not circle at a constant rate otherwise light could not have different frequencies. As energy values increase, their rotation rates (stopwatches) spin faster and wavelengths grow shorter. λ = hc/E

Pardon my english. For a single given photon whose speed does not change throughout flight, the wavelength is constant. Not so for massive particles which speed up and slow down.


hyksos » May 15th, 2019, 10:00 pm wrote:
Fundamentally, Energy is the chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole in an interval 3-plane.

Sorry, but this isn't going to fly. The clock hands are not even inside of 3D space. They are complex vectors of the eigenbasis vector of the Schroedinger Wave -- which is sort of like the "peak" or "trough" of the wave.

The clock hands are imaginary and analogous to the Schroedinger wave so no one is claiming the clock hands exist in any kind of space so what are you saying “doesn’t fly” ?

Faradavian pinholes are objects in our regular 3D space, even when they are drawn outside the lightcone. There is no verbiage in Faradave's posts about the stopwatch hands being complex vectors. We don't really need an additional interpretation of the stopwatch hands of Feynman, because we already know what they are.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: An Uncertain Answer

Postby bangstrom on May 16th, 2019, 1:48 pm 

hyksos » May 16th, 2019, 11:47 am wrote:
For any given photon of a fixed wavelength, its de Broglie wavelength will be a constant, since photons don't speed up and slow down.

Going by the old photon theory, even with single photons, photon spin can speed up or slow down. It is known as red shifting or blue shifting.

hyksos » May 16th, 2019, 11:47 am wrote:
Faradavian pinholes exist in space outside the lightcone, as it were, still in 3D space as he draws them. There is exactly zero verbiage in Faradave's post about his vectors being complex numbers.

The vectors are Pythagorean. They can be considered as complex numbers for special purposes but that would be an unnecessary complication.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Faradave liked this post


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby hyksos on May 16th, 2019, 2:16 pm 

The vectors are Pythagorean.

... "Pythagorean". Alright, man.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Digging a Deeper Whole

Postby Faradave on May 16th, 2019, 4:08 pm 

hyksos wrote:This is where I'm gonna have to cut you off.

I always stop for school buses.

hyksos wrote:Some caveats and qualifications and clarifications are needed.
We don't really need an additional interpretation of the stopwatch hands of Feynman, because we already know what they are.
Feynman used the word "arrows" he was actually referring to what are called Probability Amplitudes…

Yes, quite! But Feynman doesn't know what 'probability amplitudes' are. So far, I'm the only one who does.

The Character of Physical Law
"…we invent an 'a' which we call a probability amplitude, because we do not know what it means." p.137
"Nobody knows any machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation…no one can go any deeper today… there is probability all the way back…in the fundamental laws of physics there are odds. " p145
"Nobody knows how it can be like that." p.129
"Probability amplitudes are very strange…" p.166

L. Susskind, A. Friedman Quantum Mechanics; Theoretical Minimum
"These [probability amplitudes] are extremely abstract, and it is not at all obvious what their physical significance is. " p.38

Wikipedia
"It is the source of the mysterious consequences and philosophical difficulties in the interpretations of quantum mechanics - topics that continue to be debated even today. "

hyksos wrote:When Feynman said "add up all the arrows" he was actually performing integration. … the Path Integral in textbooks.

He sums arrows as with vector addition, and some rules for reversing arrows (e.g. reflections).

hyksos wrote:You need not chase down and identify the "what object is spinning". We already know what it is. The clock hands on a stopwatch Feynman keeps talking about are actually parts of the Schrödinger Wave.

Again, physics doesn't yet know what the Schrödinger wave is physically. I supply this.

hyksos wrote:They are not real-valued vectors. They are complex numbers (complex vectors) in a Hilbert space.

You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating. Hilbert space isn't worth a hill of beans, if it does not have a physical basis. It was invented because those poor souls failed to arrive at Euclidean, interval-time coordinates. Complex coordinates can apply there but it's simpler to consider 2D slices to explain many concepts.

hyksos wrote: The frequency at which this clock hand rotates is directly proportional to the momentum of the particle. λ = h/p = h/mv

That's fine. I don't find that inconsistent with E = hf, where f = ω3/4pi, the frequency of chronaxial spin. Spatial spin projections reflect that frequency. Recall Feynman's mass-energy declaration:
"Because the muon has a mass about 200 times higher than the electron, the ‘stopwatch hand’ for a muon turns 200 times more rapidly than that of an electron." - QED, p.143

hyksos wrote:Photons have no mass, and always travel at c

In addition to what Bangstrom wrote, recall that photons are superfluous. Light quanta typically correspond to the energy difference of orbital transition. After emission, the electron associated with the transition will have a lower chronaxial spin rate (i.e. frequency). My point, in this thread, is to assert all energy is fundamentally chronaxial spin rate.

hyksos wrote:Faradavian pinholes are objects in our regular 3D space, even when they are drawn outside the lightcone.

I need to clarify. Pinholes are real, lightlike objects, replacing photons. Pinholes are available at all spatial locations and in every spatial direction but only at universal speed limit c (thus limited to energy and information). That's the same as saying a pinhole makes a lightlike angle with time in 4D (pinholes arec-dependent). Massive particles make contact through pinholes. Particles are in fact, pinholes with chronaxial spin. That's the fundamental mass-energy link.

Similarly, probability amplitude is a physically real intermediary. It happens to be immeasurable because to do so destroys its status as an intermediary. I provide the example of spin correlation to explain what Max Born never knew about his rule.

"There have been many attempts to derive the Born rule from the other assumptions of quantum mechanics, with inconclusive results. ... probability is equal to the amplitude-squared"
Wikipedia

"How does it [the Born rule] work? What is the machinery behind the law?...No one can explain…We have no ideas about a more basic mechanism from which these results can be deduced." Six Easy Pieces pp.134-5

cosine squared.png
With 100%the probability of self correlation, probability amplitude (a) is the spin projection on the angle bisector between prepared and subsequently measured spin components. Thus, it cannot be both measured and the angle bisector. Nevertheless, it is physically real. Probability (P) that the sign of the subsequently measured component will correlate is in turn the projection of the amplitude on the measured axis. Thus, the Born rule is born.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby TheVat on May 16th, 2019, 8:55 pm 


You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating.


That one's a Faradave keeper! LoL.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7187
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Digging a Deeper Whole

Postby hyksos on May 17th, 2019, 1:12 am 

hyksos wrote: The frequency at which this clock hand rotates is directly proportional to the momentum of the particle. λ = h/p = h/mv

That's fine. I don't find that inconsistent with E = hf, where f = ω3/4pi, the frequency of chronaxial spin. Spatial spin projections reflect that frequency. Recall Feynman's mass-energy declaration:
"Because the muon has a mass about 200 times higher than the electron, the ‘stopwatch hand’ for a muon turns 200 times more rapidly than that of an electron." - QED, p.143

I want you to go to a whiteboard in a quiet room and write this equation and ruminate on it.

λ = h/p = h/mv

I want you to imagine what would happen to lambda if v incrementally approached zero, and what this would mean physically. This would be trying to find the wavelength of an electron at complete rest. Contemplate this. Google around on it. Read up and study.

Doing this will lead you down a path to abilities that many consider to be ... unnatural.


hyksos wrote:When Feynman said "add up all the arrows" he was actually performing integration. … the Path Integral in textbooks.

He sums arrows as with vector addition, and some rules for reversing arrows (e.g. reflections).

You are quoting pictures of the book , responding to it like it is a literal description of modern physics, and then pretending like you are "extending" the physics. This is not me harping on your details. This is me responding to the fact that you seem to lack all context of what you are interacting with. What you are doing is neither adult or mature. It is barely sane.

QED by Feynman is a wonderful gem that I love and everyone should have a copy -- but it is NOT a textbook.

On wikipedia , some of the articles say "This article is written at the graduate level. For a non-technical introduction to topic X, please click here." With all due love and respect, the QED book is formally characterized as a gentle introduction to the quantum field theory of the electromagnetic force.




You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating. Hilbert space isn't worth a hill of beans, if it does not have a physical basis. It was invented because those poor souls failed to arrive at Euclidean, interval-time coordinates. Complex coordinates can apply there but it's simpler to consider 2D slices to explain many concepts.

"poor souls failed to arrive at Eucliden, interval-time coordinates".

This is barking mad.

hyksos wrote:You need not chase down and identify the "what object is spinning". We already know what it is. The clock hands on a stopwatch Feynman keeps talking about are actually parts of the Schrödinger Wave.

Again, physics doesn't yet know what the Schrödinger wave is physically. I supply this.

Yes, quite! But Feynman doesn't know what 'probability amplitudes' are. So far, I'm the only one who does.

You are not exhibiting growth and greater understanding of physics, and I've known you for a long time. The quality of your output on the internet is in steep decline.

Do not bother responding. I am not going to participate in this thread any further.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby socrat44 on May 17th, 2019, 2:17 am 

TheVat » May 16th, 2019, 8:55 pm wrote:

You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating.


That one's a Faradave keeper! LoL.


Physics without geometrical form of objects / particles isn't physics
#
Photon's form is a circle / membrane / disc : c/d=3,14159 . . . .
Moving with constant speed the circle is pressed in its diraction
Photon as every real particle has its own mass.
Moving with constant speed photon doesn't have EM waves
Moving at constant speed photon travels in a straight line (wavelenght is infinite)
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby socrat44 on May 17th, 2019, 7:13 am 

Quantum micro-world as real as macro-world
and quantum particles as real as macro objects.
What is difference?
The macro objects have firm forms, and
quantum micro-particles have elastic forms (SRT)
#
To describe the quantum world it needs to know the
geometrical form of quantum particles other-wise the
philosophy of quantum world is ''beyond the common sense''.
=====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Of Particular Concern

Postby Faradave on May 17th, 2019, 11:11 am 

socrat44 wrote:...the geometrical form of quantum particles...

"Particle" is the term given to the geometric point at the center of a simple symmetric field. In its rest frame, the field is a 3D ball exhibiting at least long-range gravitation (attraction following the inverse square law). It may also exhibit EM, strong and/or weak aspects, which together, characterize the particle. The exact location of the point is subject to uncertainty.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Of Particular Concern

Postby socrat44 on May 17th, 2019, 12:40 pm 

Faradave » May 17th, 2019, 11:11 am wrote:
socrat44 wrote:...the geometrical form of quantum particles...

"Particle" is the term given to the geometric point
at the center of a simple symmetric field.


Electron is ''a point'' at the center of a symmetric field
Particle / electron at the center of a symmetric field
is responsible for EM effect
Electron is a source of an EM waves
#
Exactly as string-particles vibrate and producess waves.
so particle- electrons vibrate / rotate and produce symmetric field
#
Exactly as vibration of string-particles so vibration (spin-rotation)
of electrons solve the quantum problem of ''duality''
=====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015
Faradave liked this post


Re: Barking Up the Right Tree

Postby Faradave on May 18th, 2019, 1:08 am 

hyksos wrote:I am not going to participate in this thread any further.

As always, come and go as you please. (I certainly do.)
Your posts are candid and intelligent. I particularly value the substantive bits.
I hope you didn't miss my provision of a dual spin axis above. That was especially for you.

hyksos wrote:…trying to find the wavelength of an electron at complete rest…

An isolated electron in its rest frame still has chronaxial spin. That's how it has mass-energy and gravitation. A pinhole with chronaxial spin generates field instances, repeated along its timeline. That yields a field frequency. One can construe a wavelength from that, but it would not be an EM wave. The associated electric field is static. Feynman’s muon-rotation comment referred to mass-energy.

A muon and electron have the same electric charge despite different chronaxial spin rates. (Elaboration upon request.)

Faradave wrote:He sums arrows as with vector addition.

hyksos wrote:You are quoting pictures of the book…

Well, yes... with the text and captions.
"Arrows that represent each possible way an event could happen are drawn and then combined (‘added’) in the following manner: Attach the head of one arrow to the tail of another -without changing the direction of either one- and draw a ‘final arrow’ from the tail of the first arrow to the head of the last one." QED pp.26-27

Seems like vector addition to me, but I don't really care.

hyksos wrote:QED by Feynman is a wonderful gem…but it is NOT a textbook.

Yes, but Feynman is the renowned author of textbooks as well. We can presume consistency if not completeness in his "lesser" works.

Faradave wrote:Those poor souls [physicists] failed to arrive at Euclidean, interval-time coordinates.

hyksos wrote:This is barking mad.

Go to a quiet room and write on a whiteboard the Minkowski metric for a spacelike interval (d).

∆d² = ∆x² – ∆t² (for a 2D slice)

Then, rearrange it to get rid of the minus sign.

∆x² = ∆d² + ∆t²

Then, realizing this adheres to Pythagoras's theorem (which applies exclusively to flat, Euclidean geometry), ask yourself if your new equation suggests the validity of physically real, Euclidean, interval-time coordinates.

Feynman would have appreciated the difference between barking mad and simply irrefutable. Perhaps that only applies to geniuses.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Of Particular Concern

Postby socrat44 on May 22nd, 2019, 4:54 am 

socrat44 » May 17th, 2019, 12:40 pm wrote:
Faradave » May 17th, 2019, 11:11 am wrote:
socrat44 wrote:...the geometrical form of quantum particles...

"Particle" is the term given to the geometric point
at the center of a simple symmetric field.


Electron is ''a point'' at the center of a symmetric field
Particle / electron at the center of a symmetric field
is responsible for EM effect
Electron is a source of an EM waves
#
Exactly as string-particles vibrate and produce waves.
so particle- electrons vibrate / rotate and produce symmetric field
#
Exactly as vibration of string-particles so vibration (spin-rotation)
of electrons solve the quantum problem of ''duality''
=====


An Electron: 1897 - 2019
===
In 1897 J.J. Thomson discovered an elementary particle - ''electron'' and
immediately many physicists ( M. Abraham, W. Kaufmann, H. Poincare,
H. Lorentz, . .) went to work trying to make models of the electron

In 1905 Einstein realized that electron can behave as a particle

In 1923 De Broglie wrote that Einstein's electron can be "wave"

In 2005 Volodimir Simulik wrote book " What is the Electron?"
In this book:
'‘ More than ten different models of the electron are presented here.
More than twenty models are discussed briefly.
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.'’
All of these models of electron are problematical.

In 2015 Brian posted article '' How big is an electron?''
https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/ ... -electron/
#
Until today we know electron by what it does, not by what it is
After more than 120 years electron is still remains an abstract, symbolic
construction and therefore you can read '' the quantum theory is weird'',
it is ''beyond common sense'', and therefore all debates about the
essence of ''Quantum Theory'' are ''blah blah blah . . .''
===
Attachments
E.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby socrat44 on May 26th, 2019, 12:48 pm 

Some Differences in Scientific Theories
===
1 - Difference between Neaton's and Einstein's
theries of gravitation.
a) Newton used two (2) bodies to explain ''gravity''.
b) Einstein used one (1) single body to explain ''gravity''

2 - Difference between Classical and Quantum mechanics.
a) Classical mechanics has models of objects
b) Quantum mechanics doesn't have model of quantum particle.
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby socrat44 on May 27th, 2019, 6:11 am 

socrat44 » May 26th, 2019, 12:48 pm wrote:Some Differences in Scientific Theories
===
1 - Difference between Neaton's and Einstein's
theries of gravitation.
a) Newton used two (2) bodies to explain ''gravity''.
b) Einstein used one (1) single body to explain ''gravity''

2 - Difference between Classical and Quantum mechanics.
a) Classical mechanics has models of objects
b) Quantum mechanics doesn't have model of quantum particle.
===


1 - Einstein used one (1) single body to explain ''gravity''
In the real Universe there is plenty of room for more and
more Einstein's GRT ''single bodies''

2 - Classical objects have many - many different forms, but
Quantum particles must have only one standard geometric
form for everyone particle
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Digging a Deeper Whole

Postby bangstrom on June 13th, 2019, 4:08 am 

hyksos » May 17th, 2019, 12:12 am wrote:
I want you to go to a whiteboard in a quiet room and write this equation and ruminate on it.

λ = h/p = h/mv

I want you to imagine what would happen to lambda if v incrementally approached zero, and what this would mean physically. This would be trying to find the wavelength of an electron at complete rest. Contemplate this. Google around on it. Read up and study.


I happened upon a "Dragon Slayer" video for a nearly identical problem that explains how and why the equality doesn't work. λ = h/p represents a transformation while h/mv represents a transmission so the two values are like apples and oranges and can’t be equated. There is an error in the derivation of the equations where s times 1/s is equated to 1 but this is in error because the first s is the length of time in seconds and the 1/s is one Hertz or one cycle per second. This obscures the distinction between a transformation and a transmission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vce_1yfTTBY

The video also explains why photon particles do not exist and the video at the end explains why light is a particle so take your pick.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby socrat44 on June 20th, 2019, 7:59 pm 

By Chance: Biology - Cosmology
===
Can reasonable child be created from zygote during
270 days of woman’s pregnancy by chance?
Does the theory of probability allow to create reasonable child
during 270 days of woman’s pregnancy by chance?
#
Our human body is a multi-cellular organism made up
of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
Book: '‘ The unity of Nature'‘
‘'The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.'’
/ by Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, page 40 /
Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months of woman’s pregnancy ?
#
In my opinion this circumstance is similar to the ''Infinite monkey theorem''
''The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
#
But according to the modern theory of ‘big bang’ the Universe
exist only 14 billion years.
So, monkey's chance to write Shakespeare's Hamlet is zero.
But woman . . . . ?!
A single zygote evolves and develop 100 trillion different cells that
create reasonable child. By chance it is impossible.
It must take time much more than only 270 days of woman’s pregnancy
Maybe it will take time more than 14 billion years.
Then, maybe, before the ‘ big bang’ was a pregnant woman who
gave life to a child who invented the '‘ big- bang '’ theory (?)
======
Attachments
Question.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby socrat44 on June 24th, 2019, 3:51 pm 

How to make Theoretical Physics simple
#
To be simple Theoretical Physics needs
a real geometrical form of quantum particle.
It is impossible to take ''point-particle'' or ''string-particle''
as a real image of the quantum particle.
====
Attachments
R.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Theoretical Physics

Postby socrat44 on August 20th, 2019, 7:09 am 

Psi (Ψ) - in the light of quantum behavior.
The Problem with Quantum Measurements - Psi (Ψ)
The '' measurement problem'' / ''wave-particle collapse''
About one wave measurement of one quantum particle.
#
There isn't electric wave without quantum particle.
The wave-function is result of a real work of quantum particle (h)
The wave-function Psi (Ψ) is derivate form of quantum particle.
The wave-particle collapse problem could be contemplated as
boundary changes of wave and particle simultaneously.
#
When the wave collapses, the pure electric particle (E=h*f)
changes its parameters into negative potential state - Dirac's
virtual / antiparticles (-E=Mc^2) and "disappears " in Zero Vacuum T=0K.
=====
Attachments
psi- 1.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests