 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / April 2006Three Roads to Subquantum Mechanics
What is subquantum mechanics? It is the unconvensional field of science which studies what a particle such as an electron is made up of. There are 3 roads to subquantum mechanics. 1st road. Superstrings in which particle such as electron is allegedly made up of vibrating string. 2nd road. Bohm Implicate Order in which a point particle is the anchor end of a hidden domain called the Implicate Order. This means the point particle doesn't have extension as its just a projection or part of a hologram of a deeper reality (Implicate Order). This is compatible with all data of the Standard Model which is mostly based on mathematical model (it is possible that the only way to model the Implicate Order is thru mathematics) 3rd road. made up of numerous individuals such as Tom Lockyer, Freddifizzx, srp, Enterprize, Retic, Seto, Thomson, Sefton, Porat, etc. where they study the alleged structures of elementary point particles. For example, Lockyer studies of em vector which he said made up all the particles. Personally. I prefer the 2nd road, the Bohm Implicate Order. This means there is no structure to the point particle and third road is threading on quicksand. However, I am still open to all the possibilities. In your case, which road do you think is the most likely and prefered guiding principle in your research? quant > What is subquantum mechanics? > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > quant Notice M-theory and the Implicate Order are complements. M-theory doesn't have an organizing network. Implicate Order doesn't have any physical mechanisms. I wonder what would happen if you combine M-theory and the Implicate Order where strings are formed and organized in the Implicate Order. Isn't it that M-theory doesn't have any guiding principle that's why it is lost with infinite solutions. What if the Implicate Order can be appended to the 11- dimensions making the 12th the all encompassing dimension. Witten in the middle of the 1990s combined the 5 separate string theory under one umbrella M-theory by making use of duality and the new 11-dimensional framework. What would happen if you add another one. Gee. I can't wait for 2007 when the Large Hadron Collider became operational. They can theoretically create quantum black holes whose decay can probe the extra dimensions. At the end of the year, let's bet for $50 each whether LHC can find the HIggs and Supersymmetric particles. After LHC gives us a clue whether M-theory is the right road and other surprises, I guess that's when physics would get very busy. Too bad congress cancelled the SCC (Superconducting Super Collider) back in the 1980s which is much more powerful than the incoming LHC. The SCC should cost $12 billion. Each shuttle mission costs $1 billion. They should have proceeded with it and we may have already discovered what the Dark Matter and Dark Energy may be composed of. To know what is existence and reality is the most lofty of all human goals and it is worth all the gold in the world. quant > What is subquantum mechanics? > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > quant You left out the possibility that there may not be any sub-quantum reality at all. And as for your 3rd road, it seems to be a non-existant mish mash of wishful thinking and scientific ignorance. > > What is subquantum mechanics? > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > particles. For example, Lockyer studies of em vector which he > > said made up all the particles. Lockyer's concept is not too bad if he would just realize that what he thinks are neutrinos in his model are in fact Goldstone bosons. And what he models as a photon is in fact two photons. And there are other corrections necessary to make his model more consistent such that his electron model is most likely a general fermion model. But his model does predict many physical parameters successfully using only EM so is interesting in that regard. Lockyer never considers "particles" to be point-like so you are wrong with regards to that. I believe they are always extended local "fields" in his model. However, I think his model is wrong in the sense that "trapped" photons can make everything. Our viewpoint is that photons (and all gauge bosons) are basically energy chunks flowing thru a relativistic medium of virtual fermionic pairs whose parameters are determined by the interaction geometry of the quantum "vacuum". So it is just reversed from his viewpoint. Photons instantaneously already have virtual fermionic content. Our Quantum Vacuum Charge (QVC) model also considers quantum objects to be extended local fields but are due to a point-like entity in combination with quantum "vacuum" and relativistic effects. So the "structure" of our quantum objects is *external* to the point-like entity. We do not consider any *internal* structure of the point-like entities. And we assume they are massless and all identical. And they don't have any so-called "self-energy". For example; the infinite "self-energy" of an electron is entirely due to its interaction with the quantum "vacuum" which has infinite energy in our viewpoint. > > Personally. I prefer the 2nd road, the Bohm Implicate Order. > > This means there is no structure to the point particle and third [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You left out the possibility that there may not be any sub-quantum > reality at all. That possibility is unlikely unless nature really did provide us with all the different particle flavors of the Standard Model and beyond as unique entities. Cosmology (unification) seems to contradict that viewpoint. I think even the Standard Model itself contradicts that viewpoint. IMHO, there is no difference between a "bare" electron and a "bare" quark. An isolated quark is simply a lepton. > And as for your 3rd road, it seems to be a > non-existant mish mash of wishful thinking and scientific ignorance. Hmm.... "non-existant mish mash"? ;-) I suppose you meant to say "existant". I can assure you that Dr. Inopin is not scientifically ignorant. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110 "Wishful thinking"? Maybe... but all new concepts probably start out as wishful thinking guided by experimental evidence. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com Something puzzles me on the Bohmians. If the electron is in ground state. The pilot wave interpretation requires that the electron has continuous movement. Doesn't it make the accelerating charge radiate. If the Bohmians would reason that the electron is at rest and not moving in the ground state. Then what would happen to the kinetic and potential energy aspect of the entire atom. I've been searching this in archives and can't seem to get the answer. If anyone happens to know. Share it with us Unbohmians probabilistic Borns. quant > Something puzzles me on the Bohmians. If the electron is > in ground state. The pilot wave interpretation requires that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > answer. If anyone happens to know. Share it with us > Unbohmians probabilistic Borns. Yes indeed... In SI consider this, E = h = 3kT Assume Ockham's Razor and that c² = 1/£µ Maps to the same counterpart equation, c² = Y/<rho> Thus £ maps to <rho> and µ maps to 1/Y (Young's Modulus) Then given, F = (1/4pi£)(q/r)² the dimensions of q are of a harmonic oscillator, mass per unit time, i.e. q = m Then = q/m Plug in the rest mass of the electron and the value of q and solve for the frequency ... Then Substute this frequency into energy equation and solve for your last unknown, T T = hq/3mk There's your radiation... Paul Stowe > > Something puzzles me on the Bohmians. If the electron is > > in ground state. The pilot wave interpretation requires that [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Paul Stowe Say. Are Aetherists Bohmians or Bornians? And why?? About the Aether. See the following arguments: (I'd comment about it at the end with a question for you) "Since Einstein assumed that it was not possible to measure absolute motion, it is commonly believed that he discarded the notion of an ether. What he actually said was that the ether could not be constituted of moving particles. Put another way, he redefined the ether as space-time. With water waves, particles of water change their position with time as the wave passes through, and this motion can be tracked by using floats (such as corks). If the motion of water particles could not be tracked, then the assumption that the water is composed of particles would be unfounded, but we could still view the water as medium. Similary, Einstein did not see space-time as pure nothingness nor as a lattice of ether atoms, but as a continuous geometric jelly that could be stretched and distorted; it could have bumps, which could not move in an absoluate sense but could move relative to each other. " Aetherist. My questions to you is: Do you believe that the ether is constituted of moving particles?? If not, then the ether is none other than Einstein spacetime and we must drop the word ether and just use spacetime to avoid confusion. quant >>> Something puzzles me on the Bohmians. If the electron is >>> in ground state. The pilot wave interpretation requires that [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Say. Are Aetherists Bohmians or Bornians? And why?? Not really... Aetherist, like all people come in various 'flavors'... > About the Aether. See the following arguments: > (I'd comment about it at the end with a question [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Aetherist. My questions to you is: > Do you believe that the ether is constituted of moving > particles?? I guess that depends upon your concept of particle. > If not, then the ether is none other than Einstein > spacetime and we must drop the word ether and just > use spacetime to avoid confusion. Space-Time is a mathematical mapping method for systemic processes of the aether. The map is not, nor shall it ever be, the actual territory. BTW, it is possible to measure motion relative to the aether frame. It is called the CMBR dipole... However, the aether was never about absolute motion. That is a strawman argument invented by modernists. Paul Stowe > >>> Something puzzles me on the Bohmians. If the electron is > >>> in ground state. The pilot wave interpretation requires that [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Paul Stowe Does light uses your aether as medium for travel, or is light a phenomenon within spacetime that can travel on its own. Is spacetime cooked up by your aether? These days. There are 1001 definitions of aether and it adds to the confusion. For example. You know Laurent. His aether is actually bohm implicate order. He just call it aether for emotional resonance. Maybe we have to invent a new term.. like The Substrate, etc. In your case, since you said space-time is a mathematical mapping method for systemic processes of the aether. You may as well say that space-time is a mathematical mapping method for programming and systemic processes in the Matrix. How does your Aether compare to say Thomson who has moving particles in his spacetime. In fact, each particle of his is the cause of spacetime. Maybe someone ought to write 1001 Interpretations of Aether for summary of them all. quanta [Snip...] > Does light uses your aether as medium for travel, ... Does a phonon need a medium for travel? > ... or is light a phenomenon within spacetime that can > travel on its own. Or is a phonon a phenomenon within a lattice that can travel on its own? > Is spacetime cooked up by your aether? No... Spacetime is a mapping of the aether. > These days. There are 1001 definitions of aether and it > adds to the confusion. Only for the uninitiated. The aether has had a distinctive definition since circa 600 BC... > For example. You know Laurent. His aether is actually bohm > implicate order. He just call it aether for emotional > resonance. Maybe we have to invent a new term.. like The > Substrate, etc. Sub-Space... :/ > In your case, since you said space-time is a mathematical > mapping method for systemic processes of the aether. You > may as well say that space-time is a mathematical mapping > method for programming and systemic processes in the > Matrix. Maxwell's Matrix maybe... > How does your Aether compare to say Thomson who has moving > particles in his spacetime. You have yet to define what YOU mean by particle. The aether is corpuscular. However, it isn't made of 'matter'. So, if your definition of particle is that of material particles then no, it has none. However, if by particles you mean entities that have intrinic momentum and self interact, then yes, the aether is particulate. All Matter particles are just manifestations of the aether. > In fact, each particle of his is the cause of spacetime. Yes... > Maybe someone ought to write 1001 Interpretations of Aether > for summary of them all. And just maybe someone ought to try to understand basic aether as a media before trying to consider esoteric variants. Paul Stowe > [Snip...] > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Paul Stowe The original concept of an aether is something that is static. Since the MMX disproved the static part. Then even if there is a dynamic aether. You must not call it aether anymore. This is the root of the conflict between mainstream physicists and you aetherists. You insist on using a word and concept exorcised by Einstein relativity. So rather than using the word aether which is synonymous to static medium. Try to cook up other words like scalar field, higgsgal field etc. to make it friendly to Standard Model (by suggesting in terms of field concept or related). You need the support of billion dollars worth of Large Hadron Collider technology and the only way you can get in good terms with the funds and physicists is by not using the aether but more modern terms. Now about this dynamic aether (or a new term to be invented). If physicists will tell you that the space-time metric is simply there is to space. Then they are wrong. There are many energies and forces in addition to the Maxwell, Yang Mills field, Higgs field in space. So try to invent new words like Stowe Fields, etc. rather than aether. That way. You can gain more acceptance of your concept. Because if you'd insist on the word aether. You'd spend all your life fighting with word wars with the scientists. Remember you need their technology to progress. And if even if you think the entire space/time is a mapping of this something. Don't call it aether. Use Bohm Implicate Order or something. At least scientists still discuss about Bohm. For christ sake. Don't fight over a word "aether" that can just slow you down. But if you insist to be stubborn. Then spend a lifetime crying out 'aether' and making sure scientists avoid you before even listening to you. In this world where so many crackpots dwell. Scientists don't have the time to analyze each of them. Your mention of the word "aether" is a mark to make sure they avoid you at first sight. Remember you need their framework and technology and funding to progress. Quanta > > [Snip...] > > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > they avoid you at first sight. Remember you need > their framework and technology and funding to progress. LoL! You gotta be kiddin' us! P6 is that really you? Or whatever you want to call yourself these days. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com >> [Snip...] >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >> aether as a media before trying to consider esoteric >> variants. Sorry for the delayed reswponse, been out of town for a few days. > The original concept of an aether is something that is > static. Where?, except for modernist strawmen... Can you point to any pre 1900 general definition of this??? > Since the MMX disproved the static part. Then even if there > is a dynamic aether. You must not call it aether anymore. And why not? To be politically correct? > This is the root of the conflict between mainstream physicists > and you aetherists. Indeed, some aetherist play by the established rules, and have integity! > You insist on using a word and concept exorcised by Einstein > relativity. That's simply bullshit... Einstein's relativity assumes 'in principle' that which aether establishes as first principle kinetic processes & properties. That it IS established by these basic properties of the medium makes it (the 'declared' principle) in agreement with observation. Modern relativists are simply satisfied by this shallow definition of declared principle in lieu of any other explanation. Einstein himself acknowledged that SR did not disprove aether. > So rather than using the word aether which is synonymous to static > medium. It is NOT "synonymous to static medium". > Try to cook up other words like scalar field, higgsgal field etc. > to make it friendly to Standard Model (by suggesting in terms of > field concept or related). You need the support of billion dollars > worth of Large Hadron Collider technology and the only way you can > get in good terms with the funds and physicists is by not using > the aether but more modern terms. I guess I'm not going to be 'friendly' to modernist then... I do think integrity, honesty, and honoring past scientists are of paramount importance. The aether hasn't changed, only the rather shallow religious mentality of modern practitioners. > Now about this dynamic aether (or a new term to be invented). > If physicists will tell you that the space-time metric is simply > there is to space. Then they are wrong. There are many energies > and forces in addition to the Maxwell, Yang Mills field, Higgs > field in space. So try to invent new words like Stowe Fields, etc. > rather than aether. Ockham's Razor applies... > That way. You can gain more acceptance of your concept. As I said above, I'm not willing to gain 'more acceptance' at the cost of being dishonest and/or dishonorable to most of the great physicists of history. I'll not pretend the Emperor has on clothes when, in fact, he stands stark naked. If I wanted to do that I could have played that game from the start, and been quite successful at the game. > Because if you'd insist on the word aether. You'd spend all > your life fighting with word wars with the scientists. My life is irrelevant, the traditions, integrity, and honoring the works of the giants on who's shoulders we all stand is of paramount importance. Polticizing science by spinning & re-defining concepts just to avoid speaking a basic truth is building the foundation of science upon metaphoric quicksand. > Remember you need their technology to progress. Actually I don't, and I do not expect that I, personally, will make any further progress. Burnout has set in... > And if even if you think the entire space/time is a mapping > of this something. Don't call it aether. Use Bohm Implicate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > For christ sake. Don't fight over a word "aether" that > can just slow you down. But if you insist to be stubborn. I have always been independent & stubborn when I have concluded that the issue in question is factually correct. IOW, I'm quite willing to defend an issue. > Then spend a lifetime crying out 'aether' and making > sure scientists avoid you before even listening to you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they avoid you at first sight. Remember you need > their framework and technology and funding to progress. If a scientist is unable or willing to contemplate an idea or concept solely upon the terms used, and not the results obtained they are doing themselve & science a disservice. Sadly, the majority do fall into this category and thus the phrase "open-minded scientist" is an oximoron. Paul Stowe > >> [Snip...] > >> [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > of any other explanation. Einstein himself acknowledged that > SR did not disprove aether. Can you point out to sites where they use the aether concept that can produce the same predictions or output of Special and especially General Relativity such as the gravity lensing, star light deflection, mercury perihelion anomaly, black holes, etc.? You have a point that the Standard Model is so shallow as it can't explain a lot of phenomena. We need to add more ad hoc to it. There is a possibility though that the foundation is just incomplete and making the right one would put everything into place.. Supposed we'd extend the aether to cover dynamic aether (this means re-education of the world's scientists on the extended meaning of aether which they have avoided since their college education). It has to cover the SR and GR predictive power (i'm talking of aether that isn't LET because somehow LET seems to be the only candidate they take into account). But then there is a possibility that the Standard Model is arranged to be the standard in science to suppress some knowledge that a science of a dynamic aether can give us. It is possible that a "Secret Physics" with a different set of rules was hidden away from us earlier in this century by a powerful elite who fear the technology based on it will strip away their power and wealth and liberate us from their grip. Or maybe its for our own sake. For centuries, secret schools have existed that protect the forbidden knowledge from spreading to the public which in the very distant past could have wrecked havoc on humanity (giving rise to the legend of the destruction of atlantis). If the latter is so, then we must continue the tradition and make sure a science based on a dynamic aether is suppressed and support the Standard Model which may be a veil pulled over our eyes to shield or protect us from the truth. You may say I'm crazy. Well. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy of science, as Shakespeare love to say. quanta > > So rather than using the word aether which is synonymous to static > > medium. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Paul Stowe [Snip...] >> Sorry for the delayed reswponse, been out of town for a >> few days. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > especially General Relativity such as the gravity lensing, star > light deflection, mercury perihelion anomaly, black holes, etc.? Ilja Schmelzer's works, http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/ For one... However, aether models don't end up with such ascine absurdities as Black Holes... You do realize that SR/GR are hydrodynamical expressions, right? > You have a point that the Standard Model is so shallow as it > can't explain a lot of phenomena. We need to add more ad > hoc to it. There is a possibility though that the foundation is > just incomplete and making the right one would put everything > into place.. Well, without the underlying foundational medium and its superfluidic vortex lattice structure one is doomed before they start. The sad part is, Maxwell & Co. had this down in the mid 1800's... It is the lattice structure formed by these vortices that are the key. Al models of matter will depend upon this lattice and defects in same... > Supposed we'd extend the aether to cover dynamic aether > (this means re-education of the world's scientists on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because somehow LET seems to be the only candidate > they take into account). LET was a narrowly focused proposal to explain the observations of Michelson & Morley, Trouton and Noble, and others. Lorentz proposed (as did Einstein the following year) that both time and space distort in such a manner as to assure internal consistancy, making Maxwell's electrodynamics invariant as observed from various inertial states separated only by relative motion. Lorentz did not need to state either of Einstein's postulates as principles. Both are inherent to the aether which is taken as the basis. 1. In a medium the propagation speed of momentum & energy is totally independent of the speed of either emission or reception. 2. The medium's properties cannot be altered by simply changing the inertial prespective of observation. All information can only be communicated from one place to another a the RMS speed c which is alway independent of internal inertial motions. Moreover, the finite value of this characteristic speed c is determined by the modulus and density of the medium at each point therein. As long as these remain constant c remains constant. However, any change in either will result in a corresponding change in c. If matter is not independent of these same medium properties any such changes also affect all medium properties including its specific characteristics making measurement of such a changes not possible at any single location. It is only measurements are taken at two spatially separated locations that such changes could be noted. In other words, LET assumes a medium thus inherits these characteristics. Therefore LET already has all of the general characteristics of GR. Curvature in LET is simply the changing of either medium density or modulus with position & time. If neither change of the region of interest, the region is flat & stress-free. The GR equation can be interpreted as, The Momentum-Energy State = Stress - Strain > But then there is a possibility that the Standard Model is > arranged to be the standard in science to suppress [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy of science, > as Shakespeare love to say. Well, if you propose such here your own, earlier advice applies. Namely, you will be mocked as a total conspiracy fruitcake and will lose all credibility. The problem is wild speculation lacking evidence or proof. Hearsay does not count. [Snip of Rest...] Paul Stowe > [Snip...] > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > ascine absurdities as Black Holes... You do realize that > SR/GR are hydrodynamical expressions, right? Well. If you have time. Try to put up a web site summarizing all your ideas or even write it in a message. Like what your think is an aether and whether matter is made out of it or it is just a dynamic medium for light. There are literally over half a hundred Aether versions that it can make one's head spin. Until I can see what aether version you have, I can't comment any further. In this newsgroup, the no. 1 anti-Aetherist is Bilge, Ph.D. extraordinaire. Hope to see you butting head with him (in a sharp debate) one of this days. Quanta The Aether is composed of dimension - and that's it. The problem is that nobody knows how to model waves which propagate in dimension as a medium. It's easy to do this, but cannot use calculus. You need something like CA, a 3D cubic lattice, a spacefilling tesselation which is geometrically originless and non-absolutely-oriented. Waves can be modelled as compressions and rarefractions in the 4D volume regime and your 3D lattice does not appear to move or bend. You can make any kind of wave you want using dimension as a medium of propagation. The reason this was never done before is because the math did not exist. It should be very easy to model waves in dimension - really, really easy. [Snip...] >>>>> You insist on using a word and concept exorcised by Einstein >>>>> relativity. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Well. If you have time. Try to put up a web site summarizing > all your ideas OK, for gravity I favor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeSage_(gravity) and think the hydrodynamical expression of GR's form is emergent as a mapping tool for how movements occur within gradients induced by the process. All of the processes identified in GR are naturally occuring in this model. For EM/QM I favor Maxwell's superfluid (or supersolid) vortex lattice model. See: http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf and a modern variant http://ltl.tkk.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik/book.pdf I personally have been able to define all of the constants in terms of the medium's basic properties. These are, p ~= 5.15E-27 kg-m/sec (quantum of momentum) L ~= 6.43E-08 m (interaction length) ¥ ~= 1.001159 (Magnetic Moment Adjustment) c ~= 3.00E+08 m/sec (RMS speed) µ ~= 3.15E-06 m^2/kg (mass attenuation coefficient) a ~= 7.30E-03 (Fine Structure) See: http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm For example, in my model the gravitational constant [G] is, G = ¿µ² Where a² ¿ = ------- u·(2pi) and u is standard SI EM permeability, This in turn beconmes, u = (a·L^3)/(p·c) in my terms, thus, a·p·c ¿ = ------- (2pi)L^3 It is very important to note that for matter/EM/QM it is the vortex lattice with each ring vortex of the lattice acting as pseudo particles that creates the Maxwell/Volovik medium. Obviously, for ring vortices to exist there must also be an underlying particulate strata. This is the sub-space media (of the basic aether) and can also carry waves on its own. The ring lattice with a mean spacing of 6.43E-08 will have an upper limit frequency of ~4.67E+15 Hz. Above that, it will must be the sub-space media that propagates wave motion. Thus, above the 4.67E+15 Hz cutoff some basic characteristics of wave should be of a different character. However, the mean speed will remain the same. We do know that above this frequency (19.3 eV) ionization occurs. > ... or even write it in a message. Like what your think is > an aether and whether matter is made out of it or it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > extraordinaire. Hope to see you butting head with him > (in a sharp debate) one of this days. Sorry to disappoint but, Bilge is an arrogant duplicious a.shole for whom I would not give the time of day. So no, I will not deal with him except with contempt... He's earned this over the years... Paul Stowe > [Snip...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gradients induced by the process. All of the processes > identified in GR are naturally occuring in this model. Correct me if I'm wrong.. doesn't LeSagian gravity imply an Aristotelian mechanics (an object in motion with respect to the bulk space-time will not remain in motion but will eventually come to rest) ? I say that because it supposes an interaction between matter and some fundamental particle, presumably with a bulk motion rest in some frame. It also seems odd that as a proponent of Ilja's ideas early in the thread you would discount them and suggest a different mechanism for gravity.. > For EM/QM I favor Maxwell's superfluid (or supersolid) vortex > lattice model. See: http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > speed will remain the same. We do know that above this > frequency (19.3 eV) ionization occurs. Just some clarification questions, sorry.. could you begin by describing what is happening in a vacuum, flat space-time, B=E=0? Why would you see a need for vorticity here? Then perhaps move on to what is happening when a plane electromagnetic wave enters this region? > > ... or even write it in a message. Like what your think is > > an aether and whether matter is made out of it or it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I will not deal with him except with contempt... He's > earned this over the years... Just to present the counter-opinion, I have found many of his contributions to be generous, helpful, and well informed. Regards - shevek >> Aetherist wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the bulk space-time will not remain in motion but will > eventually come to rest)? Yes for any material objects not moving in solenoidal motion. Solenoidal motion provide a back-action mechanism to mitigate the drag. However, this slowing effect isn't what you might call readily observable... > I say that because it supposes an interaction between matter > and some fundamental particle, ... Not necessarily, could be wave interference. > ... presumably with a bulk motion rest in some frame. Again this would be region in scope... > It also seems odd that as a proponent of Ilja's ideas early > in the thread you would discount them and suggest a different > mechanism for gravity.. Why do you think I discount them? Can you specify the 'physical' disparity? >> For EM/QM I favor Maxwell's superfluid (or supersolid) vortex >> lattice model. See: http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > describing what is happening in a vacuum, flat space-time, > B = E = 0? That is the normalization state. Which is like setting psig = 0 at 1 ATM @ STP... THe baseline medium state is the free-space state. However, permittivity, permeability, and impedence are not zero! It is for EM processes the stress-free condition. > Why would you see a need for vorticity here? Have you read Maxwell's 1861-62 paper refernced above? If so, I can't understand why you pose this question. The natural state of the medium is this lattice configuration. That's troughout all of space. Matter, as Ilja and others propose is an artifact of this lattice. > Then perhaps move on to what is happening when a plane electromagnetic > wave enters this region? It propagates not differently, just in a stress-free region. >>> ... or even write it in a message. Like what your think is >>> an aether and whether matter is made out of it or it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Just to present the counter-opinion, I have found many of his > contributions to be generous, helpful, and well informed. Never said he was not well informed, just a duplicious a.s! He can be helpful when he wants to be and doesn't feel like his worldview isn't threatened... Guess I should take Thumper's mom's advice... Paul Stowe > >> Aetherist wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > However, this slowing effect isn't what you might call readily > observable... It must be at least observable enough to explain gravitational forces, at least if you subscribe to that theory.. > > I say that because it supposes an interaction between matter > > and some fundamental particle, ... > > Not necessarily, could be wave interference. The same implications would exist.. > > ... presumably with a bulk motion rest in some frame. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why do you think I discount them? Can you specify the 'physical' > disparity? If you explain the metric tensor as (a mapping of) the pressure tensor of the background aether, this is somewhat different then explaining the force as due to direct trajectories interfered with by the mass. The fundamental difference: is mass a dynamic process that disturbs space-time in a certain way (GR and aether theory) or is mass a shield that stops external waves/particles from reaching a test particle with Aristotelean dynamics (Le Sage)? It could be that more of a correspondance could be made between the theories but here I present their difference. [..] > > Just some clarification questions, sorry.. could you begin by > > describing what is happening in a vacuum, flat space-time, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > state. However, permittivity, permeability, and impedence are not > zero! It is for EM processes the stress-free condition. I like your analogy to STP.. a natural guess as to the state of aether constituents would be some kind of Maxwellian (there he is again) distribution in the phase space. Of course that means there is an arbitrary T and P referred to as S.. somehow related to the constants you mention. > > Why would you see a need for vorticity here? > > Have you read Maxwell's 1861-62 paper refernced above? If so, > I can't understand why you pose this question. Well then perhaps I haven't in enough detail. I know he proposes this, but why? Because he couldn't think of another way to allow transverse waves perhaps? That seems hard to believe in hindsight, but of course hindsight is 20/20.. > The natural > state of the medium is this lattice configuration. That's > troughout all of space. Matter, as Ilja and others propose > is an artifact of this lattice. Well I would disagree, I see no need for a lattice configuration until you are describing a crystal. Light and gravity can be explained in a fluid context, in a background free of vorticity. As I understood Ilja's work, he would disagree too, but I shouldn't speak for him.. Cheers - shevek >>>> Aetherist wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It must be at least observable enough to explain gravitational > forces, at least if you subscribe to that theory.. In isolation (that is, without considering any possible mitigating factors) the drag effect is very easy to mathematically quantify within the LeSage model. As you are probably aware, this model has two parameters that uniquely define its processes. Those are the LeSage field momentum flux term (¿, kg/m-sec²) and the mass attenuation coefficient (µ, m²/kg). The LeSage field particle have a mean speed ¢ which can be c, or any value up to & including infinity since all three are specific model dependent. How'bout you taking a crack at quantifying the drag expression. >>> I say that because it supposes an interaction between matter >>> and some fundamental particle, ... >> >> Not necessarily, could be wave interference. > > The same implications would exist.. There are difference however. One of which is in the way the attenuation coefficent behaves. >>> ... presumably with a bulk motion rest in some frame. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > theory) or is mass a shield that stops external waves/particles > from reaching a test particle with Aristotelean dynamics (Le Sage)? I think you misunderstand LeSage's theory. His theory would most closely match the behavior of neutrinos interacting with matter. However, the relationship to the map & the process is that the mapping describes the momentum/energy distribution of the etherial medium, one aspect of which is it LeSagian component. In other words, an actual pressure gradient would BE a curvature in the map. i.e., a curved spacetime metric. > It could be that more of a correspondance could be made between > the theories but here I present their difference. I'm trying to see your perspective, thus differences and not suceeding. > [..] >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > means there is an arbitrary T and P referred to as S.. somehow > related to the constants you mention. The free-space constant, yes... >>> Why would you see a need for vorticity here? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well then perhaps I haven't in enough detail. I know he > proposes this, but why? The scientific reason, that is what Farady found during his extensive studies... > Because he couldn't think of another way to allow transverse > waves perhaps? No... > That seems hard to believe in hindsight, but of course > hindsight is 20/20.. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > As I understood Ilja's work, he would disagree too, but I shouldn't > speak for him.. "Now, the last doublet decouples too, but in a slightly less trivial way: We can distinguish even and odd nodes on the full space-time LATTICE. ..." Page 5, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0111057 But, I don't speak for him either... But as I under it, his is a lattice artifact model. Paul Stowe > > The natural > > state of the medium is this lattice configuration. That's > > troughout all of space. Matter, as Ilja and others propose > > is an artifact of this lattice. > Well I would disagree, I see no need for a lattice configuration until > you are describing a crystal. Light and gravity can be explained in a > fluid context, in a background free of vorticity. As I understood > Ilja's work, he would disagree too, but I shouldn't speak for him.. Hm, my ether model for the standard model is a lattice of cells. Moreover, with spontaneously broken isotropy of space, similar to ferromagnetism. My GLET does not specify the material properties, but includes a stress tensor. A scalar pressure p(x)delta_ij as typical for fluids is only a very special case. Moreover, GLET is conservative, reversible in time, like elasticity theory, without viscosity. Thus, a lattice seems more natural than a fluid. Ilja > > > The natural > > > state of the medium is this lattice configuration. That's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is only a very special case. Moreover, GLET is conservative, > reversible in time, like elasticity theory, without viscosity. My apologies gentlemen, I was indeed referring to the "very special case" of the model of the gravitational variation of the metric. > Thus, a lattice seems more natural than a fluid. ?? A lattice must have something holding it together. a Maxwellian distribution seems more natural to me. What about the standard model makes you hypothesize a lattice structure for a vacuum? Is there any physical process with a preferred orientation in a vacuum (flat w/ E=B=0)? Regards - shevek > Ilja Schmelzer wrote: > > > Light and gravity can be explained in a > > > fluid context, in a background free of vorticity. As I understood > > > Ilja's work, he would disagree too, but I shouldn't speak for him.. > > > > Hm, my ether model for the standard model is a lattice of cells. ... > > Thus, a lattice seems more natural than a fluid. > ?? A lattice must have something holding it together. Indeed. I have to postulate some equation of motion (Lagrangian) for the lattice, which holds it together. > a Maxwellian distribution seems more natural to me. > What about the standard model > makes you hypothesize a lattice structure for a vacuum? The simple fact that I can define a Lagrangian for the lattice which gives the 24 SM fermions. This includes the use of fermion doubling, which is an artefact of lattice theories. I would like to have a generalization of this Lagrangian for a general configuration of cells, but I don't have it now. > Is there any > physical process with a preferred orientation in a vacuum (flat w/ > E=B=0)? Electroweak (isospin) symmetry breaking is also a symmetry breaking of isotropy of space. All SM mass terms break spatial isotropy. Ilja > > Ilja Schmelzer wrote: > > > > Light and gravity can be explained in a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > which gives the 24 SM fermions. This includes the use > of fermion doubling, which is an artefact of lattice theories. lets see.. (e, mu, tau) * (lepton, neutrino) * (koino, anti), OK, 24. I should really read your papers in more detail (as you could already tell by my previous posts), but are you suggesting that the e, mu, and tau vibrations are in three different directions in the lattice? Could this be called an iso-space lattice? I should also study nuclear physics in more detail, I see that for would-be geometers of space-time this cannot be left aside - indeed valuable evidence is here. What do you see as the fundamental difference between the electron/muon/tauon disturbances and the e_nu,mu_nu,tau_nu disturbances? As if I haven't asked enough questions, why don't we see mixing of the more-massive leptons like we do with the neutrinos? Do you predict zero magnetic moment for the neutrinos? > I would like to have a generalization of this Lagrangian > for a general configuration of cells, but I don't have it now. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > breaking of isotropy of space. All SM mass terms break > spatial isotropy. Is this (isospin) symmetry breaking somehow different from the (geometric space) symmetry breaking of an aether lattice? Thanks for your answers and keep up the good work - shevek > Ilja Schmelzer wrote: > I should really read your papers in more detail (as you could already > tell by my previous posts), but are you suggesting that the e, mu, and > tau vibrations are in three different directions in the lattice? Yes. > I should also study nuclear physics in more detail, I see that for > would-be geometers of space-time this cannot be left aside - indeed > valuable evidence is here. What do you see as the fundamental > difference between the electron/muon/tauon disturbances and the > e_nu,mu_nu,tau_nu disturbances? Most of the degrees of freedom describe positions relative to the center of the cell (quarks), modes which oscillate in different directions (eight possible modes). There is one mode almost continuous mode in all directions. Together with one mode which oscillates in the two directions orthogonal to the preferred (I_3) direction, they form the right-handed neutrino. The electron components oscillate in the preferred direction. > As if I haven't asked enough questions, why don't we see mixing of the > more-massive leptons like we do with the neutrinos? There is no difference. There are four mass matrices in the standard model. (leptons, up-quarks,down-quarks,neutrinos). You can define three eigenstates for each mass matrix. The point of the mixing is that the electroweak doublets are not pairs of eigenstates. The partner of a down quark mass eigenstate is not an up quark mass eigenstate, and reverse. We can diagonalize only two of the four types of particles, but which we choose to diagonalize is an arbitrary choice. > Do you predict zero magnetic moment for the neutrinos? There will be no difference with the standard model in such questions. > Is this (isospin) symmetry breaking somehow different from the > (geometric space) symmetry breaking of an aether lattice? I see no difference yet. But the math of symmetry breaking has not been worked out yet in my theory. Ilja >> Ilja Schmelzer wrote: >> I should really read your papers in more detail (as you could already [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Ilja >>> Ilja Schmelzer wrote: >>> I should really read your papers in more detail (as you could already [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> >> Ilja Yeah, well. It's funny how both the traditional aetherists and the modern zero-point vacuum proponents are increasingly using the word "lattice" to label their respective concept of space/aether. Problem is, they're not really interested in knowing the exact composition and properties of the particles that comprise the lattce. They want to write equations first, not understanding why the equations work or don't work. This faith in equations without a physical hypothesis (mechanism) has a long tradition in physics. After all, it started with Newton's own lame "hypotheses non fingo" pronouncement. That was more than four centuries ago. They're still at it to this day. ahahaha... Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm > >>> Ilja Schmelzer wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > more than four centuries ago. They're still at it to this day. > ahahaha... And with good reason! Engineers are with good reason interested in equations that work, not theories behind these equations. Empirical science is more the foundation of our technosociety than theoretics. | > Ilja Schmelzer wrote: | > > > Light and gravity can be explained in a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | I would like to have a generalization of this Lagrangian | for a general configuration of cells, but I don't have it now. It is not going to be easy. Take a look at our hexagonal Spin Matrix lattice of cells in, http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110 We can generate the first generation fermion masses and more for composite particles but seem to be missing something for the 2nd and 3rd generations. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com > Can you point out to sites where they use the aether concept > that can produce the same predictions or output of Special and > especially General Relativity such as the gravity lensing, star > light deflection, mercury perihelion anomaly, black holes, etc.? gr-qc/0205035 on arxiv.org This ether theory gives the Einstein equations in some limit, thus, gravity lensing, star light deflection, mercury perihelion anomaly follow in the same way as in standard GR. The black hole collapse stops very close to the horizon formation and gives stable stars with highly redshifted surface. > Supposed we'd extend the aether to cover dynamic aether > (this means re-education of the world's scientists on the > extended meaning of aether which they have avoided since > their college education). It has to cover the SR and GR > predictive power That's what is done. > (i'm talking of aether that isn't LET > because somehow LET seems to be the only candidate > they take into account). LET appears as some limit. > But then there is a possibility that the Standard Model is > arranged to be the standard in science to suppress > some knowledge that a science of a dynamic aether > can give us. About the standard model in the context of this theory see Message-ID: <dv49o7$hi7$1@sycamore.fernuni-hagen.de> Ilja Hi Quantum_Stuff, The _Ideal_ vacuum is Einstein's ether, and, just like the speed of sound is always the same, given the same medium, so too is light. Neither one's acceleration nor speed changes that constant. But no place could ever have a perfect vauum, because it takes energy to maintain a vacuum, so it'd consume more energy than exists in the cosmos. Don't forget, best observations and best theory won't allow us to monitor the contents of Eientein's _Ideal_ vacuum. Light even has something analogous to a sonic boom, Cherenkov radiation, see: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Cherenkov_effect Jeff...Relf wrote: > Hi Quantum_Stuff, The _Ideal_ vacuum is Einstein's ether, > and, just like the speed of sound is always the same, given the same medium, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Light even has something analogous to a sonic boom, > Cherenkov radiation, see: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Cherenkov_effect gisse is right. you are an idiot. you use all the words you can find yet you have no clue what they mean. you need to change your handle to dickhead > Hi Quantum_Stuff, The _Ideal_ vacuum is Einstein's ether, > and, just like the speed of sound is always the same, given the same > medium, > so too is light. Neither one's acceleration nor speed changes that > constant. What was Einstein's ether? > But no place could ever have a perfect vauum, > because it takes energy to maintain a vacuum, > so it'd consume more energy than exists in the cosmos. Ok, how much energy is required to maintain a perfect vacuum 1m^3 How much energy is required to maintain a non-perfect vacuum 1m^3 > What is subquantum mechanics? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 1st road. Superstrings in which particle such as electron is allegedly > made up of vibrating string. But physicists don't about that. Since being faddists in the science area, they're only here for the Super Symmetry, not vibrations or matter. > 2nd road. Bohm Implicate Order in which a point particle is the anchor > end of a hidden domain called the Implicate Order. This means the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mathematical model (it is possible that the only way to model the > Implicate Order is thru mathematics) Most definitely,. giiven that it was Plato, not physicists or mathematicians that invented implicate order. > 3rd road. made up of numerous individuals such as Tom Lockyer, > Freddifizzx, srp, Enterprize, Retic, Seto, Thomson, Sefton, Porat, etc. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > quant > > What is subquantum mechanics? > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Most definitely,. giiven that it was Plato, not physicists > or mathematicians that invented implicate order. Let's not be philosophical and discuss in terms of experiments. The key here is entanglement as proven by Aspect and company. The correlation is true even at separation equal to much greater than the speed of light. So obviously we are not talking of superluminal signal here but a realm where particles are united as one and space/time a secondary effect of this more primary hidden domain. So what is the hidden domain. When the double slit source emits the electron and before it reaches the photodetector. It is in the realm of the hidden domain. So can't we say the hidden domain is the more primary reality and our classical world is just detection events or macroscopic smearing of quantum reality. It boils down to what happens during measurement in QM bec during measurement our classical world came to be. Penrose attribute the decoherence to gravity although pure math geeks who are desensitized with reality would just state that in the world of the quantum, they are not called waves nor particles so you can't attribute everyday language to it. But what they have to take into consideration is that entangelment happens and therefore the battleline can be drawn and it is in the entangelment department, not the particle/wave semantics game. quant > > 3rd road. made up of numerous individuals such as Tom Lockyer, > > Freddifizzx, srp, Enterprize, Retic, Seto, Thomson, Sefton, Porat, etc. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > quant > > > What is subquantum mechanics? > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > are united as one and space/time a secondary effect of this > more primary hidden domain. All points in universe are connected by a path of zero distance. >So what is the hidden domain. Trivial space. > When the double slit source emits the electron and before it > reaches the photodetector. It is in the realm of the hidden domain. You have a single photon, and it appears that you have split the photon. It's not sensible that you could do this, but the experiment seems to demonstrate this. You could look at this in several ways. When you split the photon there is a little bit of structure which takes each path, but one of those chunks appears nonexistent. Or, the photon is'nt really being split, it is in two places at once because there is a path of zero distance and the two paths are really the same path. Whatever the case - the only thing that makes sense is employing nonexistence in the explanation. > So can't we say the hidden domain is the more primary reality > and our classical world is just detection events or macroscopic > smearing of quantum reality. You could say that there is a realm which is unobservable which really does exist, but because it is completely inaccesible that it "appears" nonexistent. You could consider reality as that which 'appears" existent, or reality could be the union of that which "appears" existent along with eveything else which really does exist but "appears" not to, being very careful to not include things which simply do not exist on any scale, but considering the fact that there could be something like a scalar ergodicity, it might be possible that there is no such thing as nonexistence of anything, particularly if the infinitely large and the infinitely small really actually occurs in some sense. The possibility that absolute nonexistence of a thing is impossible is pretty wild, possible iff, and probably quite likely if scales really are infinite with structure on all of these different scales. Even if that were the case, we'll never see the whole thing. Observability of dimension is restricted somehow. > It boils down to what happens > during measurement in QM bec during measurement our [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are not called waves nor particles so you can't attribute > everyday language to it. True, and a copout. > But what they have to take into > consideration is that entangelment happens and therefore > the battleline can be drawn and it is in the entangelment > department, not the particle/wave semantics game. > > quant All of physics is based on observation. Mathematicians dont make physical observations, and there is no gurantee anywhere that physics will allow the scientist to observe nature in it's absolute totality, either directly or indirectly. If length can be infinite, and your ability to observe or measure length is only finite, then you have relativistic existence issues. Math geeks cant do that with R(n) because they cant make physical observations of R. It has less to do with limitations of language, and more to do with limitations of observability. > > > 3rd road. made up of numerous individuals such as Tom Lockyer, > > > Freddifizzx, srp, Enterprize, Retic, Seto, Thomson, Sefton, Porat, etc. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > > > quant > > > > What is subquantum mechanics? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > is in two places at once because there is a path of zero distance and > the two paths are really the same path. What goes on between the source and the photodetector is the same as the state the particle is in during superposition in entanglement. So knowing what is behind entanglement can solve the double slit puzzle. I'm wondering if space has some conductor quality where correlations can travel much faster than light. Remember the superluminal correlation doesn't travel within space but maybe using the fabric of space itself. If this is not possible. Then we have to deny localism itself or space which is to deny reality. So does space have a superluminal conductor that is SR friendly or is space literally a hologram of the hidden domain. These questions linger in my mind the past few days. What do you think? > Whatever the case - the only thing that makes sense is employing > nonexistence in the explanation. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > will allow the scientist to observe nature in it's absolute totality, > either directly or indirectly. Then we have to give birth to ParaPhysics where it investigates where Bell, Bohm, Aspect, Entanglement left off. Who knows. By knowing and understanding it deeper, we can gain a more thorough understanding of spacetime itself. So it should still be made part of physics one day. quanta > If length can be infinite, and your ability to observe or measure > length is only finite, then you have relativistic existence issues. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > > > > > quant > > > > > What is subquantum mechanics? > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > literally a hologram of the hidden domain. These questions > linger in my mind the past few days. What do you think? Well, by now I think that the whole sci.* heirarchy knows my opinion about it, but I'll just recap my views for you. Entanglement and nonlocality can be explained by saying that for any two points in space, there is a path of zero distance which connects those points. People used to speculate about this during the cold war, and it never became mainstream science. But the evidence has been steadily growing. So, there is a path of zero distance from the Earth to Pluto. Sounds like a dumb thing to say because they are separated by millions of miles of empty space. However - if observability of length and time is restricted, then there is a sub-Planck scale manifold or sub-Planck scale points or regions which "appear" to be nonexistent to an observer on our scale, and so a path from Earth to Pluto which is made up of such points will "appear" to have zero length because it's geometry is unobservable and hence "appears" nonexistent. Nonlocality is only a mystery if you put it in the abstract context of R3 or R4 where everything is nice and continuous, and the process of observing is just another concept to toss around or even disregarded entirely. > > Whatever the case - the only thing that makes sense is employing > > nonexistence in the explanation. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > quanta Here's a trick for ya - try to model the act of observing using mathematical tools. Mathematicians dont observe things in nature - that's not their job. But physicists must make observations. The explanation of nonlocality has less to do with algebra, and more to do with observability of dimension. Suppose that all of R exists from - inf to + inf. Now suppose that you live in this space and you are observing things by measuring them with a ruler. You'll never be able to measure the entire space from - inf to + inf with a ruler, so your ability to observe the space where you live is restricted. What happens to the rest of R which remains unobservable ? Simple. It exists in an absolute sense, but relative to you it "appears" nonexistent. Now, as far as I know, mathematicians dont concern themselves with problems like that. And the really amusing thing is that most serious researchers are searching for an explanation of nonlocality which makes sense mathematically, and there isn't one. It's like looking for an alebraic explanation of 1 = x = 2. There is none. > > If length can be infinite, and your ability to observe or measure > > length is only finite, then you have relativistic existence issues. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > > > > > > > quant > > > > > > What is subquantum mechanics? > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > observing is just another concept to toss around or even disregarded > entirely. Do you have a web site or something to illustration what you are saying? If you'd suggest there may be higher dimension(s) and in that higher space, things have zero distance between what may be separate points.. well... have to think about that. But we can also say that in that higher dimension, there are correleration coupling signal that naturally bind those distance points. It is more stretch to think there is zero distance. I can't give a definite opinion because I can't visualize 4D or 5D spatial forms or shapes. Anyway what you are mainly saying is there are other ways to model length, width, height where from a different perspective zero distance would pop out between what may be seeming two distance points. Give your site and I'd look into it. quanta This is really simple, so dont think of it as being complicated at all. It is so simple that it is actually stupid. Imagine that there is some type of sub-Planck scale structure, wave, particle, whatever. You simply cannot observe or experience that structure, cant measure it directly or indirectly, and so it "appears" nonexistent. That's what happens when you restrict observability of time &/or length. You get the "illusion" of nonexistence. So, there may be an infinitely large, and an infinitely small, but they will "appear" nonexistent. And most of the time they act that way. That is - until you set up the double slit experiment quantum eraser or double eraser or quantum interference experiments, etc etc. The problem that science has had is that the idea of physical nonexistence has always been a problem, but this could be resolved pretty easily. And how do you make an observation of nonexistence ? How to confirm such a thing ? I think that most scientists would happily agree with me if it were falsifiable, reproducible, testable, etc etc etc. Anyway - ergodic theory views the universe as evolving through various states over a period of time. If time were infinite, ergodic theory predicts that the universe would achieve every possible state over time. But , if scale is infinite, then you probably have a similar situation in the scale regime at any given instant. Ergodicity being expressed as variations in structure. Of course, if observability is restricted it dosent matter much because all of those infinite varieties of structure will "appear" nonexistent or trivial because it's either sub-Planck, or beyond deep space. But it should still be there in an absolute sense. The thing that bugs me is that Planck scale and deep space are approximately comparable in terms of orders of magnitude, but the one is not equal to the inverse of the other. It is possible that expansion of universe is causing this shift, and I have no idea how to model it. > Anyway - ergodic theory views the universe as evolving through various > states over a period of time. If time were infinite, ergodic theory [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is not equal to the inverse of the other. It is possible that expansion > of universe is causing this shift, and I have no idea how to model it. As above so below.. as the ancients used to say. You state that large scale infinity has its equivalance in very small sub-planck infinity. But you still have to model how that micro infinity produces zero distance in between two physical space points. Who knows. By modeling it, you can the physical causal basis of GR which is presently modeled by Riemann's geometry (remember this is just a model). Try to organize your thoughts and share a site or two in the future so people would know what you are talking about as well as to organize your mind. Btw.. I heard the concept of particle being black holes and behind the event horizon or screen is hyperspace where all things are connected and correlated by superluminal connections. But how does superluminal and subluminal points connect since they are out of contact with each other. A physicist call Dr. Tile suggests that there are special particles called deltron particles which can bind the superluminal and subluminal points. He believes that the bohm pilot waves are superluminal and connected to the particles via the binding deltron particles. This means that for every particle there are ambient deltron particles that produce the wave properties. Superluminal thing and the binding glue particles don't violate relativity because they are created that way from the start and you are not accelerate them to lightspeed and beyond, etc. With the mystery of entanglement still not solved. We need every available concept we can find that is within the realm of logic and plausibility. I'm pondering on it as days go by. Quanta > > Anyway - ergodic theory views the universe as evolving through various > > states over a period of time. If time were infinite, ergodic theory [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > large scale infinity has its equivalance in very small sub-planck > infinity. Well, what I meant to say was that the infinitely large and the infinitely small might exist in an absolute sense, but they are unobservable and "appear" nonexistent. There is an existential boundary condition, and what we percieve as existence is merely bounded by extreme scales. > But you still have to model how that micro infinity > produces zero distance in between two physical space points. OK, that's easy. Consider a path joining A and B. The path is measurable using an ordinary ruler, the length is observable and "appears" to exist because you are using an ordinary ruler to make the observation. You observe length, and you can measure it too. Just like normal. But now consider a path from A to B where you can only measure the distance by considering tiny little segments which are much smaller than Planck length. You are asked to make the same observation using a different scale. The problem is that those sub-Planck length segments are unobservable and so they "appear" nonexistent. Your path has zero length because the length "appears" to not exist. Nonlocality is an illusion which is caused by trying to make observations on nature using things which are just too small to exist, such as splitting photons. > Who knows. By modeling it, you can the physical causal basis > of GR which is presently modeled by Riemann's geometry > (remember this is just a model). Try to organize your thoughts > and share a site or two in the future so people would know > what you are talking about as well as to organize your mind. No doubt about it, if I had more time in life I would start on a book. I like to toss out alot of ideas and just see what happens, but usually only things which seem genuinely plausible. > Btw.. I heard the concept of particle being black holes and > behind the event horizon or screen is hyperspace where [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Quanta There was once alot of talk about nonexistence, but the problem is that it's loaded with paradoxes and the idea of existence was never really well formulated or understood. The whole thing can be made very clear by first realizing that physics is based on observation, and so too on our ability to observe things. If the universe was composed of scales from - infinity all the way up to + infinity, we are still stuck with the situation that we can only observe from Planck scale to deep space. This would indicate that there is a very real and tangible nonexistence which actually exists in a physical sense, a blatant paradox, and one which I accept as a naturally occuring phenomena. It'd be really nice to express my ideas about an order/disorder continuum rigorously, and algebraically. Maybe God will be nice to me and help me out on that, or maybe it's already been done 500 years ago by Euler and nobody would care anyway. But there's one thing that I'd really like to do. I would like to show that symmetry of existential scalar boundaries is broken due to expansion of universe. In other words, I think that Planck length and farthest limits of deep space should be about the same in terms of orders of magnitude. They are not the same, and I suspect it is due to expansion of space, kind of like redshift. I dont really have any solid reasons to say that, it's just a hunch, and cant imagine how to prove it without some type of scalar calculus or maybe some other tool which does not really exist yet. This might provide a means of verifying or refuting my silly claims, and the whole thing would be settled at last. > > > Anyway - ergodic theory views the universe as evolving through various > > > states over a period of time. If time were infinite, ergodic theory [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > are unobservable and so they "appear" nonexistent. Your path has zero > length because the length "appears" to not exist. Gee. It's like saying that a beggar in london has no money in his pocket and a beggar in australia has no money in his pocket. And because they both share nothing. Their similarity is nothing and so they are entangled. You need to produce more logical mechanism that this schizophrenic analogy. > Nonlocality is an illusion which is caused by trying to make > observations on nature using things which are just too small to exist, [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > does not really exist yet. This might provide a means of verifying or > refuting my silly claims, and the whole thing would be settled at last. The key to uncovering the secret is General Relativity. Live GR and think GR and if you can see space and time for what it is and what's behind it where it can be modelled by Riemann's geometry. Then you master space and time. When you do, then the secret of entanglement would automatically pop up. Well. Modern physics is really standing on very strange territory. But no matter what it is. We must be grounded or else we'd become spiritual and philosophical dreamer. Speaking of being grounded. Do you know that the same time we spend on all this search for TOE and bizarre physics we can master say molecular biology, finance, etc. and gain more insight about the essence of being human and society. I mean. Think of Einstein last 30 years of his life living alone and isolated and dying frustrated not knowing what is the secret of reality. What I'm saying is I think physics especially the more bizarre stuff can make one so ungrounded and crazy (such as Jack Sarfatti). Sometimes it is true that "Ignorance is Bliss" (try to recall that moment in Matrix I when the guy is eating chicken and forgetting the real nature of the world (in our analogy, the bizarre real nature of space and time and what may lurk beyond. For all we know, and especially if SR, GR, QM can't be improved with better model.. we may be literally living in some kind of matrix). quanta > > > > Anyway - ergodic theory views the universe as evolving through various > > > > states over a period of time. If time were infinite, ergodic theory [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > is nothing and so they are entangled. You need to produce > more logical mechanism that this schizophrenic analogy. Well, I did laugh out loud, in a good way. Your analogy is really funny. Great stuff. OK - you have a photon and you split it with a prism. You should not be able to split a photon, but it seems that you can because of double slit interference. Now, you create an entangled pair and it sure looks like a single particle can be in two different places at once. Clearly impossible for various reasons other than personal bias. Modern physics accepts this as reality. I accept it as illusion. Now you tell me which is crazier. > > Nonlocality is an illusion which is caused by trying to make > > observations on nature using things which are just too small to exist, [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > quanta Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but differential geometry "does not" help us to to model waves using dimension as the medium of propagation. Am I wrong ? Somebody ? Anybody ? OK, so, if you believe in GR and SR, then you believe in gravity waves. Clearly, the medium of propagatino of a gravity wave is dimension itself. So, how does one propose to model such a thing mathematically ? There is only one way - cellular automata. The only other way is a type of calculus I'm trying to invent which is very confusing and lots of fun, which is also based on CA and quite strange. So, suppose we had this tool to model waves using dimension as the medium of propagation. You can use this tool to understand expansion and contraction of space in a whole new way, and maybe we can compare Planck length with the scale of deep space, and show that the difference between the two is similar to redshift caused by expansion of cosmos. This is very basic stuff, it's just a little different. Planck scale is something like 10^( - 40), and deep space is something like 10 ^ (25) orders of magnitude. I think that this difference might be akin to redshift, but I think that you 'd need some new tools to prove it, or disprove it. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. > > > > > Anyway - ergodic theory views the universe as evolving through various > > > > > states over a period of time. If time were infinite, ergodic theory [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] > > That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Well. Try to organize your thoughts and put up a web or two. I guess I'll just stick to things that can be quantified. All this thing about entanglement, M-theory, branes, aether, higher dimensions, etc. can sometimes be likened to being high in drugs. One is floating in some high places without ground. Also this is making me dizzy already and so I'll spent a couple of weeks or a month on quantum chemistry to get me grounded. See you around. quanta THE FOURTH ROAD: You may be interested in a monograph I published entitled "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity" Some of the things it produced are (1) an equation for the strong force (2) the density of a neutron star (3) the reason for the equality of the fundamental charges despite the great difference of mass between the electron and proton (4) mass of the electron and proton (5)an explanation of why there APPEARS to be action at a distance (6) explanations for non-locality and wave entanglement ( 7) a quantum explanation for gravity -- and (8) a physical explanation for the strong force. There's much more. It can be found in the on-line General Science Journal at http://www.wbabin.net Go to the pull down "LIST OF AUTHORS" and click on Vertner Vergon. Playing around with the laser today. I made a couple tiny holes in some aluminum from a soda can. Got some great circular aperature diffraction rings, but also got some really cool double slit diffraction deu to wave interference. There must be an easy way to demonstrate which way information for under $5. Wave Particle duality You have a process which has attributes which are essentially akin to dimensionality. You try to observe which way information and the interference disappears. The act of trying to observe mutliple attributes, i.e. multiple dimensions, casuses the "appearance" of a dimensional collapse, probably because time and length may actually be the same thing, but they cannot be measured or observed in the same fashion. Time and length "appear" to be different things, but they are not. > Playing around with the laser today. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There must be an easy way to demonstrate which way information for > under $5. > Wave Particle duality > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thing, but they cannot be measured or observed in the same fashion. > Time and length "appear" to be different things, but they are not. And because order and disorder are related to the way we observe, it may be that there |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message