With all of these threads regarding spacetime, light, gravity... and all of the effects associated with them, isn't our fundamental ignorance of what these things really are almost overwhelming? You can show me equations that accurately describe the behavior of nature. My response is "Yes, but what is a photon? What is actually curving to create gravity?" We sit in a gravity well, bathed in light, yet can describe it, in simple terms, no better than a caveman.

I read somewhere that at this fundamental level, theoretical physicists speak only of "correlated couplings" between events: An electron wiggles here, and an electron over there wiggles a little in response. We call the correlated coupling a "photon".

This leaves me with a profound sense of mystery about the very foundations of the universe. Do you feel it?

My response is "Yes, but what is a photon? What is actually curving to create gravity?"

A photon is a theoretical construct invented to account for observed phenomena involving light. Semantically, it makes just as much sense to say that a photon is a particle of light.

Similarly, spacetime curvature is one way physicists account for the observed phenomena associated with gravity. It makes just as much sense to say that spacetime is curved. Of course, spacetime is itself a theoretical construct invented to explain a set of observations, namely why there everything doesn't happen in the same place at the same time.

The point is: we understand something when we can account for it in some way, and make useful predictions. Both photons and spacetime curvature allow us to do that.

Arrrggghhhh...

SuperL,
No, I do not feel any mystery, but I strongly feel our general ignorance of origins of Nature, its rules and manners of the revealing of itself. And I have also some strong feelings that very often we go in wrong way modeling the Nature’s behavior…
Reading this your post, I understood that besides some common philosophical aspects, you have a concrete interest to know what the photons and gravitons are. Mostly it concerns to photons.
And here I can offer you the answers I got for myself.
Of course, photons are the all what the contemporary Science says about it: the stable quanta of EM field, vector, massless, spin 1, uncharged, always moving with speed of light in vacuum elementary particles.
But you want to know more, you want to know what is the space-time structure of photon; why and how they are irradiated; what is photon’s frequency (what is oscillating in it); why collective of photons give EM-wave; why consequent action of the singled photons give the results like a EM-wave; and so on, so on…

If I am right, and all these is your interest, I can give you the accurate answers on each of such questions. Because I build one clear model that answers on all this questions. Not only gives a logical explanations, but even shows you an evident picture of … photons, as transversal (usual light), so longitudinal (the Coulomb quanta that are responsible for an electrostatic field and interactions of charges). Simply read “The model of World of Vacuum”.

Yuriy,

I will read.

Superluminal; You are asking for an understanding that is not possible. The universe is controlled by quantum level processes acting on quantum level entities. We cannot see the quantum activities. The quantum level particles cannot be accurately modeled by any macro world objects. Similarly, the quantum level processes cannot be modeled accurately by macro world processes.

Furthermore, our brain has been conditioned by millions of years of evolution in the classical world of our senses. Our intuitive notions of how the world works is very compatible with classical physics. Our survival depended on viewing reality as being governed by classical laws, because those laws describe our immediate environment as precisely as quantum theory and relativity.

Given the above, there is no hope of having the type of understanding you are hoping for.

To me, it is analogous to understanding 4D or 5D geometry. I can compute volumes and prove various theorems about 4D/5D (and beyond) objects. I cannot come close to visualizing even the simplest 4D/5D objects. Similarly, we can devise equations which tell us a lot about how the universe functions, but cannot visualize the activities and objects described by those equations.

Dino,

I actually agree with you. I don't expect to get what I'm after.

Dinosaur,
What is this:
You are asking for an understanding that is not possible. The universe is controlled by quantum level processes acting on quantum level entities. We cannot see the quantum activities. The quantum level particles cannot be accurately modeled by any macro world objects. Similarly, the quantum level processes cannot be modeled accurately by macro world processes.
some kind of pray?
What does Physics, if not a modeling of the entities and processes on any level of Nature? Why we build more and more accellerators, if not for seeing those processes on the more and more deep level of Nature? You can see by eyes, but you can see by devices. Accelerator and appropriate targets are such devices - "microscopes for quantum entities".
Do you have any experience, which has shown that "The quantum level particles cannot be accurately modeled by any macro world objects. Similarly, the quantum level processes cannot be modeled accurately by macro world processes."? Or you know some theorem based upon the fundamentals of Physics that prohibits such a possibility?
If all these is your believes - say so, I will never have any question to you: there are a lot of strange things that members of our Forum believe. But do not state it as a proven knowledge, please...

And this is for superL:
I am very, very interested to hear from you what of your expectations was right: what you were looking for and did not get answered in my model?

Yuriy,

The vacuum/riplon model you present is very interesting. Now, normally I prize rationality over just about everything else, but I suppose I'm being a little mystical here. The fact that the universe is a quantum thing at it's basic level is mysterious to me. Maybe having been a professional physicist as you are, you have an intuitive feeling for these phenomena that leaves you very comfortable. I, on the other hand, strive to have the best qualitative understanding I can (the math just dosen't speak to me the way I understand it does to true mathemeticians and physicists) and need more concrete visualizations to feel comfortable. And I guess I agree, in principle with Dino that the worlds of quantum mechanics and curved spacetime fall well below the "intuition radar" of most humans, if not all. Does this make any sense?

Yuriy: If you think you can provide a macro world model of some quantum level process, I would be most interested in looking at it.

Our knowledge of quantum phenomena consists of readings on instrument dials and patterns on photographic film or cathode ray tube monitors. If you think the squiggles produced by particle accelerators on photographic film or computer monitors look like quantum objects, you are fooling yourself.

The most brilliant men of the last 100 years do not claim to be able to visualize quantum level activities or objects. Of course, I do not have a formal theorem to prove that such activities cannot be modeled. However I have some understanding of Quantum theory. I have a much better understanding of classical physics. I know that my brain (like yours) is the result of millions of years of evolution in an environment modeled quite well by perceptual images. I know (as do you) that the quantum world is fundamentally different from the classical world modeled by our mind.

Thoughts indicated by the last paragraph are sufficient proof for me that we can neither create a classical world model of quantum activities nor visualize such activities. I can think of nothing in my perceptual images that comes close to modeling quantum level activities. Do your perceptual images include such models?

As mentioned in my previous post, it is analogous to visualizing 4D/5D geometric objects, which we cannot do although we have a lot of mathematics which provide information about such objects. .

I hope you do not think that the solar system model of the atom is even close to quantum reality. Bohr and others did not believe that in the early 20th century when they used it to aid their thinking. I would like to know of a macro world model for quantum tunneling, or for the electrons associated with an atom. A good model for a crystal lattice is near the edge of what we can visualize and/or model accurately, and our classic model uses little physical connections to hold the lattice together. Actually, it is held together by electromagnetic forces.

Dinosaur,
It really is some strange situation: you preach some concept of impossibility of classic description of quantum phenomena based on your believes, and I tell you: "go, read volume #7 of "The Scientific Notes", paragraph #3 (started on page 23), there you will see the classic description of the hydrogen atom energy levels with much more details than Bohr model provides and without ant mysterious postulates on quantified orbits... All what you need is SRT and Principle of quantification of fields (Both discovered and invented in Physics by Einstein). Why you reject this natural scientific way of discussion?
Go, read, learn and if something is wrong – ask. Then make your conclusion: can classic Physics explain quantum phenomena or not?

superluminal,
it will make any sense only if you will stop speaking "in general" and start asking questions about stuff that keeps you out of understanding of issues considered in this model. Specifically, what you do not understand? Or it is a simple laziness to think tough a long time in row? Stop posting, start learning. It is useful to do sometimes… Now it is a time to learn something.

SL, for what it is worth i fully agree with your thread starter. And yes their is a distinct lack of undestanding of thse fundamentals.

As jamesR so pedantically stated science generates an analoguous object such a a photon and then set's itself the task to prove it. The same with concepts of space time etc. All are intangible pheno that are mere abstractions and tools to help science quantify what it is it is searching for. The higgs field is another example.....will we ever find it? Find what? the higgs field? Whats a Higgs field? I don't know, something a scientist dreamed of as possibly existing.

So we create entities then try to prove that entities performs as expected.

Fundamentals of magnetism, gravity and even electricity are so unknown that it often amazes me when we actualy declare we have a solid grasps of natural phenonema. However we do the best we can I guess. But let's not over estimate what it is we actualy know and realise the distinction between belief and knowledge.

Yuriy: If you think you can provide a macro world model of some quantum level process, I would be most interested in looking at it.

Our knowledge of quantum phenomena consists of readings on instrument dials and patterns on photographic film or cathode ray tube monitors. If you think the squiggles produced by particle accelerators on photographic film or computer monitors look like quantum objects, you are fooling yourself.

The most brilliant men of the last 100 years do not claim to be able to visualize quantum level activities or objects. Of course, I do not have a formal theorem to prove that such activities cannot be modeled. However I have some understanding of Quantum theory. I have a much better understanding of classical physics. I know that my brain (like yours) is the result of millions of years of evolution in an environment modeled quite well by perceptual images. I know (as do you) that the quantum world is fundamentally different from the classical world modeled by our mind.

Thoughts indicated by the last paragraph are sufficient proof for me that we can neither create a classical world model of quantum activities nor visualize such activities. I can think of nothing in my perceptual images that comes close to modeling quantum level activities. Do your perceptual images include such models?

As mentioned in my previous post, it is analogous to visualizing 4D/5D geometric objects, which we cannot do although we have a lot of mathematics which provide information about such objects. .

I hope you do not think that the solar system model of the atom is even close to quantum reality. Bohr and others did not believe that in the early 20th century when they used it to aid their thinking. I would like to know of a macro world model for quantum tunneling, or for the electrons associated with an atom. A good model for a crystal lattice is near the edge of what we can visualize and/or model accurately, and our classic model uses little physical connections to hold the lattice together. Actually, it is held together by electromagnetic forces.
You are recognizing defeat by asserting you are unable to visualize quantum level activities. I will prove it to you here and now.

The expression for the transition of an S atate spin-1 particle through a T segment Stern-Gerlach field/gradient volume is described as,

S ---> T --> S . This says the unobserved elements describing the S state must be embeded in the 'T' term during transition. These embedded elements guarantee the reformation of ther S state of the particle which includes the reorientation of the particle magnetic spin vector (my words) from the T direction to the S direction (S conventionally up in the lab frame and S is generic representaion of +S, or +/-S or -S).

A magnetic compass needle returns to north after being disturbed. We say the force of the earths magnetic field forces the return of the needle to its polarized directional state of N. When the particle leaves the magnetic volume of the T segment an unobserved force reforms the particle magnetic spin vector from T to S. Until the restoring force is unambiguously identified otherwise, the restoring force is unobserved, whatever one's theoretical construct is of the nature of that force.

Who is to say that the earth's magnetic field operates differently from the spin-1 particle regarding the restoring forces? It is impossible to detect a pre-existing magnetic field as to measure is to disturb and how can you measure something before you measure it?

You did see the significance of the polarization event when the process S -> T occurred and, indefinitely later, the depolarization event when T -> S occurred do you not?

Aren't all of these visualizable? Aren't the nonlocal vector infromation elements inferred unambiguously for the very existence of the observed S state? Say "yes" Dinosaur, say "yes".

Geistkiesel

Yuriy,

I read through "volume #7 of "The Scientific Notes", paragraph #3..."

As I have stated many times before, I am not a physicist or a mathemetician, so bludgeoning me with equations will get you nowhere. You use the phrase "...as a method of imagination..." several times in the article, to help "picture" something you are talking about. If you follow what I've been asking in this thread, you will see what I am getting at:

- What is a Quanta?

- What is an Electron?

- What is a Photon?

- What happens when an electron tunnels across a barrier?

- If gravity is curved spacetime, what is curving and why am I sliding down it every instant of every day?

- What is space?

- Describe the energy of empty space

- What is entanglement?

Now, I know the stock scientific explanations for these things. I have used them many times myself. I do not argue with any of them.

Explain these briefly and accurately in terms of intuitive everyday things. Make them obvious to me.

P.S. If you tell me that something is a manifestation of a field interaction with an integral multiple of spin state transitions, or whatever, I will bludgeon you with an equation...

SuperL,
I have mixed feeling about your last post.
1. You tell me that you have “read through "volume #7 of "The Scientific Notes", paragraph #3..." But it was Dinosaur, not you, to whom I advised to read
volume #7 of "The Scientific Notes", paragraph #3 (started on page 23), there you will see the classic description of the hydrogen atom energy levels with much more details than Bohr model provides and without ant mysterious postulates on quantified orbits…
I advised you to read “The model of World of Vacuum” (volume # 8), where last couple paragraphs are devoted to the space-time structure of the Coulomb quanta (quanta of the electrostatic field) and transversal photons (usual light) – just what you wanted to know.
2. Your list of questions in the last post is a little strange, it seems like you should add two more questions as
 How the holes are made in the macaroni?
 What is the God?
and the life’s mission will be accomplished as soon as those questions will be answered…
For example, I can write a book about protons. What you want to know about it? Proton’s physical characteristics? His quark-structure? His interactions with other particles? His role in the formation of life?…
Search Internet for key word “proton” and you will get tons of information about it. What specific forced you to put this question in post? Or your question about entanglement: what common it has with the subject of our discussion in this thread? Yes, it is very intriguing issue: for instance, I personally still do not get what it is – different people speaks about different phenomena and all of them are talking on some … unusual language, at least for me…. On that background your request
Explain these briefly and accurately in terms of intuitive everyday things
sounds like a little childish. If you will reject Math as a base for scientific conversation you will be kept … out of Science. So, try to accept a Math at least as base of conversation (its terms, notions, and basic facts…)
So, I can only repeat my advice to you:
If I am right, and all these are your interests, I can give you the accurate answers on each of such questions. Because I build one clear model that answers on all this questions. Not only gives a logical explanations, but even shows you an evident picture of … photons, as transversal (usual light), so longitudinal (the Coulomb quanta that are responsible for an electrostatic field and interactions of charges). Simply read “The model of World of Vacuum”.

#3..." But it was Dilbert, not you, to whom I advised to read

How nice of you to involve me when i have not even been active in the post. I think you meant Dinosaur. ;)

What is the God?

Dead according to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer

Dilbert,
Sorry! I just fixed my error...
BTW: " Nietz..." who? "Schopen..." who? I do not know such Physicists! Do you?

Neither do I ;)

Philosophers/Writer, you could say many things about them. Nietzsche died 1900, the Nazi’s then used his texts as "propaganda" despite that (IMHO) he merely advocated an elitist society (should give you a hint about what he was writing). Schopenhauer also said "God is dead" but 20 years before Nietzsche did, but he is the one famous for the quote.

Thank you Yuriy. You have satisfied my curiosity on this subject. On to the next thing.

Yuriy: There seems to be a breakdown in communications here. I assume that English is your second (or third) language. We do not understand each other.

As far as I can tell you are quite knowledgable, but further discussion with you seems pointless.

Dear Dinosaur,
you said:
There seems to be a breakdown in communications here. I assume that English is your second (or third) language. We do not understand each other.
As far as I can tell you are quite knowledgable, but further discussion with you seems pointless.

Be so kind and post the statements that I made in this discussion (of that thread) with you, in which you did not understand what I am saying about. No, no, I'm not trying to stick any continuation of discussion to you. Simply your posts will help me to fix my English, which is my third language, and therefore will help a lot of people, who still have discussions with me, to save their time and brain power... Please, be so kind, I will very appreciate that...

Yuriy: While I cannot be sure, I think that I understand you better than you have been understanding my posts.

Sorry, but I do not have the time or the patience to deal with the language difficulties.

I am sure that you are very knowledgeable.

Dinosaur,
you know, I was absolutely sure that you will not post any of my statements, that I said in our discussion here, which you do not understand...

With all of these threads regarding spacetime, light, gravity... and all of the effects associated with them, isn't our fundamental ignorance of what these things really are almost overwhelming? You can show me equations that accurately describe the behavior of nature. My response is "Yes, but what is a photon? What is actually curving to create gravity?" We sit in a gravity well, bathed in light, yet can describe it, in simple terms, no better than a caveman.

I read somewhere that at this fundamental level, theoretical physicists speak only of "correlated couplings" between events: An electron wiggles here, and an electron over there wiggles a little in response. We call the correlated coupling a "photon".

This leaves me with a profound sense of mystery about the very foundations of the universe. Do you feel it?

Yes, I feel it. For all the models that we construct to explain and to describe, we cannot live entirely within them. We are one part model, one part mystery. Always.

Yuriy: I do not feel comfortable with our last few posts to this thread. I hope you know that I am not trying to be nasty or insulting.

If you were my neighbor or we worked in the same office, I think we would have some interesting face-to-face discussions. I believe that you are intelligent and have an excellent knowledge of physics. I just believe that communicating with you in the environment of this forum is difficult.

Yuriy has left the building.