"Spooky action at a distance" What did he mean?

I didn't 'discover' photons, nor specify their properties, nor does it particularly interest me, other than the way the speed of their propagation in a vacuum fits into relativity theory.

A possible mechanism for the generation and propagation of all EM radiation including photons was worked out by Maxwell in 1864, using Faraday's knowledge of the interactions of electric and magnetic fields. A very wide range of inventions since then have exploited the creation and detection of photons. A very wide range of physics experiments have deeply probed what we know about them as well

Photons and EM radiation evidently does exist independent of baryonic matter, and this has already been observed in astrophysics. The bound states of every element on the periodic table have been probed with sophisticated instruments, but the emission and absorption spectra of photons do not particularly interest me either.

By any chance, have you been chatting offline with my friend Farsight (John Duffield)? He also seemed to have some peculiar fixation with the idea that EM theory had it all wrong, and that matter needed to be present in order to produce photons. I have no idea or opinion on that aspect of particle physics, but I'm fairly certain that unless you understand whatever it propagates in a little more deeply than we presently know, any ideas about what photons are will most likely turn out to be wrong.

Can't we just say that photons are excitations of some quantum field and leave it at that? You are not going to be able to use the Pythagorean theorem to gain a deeper understanding of what a photon is from what a consideration of a straight line or a sphere is. It is whatever it is, behaves however it behaves, and propagates through whatever it moves through in a manner that very likely did not originate inside our finite skulls. If we want deeper answers, we have to build instruments like the LHC to try and find them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But if you have a theory of photons that you are at liberty to talk about, by all means... I'm not saying it isn't important to an understanding of entanglement, only that a different sort of field for it to happen in is involved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you believe that working from a potentially flawed premise ( the nature of energy and so called carriers) in developing your ideas about energy and emergent space then by all means be happy doing so but at least keep in mind the limitations of your presumptions and how that will reduce the likely hood of finding a sound result.

For me, years ago, the reality of "delta t=0 then distance = 0" provides the pivotal premise, that solves most of the problems currently faced with out the need for presumptions. (hypothetical virtual particles and energy carriers etc)

The most important outcome is that energy propagation ( at a distance ) ONLY occurs from with in matter and is not external to matter.

Basically it means that I believe science has inadvertently put the energy outside matter instead of inside the matter which leads to all sorts of confusion, inconsistencies and contradictions IMO.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html

 

Excellent link!
Now, consider the possibility that the vacuum is a virtual zero dimensional gate way to the universes matter ( generally ). That the zero point they are accessing is delta t= 0 thus distance to all matter in the universe is zero.

Energy is thus fully conserved.

 

As much as I like the way you are thinking, it's a dead end because it isn't enough to think of time in that way. It is deeper than simply the non-propagation of energy. No shame here; this is also exactly where Einstein wound up.

The link I provided is an experiment using a SQUID as a quantum mirror that accelerates at a rate that is 1/4 of the speed of light. Those photons were produced not by the acceleration of electrons or by teasing photons from the quark gluon foam of atomic nuclei. All the experiment has done is to accelerate a mirror! Virtual photons already accelerating in the vacuum are able to be observed as actual photons, and all that has been provided by the mirror is to give them a direction and a time in which to propagate. We are probing the properties of the quantum field that moves with a velocity of c with respect to the static one.

That is the deeper meaning of time we never found because we stopped believing that relativity must apply to quantum fields also.

 

when you say "we never found" what do you mean by "we"?

Also they are using a magnetic mirror one that is redirected billions of times a second. ( 25% of 'c')
Do they know what magnetism is when related to time?
Or do they presume that knowing what magnetism actually is, is unnecessary for understanding what they discovered?

 

Magnetism is the relativistic consequence of moving electric charges, of course.

So you think the changing magnetic field produced eddy currents in the metallic atoms in the mirror, and this is what produced the observed photons?

Well, that would have just been too easy to check, wouldn't it (as in, predictable energies)? I never assume the folks doing such physics experiments are that cognitively challenged. Sorry if you do.

 

If your model (delta t = 0) is correct, then the whole formulation of electroweak goes out the window, and along with it some pretty impressive SM predictions of the way natural radioactivity behaves. But it is true that they have tossed out time as a variable for atomic structure dynamics. There were just too many infinities.

 

so what is electricity relative to time? You need to look deeper if you wish to get into the guts of it all. IMO

not at all.. although I suppose it is possible.. No, it is as I said related to the relationship time has to magnetism that I was referring to. I wondered whether they had considered what exactly they were doing when they redirect a magnetic field to 25% c when they have no real understanding of electricity nor magnetism in fundamental terms.

I believe after reading the article that they have delved a hell of a lot deeper than they realize and I am looking to find more on it.

Well as I have mentioned earlier a few times they have not got a good working definition of a photon nor energy to begin with and that speaks volumes as far as I am concerned.
If you want to throw around buzz words with out proper scientific definitions then I guess the accusation of cognitively challenged becomes potentially a valid one.

The experiment and it's results are stunning IMO, so do not underestimate my esteem for their work.
However my interpretation of their results is a lot different to theirs. But this does not distract from their achievement.

 

Oh I am sure it is a true and logical statement. One that will not go away just because it is too inconvenient.
No doubt, when accepted many interpretations will need to change.

 

I hadn't thought of it that way before, but electric charge would need to be rooted in the static quantum field at rest (where time has no real meaning). Actually, part of this idea checks out with a problem I was unable to solve shortly before coming here from another forum; a problem pointed out to me concerning electron drift velocity in a conductor by none other than our illustrious rpenner. He convinced me, Edward Purcell's conception of Lorentz compressed charge densities did not really work out as his simple thought experiment with two parallel conductors suggested.

Magnetism would have to do with charges that somehow were moving at the speed of light, but electrons cannot really do this because they have inertial mass, supposedly imparted to them via the Higgs mechanism. Perhaps it isn't the charges that are moving, but rather their entanglement with other electrons, or with something else?

Well, that would be a different playbook.

 

Hee hee see... you are doing it again...( don't worry you are not the only one)

You refer to electrical charge... what is charge?

You have mentioned that all there is is time, but woha! we now have charge... see?
When discussing these things at such a fundamental level buzz words have to be put aside and looked at more deeply. Other wise you will endlessly confuse yourself with your own semantics.

 

So, Dirac was almost right (only one electron in the universe). There is only one "electric field" in the universe, and it is that static quantum field. Being immersed in it, we wouldn't even know what sign of charge it was. And so you seem to think that field is equivalent to time (delta t = 0), all by itself? That I doubt. How does it limit c, all by itself?
Tricky.

 

I really do not want to get into it too deeply, but basically magnetism is the phenomena that makes delta t= >0
Gravitational collapse is at delta t=0, magnetism is delta t=>0

Example explanation:
( take it slowly because it is a mouthful )

You take a hypothetically infinitely thin slice of a bar magnet and use the symbol |

The slice ( | ) is 1/infinity thick which means the space between the sides is zero dimensional.

now consider that on one side you have the north pole and on the other you have the South pole.
So we have symbolism as thus:

S|N
Now consider the placing a symbol for gravity on the slice symbol like so,

.G.
S|N


Gravitational collapse is delta t=0
Magnetism is delta t = >0 ( in this case 1/infinity )
Now replace the S with a P ( past) and the N with a F ( future )

.G.
P|F

Does that make sense to you... not easy to explain in typography?
there is a twist to it yet to be mentioned.

 

Yes Dirac was close and so to was Mach but both had to deal with intense political science furor so there ideas failed to progress as they could have in a more open minded environment. IMO

 

Now we're talking magnetic monopoles. You make those with an electric current through half a loop of wire I suppose.

It bothers me to think perhaps the entire universe is one polarity of some EM field; too easy to take a wrecking ball to it with a universe of the opposite polarity.

You've been very patient explaining this, and it's very interesting, but also very speculative. It's in the right forum, I suppose.

 

no we are not...

Did you get data base failure messages a few moments ago?
Happens every time I publish sensitive info... ( chuckle)

 

Well then, don't do that!

 

Evidently, people were still trying to do this (an electrostatic version of a unified field theory) based on Einstein, Schrodinger's earlier work, as late as 2005:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0405064v4.pdf

And the hangup is almost always the same: geometry. It's like the Michaelson-Moreley experiment and all the ones that followed it never happened. People (particularly mathematicians) simply won't stop trying to do solid Euclidean or Minkowski relativistic geometry (which amounts to the same thing) on a non-existent aether. Did any of them ever pause to think: I don't care HOW it behaves geometrically, or HOW MUCH, or an approximation thereof. What I really wish to know is WHY it behaves the way it does. Because THAT is something that engineering might someday figure out a way to exploit.

I suppose that if I asked one of these folks to calculate the circumference of a perfect circle, none of them would render an approximate answer in a dozen of their lifetimes because they would all be so damn fascinated with the fact that the digits of pi never repeat. There is something to be said for staying on task, but there is also something to be said for giving work a break, taking in a deep breath or two, and ask what it is you are really trying to accomplish with all your ciphers?