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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Quantum Quack, Apr 20, 2015.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Dan it is impossible to know that photos travel across vacuum-ous space independent of matter... I currently have a 500 USD reward on offer to any one who can show me a photon that does not involve matter to show it with... ( yeah it is impossible I know but I offer it to emphasize the point - it could just as easily be 1M reward)
    You may consider the above to be spurious and ridiculous after all the existence of a photon is evidenced by the effect called light and is such an entrenched and accepted model. However it is only because we are not currently able to find an alternative explanation that the model is considered as true.
    All we can actually evidence, using the scientific method properly, is "matter" being effected by matter with a distance of vacuum-ous space separating them.

    Then along comes evidence of quantum entanglement and some smart arse talks about delta t= 0 then distance = 0 and suddenly an alternative is possible...the mere notion of energy being anything other than "the potential to do work" which is a property of matter (which is what E=mc^2 describes IMO ) and nothing more suddenly can come back into vogue and simplifies the situation incredibly.
    Got not a lot to do with ancient geeks ( oops I mean Greeks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) so you can keep that strawman for yourself.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    What you are doing is confusing logical postulates that are derived for what appears to be logical proofs. ( an infinite straight line for example is an abstract piece of logic - say, theoretical geometry )
    and empirical proofs or evidence obtained and validated utilizing the scientific method.
    There is no empirical evidence of photons traveling independently of matter we only have logical proofs and they are two beasts of a very different nature. IMO
    What may seem logically reasonable to one scientist does not necessarily mean it is logically reasonable to another and either way "empirical reality" is not determined by our subjective ability or inability to discover it's logic.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65

    This has more to do with the standard model than relativity.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    You seem to be saying, that like Popper or Hume, you have little regard for induction as a basis of the scientific method. As far as you are concerned, the structure science makes is arbitrary and obeys the laws of natural selection.

    If that is so I would not expect science to make much progress, and this is borne out by those practicing it in any given era, including the 21st century.

    Take a hard look at what science made of Mendeleev's periodic table. This and related charts of isotopes and other science known to chemistry and physics, is the end product of thousands of scientists using the scientific method and applying induction continuously.

    I would agree that the scientific method, like nature, is just glorified trial and error. But we also count, and figures don't lie, but a great many liars can also figure. It isn't too difficult even for finite minds to determine if something is false. It is virtually impossible, on the other hand, for the same finite mind to ascertain all that is truth. Should this fact deter us from trying?
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    E=mc^2 was 'classically' derived by a consideration of the same thought experiment I used to investigate the implications of energy that is bound, an aspect neglected at least as far as Wheeler, who used it again to illustrate a graphical derivation of the Lorentz equations. There was evidently a lot more to learn from this model before physics gave up on it and went back to using only a slightly modified form of the mathematics of Ancient Greece, complete with Minkowski's miscreant Euclidean space with time tacked onto it in the manner of Pythagoras as an afterthought.

    I wonder how far Boltzman's math would have taken him if he had treated gasses as if they were immutable Euclidean solids like Minkowski apparently treated both time and space?
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Of course not...
    but science involves the rigorous testing (empirically) of any hypothesis or theory. The more complex it gets the more rigorous it needs to be.
    Science just needs to get back to the basics of testing it's own theories properly and most importantly , thoroughly.
    Particularly when it comes to describing the limitations of any theoretics.


    I recall a simple example of one such issue:
    "You have a sealed box with 10 items in it.
    You are told that it contains two types of item (a & b) but not how many of each.
    Thousands of people have a go at guessing the contents and they all add up to 10.
    eg 1a + 9b = 10 items
    or 5a + 5b = 10 items
    or 7a +3b = 10 items
    etc
    the result is the same regardless of the mix.
    But only one solution exists that adds to 10 with the right mix"

    This is in some ways, what I mean by being thorough when employing the scientific method. Just adding it up to 10 is not good enough.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  10. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    You know were not really getting anywhere with this discussion. So why don't we start a new thread about the photon and space. What is the substance of space and what is a photons mechanics in making it of space, if you can answer one you can answer the other and if you can answer the other, you can explain how energy and time make matter.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I agree, this discussion seems to have gone off the track about special relativity. Systems of linear equations work in Euclidean space as functions of an ordered abscissa. I don't care.

    We will never know what energy actually is. We know that matter is energy. I'm pretty certain, the reason photons propagate is through the action of the second quantum field (virtual particles originating from every point in RELATIVISTIC (not Euclidean) space, and propagating in every direction). It propagates in a straight line (subject to bending by gravitational fields), and obeys the inverse square law, which, I am told, Einstein and de Sitter already worked out.

    Little Bang and QQ;

    You should probably take a good look at this:

    http://ebooksandpdfs.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-for-the-Gifted-Amateur-27152.html

    This is an extensive ebook (free!) that covers the entire subject of QFT as currently practiced. It will answer any questions about what we are discussing which I don't have room to address. I happen to agree with most of the formulation. I'm tweaking the fundamentals as per the de Sitter ideas, for which I hope to also find a good reference. If it is free or available like this one, that would be good. I don't have paddoboy's or brucep's access to the latest research, nor could I afford to get it. I am however qualified to do so if I wish.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The only reason we will "never " know is because we are currently relying on energy to be more than it is. If that reliance was stopped and we actually accepted energy for what it is and no more we would have a good understanding of what it is. IMO

    To start with, to consider that energy as only a property or value of matter ( mass ) as proven by the scientific method would be great IMO.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    But surely you agree that energy is much simpler than matter, just as protons and neutrons are subordinate to atoms, or if not, why not?
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I think the context is incorrect, in that I feel you are still attributing energy with substance when it is merely "a property demonstrated by motion, with in matter and of matter."
    To get out of the box painted over the last 120 + years is not easy I might add.

    A clue to this came years ago in one of R. Feynmans lectures:

    "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way."
    c/o http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
    src: volume I; lecture 4, "Conservation of Energy"; section 4-1, "What is energy?"; p. 4-2

    Yet we ( the world) have in a way achieved a very tangible ( perhaps root ) definition in E=mc^2 and he (Feynman) was well aware of it at the time of giving his lecture.

    Making use of what I believe is potentially a flawed ( IMO ) light effect model we can conclude that energy can only be (no-existent) at delta t=0 ( therefore no where and effectively everywhere simultaneously) and this may be why it could be only a property of a "delta t=>o" entity (mass) and not a material entity in itself.
    (ever present as a property but non-existent as a substance)

    In other words:
    Matter is an "over time" artifact where as energy is an "in time" artifact.

    However because of the significant and cherished utility of the existing model of having photons traveling independently of matter we have determined energy to be "time like" and existing at delta t>0 thus attributing a material existence it (energy) does not have.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    ok.. I think I have finished editing my post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    just to clarify this statement a little:
    Motion with in matter: refers to what you may consider to be bound but moving/changing energy.
    Motion of matter: refers to relative velocity, momentum etc of the matter it self.

    Motion: The energy is not moving ( a to b ) per see, it is only changing at the rate of 'c' as it is ever present and got no where to move to...( independently of matter )
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2015
  17. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    'Nowhere and everywhere simultaneously' makes perfect sense in terms of the energy universe envisioned by both Einstein and de Sitter.

    What does not make sense is for the sigma field, the excitation of which is energy, to be remotely Euclidean, which is exactly what Princeton high energy physicist Edward Witten conjectured in his first tome of project Euclid 'topological sigma field'.

    You don't know how long I've wanted to get this idea out in such a clear and concise statement. Thanks for making it happen, QQ. You seem to have a gift for asking the right questions.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2015
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    are you saying that Edward Witten is in agreement with the notion that :
    Energy is
    or not.?.. I can't determine it from the context you provided.

    You are of course referring to some of the most advanced contemporary thinking available, if I am not mistaken, just reading the abstract to
    PDF: http://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.cmp/1104162092
    is enough to make we want to go outside and uhm play video games on my mobile phone...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    However I do believe Riemann was onto something... his work ( as much as I could fathom at the time) indirectly inspired ideas about the light phenomena known as Baily's beads a while ago in a thread I would have to dig up out of archives I think. ( if it still exists.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 22, 2015
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Glad to be of assistance!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    since when is Physics spooky! [chuckle]
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Here's a challenge for you. If you succeed even in collaboration you will undoubtedly win a Nobel.
    The question that I have been re-dwelling on for some time now is:

    How does the universe generate a speed of 'c' as
    1/ the actually speed of energy and
    2/ it's invariant nature?
    or most simply put:
    What and why and how is 'c', 'c'?

    I believe it is entirely possible to find a solution. It appears to me to have something to do with the geometry of a simple sphere. But it is not easy to find...

    I calculated an approximation years ago that came very close using a sphere to the current 299792458 m / s but am totally mind blocked from remembering how I did it.. except that it had something to do with the ratio of a spheres finite inner and outer surface area and volume and infinite external volume. ( For the solution to be to be universally constant it must be achieved via a ratio of some sort. IMO ie. 1: 2.99792458)
    A form of reverse engineering is required I think...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 22, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    'How does the universe generate a speed of c as 1) the actual speed of energy and 2) its invariant nature?

    The answer to this is not my intellectual property, but that of John D. Norton of the University of Pennsylvannia, whose two paragraph, 4 equation derivation of the relation E=mc^2 is officially the shortest on record, and is the only one I ever found online that does not break the rules by asserting the mass of a photon somewhere within the derivation. It uses a thought experiment that is very different from Einstein's original, but is equally valid even though it presupposes a familiarity with many of the fundamental concepts of relativity itself, c invariance to be specific.

    DON'T set c = 1 as Einstein did to an audience of Newtonian physicists. DON'T use 'center of mass' (ANOTHER Euclidean solids concept) the way Einstein did either. Instead, set the TIME INTERVAL over which a force acts to increase the energy of a driven relativistic projectile EQUAL TO UNITY.

    The derivation works, and in the process demonstrates that the factor c*2 derives of relating energy and momentum in the same expression.

    Moreover, this (in modified form) was my FIRST post to sciforums. Too many bad derivations are out there. Photons are massless, period. Any derivation that violates this is invalid.

    But the deeper answer is that c is actually not related simply to the propagation of energy. It is related to the fact that there must be two quantum fields that are in a particular kind of relative motion, just as I have described on this thread. Its invariance and the origin of time itself is a natural consequence of the ideas that Einstein and de Sitter came up with (not me), but were ignored by the likes of Edward Witten in favor of a Euclidean description of these fields.

    This is going to have major consequences to physics, particularly since the discovery of the Higgs boson. But I'm not responsible for these ideas. I saw what a travesty they made of Einstein's life because he was right all along. All of my former math and physics professors are dead, so at least they couldn't resurrect someone like Minkowski, to attest to the fact that my physics grades were not always stellar (and sometimes they were). My understanding of relativity, however, always was.
     

Share This Page