"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
    Do those winking particles take up space? (of course they do)
    Imagine 1 cubic meter of vacuum-ous space regardless of what is taking it up...
    It could be the space that the planet Earth is taking up .. it doesn't matter to the question.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    It's time to move along our thought experiment a little further. Minkowski geometry purists are going to insist on the cube being distorted off-axis.

    I'm going to modify the 1 meter cube with the laser bordered edges slightly. I'm adding half silvered corner reflectors so that the beams extend beyond the edges of the cube.

    Are you with me so far?

    This is evidently an area of extensive mathematical research:

    http://www-math.mit.edu/~shor/lecture_notes.ps
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    It actually does matter. The volume of space the Earth takes up is more voluminous, and we don't even understand the energy content of the vacuum sufficiently to be able to compute a mean free path for virtual photons, Higgs bosons, or anything else that might be in there. We don't have an energy spectral density, or even a vacuum expectation value that we can nail down within 116 orders of magnitude. Our knowledge of what goes on in this domain is not yet science.

    What are you getting at? You are tossing in ideas about space (volume) here and we have not yet decided whether that concept even applies. You're throwing in the Euclidean space of ancient Greece in a universe that is multi-flat. Those virtual photons don't see space in any direction they propagate. The Higgs bosons do, because they have to travel slower than c.

    It's important for us to understand the dynamics of something that imparts inertia to a fair amount of inertia to all of the matter in the universe, and exactly how it manages to do that.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    The elementary particles (which includes the boson known as a photon) of the Standard Model have a physical size that is assumed to be ZERO.

    I can't argue with that concept simply because it works so well. Bosons may occupy the same space at the same time, remember?
     
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    While the laser beams that define the edges of the cube are traversing its edges or being reflected back from a corner reflector that is part of the laser cavity, the beams travel at the speed of light with respect to all observers in inertial reference frames.

    The photons in the beam are bound while they are being reflected between the limits of the edges of the cube, owing to sharing the inertia of the electrons in the silvered part of the corner reflectors. If any were absorbed while traveling from the rear of the cube to the front, this constitutes Einstein's original thought experiment; the same one which introduced physics to mass- energy equivalence.

    Any photons leaving the cube on any side continues to travel, as photons will do, in a straight line at the speed of light indefinitely.

    Any objections so far?
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    this is terribly incorrect, the wave length of a photon is definitely greater than zero in fact the model would fail to work if the photons size was zero. ( no Doppler effects etc)

    What a photon is exactly, is a mystery and is just as bad as the way Physics treats the definition of energy. Both are fundamental to the models they are used in, and both are incredibly inconsistent and confused.

    Clarify these two main concepts first before you venture down the labyrinth of infinitely greater complexity generated by inconsistently defined "things" like photons and energy.

    Just because it appears to have significant utility doesn't make it correct.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    If you take a light sphere that originates from the center at a radius of 10 light years.
    How many photons exist in that single spherical wave of light traveling outwards at 'c'?

    Average photon wave length: 0.6um
    Average single photon energy: 2.07eV

    How much energy does a single spherical wave of light have if it has a radius of 10 ly's?
    (You could have a million light detectors scattered randomly at a radius of 10 ly - and they would all be reading 2.07eV )

    Then calculate (even to an approximation would do) how much light energy is currently propagating universally?

    If the photon was properly defined there would be an answer... and I believe there is no answer possible.

    So the model "sucks" as far as I am concerned... end of story..
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2015
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Wavelength is not the same as 'size', nor was it my intention to try and simply relate Doppler shift with length contraction, either. It's quite a bit more complicated than that.

    Even if we agreed that wavelength for a photon is its size, in actual fact photons have more degrees of freedom than just two, and there is no upper or lower limit on possible wavelengths either. There is an upper limit on the speed with which you could accelerate an electron in order to produce a photon in empty space, but this is not the only way to produce higher energy photons.

    It is no small accomplishment to be able to say that the photon is the EM force carrier b0s0n in the Standard Model. This is, in fact, one of the most successful parts of the theory, and this measure of success would not have been possible if the underlying assumptions were invalid.

    It makes no difference to my formulation of emergent space whether the photon itself has volume or not.
     
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    As I was pondering the many Minkowski geometrical aspects of the cube, it occurred to me that the shape of a relativistic cube, like that of a sphere or basically anything else, depends heavily on the point of view and state of motion of the observer, does it not? Of what possible use is a geometry like this? The shape will be different at each point of a solid object, depending on THE COMPONENT OF THE RELATIVISTIC VELOCITY OF EACH PART OF ITS SURFACE THAT IS IN THE DIRECTION OF AN OBSERVER. This will vary from point to point on a surface, EVEN IF THE FACE OF THE CUBE IS COMING DIRECTLY TOWARD YOU. The corners of the cube will be slightly further from an observer than the center line of the cube's approach, so the corners must appear to angle forward.

    All those Euclidean solid material forms behave in a uniform and predictable manner while at rest, but are nothing of the kind when the element of relative motion is added the way Minkowski conceived it. Do you think that Ptolemy would have viewed this arrangement, simply to accommodate a forced triangulation of time as if it were a dimension all by itself, as something that was useful, they way his hypotenuse calculation was?

    As material objects are not perfectly rigid anyway, I can think of no good reason to belabor the idea of time as a physical dimension by subjecting material objects in motion to to contortions like this, particularly when the time dilation effect for relativistic projectiles are already known to be a much simpler and sensible measure of how relativistic motion affects parameters other than geometry. Show me a Minkowski geometry that predicts how different parts of the accelerated twin in the twin paradox ages at different rates. Useless.

    Except for the simpler application of Minkowski geometry to simultaneity, we will not visit this idea again.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2015
  13. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    However charged particles condensed right after the BB, their fields started expanding into the Universe at c. Any change in direction of one of the particles produces a new point for it's field to start expanding again. This is how I envision the creation of a photon. From this I consider the expanding fields of all these particles to be what we call space.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Not trying to hijack the thread QQ. Emergent space is essential to understanding entanglement.
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Better than Guth's inflation, IMO, LB.
     
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I haven't decided whether or not to call it 'space', since it does not necessarily appear as such to a photon traveling at c in the direction it which it propagates. On the other hand, nothing at all "appears" until the photon is absorbed or dissipates either, because time dilation that extends a time interval to infinity allows no such observation to be made, from the point of view of the photon.

    The transition of whatever it is that produces a virtual photon must be one that is very abrupt. It doesn't start out slowly from rest and gradually accelerate until it reaches a velocity of c with respect to the quantum field in which it was created. It's more like a particular type of excitation in the field that is at rest INSTANTLY translates into an excitation that is propagating at c in the other. Notice how this sounds like something that may work by means of quantum entanglement. This is the other reason (other than to satisfy relativity), that there must be two such quantum fields.

    Time dilation that happens more gradually only happens with things traveling less than c. Things traveling at c may bend or Doppler shift, but the relative velocity of propagation never changes, with respect to any observer, and in order for that to happen, the velocity c must be referred to something more fundamental, like a quantum field.

    Is there a flaw in any of this reasoning?
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2015
  17. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    We know the detection of an electrons charge can only happen at c. If we had a detector stationed one light second away from where an electron was created we won't detect it's charge for one second. If it's charge is a field then any movement will create a new field that will be detected in one second. If I'm correct then the field of the electron and proton is the space where we live our lives. This would also preclude the existence virtual particles.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Yes. I have not attempted to explain electric charges with the theory yet. We know electrons within atoms are entangled in pairs. If the proton(s) were also entangled, I have no idea how we would test that. Colliders have to pick one charge or the other in order to accelerate and smash them.
     
  19. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    What transition, if there is such we can never detect it so how can we use it in our logic?

    BTW you will be interested in this, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527112953.htm
     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. Little Bang Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    Another interesting thought, they smash protons together and then one time out of millions of collisions get an anomaly they call a particle. It lasts for some very tiny amount of time. I must question some of their conclusions. To me they are collecting millions of pieces of data bits and picking out only those that agree with what they want.
     
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Is this comment based on knowledge or ignorance?
     
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    A transition for the creation of a virtual photon must be made between the field that is at rest and the field that moves at c in every direction in which energy can propagate.

    The article is interesting, but it's hard not to notice, they have a very long way to go to straighten out their math and their physics.
     
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    In the case of the Higgs, which decays in a zeptosecond into two photons, they knew the energy range of the photons they were looking for, simply programmed a filter to look for those photons. Believe me, the physicists at the LHC were 5 sigma certain about the discovery of Higgs.
     

Share This Page