# Does Hawking Radiation preclude EH formation?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Dec 11, 2012.

1. ### GrumpyCurmudgeon of LucidityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,876
Prof.Layman

Then you have no one to blame but yourself for being so totally clueless. Your attempts at mining quotes from your limited memory, citing the work of others which you also do not understand, won't help.

Example:

This is crap, arm waving or not. The conservation laws apply to PP production even when the virtual particles are separated and become particles. Normally, the virtual particle's annihilation produces exactly the same energy as it took to produce them in the first place(and with no photons produced). The creation of the PP required energy from the area it is produced in. If one particle is sucked into an EH, the BH SYSTEM loses the energy required to produce the particle that escapes, no conservation violation involved. IE the Black Hole has hair and will evaporate due to the losses from Hawking radiation. There is no free lunch.

The difference between Einstein's Thought Experiments and your random brain farts cannot be successfully described within the limitations of the English language. Einstein sought to illustrate and explain what he KNEW to be true(due to years of study of the work of many physicists and mathematicians who he stood on the shoulders of), you wander lost in a forest unable to even see the individual trees you keep running into, face first. They are not remotely alike.

Grumpy

3. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator

Messages:
6,697
To what precisely are you referring to? Internal reflection prevents energy leaving a system, it doesn't increase it.

The concept of renormalisation in quantum field theory involves removing divergences (quantities which go to infinity) in a controlled manner. The 'bare energy' of the vacuum is infinite but its renormalised energy is not.

It is easy to say superficial things which sound like they are viable or aligned with science but that doesn't mean it does. Until you can formalise things it is all arm waving.

To give an example Newtonian gravity says the Sun should deflect the path of lights nearby and that the orbit of Mercury should precess. This is what we observe so Newtonian gravity is right, right? Wrong. When you crunch the numbers you find it predicts the wrong amount. GR, which does provide the right amount, is a fundamentally different description of gravity so someone thinking their Newtonian gravity view is valid because it is qualitatively correct would be utterly wrong. Arm waving, no matter how elegant it sounds, doesn't cut it, despite what hacks like Farsight would like people to believe.

In the course of my job I have to interview mathematicians and physicists, all of whom have PhDs, to evaluate their capabilities. They are given wordy problems which are mathematical problems in physical guise and it is up to them to formalise it and solve the problem given their formalisation. Many candidates are able to give wordy responses, saying "Oh I'd measure the similarities between those two data sets" or "I've see how much the particles wobble" but when asked to give the algebraic formalisation of that they cannot. If they gave the algebraic formalisation and then discussed it in the qualitative manner then that would be fine. Formalisation is not something you do at the end.

5. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
The woo is strong with this one.

7. ### Prof.Laymantotally internally reflectedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
982
Just about every book ever written says that virtual particle pairs do not obey conservation laws. What is crap is that Hawking Radiation is the only scientific theory where they do obey conservation laws. So it is like Stephen Hawking is the only theoretical physicist that has published works that virtual particle pairs then obey conservation laws, and then this is just because there is a black hole. I would think Hawking Radiation would then have to be wrong because he then includes conservation where conservation shouldn't even exist.

8. ### Prof.Laymantotally internally reflectedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
982
Say you had an electron that was traveling close to the speed of light, then you tried to apply SR to that electron. Your time and the electrons time would be in different coordinate systems. The electrons coordinate system would be contracted if it assumed it was at rest and you where the one that was actually traveling close to the speed of light. So then what happens if you overlap those coordinate systems over each other? The contracted system would then have multiple units inside of each unit of the other system.

So then when the electron is in the waveguide it observes most of the units of distance of the waveguide to be at the same location. So then when it reflects in the waveguide it sees itself as going forward and backwards through the guide at the same time. So then it would in effect cancel itself out. Then particle precognition with an action at a distance could be explained. It is no longer action at a distance from the frame of reference of the electron because the interactions took place from its frame of reference where the "distance" was at about the same location due to length contraction. Then it wouldn't have choosen a path because one of the paths just ends up canceling itself out. So then you could think of it has actually gone down that path but then canceling itself out from its own frame so then we don't observe it to travel that distance in our frame. Then the opposite would be true, if it can cancel itself out then it could also intensify itelf because it sees itself along all points of the waveguide at the same time. The waveguide only has to be short enough so that the length contraction observed by the particle would be enough so that the entire waveguide was the same location from its frame.

So I predict a long enough waveguide for an electron would allow it to travel down the half wavelength waveguide if it was long enough, and then be able to prove that it was not precognition at an action at a distance. Then the electron could partially travel down the waveguide because from its frame of reference it would be long enough to not allow the particles to cancel themselves out. That would be the experiment to prove it.

9. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
I could have sworn I had given you this information before:
Do they [virtual particles] violate energy conservation?

We are really using the quantum-mechanical approximation method known as perturbation theory. In perturbation theory, systems can go through intermediate "virtual states" that normally have energies different from that of the initial and final states. This is because of another uncertainty principle, which relates time and energy.

... The state with the photon in it has too much energy, assuming conservation of momentum. However, since the intermediate state lasts only a short time, the state's energy becomes uncertain, and it can actually have the same energy as the initial and final states. This allows the system to pass through this state with some probability without violating energy conservation.

Some descriptions of this phenomenon instead say that the energy of the system becomes uncertain for a short period of time, that energy is somehow "borrowed" for a brief interval. This is just another way of talking about the same mathematics. However, it obscures the fact that all this talk of virtual states is just an approximation to quantum mechanics, in which energy is conserved at all times. The way I've described it also corresponds to the usual way of talking about Feynman diagrams, in which energy is conserved, but virtual particles can carry amounts of energy not normally allowed by the laws of motion.
-http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

It is only your faulty understanding that makes you think that Hawking Radiation is the only phenomenon in which virtual particles satisfy the conservation of energy. You, as most hacks, accept the more fantastical sounding analogies as physical fact, probably only because they capture your imagination (i.e. they sound sciency).

Nothing, as the coordinate system is not physical and thus cannot have any effect upon anything but the local objects which define it.

10. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator

Messages:
6,697
This is why it would be so much better for you and everyone if you actually knew some of the details rather than having to piece together assumptions based on crumbs of information you read in a pop science book, perhaps a long time ago, and then getting indignant because you don't understand what people who have done the physics tell you when it doesn't gel with your understanding.

Virtual particles are allowed to violate energy and momentum rules, as well as $E^{2} = m^{2} + p^{2}$ (which is used to define momentum/energy conservation rules under Lorentz transforms). However, they are not directly observed, they are always 'internal' to a scattering process. The 'external legs' to a Feynmann diagram are the particles we directly observe and the external legs are connected by 'internal particles', which can be virtual. Inside the diagram violations to conservation rules can occur but they must behave in such a way that the external particles always obey conservation rules.

You can trivially show quantum electrodynamics has energy and momentum conservation via showing Lorentz invariance in the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian (look up what those mean, don't just assume you know!). The QED Lagrangian is indeed a Lorentz scalar even when you start modifying it in curved space (provided the space-time obeys certain similar rules). Therefore no scattering process which can violate conservation rules as a result. However, that doesn't mean inside the process they cannot be broken provided they are fixed by the end of the process. The fact QFT allows this to happen is part of its power. A beta decay couldn't occur if you couldn't violate energy conservation for a short period or else you'd never be able to get a quark with 1GeV of energy to create a W boson with 80GeV of energy, yet beta decay still conserves energy and momentum in the end.

Hawking radiation works on bubble diagrams, where there are no external legs in normal space-time. As such it is more difficult to examine the energy and momentum conservation rules, since there aren't external legs to consider initially, they are formed by the interaction with space-time (if you do all of this using quantum gravity, say via string theory, you do have external legs, they are the gravitons which facilitate the interactions). Furthermore in order to have energy and momentum conservation it isn't just a matter of the two new particles having equal but opposite momenta, we have to include the energy and momentum of the black hole, since it is part of the system being modelled. Fortunately when you do all of the calculations you find that indeed the virtual particles are made real and that these new particles and the black hole represent a system with the same momentum and energy as the black hole before the creation of the radiation.

In a particular reference frame, yes. But you apply SR to the description anyway, since it is always applicable. A common method of making calculations nicer for particle collider physics is to move into the same where one of the particles is at rest (though the centre of momentum frame is more common).

The rest frame of the electron would be moving relative to the frame you just defined, yes.

You're asking what does it mean if two coordinate systems describe the same region of space and same interval of time, but obviously in different ways. This is one of the things built into the notion of a 'manifold'. A manifold is a mathematical construct which looks, in small patches, like flat space so you can give small regions flat space coordinates. When two coordinate systems overlap it is required to have a rule which allows you to map from one to the other. This is precisely what the Lorentz transforms are in special relativity. My coordinates might be (x,t) and the electron's rest frame coordinates (x',t') and they are linked by the transformation $\Lambda( (x,t) ) = (x',t') = \Big( \gamma(x-vt) , \gamma(t-vx) \Big)$ (in c=1 units). When physicists talk about different coordinate systems they aren't necessarily talking about different regions of space or time, two coordinate frames can overlap in part or in whole or not at all.

I suggest you look up the mathematical construct known as a topological space, since it is the formal concept of how to deal with overlapping subsets of spaces in a manner necessary to deal with such things. A manifold is a topological space locally morphic to $\mathbb{R}^{N}$. See how your lack of knowledge has led you to a problem, where you are having a fundamental misunderstanding due to you not knowing how coordinates work in mathematical physics? Of course this isn't a problem if you're aware you don't know and want to find out but instead you jumped straight to being somewhat indignant, as if it was a problem of someone else's understanding/work rather than your own understanding. Did you think physicists haven't considered overlapping coordinate frames? If you'd done even the smallest amount of coordinate related mathematics you'd know.

It 'sees'? Coordinate systems are abstract concepts, a way of labelling configurations, they are not real. And electrons certainly don't use them, we use them to describe the dynamics of electrons. When you jump up in the air do you have to mentally describe your motion using coordinate systems, worrying about which coordinate frame you might be in, or do your legs just push on the ground and you go up and down by some amount?

I told you before, simply arm waving and giving superficially vaguely palatable descriptions of a physical system doesn't cut it. Did you read my Newtonian gravity example? If so, what did you not understand about it?

As above.

So if you can 'predict' can I assume you have a working model which is able to quantitatively predict the dynamics of wave guides to high precision? Because that is what 'predict' and 'explain' means to a physicist, a physical conceptualisation which when formalised is able to give accurate quantitative predictions. Do you think we'd have high speed telecommunications if all any electrical engineer did was say things like "When you pass a current through it a magnetic field is made!" or "Radio waves are somewhat longer in wavelength than microwaves"? Details are everything!

Coordinate frames are concepts, not physical things and do not interact. It would be like saying English and French interact and this interaction affects the behaviour of the electron. The languages might be related, convertible, but they don't impact the physics. This is why the black hole event horizon isn't a physical singularity, we can talk about what goes on inside the horizon. The "Time goes to infinity!" thing happens because we usually work in the Schwarzchild coordinates and they are ill defined at r=2M just like polar coordinates are ill defined at r=0. If we change coordinates and the infinities go away then the singularities were just due to our bad choice, not something fundamental. Hence why Kruskal or Eddington-Finklestein coordinates are used to describe something crossing an event horizon. Of course this particular technical point is something many non-physicists (or non-mathematicians) do not know and thus many a hack gets hung up on the event horizon.

11. ### FarsightValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,475
I've spoken to people about this, including a guy called Jesse who put up this page from Misner/Thorne/Wheeler. Schwarzschild coordinates are depicted on the left, Kruskal-Szekeres on the right. On the Schwarzschild chart note how the curve to the righthand side of the dashed-vertical-line event horizon sweeps up the page. This is the "time goes to infinity". However it's chopped off vertically, and then sweeps back down on the other side of the dotted line. In Kevin Brown's Formation and Growth of Black Holes you can find a reference to this, where he says "the path gets shorter at such a rate that it actually reaches (our) future infinity in finite proper time". In a nutshell, the infalling body goes to the end of time and back. This is wrong I'm afraid, and is the result of a misunderstanding of time - two of the three authors of MTW believe/believed in time travel. And see this re Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates: In general relativity Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates are named for Arthur Stanley Eddington[1] and David Finkelstein[2] , even though neither ever wrote down these coordinates or the metric in these coordinates. They seem to have been given this name by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in their book Gravitation. That was an appeal to authority. And like Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates "airbrush away" the trip to the end of time and back via the schoolboy error of using a stopped clock to cancel a stopped observer. That doesn't work. Where the coordinate speed of light goes to zero, all motion is stopped forever. The coordinate speed of light can't go any lower than zero, so there's no gravity and no more coordinates, so that's the end of the story. Unfortunately people who've been taught from MTW (including Kevin Brown) share the misunderstanding of time, dismiss the significance of the Schwarzschild singularity, and fail to appreciate that the original frozen-star interpretation is correct and that the black hole grows like a hailstone.

12. ### Prof.Laymantotally internally reflectedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
982
So then you expect everyone to think that reading books on science is a complete waste of time, and all the scientist that wrote these books have completely failed to put any information in them that could give someone a clear understanding of the science involved? It would take a lot to convince someone that everything they know is garbage and I dought you would be able to convince someone of this once in your lifetime.

I did see a youtube video where Susskind was mentioning Lagrangian and Hamiltonian, and I realized that the Lorentz transform is actually the same equation I derive as the proper time. I had concerns in the past if this was true because I was always taught that the time dialation equation was t' = t / [sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2)], if it was equivelent to that equation then all of modern science would be wrong, so I did have some faith in them that this is not the same relation that is used in quantum mechanics and they did actually get correct answers. But, now that you mention it I forget what that was, I just remembered the part I was interested that pertained to my own theories. No one was willing to explain this for me so if you want it done right you really have to do it yourself. I try to test my own theories against what I learn about or read in books, and if I do find something that would be a counterexample to what I am thinking then I throw that out. A lot of these books say that there is no logical reasoning or common sense that can explain or work out these problems, so one of my goals in reading them has been to try and acheive that type of reasoning. I think it works out if you try to apply SR to everything correctly. I actually spent a lot of time while reading them just stopping and thinking about how SR could apply to that situation where it could cause those type of strange effects. I then got most of it to work out.

Exactly, the coordinate systems would be describing the same region of space. But, I think the only way it could work out where they describe exactly the same situation in that space is if you assume space is continuous, and I think the equation you gave assumes that. If space was particular or Planckian then it could be different. I think space would have to be particular inorder for two different things to be experienced from both of these frames, or one unit in one frame is then multiple units of another frame. That is a problem I often ran into when coming up with this theory. So I decided that space was particular and that what happens in one frame would then have to have an effect on what is observed in the other frame if they don't say exactly the same thing. So then if the electrons frame observes itself as being at the location it was reflected onto at the same time that was a half wave length, then from the scientist frame he would not observe that electron at that location. The electron would vanish or jump because the wavelength is canceled out in the electrons frame.

Could you honestly tell me that if I did learn these things, and then I tested them against my own ideas and still beleived the same thing that my situation would be any different? The only way I could prove this theory is if I became a theoretical physicist and lied about doing the experiment to prove something else or some other theory (like saying we need to show how internal reflection obeys conservation laws). I don't think they would even let me do that because I would still have no experience in the field.

In the days of Einstein they claimed that particles do not count as observers in a frame of reference. I think this would be the biggest stumbling block to keep scientist from ever being able to really understand quantum mechanics with any type of logic or reason. I think all the clues to that type of discovery would lie there. We would have to be able to understand what particles observe from their frames and how that is different from what we observe in our frame, and how these difference influence how we see them behave.

I have a working mental model that is different than how anyone else would see things in physics. I overheard one of the instuctors mentioning that they did do high precision experiments on the precognition action at a distance, and they couldn't even detect any energy going into that part of the waveguide at all. Apperently just saying that the electron has precogintion with an action at a distance to not travel down a half wavelength waveguide is enough in order to have a functioning radar. I wonder if some of the energy could have been sent out past the end of the half wavelength waveguide, because it could be possible that it could force a quantum jump to a location where the worldlines of the electrons didn't cancel themselves.

I think you could be right if space was continuous, infinitely divisable. But I don't think it is and most of mathmatics assumes that space is continuous and infinitely divisible. I think the difference between the coordinate frames is the mechanism for quantum uncertainty. If space is particular and one frame has multiple units in the other frame, then a particle would then have to pick and choose what location to be at and then this could be completely random, because from its frame it is over all these locations at the same time.

13. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator

Messages:
6,697
Farsight, I previously asked you a series of direct questions here, as well as demonstrated numerous claims of your false. Funny how you stopped replying once you got backed into a corner and didn't want to answer questions about how much you actually know (or rather don't) and how laughably baseless your work is. I'll give you another chance. If you continue to ignore those questions I'll give you a warning for trolling. I know you like to use the tactic of disappearing for a few days when you're up against a wall but I'm not going to let you do that this time. Answer the questions or get a warning for trolling, particularly since your new post essentially does more of the same, baseless assertions on mainstream stuff you don't know and which your own 'work' cannot describe.

I asked you before to demonstrate how it is you just know. You cannot provide any evidence you're correct, given you cannot provide any model of your which can actually model gravity. Even string theory has you beat there.

No, an appeal to authority would be like saying "Bob is a Professor of Chemistry. He has an opinion about physics. Since he is a professor and you are not he is right and you are wrong.". An appeal to authority says a position is right because the person who said it holds some superior position, generally in an unrelated field, rather than because of what they say. I didn't say anything of the sort. Instead I was giving two examples of coordinate systems which allow us to describe in a smooth and well defined manner the motion of something falling into and then crossing a black hole event horizon. The fact they are both named after physicists has nothing to do with it, if I'd just called them "Coordinates A and Coordinates B" and then given the relevant coordinate definitions with respect to the Schwarzchild coordinates my point would have been just as valid.

Many people, including yourself, don't grasp what a coordinate singularity is, largely due to a lack of understanding of what coordinates are and how they are used. The Kruskal and Eddington-Finklestein coordinates provide a specific counter example to someone claiming we cannot describe something as it passes through the event horizon, often in relation to wondering whether a particle falling into the black hole would hit the singularity in finite time or not.

Given you cannot do even, to use your phrase, school boy level physics I really don't think you're in any position to be telling people how it works. I don't believe you can do the necessary calculus or basic differential equations required to describe the things you're talking about. Instead you, like Professor Layman but to an exponentially worse level, make assertions based on your own ignorance and what little you think you understand from pop science books.

I'm going to ask you a direct relevant question and I want you to answer it. Can you do the calculus and differential geometry associated to this area of general relativity? Yes or no. If yes then elaborate on when and where you learnt it. If no then elaborate on how you know everyone else is making school boy errors in it and you, rather than the actual GR community, are the only one to notice.

Coordinates are not physical things. In one set of coordinates things can be infinite, in another they are fine. Here's a question, is does the following metric possess a physical singularity? $ds^{2} = -dt^{2} + \frac{1}{y^{4}}dy^{2}$. Explain your answer.

Thank you for showing you don't know what coordinates actually are.

If you have the 'true' understanding of gravity then perhaps you could provide your own model, along with its initial postulates and derivation? Or are you claiming everyone is not understanding general relativity?

Come on Farsight, let's see you step up.

14. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator

Messages:
6,697
Where did I say that? Nice straw man. Pop science is fine if you aren't then going to go and make assertions about the detailed work. If all you've ever read is pop science you're going to have no idea how any of the results are arrived at or how to then go about exploring them further. I read all the quantum mechanics pop science books I could get from my local book store when I was 16-17. None of them helped me do a single homework problem when I got to university.

You still don't know what coordinate systems are!! The formula I gave doesn't need to imply space is continuous. Changing coordinates is like changing from feet to metres, from seconds to hours. It's like saying "I'm not going to take longitude from London, I'm going to do it from New York!". It's a way of describing positions in space and time and a change of coordinates just changes how you describe them.

Frames of reference are abstract concepts! They do not literally require an observer, they do not literally need a particle to be in them. And Einstein's comments about particles being observers was for quantum mechanics and wavefunction collapse.

Thanks for showing, again, you have no bloody clue and yet you have no problem assuming your problems are not actually problems with you. Quantum mechanics is completely logical, it is just different from your experience. If you did the mathematics of quantum mechanics and the mathematics of classical mechanics, like Newtonian mechanics, you'd find they are almost identical but for one slight change, Poisson brackets become commutation brackets. It was this realisation, that he could write quantum mechanics using machinery developed for classical mechanics, which led to Dirac formulating his way of doing quantum mechanics. But hey, you don't understand it and you don't know any of the mathematics so you assume that it is somehow a problem with physicists struggling to grasp something

I don't think I need to continue with your post further, you have made is abundantly clear you have no real interest in learning, no real interest in intellectual honesty, no real interest in actually understanding science. Instead you're happy to assume you grasp how it works, filling in how you think physicists work and how the models are constructed and what they do whenever you're not sure. There had been a faint glimmer with you, that you might be deflected from the same ruinous path Farsight has walked down, but it now seems clear that my initial assessment was right, you're dishonest, ill informed and quite happy with it. You have no idea how mainstream physics works or what the mathematical methods actually involve.

15. ### Prof.Laymantotally internally reflectedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
982
What do you mean I don't know what coordinate systems even are? You are quick to assume people don't know things. You just draw an ( x ) axis then you draw a ( y ) axis and then you draw some dashes along both of them and fill in numbers.

In one book I read it actually said that particles don't have a frame of reference because they cannot count as an observer. So they could never collapse a wave function, I was just trying to be correct in not saying that they are observers that can collapse wave functions.

I was just repeating a similar phrases that I have read many times over in books. But apparently alphanumeric Ph.D. knows more than the Ph.D.'s that wrote these books and have written this statement that I have repeated.

So does this mean that I am fired? I didn't even realize I a job working as a real scientist on these forums. If you don't like my ideas, fine, I think it is better that way so you don't end up trying to steal my theories claiming they are your own. It is nice to know they are safe because you are to pig headed to be able to understand them or even consider it because alphanumeric is way smarter than anyone even people with Ph.D.'s that write books for laymen.

16. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator

Messages:
6,697
I say because of what you say. You don't understand what conceptually coordinate frames are, how they relate to one another and what they mean in physics. Your comments about the overlapping frames being an example.

There, that is an example. You speak as if particles have frames of reference like they have mass or spin or charge. Frames of reference do not require particles, they are a method of describing locations and configurations within space and time. You give space-time a set of coordinates to describe things within it. Each object moving at a constant velocity will have a rest frame associated to it, ie the set of space-time coordinates in which the particle isn't moving, but an electron no more has a set of coordinates than it has English or French.

And I clarified your mistake about what Einstein was referring to. Einstein was talking about whether or not a particle counts as an observer when considering wavefunction collapse. This has nothing to do with choices of coordinates for space-time. The collapse of a wavefunction is to do with the projection of a particle wavefunction vector onto an eigenspace of a measurement operator. The wavefunction will likely be dependent upon space and time so we write it as a function of the choice of coordinates but the projection is not in those space-time coordinates but in the Hilbert space the wavefunction belongs to.

See, you'd know this if you actually understood the material you read. Of course a pop science book won't go into Hilbert spaces and infinite dimensional operators but it will still explain the difference between the vector space a wavefunction belongs to and a vector space the wavefunction is dependent upon (observers in quantum mechanics cause collapse in the former, choices of coordinates for space-time alter the latter).

There's a problem with what you said, it relies on the assumption that what you're remembering you remember correctly and also that you understand what was said correctly. As I've demonstrated numerous times to you, that isn't necessarily the case. But thanks for misrepresenting me, trying to make it seem like I am saying I know more about this stuff than the authors of the books in question. No, I'm saying I know more about it than you and that I understand the material's context and remember it more accurately than you.

Thanks for showing you're blatently dishonest and so enamoured with yourself you cannot possibly consider you don't understand it. Instead you are certain you remember and understood what was said in those books so perfectly that surely you grasp it more than myself, a PhD in it. Funny you complain I'm being 'pig headed' and how I think I know more than PhDs when you're doing EXACTLY that. The irony would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

How many more of these little exchanges, where I explain your mistakes with ease, are we going to have before you realise your beliefs, that you have some intuition for this stuff and some kind of infallible recall and understanding, are wrong.

17. ### Prof.Laymantotally internally reflectedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
982
Bad choice of words? I even agreed with you saying that they both describe the same region of space by saying exactly in reply to that comment. You just misunderstood what I said, you haven't given a reason as to how an electron assuming it is at rest with a contracted frame of reference would be exactly the same as the frame of reference of an observer at rest. If the distance in one frame is ( x ) units in distance and another frame has another total of < ( x ) units for the same distance, then the units of each system cannot be one for one. If space was particular then one frame would have more or less discrete units in one frame than the other.

It doesn't in modern science, but it does in my own theory. That is the whole theory. It assumes that particles have frames of reference's like they have mass or spin or charge.

So then I didn't say that an electron was an observer, and instead said "sees" to imply that the electron doesn't count as an observer and doesn't cause wavefunction collapse. Then you get all hung up on saying "sees" when if I would have said "observer" then it would have been an incorrect statement. So then it is a lose, lose situation on choice of words.

You took what I said out of context because you just assume I don't know anything. I was talking about the basic fundemental properties of quantum mechanics. There is no reasoning behind how these properties come about. (these are the things described in laymens text) I was then telling you my idea on how I think I found such reasoning. You then go off on a tangent about how you can reason about solving problems in quantum mechanics but even so you have no reasoning that defines these first basic properties.

Maybe you could start out by describing to me in laymens terms why there is quantum uncertainty, that isn't the same description I gave you for the reasoning behind quantum uncertainty.

18. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
Nothing "at rest" has a "contracted frame". This is very basic SR that you seem unaware of. There is no ether, and space is not particular or even a substance.

Coordinate systems are arbitrarily chosen, so any particular system cannot be intrinsic to a particle. But feel free to explain quantitative predictions that your "theory" makes.

No, we doubt you know anything because you make repeated and basic errors.

19. ### Prof.Laymantotally internally reflectedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
982
There is no absolute frame of reference. So then any object can assume that it is at rest if it is traveling at a constant speed. So then assume an electron is traveling at a constant speed. It is traveling close to the speed of light relative to us at a constant speed. Since it is traveling at a constant speed it can then assume it is at rest. So then when the electron assumes that it is at rest then it would have to say that everything else is traveling close to the speed of light relative to it. If everything is traveling close to the speed of light relative to it then everything else would then look to be contracted. So then from the frame of reference of an electron the distances between things would be smaller.

I think this is one area where quantum mechanics and relativity would differ, and it would be one thing that would keep relativity and quantum mechanics from being able to be apart of one and the same theory. I already started another thread in alternative theories to have these types of discussions (Proper Time and Its Relation to Velocity and Acceleration). I fear I may get in trouble talking about it in this thread as it still hasn't been sent to alternative theories (as this seems to be getting off topic, trying to prove that I have some understanding of quantum mechanics). I already mentioned in that thread that velocity in relativity should remain constant and what you say is true, but I don't think that concept could hold true in quantum mechanics or if SR was responsible for the quantum weirdness described to occur. If the two systems where exactly the same and caused exactly the same observations and reactions from both frames then I don't think SR could be the mechanism behind this type of behavior.

It could also mean that an object traveling at a relative speed close to the speed of light would then display quantum uncertainty even though it is still a macroscopic object. The two frames would be contracted relative to each other, so then from the frame of reference of one ship it would be at multiple locations at the same time relative to another ship. The contracted distance it observes could make multiple locations then look to be the same location. So then when the ship is observed it would pop into any of the multiple locations that was contracted in the same location of the other frame. I would like to know where I could look to figure out how to show this mathmatically as how I have described, I would work on that mathmatical theory. Right now it is just in preliminary stages and brainstorming.

If all your ever looking for is errors then, errors will be all that you ever find. I find it keeps you from looking like an idiot if you first look for how you misunderstand something someone says or try to figure where they are coming from first.

20. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
One wonders why you cannot manage to explain things properly the first time, although the last couple of sentences are not generally true.

Nothing but arm waving at this point.

If you consistently have trouble communicating clearly then the problem might just reside with you. You are trying to communicate about a fairly precise subject here.

21. ### Prof.Laymantotally internally reflectedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
982
The proper time is the equation used in quatum mechanics. I derived that by assuming that the real distances between objects is smaller and the relation is between the real distances from the other sides of a triangle. I think a lot of this misconception comes from the light clock example, and how it does not derive the equation used in quantum mechanics. I think you have become a victim of your own common sense, and you don't even really understand basic relativity.

I don't see any counterexamples, or anything that mentions why the last sentences are not true. It really doesn't seem like anything but arm waving from you, so all I can do is direct you the other thread that would be appropriate for these types of comments. Then I could explain to you how this derivation means that it would be true.

22. ### GrumpyCurmudgeon of LucidityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,876
Prof.Layman

No, they do not, as you would know if you had read any of them(it's obvious you're speaking from from an unusual orifice). What they do say is that the APPARENT violation of their creation is payed back by the energy of their annihilation, yielding no net energy change. What we see is a result of the non-linearity of causality in the quantum realm, cause does not necessarily precede effect on those distance and time scales(Planck length and time). Also called "Uncertainty".

It's crap when you claim that ANYTHING in the Universe violates conservation laws, the very next system that DOES violate conservation will be the FIRST such system found in the entire history of science. No one makes such claims about PP production who actually understands anything about it(just as internal reflection creates no energy, it only preserves what is already there). Particle Pair production obeys conservation laws, period(just like it says in all those physics books you haven't read).

Your ignorance of physics is astounding and near complete, get thee to the woo-woo section, varlet.

Grumpy