Quantum Physics interpretation ideas

[danshawen]

Good point, Dan. This is synchrotron radiation, from electrons being accelerated by a magnetic field. When I said an electron in "free space", I did not have in mind space with a magnetic field in it.

But you are quite right: I should have said the electrons need to be accelerated- which of course they are in a bound state - but synchrotron radiation itself is an example of acceleration that does not result from a bound state.

And as I might have mentioned earlier in this thread or elsewhere, relativity's clock postulate means that only instantaneous velocities, not constant acceleration, (like the acceleration that produces synchrotron radiation), really make any difference to time dilation. These ideas are not contemporaneous with Einstein or Maxwell.

To take the idea just a bit further, time dilation means something distinctly different for unbound energy (photons, and to a lesser extent, electrons), than it does for energy bound in atomic structure. This must be the case, or else the law of conservation of mass/energy literally does not work. It does not work if time itself is set proportional to the speed of light, and this causes a division by zero and also the idea that time stops for a propagating photon (it does not), so this idea must be wrong.

Electrons are unique in terms of not being completely bound in atomic structure, nor completely unbound. So understanding what time means to an electron is rather an important dynamic.

I don't care if a second (Maxwell's) mistake of taking a partial derivative with respect to time works out or not, because the frame that was chosen is the wrong one anyway. At least, Lorentz took the extra trouble to try and keep the time in the moving frame vs the time on the roadbed straight. Maxwell didn't. What really is the point of identifying magnetic fields as relativistic effects involving compressed charge densities of moving charges if it is symmetrical with a frame in which time actually proceeds at the wrong rate? This is too complex an issue to fully explain here. Suffice it to say, the model is not quite right yet.

Time is separate from space. Space is an artifact of time. Ancient Greek geometry is "classic" physics. It doesn't work at all for relativity, unless you are gullible enough to believe that the speed of light is the basis of time itself. It is not. Anything divided by zero is nonsense.

Acceleration at the quantum scale doesn't mean the same thing either, or else electron clouds would spontaneously degenerate to lower energy levels. Entanglement is what makes this behavior (NOT degenerating or losing energy) possible. Acceleration can possess directional change without a magnitude, and with no loss of energy in the case of an electron. Entanglement is why. This is the process which binds energy with no loss of entanglement, like entangled photons propagating in a fiber optic cable, or reflecting from the surface of a plane mirror.

You were a chemist. Even fourth graders these days are familiar with the binding energy vs number of nucleons curve, which led to the development of hydrogen nuclear weapons. Binding energy is important there. Why would anyone think it was less important or non existent for fundamental particles like quarks and electrons? Yet, no more fundamental force or process is ascribed to this anywhere in the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian dynamics of atomic structure. Strange. Maybe classified? Don't know. Don't care. Just care about what holds the universe together, and for no particular (pun intended) reason.

Still think we know everything there is to know about charge conservation under relativity? Doubt it. The math and the model have some problems which no one has really addressed for more than 100 years.

Posted deliberately in pseudoscience. I understand, I'm just too good at this to post it elsewhere.

 

[exchemist]

I'll try.

Note that I am not excluding physics, but IMO, it also applies to purely non-physical abstract mathematical conditions or functions.

No. A mathematical function starts f(x) = ....... or something like that.

 

[Write4U]

No. A mathematical function starts f(x) = ....... or something like that.

Something like this?

a :
b (1) : the interval of time required for a cyclic motion or phenomenon to complete a cycle and begin to repeat itself
(2) : a number k that does not change the value of a periodic function f when added to the independent variable; especially : the smallest such number.
7 a : a chronological division : stage

Note: underlined by me.

Any relationship to f ?

 

[exchemist]

Something like this? Note: underlined by me.

Any relationship to f ?

No.

The problem I always end up confronting in discussions with you is that you have no idea what a mathematical function is, yet you persist in making assertions about them. This is what a function is: https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html

There are many periodic functions, i.e. in which as x increases f(x) has a value that fluctuates smoothly within a range of values. f(x) = Sin x is perhaps the classic, fluctuating smoothly between 1 and -1 as x increases.

But there are lots of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function

So to say something is "periodic" is not a definition of a function, it is property of a whole class of functions.

 

[Write4U]

exchemist said,
But there are lots of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function

So to say something is "periodic" is not a definition of a function, it is property of a whole class of functions.

None of which conflicts with my perspective.
From the above link

Periodic functions are used throughout science to describe oscillations, waves, and other phenomena that exhibit periodicity. Any function which is not periodic is called aperiodic.

A mathematical object is an abstract object arising in mathematics. The concept is studied in philosophy of mathematics.

In mathematical practice, an object is anything that has been (or could be) formally defined, and with which one may do deductive reasoning and mathematical proofs.

Commonly encountered mathematical objects include numbers, permutations, partitions, matrices, sets, functions, and relations.

Geometry as a branch of mathematics has such objects as hexagons, points, lines, triangles, circles, spheres, polyhedra, topological spaces and manifolds.

Another branch—algebra—has groups, rings, fields, group-theoretic lattices, and order-theoretic lattices.

Categories are simultaneously homes to mathematical objects and mathematical objects in their own right.

In proof theory, proofs and theorems are also mathematical objects.

The ontological status of mathematical objects has been the subject of much investigation and debate by philosophers of mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object

If something has a value, it can be used in at least one of the "lots of functions", periodic or aperiodic.
That is the whole point of the hypothesis of "universal mathematical functions".

 

[Write4U]

If I may follow up with a quote from David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"

In his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Bohm uses these notions to describe how the same phenomenon might look different, or might be characterized by different principal factors, in different contexts such as at different scales.[1] The implicate order, also referred to as the "enfolded" order, is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order include the abstractions that humans normally perceive.

As he writes:
"In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders" (Bohm 1980, p. xv).

 

[exchemist]

If I may follow up with a quote from David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"

Quelle surprise.

 

[Write4U]

Quelle surprise.

Bon courage !

 

[exchemist]

Bon courage !

Merci. J'ai besoin de courage apres ce monster fuckup cette nuit derniere en Grande Bretagne.

 

[Write4U]

Merci. J'ai besoin de courage apres ce monster fuckup cette nuit derniere en Grande Bretagne.

Tell that to Plato, Bertrand Russel, David Bohm, Mario Livio, Max Tegmark, Renate Loll, etc, etc.
All my posts are my understanding of some fundamental aspects these "monster fuckups" use to assign a mathematical essence to spacetime itself, let alone physical expressions of these mathematical functions.

And this display of you command of the French language is meaningless in context of this topic.

So far the only difference is that you see physical reality as physical function, whereas I see physical function as expressions of mathematical functions of objects with specific values.

I really appreciate the scientific contributions you make, but your ad hominems really diminish their persuasive value. It is usually a sign of uncertainty about your perspective.

 

[exchemist]

And this display of you command of the French language is meaningless in context of this topic.

So far the only difference is that you see physical reality as physical function, whereas I see physical function as expressions of mathematical functions of objects with specific values.

I really appreciate the scientific contributions you make, but your ad hominems really diminish their persuasive value. It is usually a sign of uncertainty about your perspective.

True, it adds no value. I was fooling around a bit. I do that, sometimes.

The trouble is that you talk all the time about mathematical functions without any real idea of what they are. You seem to think any pattern or order in nature is a mathematical function, when it isn't.

It may be possible for mankind to describe such an order or pattern by a mathematical function, but that is quite different.

 

[Write4U]

True, it adds no value. I was fooling around a bit. I do that, sometimes.

The trouble is that you talk all the time about mathematical functions without any real idea of what they are. You seem to think any pattern or order in nature is a mathematical function, when it isn't.

I understand that and have no quarrel with that perspective. But,IMO. all physical functions *employ* a form of mathematical function which guides the physical behaviors.

It may be possible for mankind to describe such an order or pattern by a mathematical function, but that is quite different.

Here I disagree, if physical attributes can be translated by our invented symbolic representations of these values, then we can understand *how* physics actually works.
example, a large four legged animal, colored in patterns of black and white, carrying horn, expressing its vocal ability by "mooing", and possessing an udder from which milk can be extracted, we have translated the properties and abilities with the name "bovine", and specifically a "Holstein cow".
The collections of physical values, creates a pattern which is recognizable by all who have seen a Holstein before. This pattern is processed in the brain and represented as a familiar object.

From my perspective, if an object or function is known as naturally occurring patterns, by definition it has to have mathematical properties .

We also have a mathematical (algebraic) symbol for an unknown or variable value; (x), which can be given a arbitrary value, but can still produce an natural axiom. i.e. x + x = 2 . x , which IMO, has profound implications of how things work.

I am convinced,that if we knew all extant values during a physical interaction, we can describe the resulting physical expression in mathematical terms.

physical objects do not exist independently of physical expression, but physical expression is an hierarchy of mathematical functions which exist in some abstract form, before becoming expressed in our reality as objects.

Tegmark demonstrated the physical form of the number 4/3, from the values contained in the
relationship between a value of four as compared to the value of three.
In the decimal system 4/3 = 1.333333.... , but in binary form the very same value can be expressed as 3/3 = 1.o1010101.... This does not change the value, it's just a different set of mathematical functions.

p.s. Acid rock (music) is based on a 4/3 rhythmical pattern. The word *mathematics* itself can be mathematically expressed in various languages (english, german), as dots on an old computer punch card, or as a set of a binary electronic functions (on, off), or even as a set of sounds (morse code). It all depends on the system used to translate the same values, which suggests, that no matter how you represent values and their actions, these values and actions existed in the abstract. We just found some of the ways to express these values.

From what I understand from the writings of the above Scientists (especially cosmologist/mathematicians . All patterns have an underlying mathematical function of physical objects or epressions.

 

[river]

↑

True, it adds no value. I was fooling around a bit. I do that, sometimes.

The trouble is that you talk all the time about mathematical functions without any real idea of what they are. You seem to think any pattern or order in nature is a mathematical function, when it isn't.

Agreed

I understand that and have no quarrel with that perspective. But,IMO. all physical functions *employ* a form of mathematical function which guides the physical behaviors.

Why would a physical function find it necessary to " employ " a mathematical function in order for physical behaviours to manifest ?

 

[Write4U]

↑
Why would a physical function find it necessary to " employ " a mathematical function in order for physical behaviours to manifest ?

A physical function does not "employ" a mathematical function, it "must" have a "form of mathematical permission", else the physical function is not allowed.

example;

A symmetry on the spacetime is a smooth vector field whose local flow diffeomorphisms preserve some (usually geometrical) feature of the spacetime. The (geometrical) feature may refer to specific tensors (such as the metric, or the energy-momentum tensor) or to other aspects of the spacetime such as its geodesic structure. The vector fields are sometimes referred to as collineations, symmetry vector fields or just symmetries. The set of all symmetry vector fields on M forms a Lie algebra under the Lie bracket operation as can be seen from the identity:

 

[Write4U]

The trouble is that you talk all the time about mathematical functions without any real idea of what they are. You seem to think any pattern or order in nature is a mathematical function, when it isn't.

Then what is a pattern? I found this

A pattern, is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner. A geometric pattern is a kind of pattern formed of geometric shapes and typically repeated like a wallpaper.
Any of the senses may directly observe patterns. Conversely, abstract patterns in science, mathematics, or language may be observable only by analysis.

 

[river]

A physical function does not "employ" a mathematical function, it "must" have a "form of mathematical permission", else the physical function is not allowed.

example;

a form of mathematical permission ?

Explain

 

[river]

A symmetry on the spacetime is a smooth vector field whose local flow diffeomorphisms preserve some (usually geometrical) feature of the spacetime. The (geometrical) feature may refer to specific tensors (such as the metric, or the energy-momentum tensor) or to other aspects of the spacetime such as its geodesic structure. The vector fields are sometimes referred to as collineations, symmetry vector fields or just symmetries. The set of all symmetry vector fields on M forms a Lie algebra under the Lie bracket operation as can be seen from the identity:

BS . What physical objects gives evidence to this thinking ?

 

[Write4U]

a form of mathematical permission ?
Explain

Perhaps the explanation lies in the question ; if the universe began in a state of pure energetic chaos, how was it possible that orderly patterns could emerge from this chaotic state?

I can imagine that there had to be (and still are) some natural (pre-existing) rules which guide these emergent regularities. Certain inherent universal rules (potentials) which are either permittive or restrictive of certain physical functions, resulting in constant patterns from very subtle abstract implications to gross expression in our universe. (David Bohm)

We have observed these natural ordering functions and patterns and invented a symbolic language in the forms of numbered values and relationships of these values as equations, to describe these functions and patterns, which are expressed in our world as "physical objects and their functional behaviors".

We called this language mathematics, but the word mathematics itself is a mathematical arrangement of human invented letters, which if placed in the correct order, attain an expressed "meaning".

 

[Write4U]

BS . What physical objects gives evidence to this thinking ?

I didn't write it. But perhaps this has nothing to do with physical objects.
There was a condition when there were no physical objects.

 

[exchemist]

Well I'm glad to see you are thinking about it.