Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: delbertlarson
So would that be in the "other" category of the graph on Sean Carroll's Blog?

That category got 12% of the votes which is more than deBroglie-Bohm got. Everett got 18% which seems high for such a philosophically hard to swallow idea, but it is also primarily a wave-based idea.

Sean Carroll seems optimistic that we might devise some experiments later this century to make choosing the correct interpretation a matter of experiment rather than philosophical preference as it seems to be now.

a reply to: ErosA433

I started learning 4 months ago, and not from ATS. I just started posting here a few weeks ago. I sense a bit of defensiveness in your comment. I did't say Relativity is wrong. I stated that my OPINION was that it needs fixing. There is a difference there. I am not married to one specific opinion. As I continue learning, it changes.

I do plan on getting a formal education in the field, but I can't start immediately, so I'm just getting a bit of a head start.

No need for 'enemy' analogies. Denominational gang mentality is exactly why we don't have a unified theory today. I am more than capable of learning and balancing two or more opposing theories. There is no need for anyone to limit themselves to only one. I may not have the math to prove it to you today, but maybe one day I will.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: ErosA433

I stated that my OPINION was that it needs fixing.

ErosA433's point, at least as I understand it (I don't want to put words in his/her mouth) is that dropping all preconceptions is the first step to learning. You have to understand that forming opinions about a scientific theory counter to the (air quotes) mainstream is foolhardy at such an early stage. Maybe your opinion is correct, but the overwhelmingly likely probability is that your opinion is based on a naive (mis)understanding of the theory in question. All too often you will see people on here (and out in the wild) with not even a token understanding of a scientific theory letting their misguided opinions filter the way they learn, and that is a one way ticket to Crankville.

I'm not necessarily saying this is the case with you, but it's something to be keenly aware of if you wish to follow your pursuit of knowledge with intellectual honesty.

a reply to: GetHyped

I understand, and that makes sense. I guess the point I should have made is that we should be looking for self similar principles in our regular world that still holdt true in the quantum world. Once those common links can be established, then unification can begin. You dont need math to observe self similarity, you just need math to measure it

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: delbertlarson
So would that be in the "other" category of the graph on Sean Carroll's Blog?

That category got 12% of the votes which is more than deBroglie-Bohm got. Everett got 18% which seems high for such a philosophically hard to swallow idea, but it is also primarily a wave-based idea.

Thank You. You continue to know of, or find, much work of significant value, making this thread a great resource. I had not seen the graph you refer to, and wasn't even familiar with some of the interpretations. I had, quite long ago, come up with an interpretation I liked and so I stuck with it. When looking at the graph, I was especially interested in the name Objective Collapse, because that name could associate to what I am proposing. Although critically, I am proposing an objective collapse within an absolute theory. But then when I looked up Objective Collapse I learned that it involved something at the Planck scale along with general relativistic space-time, so that is not at all what I am thinking. Other approaches included an observer in some way or another, and I don't.

So yes, Other it is. Although I think that would give me too many group-mates on the graph. I think the "special relativity should be set aside" category would attract a very small number of physicists.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: GetHyped

I understand, and that makes sense. I guess the point I should have made is that we should be looking for self similar principles in our regular world that still holdt true in the quantum world.

Don't you think we've tried? If you don't know, we have tried to understand the quantum world in terms of our regular world. Some physicists have some ideas on how to do that but haven't come to an agreement on how that's possible and the mystery was so deep that Richard Feynman said this in his lectures:

www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu...

Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to, and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone—both to the novice and to the experienced physicist. Even the experts do not understand it the way they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not, because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies to large objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. So we have to learn about them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience.

In this chapter we shall tackle immediately the basic element of the mysterious behavior in its most strange form. We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot make the mystery go away by “explaining” how it works. We will just tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics.

What he's saying is we have tried to do what you suggest but it doesn't seem to work, and maybe Feynman is right that it's not a reasonable expectation that things at the smallest scales should be expected to behave like things on larger scales that we are more familiar with.

Feynman suggested we should let nature reveal how it works though observation and experiment, and not try to tell nature how we think it's supposed to behave which is sort of what you might be trying to do if you start with an expectation that things on small scales should behave like things on larger scales.

By the way, the Feynman lectures are a good free online resource for someone trying to learn physics.

This is quite a silly thing but I would be interested to determine an answer.

Imagine yourself in a mirrored room. You hold a hand mirror up and look at your reflection over your shoulder into the main mirror as you walk backwards.

Do you see where you are going to or coming from?

originally posted by: delbertlarson
I believe this strengthens the presentation. The issue of philosophical choice is now directly followed by a discussion of Bell's theorem experiments, and the impact this has had on quantum mechanical interpretation is then mentioned. Does it present the points clearly? Are your suggestions dealt with well?.

I don't think I made a specific suggestion. What I pointed out was my interpretation of an incongruity between the preface which talked about primarily philosophical differences, versus the paper which clearly suggested that experiment rather than philosophy could clarify which of the three theories best represents nature:

...it is clear that there are experiments that can be done in the future that can clarify which of the three theories best represents nature

To me that still says something different from the edited preface which still talks about a philosophical choice. Is the choice philosophical or to be determined by experiment? I don't presume to tell you which is correct, only that my interpretation suggests the preface still implies the former and the paper still states the latter.

a reply to: Jc333
Unless the "walking backwards" is supposed to confuse the definition of "going to", I would say "going to" should refer to your direction of motion, not the direction you are facing, so my answer would be "going to", but because of the mirrors you'd be able to see where you were coming from also.

originally posted by: moebius

Waves/radiation describe how changes in the EM field propagate.

So. The EM field exists. Waves/radiation describe how changes in the EM field propagate? Is there ever a time when any point of the EM field is not waving/radiating?

Is the EM field only pure wave/radiation?

Photons describe how the field interacts with matter, in quantised units.

Lets say we are in the ocean, (the ocean represents the em field, waves radiation)

You are saying what is called photons, is akin to if we wanted to measure the energy associated with a wave transferring onto a buoy? (field/wave interacting with matter)

That the wave/field transfers a quantized quantity of energy onto the buoy. (it raises its energy state)

The entire wave, the entire field is not called a photon or photons, because the entire wave and the entire field do not precisely give the buoy its precise quantity of energy in that time and space it does.

If that is so it is understandable I suppose.

The difficulty returns, when discussed the actually physical mechanics of EM field, EM radiation, Photon, the whole self propagating multiple perpendicular fields (made of?), a photon is 2 self propagating fields?

EM radiation is 2 self propagating fields?

Em radiation is not a photon?

A photon is a quantity of EM radiation that interacts with matter.

A canadian goose that flys into america becomes an american goose.


And/or are you saying, that once EM radiation interacts with matter, it becomes an actually entirely new phase of matter?

EM radiation exists. Matter exists. When EM radiation interacts with matter a new substance is created?

Or no, a photon is just a supra name, for EM radiation, like if I owned all dictionary companies and wrote that 'waves that landed on shore are called "Wavons".

Wavons are not the same as the waves that do not break off shore.

(this is technically true, in some way, but also truly, a wave of water is a wave of water, more fundamentally)

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets

The debate continues and so do the experiments:

not sure what the point of this video is, is it demonstrating the so called duality of light ?
Particle and wave at the same time ?

OK, without going to my theory, one thing about this video and the wave-particle duality.

There is NON!
The particle is a particle and the wave is a wave.
They interact, sure, but one is not the other.

This droplet moves on a wave that is generated by a shaker underneath the liquid.

The one is not becoming the other and otherwise.

Those are 2 separated systems interacting one with another, nothing more..


and from the previous post...

Your idea doesn't explain how light propagates in a vacuum.

it does, there is no such thing as vacuum.
If you imagine just 2 charges and nothing else, both extend from they point of origin into infinity,
They both everywhere and inside each other, that's how they interact.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
The point to clarify is that I assume that entities are always waves, never particles.

By wave do you generally mean: Going up and down?

Consider a rock. Something like a big particle. You would say the entity rock, is a wave? As in moving going up and down? The rock sitting right that, is waving up and down?

(answer these questions before trying to tell me that theorized fundamental particles are nothing like classical rocks)
(the idea of particle is the idea of a bit of substance, isolation, singular, object, particulate, quanta, piece, part: analogies would be classical, ball, marble, grain of sand)
(the idea of wave is the idea of 'going up and down': ocean wave, holding a rope and moving your arm up and down, the 'up and down, or back and forth' movements of air as in sound)(air is composed of particles, a rope is composed of particles, water is composed of particles, but you are suggesting no, waves make waves, and make the appearance of particles.)

There is the idea of a network/medium waving (water, air). And the idea of a single object waving (rope)(the single object is also a network, a network of strings entwined to make the rope... and the strings each are a network, of molecules, of atoms etc.)

So if you believe fundamentally substance is wave/s

Do you propose fundamentally substance is like ropes/snakes wiggling up and down?

and/Or fundamentally substance is like ocean, waving up and down?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks. I have a lot of respect for Feynman. I know that we have been trying to reconcile the quantum world with our own scale of nature, and have still failed to produce a Grand Unified Theory...but those past failures do not prohibit such a natural unification. We just need to try changing some of the variables.

What if all particles do have intrinsic mass? Some maybe immeasurably small, but the still might have mass.

What if there is an aether some kind of aether, and we are mistaking it for space-time.

Observations can be misleading, especially if we only have a piece of the picture.

What if we looked at field theory more from the perspective of fluid dynamics?

Anyways, my goal is not to disprove anything, I'm just trying to keep my mind open.

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Are you suggesting there should be different theories of Light? Em radiation? That Photon and all the ideas (that you are suggesting do not fully = Truth) is one theory of light, and there should be other theories of light?

I'm saying photons do not exist, the word "photon" is just a name given to something else, EM wave.
And yet, all one can here is photons move there, photons are doing that.
Photons carries energy, photons are responsible for particle interaction...
All this "photon" talk already convinced people that light is a beam of particles.
Maybe there is a purpose in having people thinking like this, I don't know!

I'm just saying that when we "see the light" there is nothing flown from the light bulb into the eye.

Can you see how that would influence levels of energy, and recordings of time? So too, if body A is traveling x, or light is traveling y, and its expected to travel from A to B at a particular speed, in a particular time, but over a perfectly flat environment, but in space there are bumps and hills that the body and maybe even light ride up and over, then you see the situation at hand?

plz look at some of my earlier posts,
my theory is based on field density, this density influences the propagation speed of the magnetic field and explains the so called "gravitational lensing"

BTW> Black Holes do not exist,
the are regions is space with very high density, sure, but it is not a "mathematical equation" that uses gravitational addition to create singularity.

I could stick to the name Black Hole, sure, but it is already taken to describe something else...
Same for the word photon.

originally posted by: KrzYma

I'm just saying that when we "see the light" there is nothing flown from the light bulb into the eye.

That is a very interesting statement.

So you are saying its kind of like how air and sound work? (and water waves)

When someone plucks strings on a guitar, there is no Guitaron particles that fly off the strings and enter your ear.

There are air particles in your ear, and just outside and they are all touching each other. So when some local event of friction and momentum occurs enough to make a significant impression in the local air medium, that signature impression is carried on down the line (like the energy signature impression of a stone dropped in a pond is carried on down the line).

You are saying all the 'pieces are already in place', just as there is air medium for sound waves, there is light medium for light waves. And this medium has parts that are in the eye, and touching the eye, and just beyond it, and just beyond it.

And when a light is turned on, light particles are not thrown from the light bulb at your wall which bounce off into your eye?

but the filament is 'shaken', and its shaking shakes the light field?

Still information has to be transferred, for you to see the details of the painting on the wall, wouldn't you say 'something' has to touch the details of the painting, those details have to be kept intact after touching and then those details travel, and then hit your eye?

If there is a 3d/4d medium as you propose, how would the waves hold intact the information that you can see up down and all around, and the image is clear?

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Yes, the electrons and protons are the medium. They are not small particles, they origins are small.
Every charge particle is infinitely big, it's density is just going down with distance.
All mater is inside any other mater and the radiation, especially the magnetic field is the "edge" in that field.
The protons and electrons them-self is the propagation medium, the EM wave.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


On the InfoGalactic article I have now added the following line right before the start of the included paper:

As detailed below, additional experimental tests are possible that can help further clarify whether it is relativity or absolute theory that best represents nature.

The issue is that at the present time, relativity is preferred over Lorentz (and my variant). The preference for relativity is largely based on philosophy - at present. The intro covers the topic up to the present state of affairs. My work proposed new experimental tests that are yet to be done. I hope the additional sentence makes a good segway from one section to the other.

a reply to: KrzYma

So you are saying, light is vibrating protons and electrons? When you look in the night sky and see stars, how is that light getting from thousands of light years away into your eye? You think all that 'black dark' space (inbetween the specks of light, stars) is FULL of protons and electrons?

"Every charge particle is infinitely big", its impossible for 'something' to be infinitely big.

You need to draw some diagram illustrating your model

a reply to: delbertlarson

Mainly, maybe, the whole idea of relativity is that we can not escape a particular reference frame. We cannot determine absolute reference frame, because any theoretical reference frame in the universe is relative (...maybe?).

All our attempts to keep time relies on relationships of material/energy (which are beholden to circumstances of physical environments, subtle and not so subtle laws, motions).

Imagine if there were intelligent beings outside the universe, imagine the universe was a closed system. Would our atomic clocks and/our pendulums equal absolute keepings of time? (in relation to a material/energetic keeping of time of theirs?).

Lets say they had their 'perfect time keeping devices', and they had steady beats. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

in whatever time increment that equaled. Would our time keeping devices equal the steadiness? Im not saying would our second equal their second, but if they calibrated a time keeper, that to them in their reference frame and all was purely consistent, to a steady increment of ours, would they stay calibrated?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
What if all particles do have intrinsic mass? Some maybe immeasurably small, but the still might have mass.

How would you know if they did? The particle data group doesn't report the mass of the photon as zero, they report the experimental result of Mass m < 1 × 10^−18 eV

It's possible that no experimental result can show mass of precisely zero so if the best experiment can do is place small limits on the mass that's what we know and that's what our models have to deal with.

What if there is an aether some kind of aether, and we are mistaking it for space-time.

Again, how would you know this if it was true? The luminiferous aether was proposed, and experiments tried to detect it with null result. Einstein's general relativity proposed space-time and experiments have produced results consistent with the space-time predictions. Einstein tried to call that "new aether" but the name didn't stick. So it seems to me like experiments are leading the way. Delbert Larson suggested we need some more experiments, and maybe someday we will have more experimental results that will cause us to adjust our thinking.

originally posted by: KrzYma

and from the previous post...
"Your idea doesn't explain how light propagates in a vacuum. "

it does, there is no such thing as vacuum.
If you imagine just 2 charges and nothing else, both extend from they point of origin into infinity

Yes that's what the inverse square law says, but that law also explains how the electric field associated with charges varies with distance from the charge, yet I've seen no evidence that this tremendous variation in field strength has any effect on photon behavior. You seem to be assuming this charged particle field affects photons but you don't explain why when the field is a million times more intense closer to the charged particle, the effect on photons is exactly the same. It doesn't make much sense.

Also I'm still waiting for you to explain why your equation predicting clock behavior comes from mainstream science when you say mainstream science is wrong but that equation from mainstream science is right, yet you can't produce any such prediction from your alternate model. When the incoherence of your ideas is pointed out, instead of re-thinking your ideas like a rational person would do, you seem to ignore the objections and keep making more claims you can't support.

a reply to: delbertlarson
I read the latest revision which addressed my concern, now it's more consistent in my interpretation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I do think more experimentation is needed, and if you would, could you explain to me how the following was not a state of the art reboot of Michelson-Morley?



To my understanding, the Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to detect the aether by looking for destructive interference using an interferometer. Their results were null.

Fast forward to 2016, the experiment is repeated with positive results, and suddenly its distorted "space-time" being detected, instead of an aether.

Can you explain the difference?