Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: delbertlarson

I would like to offer an explanation to your ABC Preon model.

First, we must know what we are dealing with.

And, we need to rename wrongly named quarks. They should be called. (Up,Down),(Forward (FW), Backward (BW)), (Left, Right).

What are ABC?

They are generated axis'. See pic below. Which also shows the quarks positions as they radiate/propagate from a central point which splits the ABC axis' into half's. And, makes 3 axis' become the 6 quarks. Each quark being made from a (-1,+1) charge. Which is divided by ABC axis. With a value of zero (o).



The (0) charge moves outwards away from the centre. The (-) and (+) charges also move away from the centre at angles to the axis. See pic.



Next pic shows wave in red. 2 points joined together by a third.



There are four ways to make 18 particles. I have described two of them above. The 6 x 3 =18 way. But i'll explain it hopefully more clearly. There are 6 quarks. Each has 3 charges (-1,0,+1).

3 x 6=18. This is where the ABC get explained. Each axis has a quark attached to each end.

A= ((FW) (-1,0,+1) + (BW) (-1,0,+1).

B= ((up) (-1,0,+1) +(Down) (-1,0,+1)).

C= ((Left) (-1,0,+1) + (Right) (-1.0.+1)).

There are 2 x 9 = 18. The 9s are made by joining 3 groups of 3 charges.

(A= (-1.0.+1) + B=(-1,0,+1) + C= (-1,0,+1)),

(A= (+1,0,=1) + B=(+1,0,=1) + C=(+1,0,-1)).

And a combination of 9 x 2 = 18.

FW (-1) + BW (+1).

FW (-1) + BK (-1).

FW (+1) + BK (+1).

Up (-1) + Down (+1).

Up (-1) + Down (=1).

Up (+1) + Down (+1).

Left (-1) + Right (+1).

Left (-1) + Right (-1).

Left (+1) + Right (+1)

a reply to: KrzYma

Thanks.

I don't mind being told i'm wrong. If you can supply me with knowledge to help change my mind. That'll help.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Figure 6. Tension forces in the aether. With the ramifications of incompressiblity now in hand, it is time to turn to the affect that forces have on the aether. The first force to consider is the force of tension. Fig. 6 shows three cubes of aether as well as the tension forces acting on the central cube. Of course, in the real aether the cubes (which are arbitrarily specified for analysis only) will have adjoining faces. Here they are separated out only in an effort to make the drawing clear.

This looks like a sea of cubes, face to face. But. It's a flat surface.

If you look at my first diagram on previous page (d/s experiment).

The wave is a point where it collapses.

The point is the corner of a cube.

If you insist that you are right. I have no problem with that. As i'm cool with superposition. As long as it's because of superposition.

Otherwise. Might i suggest. The cubes sit on one of their corners. They would still have faces meeting. But it would create a surface made of points.

Every point on a wave. Is a point of the wave.

This is a question to delbert.

Happy New Year. Have a great 2919.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: KrzYma

Thanks.

I don't mind being told i'm wrong. If you can supply me with knowledge to help change my mind. That'll help.

Issue is, blackcrowe, is that KrzYma doesn't provide anything to prove his statements, simply insults or calls people stupid and proceeds with lecturing. Simultaneously ignoring about a century of observational science and real life experimental science.

Routinely calls QM a lie, and that the Photon doesn't exist... and yet doesn't at all give any good argument as to why our observations are not accurate.

Examples are that atomic structure rely on QM, without QM, the prediction would be that electron energy levels around atoms would be continuous. Evidence shows this not to be the case. Even his additive treatment of the photoelectric effect is absurdly naive and incorrect. He cannot seem to decide if wavelength is a thing, or if intensity is a thing or if both are, when trying to disprove established science.

Same goes for lasers, he wishes to claim or state that the geometric confinement of a laser is entirely based upon blocking light that emanates to the sides in a circular wavefront, and so is only projected forward. By his own reasoning, he seems to suggest that every light source can be turned into a laser with the application of geometric collimation. This is in reality not the case. Lasers operate via stimulated emission, a property that occurs in QM in which a photon, causes a electron from a higher energy level to drop to the ground state, transfering the energy to the electromagnetic field in the form of a photon that has the same directionality, and wavelength and is coherent with the incoming photon. By his own ignorance, lasers cannot and do not exist... AT ALL... yet, i beg to differ. Not only that, but via the application of quantum mechanics we can select materials to produce lasers of known and highly confined wavelength... something that should again be impossible to do by his own views on science.



At this point i shall mostly be ignoring him, not because im arrogant or know it all, but because I seriously believe his answers are basically trolling and trying to meaningfully derail or spread misinformation. He never creates his own threads, and simply takes to trolling this one. The way he posts is to make it sound like he knows what he is talking about and even interject with the occasional smart sounding question, that often doesn't even make sense, or is a rhetorical crowbar used to derail.

Thus, my advice is to pay him zero mind or attention, you and everyone shall be better off for it in my opinion.

a reply to: ErosA433

Happy New Year. Have a great 2019.

Thanks for your opinion.

I was hoping you would reply.

Disappointed though.

I would have preferred a reply to what i've posted.

Usually, Arbitrageur and delbert do reply. But, i would like more of the clever one's to reply too.

I have a big problem here.

I know not a single person i can talk to about my interest (science). QED especially.

The conversation is very slow on here. And a very limited number of members i consider worthy of a good discussion to help me with an obsession. LOL.

Hope your next reply is about QED.

Looking forward to it.

Even if you tear my idea to pieces.

It has been a long time since I was involved in QED, so my knowledge sits at about a 5 years old memory rather than being practiced and up to date.

On the Double slit, its quite a philosophical one, so I hope what I am about to say is useful, or isn't already in something that I have missed. It is important to get the observation, the meaning and the setups in order before delving into other theory.

Im going to speak about the experiment as I have done it myself, and as iv read of others perform it.
In the double slit, experiment, for light, the source has to be geometrically confined, and coherent.

A laser can be trained on the centre of a slit, such that you can know, with some degree of certainty that your light is hitting the centre. The other important aspect is the slit widths and separation. The slit widths need to be much smaller than the screen distance, and the separation between them is important.

Now what is important to note is that observationally, the experiment works, if you use a high intensity laser that is producing millions of coherent photons at every second. It also still works if you fire each photon separately. What appears to matter is that the light is coherent.

What this strongly suggests is that photons undergo the same process of interference with or without the presence of other photons. It suggests that the waveform or wavelength property of the photon is exactly that... it is a property carried by a particle, and not a vast fluctuation of a propagating field. The QM side of it is the treatment of the this waveform. There is the approach that doesn't sound logically consistent, but unfortunately that seems to be a feature of QM, in that, kind of like the Schrodinger's cat example. As the photon passes to the slit, it passes through both and exactly which one it passed through is unknown till it is detected. It has knowledge of what the interference of the other slit and the other photons should be given coherence and upon detection at the screen... it is either detected or not on the basis of that interference waveform.

This one is a tricky one to really understand or accept. It is what a lot of people reject. I don't even feel that my paragraph above does it very much justice and might very well contain inaccuracies in comparison to the established interpretations.

SO in QED you are concerned with not only the treatment of the electromagnetic fields with their associated excitation particles (photons) but also with the interaction of charged particles with that field and photons. This is where... and please excuse my ignorance, I am uncertain what aspects are troubling you... i come and go from this thread a little and so am a little behind and didn't want to interject an established conversation. All I can really say though about QED is that it is a little mind bending sometimes and is different to classical electromagnetism in approach as in classical electromagnetism, it deals entirely with fields, in QED, everything is expressed as interactions between particles.

a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks.

in QED, everything is expressed as interactions between particles.

Because every interaction. When you see the interference pattern Where two waves cross. It causes a a new point. A real particle. Gluon.

Value of (0). It is a false/implied zero. It connects two charges together. (-1,0+1).

It's not interactions between particles as such. But, interactions between two charges. (=1) can be from one particle. (+1) can be from another particle.

a reply to: blackcrowe

So this is i think a little bit over thought. Firstly the Gluon is a mediator of the strong force, it doesn't directly interact with the photon in QED. The Photon is an excitation and mediator of the electromagnetic field, the Gluon is a mediator of strong force and the two are analogous but not directly related.

Reasons being that, A gluon doesn't carry charge, or mediate it. The Photon does and likewise a Photon doesn't mediate or carry colour charge either.

I am trying to find a good source, maybe someone else may explain it better, but the way i see it, is that when a photon passes through or in the vicinity of another, in which its waveform is out of phase, the photons don't cease to be, the photons being out of phase essentially suppress the interaction probability at that position. It doesn't transmutate into something else, like a gluon, it simply passes through, and there is a suppression of the observable energy or the observable probability due to the cancelation of the waveforms, BUT not the particles discrete existence

Its is sort of as you describe, there being a net zero, but thats what the photon is, it is an excitation of the electromagnetic field in a discrete particle. From an outside observer... say for example, an electron present in a sensor used to measure the diffraction pattern, as the photons experience this interference, their superposition result in the electron observing the photons with zero net energy, although are still particles. There is no excitation of the field in that moment in time present to the outside observer, and such, no interaction.


On the ABC preon model, i have to still go back and read the updates.

a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks.

This is what i hoped for.

TextSo this is i think a little bit over thought. Firstly the Gluon is a mediator of the strong force, it doesn't directly interact with the photon in QED. The Photon is an excitation and mediator of the electromagnetic field, the Gluon is a mediator of strong force and the two are analogous but not directly related.

Maybe this pic will help.

a reply to: blackcrowe
Happy new year to you too!

I suggest watching the video in the opening post by Sean Carroll. Some summary points to get from the video:

Nobody really knows what's really creating these experimental results, but there are a number of ideas:
- The textbook explanation called the Copenhagen interpretation, of which physicist David Mermin has said "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!' ". Sean Carroll says he doesn't know the correct interpretation for QM but he believes if you really start thinking about it, you will come to realize that the Copenhagen interpretation we teach in textbooks is probably not the most correct explanation.

- Another interpretation is DeBroglie-Bohm which uses the idea of a "pilot wave" guiding particles. Many say the idea might have gained more respect had Bohm not been communist because people were reluctant to align themselves with ideas of a communist. In any case the model is supposed to give the same results as the Copenhagen interpretation.

- Another interpretation was made by Hugh Everett which says instead of "shut up and calculate", using the quantum mechanics equation, think about what the equation is really telling us and follow it where it goes, is paraphrasing the Sean Carroll explanation. The problem is this "solution" to understanding quantum mechanics leads to a view of the universe which some might describe as jumping from the frying pan into the fire because it's very strange and even more non-intuitive. But Sean Carroll and many other respected prominent physicists think this idea, as crazy as it may sound, actually be the answer we are searching for.

In addition to those three there are other ideas too, mentioned in the OP video. Nobody has figured out a way to test via experiment which idea is correct, but people are trying to figure out how to do that. You have tried to oversimplify a concept to the point where it's not really consistent with observation, and no 3 points doesn't define an arbitrary curve or wave. If you know what you have is a circle, three points will define a circle, but 3 arbitrary points won't define an a unknown curve or waveform.

Lately I've been trying to slog through Everett's unedited PhD thesis. His original thesis was "watered down" with parts removed at the suggestion of his advisor, but years later the original thesis was published in full and that's what I've been trying to read and understand. If you want to take a look you'll find it's not so simple. He includes some excellent commentary on the nature of models.

"The Theory of the Universal Wave Function," long thesis as published, 1973

The first chapter isn't too technical so you may be able to read that without a lot of background in math, but the second chapter starts to get into the technical details, and by the third chapter he gets into the application of his ideas to quantum mechanics. Even if his ideas about what causes quantum mechanics observations are ultimately proven wrong, his paper still touches on many things that any other more correct explanation will still need to explain, so from that perspective I suggest you review it as a guide of things you might want to address if you are trying to formulate an alternative explanation of QM yourself. You should be able to tell he put a lot of thought into it.

If you can't watch the OP video or as a supplement here is a FAQ discussing Everett's ideas versus other ideas of how to interpret quantum mechanics:

THE EVERETT FAQ

As for QED, you can take the free MIT course and learn a lot about that which is the same material you'd have to pay a very expensive tuition to learn if you attended the same class at MIT, so it's an incredible bargain. You could try jumping in to the course, or you could check the prerequisites and see if you want to want or need to take some other courses first. This is the second video from the lecture series, the first was just an introduction and course overview, but you can find them all online:

QED Hamiltonian - MIT OpenCourseWare

originally posted by: ErosA433
Issue is, blackcrowe, is that KrzYma doesn't provide anything to prove his statements, simply insults or calls people stupid and proceeds with lecturing. Simultaneously ignoring about a century of observational science and real life experimental science.

Yes, he says mainstream science is wrong but when you ask for his quantitative predictions he has none.

At this point i shall mostly be ignoring him, not because im arrogant or know it all, but because I seriously believe his answers are basically trolling and trying to meaningfully derail or spread misinformation.

It does seem like trolling. The video he posted was actually pretty good but the speaker didn't say what KrzYma suggested which I'll address below.

originally posted by: KrzYma
here the actual stand of main stream physics explained by a comedian...

one thing to mention...
when he hays "we know" he means "we thing it is so"
when he says "it's a law" he means "the theory says so..."
when he says "this is the fact", he says "believe what we tell you"

some what he says is true.. all is a field


the most funny part is the equation "the theory of everything (so far)"

Gravity -> no explanation of that, just math to description what it is doing, not why!
Strong Force -> do not exist, is just made off to explain why like charge particles do not repeal at small distance
Weak Force -> do not exist, just made off to explain radioactive decay... is triggered by outside!
Matter -> no explanation of that, just math to describe what is going on, not why!
Higgs Boson -> fairy tall story !

I liked that video, and I made a couple of quotes that contradict what you suggest so I doubt you watched it or if you did, you failed to comprehend these statements:

"31:00 We have these theories of physics that are the best theories ever developed, but at the same time they're the theories we understand the least....

31:43 You're all made of quantum fields and I don't understand them...at least I don't understand them as well as I think I should."

That doesn't sound anything like these:

"when he hays "we know" he means "we thing it is so"
"when he says "this is the fact", he says "believe what we tell you"

So I think Eros may have a point that you are just trolling, you are misrepresenting what was said in the video.

when he says "it's a law" he means "the theory says so..."

When did he ever say "it's a law"? I don't recall hearing him even say that. However I also think your comment is contrary to my experience with how laws and theories work. Theories tend to be more comprehensive than laws. For example, scientists have broken the second law of thermodynamics on short timescales with a small number of particles, so that law like other laws is not that rigid. However the supporting theory for how thermodynamics actually works will actually predict such a violation of that law has a certain statistical probability of occurring, so the more comprehensive theory is not violated when that law is broken. To a layperson unfamiliar with science, I think "law" has a connotation of a higher principle than a "theory" which is what your statement seems to suggest, but based on my training in science I don't see it that way, as the example I cited illustrates.

About your other comments, like gravity hasn't been fully explained, yeah, so? There's a list of unsolved problems in physics and gravity is on the list, or specifically making gravity and quantum mechanics at least compatible with each other.

As for "just math to describe what is going on" I admit some models do appear that way, and as I just summarized for Blackcrowe there are ideas about a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but nobody knows which if any idea is correct. So we consider those until we figure out how to prove some ideas wrong, and narrow the options.

ok, one from EU, ( no, I'm not EU proponent, they just fit my observations more than Quantum Particle Zoo )

I've never seen you do any quantitative observation fitting. Not only are the EU ideas not expressed quantitatively, but your own ideas are similarly lacking in any kind of quantitative prediction so without that you don't really have anything to compare to observation, and nothing to support that statement that they "they just fit my observations more". That sounds like complete BS, but if you want to elaborate on what specific observations fit better using some quantitative examples feel free, but I know you won't; you never have before.

a reply to: ErosA433

I am learning this as i'm going along.

I will try to explain the gluon particle.

Although. I will be renaming it just for the fun of it. And. It will make sense.

It generates out from a zero point, in 6 directions.

It's delbert's ABC preon model.

It is 3 axis'. They give direction. The directions are quarks. A = (FW,BW). B = (Up,Down). C = (Left, Right).

They're value is (0) or a false/implied zero, The quarks have (-,+) charges.

As the ABC begins it's journey. So do the quarks also. They're charges. They propagate. And leave the (0) axis at an angle to the axis. Making it 3 charges (-1,0,+1). 3 points make a wave.

The wrongly named gluon (0). Central point of the wave. Spreads itself out along it's (left, right) axis to be the connection between the 2 propagating charges. Same length as the (0). But the angle of the now joined (-1,+1) charges, put their positions behind the travelling (0). Making a waveform. Until a time when the wave collapses. And,is in it's simplest terms. A surface. The propagating surface is brought back to a point (0), when collapsed. Making the (-1+1) = (0).

Not only forming a surface across 2 other propagating points. It started from a (0) point. And has a connection to that point also.

The ABC axis' can move along each others axis'.

The false/implied zero's. Which happen at an interaction point also have ABC.









It is a surface with a value (0). It's real name is delbert's Aether. The gluon is an aether point or wave. Whatever it needs to be when needed.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the reply.

Not being rude.

This sh1t is driving me nuts.

I need to sleep.

Will answer you when i can pay proper attention to your reply.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Nearly 40 years ago when just a student I proposed that the electron was a W bound to a Z by the neutrino. Someone commented that what I was calling a W was not really a W, and that what I was calling a Z was not really a Z. The W and Z bosons have definitions known to the community, and I was modifying that meaning. My modifications were so severe that I was in fact proposing new particles, which I later named A and B. (The C came later.)

In what you propose, you are no longer referring to my A, B and C particles. Rather, you are proposing something new. It is of course perfectly OK to do so, but you are presenting a new proposal. My A has an electric charge of 0, B an electric charge of -1, and C an electric charge of +2. My preons also have masses and a "neutrinic charge" defined. Also, quarks don't have electric charges of 1, 0 and -1. Rather, they have charges of -1/3 and +2/3. So clearly, quarks and my preons are different things from each other, as well as being different things from what you propose.

I always encourage investigation of any new model, but just note that your model is new, and likely should have unique entity naming and property definitions for those entities. Your entities may be used to build other entities, such as the A, B, C or the quarks, but your entities are not the same things.

-

As for points versus waves and surfaces in my aetherial analysis that you quote, I have always believed that nature is best described by a continuum, not points. Any analysis that gives a finite value of some quantity (such as angular momentum, or electric charge, or mass) at a point results in density infinities at that point. However, if we instead consider nature to be made of a continuum of substance, then the amount of any quantity can shrink as we shrink the volume of analysis down. Density can go to a constant in the limit of small sizes within such an analysis, and no infinity problems arise. The issue blocking our understanding in this way is relativity, as relativity is a point-like theory in four-space.

-

The above issue about points versus the continuum relates to the question you asked Arbitrageur. A wave, in my view, can not be well represented by a small number of points. Rather, it is better represented by a continuum of values. Also, your thoughts with three point-like entities impinging on the two slit apparatus are very different from my thoughts. I believe (and experiment is consistent with this belief) that a continuum wave hits the wall and both slits. That wave will either collapse to a very small region on the wall, or it will collapse to the entire region of the two slits. For the portion which passes through the two slits, interference is obtained on a second wall when the wave hits there. On the second wall collapse occurs to a very small region on that wall. This phenomena occurs even with a single entity. That is, a single photon, or a single electron, or a single Buckyball, will have its wave go through both slits or collapse to a wall. In my view, all entities are continuous things represented by waves. Those waves can be split into two parts and go through two slits. And those waves can collapse to a small, single, localized, size by interaction with other entities such as walls. In my view, the small, single, localized, sizes have led to a prevailing misunderstanding that nature has some point-like characteristics. But again, it is really only relativity that stands in opposition to my more simple (amenable to common-sense) physical view of nature. We are allowing a philosophical choice (choosing relativity over absolute theory) to blind us. In many ways relativity is a very, very beautiful idea. However, I don't believe it is physically accurate.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I watched the Sean Carrol video just a couple of weeks ago. Enjoyed it. Will have to watch it again to refresh.

I watched the other vid too.

I had trouble with his accent. And if i don't find that level of maths hard enough. He converts it. But, i did get the gist of some of it.

The book will take some time to read.

You have tried to oversimplify a concept to the point where it's not really consistent with observation

I understand that.

and no 3 points doesn't define an arbitrary curve or wave. If you know what you have is a circle, three points will define a circle, but 3 arbitrary points won't define an a unknown curve or waveform.

I have thought about this comment. And i am going to try to put it right. But, i feel you're reply will tell me that's not what you meant. In what i have proposed. A propagating wave will consist of (-1, 0 +1) as the wave shape (in 2d). But, also has what i called a false/implied zero. Which if i'm right would be an eigenvalue. Which is now 4 points. If that's not what you mean. Please spell it out to me. As i'm missing something.

Thanks. Lots to think about.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Thanks.

That's really disappointing actually.

I was not intending to propose a new theory.

That would be like competing with your theory. Which i would not intend.

What i have proposed. I actually believed would help you. As i see likeness to it.

Sorry delbert.

The problem is. That i have found things i think i can describe to some degree. My maths are crude. I'm not qualified in this.

What i have found. Seems real.

But. Lacking in the maths is going to go against me.

I don't think i will carry on with my proposal under the circumstances.

But still hope you get your theories recognised.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
I have thought about this comment. And i am going to try to put it right. But, i feel you're reply will tell me that's not what you meant. In what i have proposed. A propagating wave will consist of (-1, 0 +1) as the wave shape (in 2d). But, also has what i called a false/implied zero. Which if i'm right would be an eigenvalue. Which is now 4 points. If that's not what you mean. Please spell it out to me. As i'm missing something.

You've already got a 0 in your (-1, 0 +1) so I don't really understand the false/implied zero, but I'm not sure if that matters when you consider other experiments. If you're only trying to explain the double slit experiment maybe a 2d analysis will gain some traction, but light has 3d properties (or 4d counting time) in other experiments which I think any 4 point model or other very simple models will not be able to explain.

For example, the properties of polarizing filters not only can't be explained by a simple 4 point model, they apparently are difficult to explain with most logical models we might try to dream up to explain them. That problem is shown in this graph in the following video, which shows that adding more polarizing filters shouldn't add much light to the two polarizing filters already blocking 100% of the light, which is the "reasonable" curve.

Take a look at the "actual" curve which is way above that with a question mark added to indicate that simple logical models can't seem to explain this. You can get a bunch of polarizing filters and do this yourself. I think you will find it very difficult to come up with a simple model to explain these observations and you will definitely need more than 4 points. The video of course elaborates and even gets into Bell's theorem.

This is a screenshot from the video showing how different "actual" is from "reasonable":


This is the video:


Earlier in the thread I posted a quote from a theoretical physicist who said the hardest part of his job was coming up with alternative ideas that he didn't immediately know were wrong because they conflicted with some already known experimental results. So obviously if you want to do theoretical physics, it's imperative to be familiar with the known experiments so you can determine if your alternate ideas are consistent with those experiments or not. So in other words, think in much broader terms than the double slit experiment if you want to make a new model, because if the model is contradicted by any known experiment then it's wrong, and there are lots of other experiments to consider besides the double-slit, like these polarized light experiments, and many others.

BTW I'm not sure which "other video" or "book" you mean. There was another video in the OP (which I think has been removed), and the video Kryzma posted, and the MIT courseware video on QED so that's at least three possibilities. For the book, maybe you mean Everett's original thesis "The Theory of the Universal Wave Function"? The link calls it a thesis or paper, but I didn't see where they called it a book.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks.

You've already got a 0 in your (-1, 0 +1) so I don't really understand the false/implied zero, but I'm not sure if that matters when you consider other experiments. If you're only trying to explain the double slit experiment maybe a 2d analysis will gain some traction, but light has 3d properties (or 4d counting time) in other experiments which I think any 4 point model or other very simple models will not be able to explain.

If you don't understand it. Then i must not be making myself clear. I will explain again. i hope you understand. Because, it's a problem otherwise.

The reason i said there was 3 points to a curve are based on a 2d model. I am trying to keep numbers at their minimum. Otherwise, they escalate. And, cause confusion. A curve is a fraction of a circle. And i am looking at a small fraction. If i try to plot just 2 points. I get a straight line. How do i make a straight line into a curve? I need a central third point in front of my 2 points. Then i can plot a curve. I can plot a curve with as many points as i want. The more. The merrier. If i used enough points. I could complete a full circle. Or go the whole hog, and make a 3d sphere. But the minimum is 3. My 2 points have values. (-1) and (+1). I don't know the length of my curve. I have to imply that third central point (0).

I hope that helps. It helped me to know you didn't understand me.

The video was interesting.

Thought i had an answer.

Until i tried to explain it clearly.

Will get back to you about that. After more thought.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
A curve is a fraction of a circle.

And i am looking at a small fraction. If i try to plot just 2 points. I get a straight line. How do i make a straight line into a curve? I need a central third point in front of my 2 points. Then i can plot a curve. I can plot a curve with as many points as i want. The more. The merrier. If i used enough points. I could complete a full circle.

Problem 1: We have vastly different ideas of what "curve" means and even the wiki article says the definitions can be somewhat ambiguous depending on the exact topic being discussed, but it gives a parabola as an example of a curve. No matter how many more points you add to the parabola, it will never form a circle.

Problem 2: Even if I now acknowledge that you meant "part of a circle" when you said "curve", I have to say that I don't see how modeling a photon as a circle or as three points of a circle explains what it does. The video discussing polarization and bell's theorem doesn't get into the math very much, but I found some course notes that explain the math of how you can calculate what the polarizing filters will do. Two dimensions won't work in this case since you have three directions, say the direction of photon travel, and horizontal and vertical polarization directions which are at 90 degrees to each other.

Here are the course notes explaining the polarization math and why the explanations given in some freshman physics texts are somewhat naive (I noticed a lot of youtube commenters parroting that the "filters aren't really filters" indicating they don't have such a deep understanding of the phenomenon). The author of these notes basically says we may not like it, but we can't predict what a single photon will do with this model/math, only probabilities, and it gives another example of that too with the quantum properties of a sodium atom.

Experimental Evidence for Quantum Mechanics

This leads to the fifth (and final) rule of QM: after O has been observed and found to have a value o α then the wavefunction of the system collapses into the eigenstate ψ α . This is perhaps the most unsatisfying of the postulates of QM, because the collapse is completely probabilistic – we can’t predict the outcome no matter how hard we try. Indeed, there is a small but vocal faction of physicists that maintain that this postulate is, in fact, wrong. You may have heard Einstein’s famous quote that “God does not play dice.” This was Einstein’s justification for rejecting the fifth postulate. The alternatives are called “hidden variable” theories. Basically one assumes that there is some variable that is not accessible to us experimentally that determines which state the wavefunction ultimately collapses to. Whether or not a hidden variable theory can work (and the majority of physicists agree that no hidden variable theory will be able to match all the experimental data) the fact remains that the fifth postulate of QM is consistent with all the experimental data ever collected. Hence, while we may not like it on a philosophical level, we are not philosophers. From a scientific perspective, the fifth postulate is perfect.

"while we may not like it on a philosophical level, we are not philosophers" reminds me of Mermin's "shut up and calculate" interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Everett's explanation of why we get the experimental results we do is different, but many find that explanation even less philosophically pleasing though it has some advantages like not abandoning locality.

As these notes say, we may not deeply understand why we get the results we do, and we may not like the philosophical implications, but the math always seems to work in predicting what the experimental results will show. This perhaps leads to...

Problem 3. Without any math I'm not sure how to attempt to see if there's a correlation between your model and experimental results. But before you kill yourself trying to come up with the math, the course notes already have it for the polarization observations at least, and I'm sure you can find the math for the double slit experiment too. So it's not like we are looking for the math to predict results, we already have it. The problem is we aren't sure why that math works and also the math follows some rules that may not fit our intuitive or logical sensibilities as the above course notes mention.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm glad you made me realise how important making a point understandable is.

I tried to clear it up. And, thought i'd done a good job of it.

Problem 1: We have vastly different ideas of what "curve" means and even the wiki article says the definitions can be somewhat ambiguous depending on the exact topic being discussed

I really don't know how i can change my interpretation of a curve to suit someone else's idea of. Does the different interpretation make mine not a curve?

Then i really muddied the waters.

. No matter how many more points you add to the parabola, it will never form a circle.

I was trying my best to say i was working of a 2d model. Then threw in adding more points to make a circle or sphere. Which are more than 2d. Not a good thing to do. And, i would like to remove that part of the statement.

I have to say that I don't see how modeling a photon as a circle or as three points of a circle explains what it does.

I see the particle as point like. Or, a wave (curve). The particle is made up of three charges. (=1), (0). (+1). When all three charges are together. They are known as a particle. But, when propagating. (-1) and (+1) are behind (0) and, moving away from the (0) axis at an angle. It is a wave.

I think it looks like i'm actually modelling 3 charges. What they are interpreted as could be different. The charges are a point like or wavelike form. It is a particle. But maybe it could be the particle you want to interpret. In other words. I'm not concerned with the name of the particle as such.

Love what Einstein said. To answer the 5th rule.

As you have noticed. I'm not working off any preconceived math. And although i love the quote. I don't have a real preference. In my model. It taught me something. I had no idea about implied zero's (eigenvalues if i understand correctly) before the model. But now i can work with it.

On the whole. I was not discouraged by your comments. But hope i am learning the importance of clarity when explaining something.

It will take some practice to get the hang of.