Why Quantum?

Dear Peter,

i have another question that may elucidate the whole matter.

You wrote

"3. At 90 degrees from the polar plane the spin direction is undecidable."

What do you mean by undecidable? Do you mean "not analyzable in physical terms"? I assume you mean that for many runs of the experiment we can observe - in addition to your rules 1. and 2. - for rule 3. not only two pairs of values, but 4 pairs of values.

Thanks!

Stefan

Some of this fine-tuned universe physics is delicious, but a bit over my head right now. Just from experience, I would argue that the requirements for biochemstry are more stringent than for basic chemistry. But to get life, that requires even stricter standards. For example,

4.electromagnetic force constant

if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission

if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

I think we can all agree that the universe is fine-tuned. However, we cannot tell either way whether it was by accident or by design (God exists). It is my belief that this is a choice, a Cosmic Choice that we all get to make. Either you believe in God or you don't, or you're undecided. I chose to believe in God.

Tom,

Laithwaite didn't 'explain' in terms of theoretical rationalisation, what he did was analyse and demonstrate the effects, and identify that (beyond the basic mathematical approximations) there was NO theoretical rationalisation or physical 'classical mechanics' explanation.

It's precisely that which upset the keepers of doctrine at the time. It was nicely 'under the carpet' to the extent that many even believed no physical explanation was needed (or perhaps even possible! - remind you of anything?) It's not well known but behind the scenes Imperial apparently came under great pressure over Laithwaite - but the their credit this time they resisted it. If you watch his later video's you'll see his disgust at the fools coming through (i.e; an incredulous aside; "...you wouldn't believe some of the...")

What the mafia DID succeed in doing was, for the first time ever, stopping that first lecture being published in the Ri proceedings. Honesty eventually prevailed for once as he got his own back by repeating it a number of times! Current paradigms still can't provide the physical explanations he identified as missing, any more than they can for 'non-locality'.

Best wishes

Peter

Thanks Peter,

I had a gyroscope when I was a kid and loved it but it got broken.

I'd like to show that the 3 different motions are not incompatible, how about this demonstration of a macroscopic object pitching and rolling and yawing.

Arobatics Biplane doing a variety of stunt combinations.

Flight training Quote "The airplane can rotate around one, two, or all three axes simultaneously. Think of these axes as imaginary axles around which the airplane turns, much as a wheel would turn around axles positioned in these same three directions."

"Laithwaite didn't 'explain' in terms of theoretical rationalisation, what he did was analyse and demonstrate the effects ..."

Then what makes you think that the demonstration does something that Newton's laws of motion don't explain?

Tom,

What's all this about Laithewaite? Specifically, how does Newton explain whatever it is Pete says he demonstrated? The bone of contention lacks any flavor for the rest of us, please boil it down. I was going to help a fella fix his garage door header today but he got called away, so I've got all my road coffee already in me. jrc

Thanks Georgina for the Aerobatics video. Would you feel safe in a plane flying like that in three directions at the same time rather than one flying in one direction at a time?

I don't see anything that Newtonian mechanics cannot explain in the plane's motion.

If that plane is not a drone, I bet the pilot would be throwing up after landing.

I don't see much relevance of this type of motion Quantum mechanics but that's an area I cant claim deep knowledge so I leave it to Peter to lead or mislead us.

Regards,

Akinbo

"What's all this about Laithewaite? Specifically, how does Newton explain whatever it is Pete says he demonstrated?"

My question to Peter is, what does Laithwaite demonstrate that Newton's laws of motion do not account for? The demonstration is, after all, a classical phenomenon.

Tom,

"The demonstration is, after all, a classical phenomenon."

Okay, so is a 7 inch grinder with a heavy abrasive wheel. Ever notice how if you try to whip it around a corner to a different attitude, it will take off and try to eat you alive?

This thread, however, combined has actually introduced the subject of the reality of spacetime. And while GR intentionally leaves electromagnetism out of the equations, if we look at the right hand rule that Faraday discovered we can find the relationship through the mutual right angle orientations, of all three force effects that are clearly indicative of a geometric property of spacetime as can be described in Hilbert space.

To refresh on the right hand rule; hold out your right hand with palm vertical, point your thumb straight up, your first finger pointing straight forward, bend your second finger to the left (at a more or less right angle), and curl your other two into your palm. Now... if your first finger is a conductor moving in the direction your thumb is pointing, across the direction of magnetic lines of force indicated by your second finger; a current of electricity will be induced to flow in the conductor in the direction from your fingernail towards your wrist. Every time. Move the conductor in the direction opposite from the way your thumb is pointing, and the current will flow towards your fingernail.

The orientation of magnetic field direction and electric field direction are at right angles, and at right angle to direction of motion. The only thing that seems 'moitionless' is the direction of magnetic force, but it is analogous to the freefall of Einstein in his elevator car. So in all reality, at any chosen point (in n-dimensional Hilbert space, if you like) at any given relative attitude of mutual orientation, there exists three simultaneous axes of motion which relate to electromagnetic gravitation. The unified field Einstein sought, is the existential reality. And the mutual right angles of orthogonal axes are clearly indicative that our concept of geometry is genuine, not illusory. Those orthogonal axes can and must be utilized to determine that any change in either a sphere or a cube, occurs uniformly throughout the whole volume of each. And, a sphere is the most efficient encapsulation of space, while a cube is the most efficient filler of space. The volume of both increases by a factor of 8 with the doubling of length of a side or diameter.

That geometry is inherent to a static rest mass, and to a dynamic propagation of light. It is the 'standard model' of an orbital atomic structure with an instantaneous 'quantum leap' that is the illusion. For it is not truly a model of reality, it is a collage, and no matter how brilliant the insights from experiment that are assembled in the picture it is still a collage. jrc

John R, I think you are chipping around in the weeds unnecessarily. The case is entirely Newtonian.

Georgina,

I agree the 3 axes are entirely equivalent, and also arbitrary as it is we who introduce asymmetries. A sphere is symmetrical so has no 'axes' until we introduce them, or set it in motion; a) Translating, and/or b) Rotating, whereon it has a spin axis and TWO poles (no 'bipole' has yet been found) so is 'non-mirror symmetric', or 'Chiral' when both translating and rotating. The OAM of the spin varies with 'latitude' on the surface by the cosine of the angle with the axis.

I suggest that matter (a 'particle') only condenses via 'spin' so has Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) energy, and the dynamic is fractal (all scales) so can form 'ever decreasing spheres'.

Those may be the fundamentals before we move on to dipoles, tori and helices. All decisions on 'which way' a body spinning are then entirely observer dependent and arbitrary. Grab hold of and swap over the spin axes of a rotating sphere; the spin is 'conserved' but apparently REVERSED. Most mathematically based physics has never recognised that possibility! Indeed all we need to do it go to the 'other side' of the sphere (an arbitrary choice in space) and we have also 'reversed' it's observable spin!

There are indeed some fundamental and important lessons to be applied contrary to many hidden assumptions. (Certainly including Newton's Akinbo! - water will NOT drip 'vertically' from the outside of a spinning bucket!).

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

"The case is entirely Newtonian." Compartmentalised nature has always proved incomplete. I consider Newtons descriptions to be just one incomplete view, as mathematics per se. Nature doesn't compartmentalise, I suggest that's just a bad habit of man.

If you watch Laithwaite's video's of gyroscopics etc, all on Utube, I think you'll gain a clearer understanding of his view. I suspect it was the comment "It's been missed" that upset those with troglodyte tendencies the most. He considered himself primarily an electrical 'engineer' so was probably considered an outsider by many physicists.

Some of his ground breaking work including on Maglev etc. was contrary to 'theory'. He identified much nonsense in text books, but much is still there. Many astrophysics books make me cringe!

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Peter,

i will present a reductio ad absurdum which falsifies your model. I really don't like to disappoint people, but here the matter is science, truth and logic.

In your post above yesterday i found two tacitly inserted descriptions of physical reality, that are mutual exclusive and cannot both be true at the same time. Therefore your model, at first sight well argued, is inherently inconsistent.

Let's take a closer look at 4 of your propositions:

1. At exactly opposite settings the findings are identical (apart from a residual 2nd order uncertainty).

2. At exactly the same settings the findings are opposite (apart from ditto).

3. At 90 degrees from the polar plane the spin direction is undecidable.

4. At 90 degrees from the equatorial plane the OAM energy transferred ('measured') reduces to ~zero.

At least proposition 2 or 3 cannot be true for all cases. Imagine we experimentally realize the conditions for proposition 2. So we have the same settings and orientations for both magnets. The findings, as you wrote, will be opposite for the twin particle pair ('anti-correlation').

Now imagine that, after each of the two particles leave their respective magnets, each of them fly through another magnet (see the attached figure).

These two additional magnets are such, that their field orientations are the same and their orientations to their previous magnets are 90°, so these two new magnets do conform to your proposition 2. We can deduce, that the outcomes of these two detectors must always be opposite (-a/+b / +a/-b), fullfilling proposition 2.

But this is not what was observed in such an experiment. The experimental results show that each of the added magnets produces a 50:50 chance for the particle to be found up or down. So we have 4 possible combinations which can be found when we finally measure the particles (up/up , down/down , up/down , down /up).

So your model does 'predict' - if it can predict something at all beyond what is already known from QM - something, that is neither in agreement with experiment nor with QM. The former should clearly be the ruler and shows that our discussed model may be local, but not realistic. But without the latter, the former has no meaning at all.

This may not be good news for you, but i always try to be objective and acknowledge facts.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Forgot the picture... Well, here is the figure!Attachment #1: DoubleSpin.gif

"If you watch Laithwaite's video's of gyroscopics etc, all on Utube, I think you'll gain a clearer understanding of his view."

I did watch, Peter. In fact, I think I even linked one of those videos here. More than that, though -- it was years ago that I investigated claims of reactionless propulsion (of which this a case) and found the same thing I've spoken of here: Newtonian mechanics explains why the program is nothing new, and certainly not reactionless.

If that makes me a troglodyte, so be it.

"Some of his ground breaking work including on Maglev etc. was contrary to 'theory'."

Again I ask -- what theory? Where does he differ from known physics?

Georgina, Tom,

I agree that "The behaviour can then be put into a representation of space and time that illustrates what is happening." But any representation is just a shorthand that can seemingly never model every characteristic of the reality it purports to represent. So I would contend e.g. that the concept of "spacetime" is an inadequate representation of the nature of reality (see below).

Also, surely it is incorrect to say that "the particle is exhibiting a continuous function"? We don't know the particle itself, we only know particle INFORMATION; and particle information does not exhibit a continuous function, but it can be REPRESENTED by a continuous function.

Re Time:

Time is not derived from any set of information; the time "Now" is not derived from the information content of the present moment. The time "Now" is the natural absolute reference point for the apprehension of information, relationship and change. As such, the time "Now" is a fundamental aspect of reality.

The above-mentioned "change" is perhaps not so much the apprehension of continuous/consequential change (of numbers), which is in fact summarizable/representable as STATIC law-of-nature relationships. I would contend that change is abrupt - the type of thing that is representable as NEW relationship (i.e. new law-of-nature relationships, new categories of information, new non-consequential numbers).

Individual subjects (i.e. particles, atoms, molecules, cells, and other living things) are the carriers of all information and relationship in the universe. I would contend that every subject always apprehends a single point "Now", a single point of change: as such, all "Nows" are coordinated.

But there is no blocktime/spacetime: the determined course of reality is always being creatively adjusted and tweaked by subjects. Subjects are the creators of abrupt change.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Re the photon. The emitter is imparting pitch, the greater the energy the shorter the wavelength and the greater the frequency. Roll and pitch is creating a moving magnetic field that induces an electric field and resultant propagation direction. That would explain the constant speed of light in a vacuum because it isn't the energy from the emitter that is giving it its velocity but an electromagnetic effect. The pitching is in one direction but imagine it pitching along the ground from the ground perspective the magnetic field is oscillating clockwise then anticlockwise and clockwise and so on along the line of propagation.Peak magnetic field when a pole is at the detector(imagine it rolling along the floor and the floor is detecting magnetic field)the minima are when the equator is at the detector and the parts in between when it has one pole closer to the detector than the other. Fitting with Maxwell's description.

The polarisation of the photon has to do with the phase of magnetic and electric field components.A plane electromagnetic wave is said to be linearly polarized if the transverse electric field wave is accompanied by a magnetic field wave that is in phase. Two polarisations; Polarisation 1. N and S poles imagine it vertical undergoing pitch rotation frontflip, or Polarisation 2. particle yaw inverted 90 degrees perpendicular to line of propagation. Magnetic and electric fields rotated 90 degrees but line of propagation unchanged.

If light is composed of two plane waves of equal amplitude but differing in phase by 90°, then the light is said to be circularly polarized.Rare in nature.Can be right hand (anticlockwise) or left hand (clockwise)polarization.The wave appearing to move around the axis of propagation in one of those two ways. That relative to the roll and pitch seems to me to be yaw with the wave spiralling at an angle to the direction of propagation.Elliptically polarized light consists of two perpendicular waves of unequal amplitude which differ in phase by 90°. How do different amplitudes occur for the different wave components?

Not yet sure how phase fits with the description of the particle could just be due to the effect of the environment on the different field components but highly relevant to the double slit experiment because the electromagnetic wave passing through the apparatus will be phase shifted compared to the portion going through the slit and hence interference. Could this be demonstrated by having the slit apparatus made of different materials, causing different amounts of phase shift and so giving maybe a different interference pattern or if impervious to em no interference pattern because there are no phase shifted waves to interfere.If the material highly transparent,translucent, opaque and impervious makes no difference then the phase shift model is wrong.

" ... there is no blocktime/spacetime: the determined course of reality is always being creatively adjusted and tweaked by subjects."

That was Ernst Mach's view, as well, that the motion of a body in one frame influences the inertia of all other bodies in every frame. It might be said that he believed "all physics is nonlocal" in contrast to Einstein's discovery that all physics is local.

In any case, Mach's philosophy led him to reject atomic theory, in which atoms are overwhelmingly composed of empty space.

Lorraine, do you believe that atomic behavior is explained by atomic particles creatively adjusting and tweaking their positions in empty space?