The Crystallizing Universe

[deleted]

I do understand that you can replace "time" with any other material "measure" object, for instance if you jump from a building and take ten seconds to fall to ground. You can just replace the seconds with, say 50 crates of apples (the apple boxes measuring the distance only). Now you can do the same with the falling tree, there can be no "time" reference of it falling, just a distance, again using boxes of pears if one wishes. Thus tree falls not t0,t1't2...AF, but 1 box, 2 box 3 box...etc.

Distance between ground and top of tree is so many boxes high in 3-D space, the problem is that you can replace the measuring devise with apples, oranges..pears or jars of peanut butter, but there is only ONE time?

I prefer that the 5th Dimension, 6-D,7-D...ad finitum, is of the mind, that way I know what is relative to my reality, or my spacetime?

[deleted]

Paul fundamental unity of time (with which me measure change that run in space

only and not in time) is Planck time.

yours amrit

[deleted]

Kate Becker's parody of spacetime should enjoy all those who not yet entirely lost contact to reality. I see no present between what we call past, i.e., the frozen into unchangeable reality, and what we may expect, predict, prepare on an open scale called future.

I do not agree with the essay when it blames symmetry of "microphysical laws" for the lets mildly say "current theoretical physics". While physics deserves a study how Einstein was perhaps influenced by Boltzmann's ideas and his religious background, already Ritz agreed with him to disagree in 1909 and died. I would appreciate anybody who has a compelling reason for the impossibility to maintain some essentials of relativity when abandoning the burden of an a priori given future.

Maybe, Ellis is too much a well educated in the negative sense physicist. I would already abstain from uncommented use of words like worldline and spacetime. I agree with him in that there is no time-symmetry and time-reversibility in the microworld. I also argue that the not yet existing future must not be considered a reasonable mathematical object. Ellis correctly adds that a quantum measurement process is not reversible.

Ellis mentioned various concurring candidates for a remedy: collapse of the wave function, many worlds, multiple histories, many fingered time, interpretation as an approximation, and even braking of an given symmetry. He looks for an interpretation inside quantum interpretation. Presumably he is or at least would be correct in that: Such attempts are doomed to fail altogether. Why did Ellis obviously fail to convey this message to the community of physicists?

It is not quite clear to me whether and if so how Ellis himself authorized the blog "The Crystallizing Universe". I cannot appreciate the the "elegant" idea to explain the transition from possibility to reality as change from quantum potentiality of a complex wave function into a single observed reality. Why did he and Rothman not learn from Wheeler's experiment? Heisenberg was most likely simply wrong when he attributed reality to observation instead the other way round. I envision a much simpler explanation of the duality between wave and particle: ripple-shaped bullets that extend unidirectionally over a coherence length with just a single tail. Is there any reason to imagine a particle like a point or a small ball? Maybe, cloud chambers were rather misleading.

By the way, I feel cheated by the word PET which suggests that positrons definitely exist. Actually, the method is based on dipole-pairs of photons.

Eckard Blumschein

[deleted]

In topic 617 a more plausible explanation of the double slit experiment has been offered. Are there any objections?

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Constantinos,

I decided to reply here in the hope for provoking serious objections by experts who missed what we discussed in topic 617. Let me briefly describe how I understood your argumentation:

You referred to a pattern measured with a detector by Hitachi showing many subsequently measured single points of detected single photons behind a double slit. The density of these points forms the interference pattern to be expected for electromagnetic waves. The points were so far interpreted as evidence for single point-like particles.

If I understood you correctly, you are arguing that any single photons does not hit only a particular point of the area of the detector but the whole area. The obstacle causes a phase shift resulting in an interference that utters itself in higher or lower probability of responding points. I do not know how the detector works and I guess the measured points indicate multiplied secondary emission.

Can you please confirm or correct this description?

If I correctly understood this random discrete response to photons of continuous extension, then the peculiar measurement by Gompf et al. becomes understandable: Single-photon counting is superimposed by a random behavior of the detector.

When I did not appreciate your wording "stop the weirdness" in connection with a simple mathematical proof, I was not offended. I merely anticipated those who will not take you seriously.

Studying the original scriptures, I realized that Planck's energy quanta go back to the assumption of N oscillators each of which has a given frequency f, cf. Ann. Phys. 4, 553, 1901 "On the Energy Distribution in the Blackbody Spectrum" where Planck derived from entropy S the energy density U=hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1) as his Eqn11.

Perhaps the late Planck was wrong when he wrote in 1943: "... trying to fit the action quantum into the system of classical physics. But it seems to me that this is not possible."

Curious,

Eckard

[deleted]

Hello dear Eckard,

It's very interesting.

The photons, if my memmory is good, can have a number of photons of all frequencies but c restc constant and the total system no .

The pression and the volumes still are essentials and foundamentals .

The total energy and the total number can be seen , constant or not.

It 's very relevant when an atom absorbs and re emits the frequences or not ??? hihihi The kinetic energy seems in the rationality.

The pauli principle, if I remenber, does not hold for photons.

It's there it's still interesting with spheres and sphericals fields and coordonates.

If the rotation is inserted ,it's very relevant too about the momentum.

A BEC can be applied of course , the sphericalization of referentials facilitates many things .

I have seen a beautiful method of Lagrance multipliers where we see the equilibriums and the entropy of the system .

The Planck radiation equation is interesting evidently.

I consider the system of photons like the gravitational system for the number, of course the rotations imply the specificity.

An important thing I beleive is what the gravity do not change its number, and the light can be fractalisable .The gravity is only in the mind for the understanding of the fractalisation.It's interesting in my humble opinion because we can fractalize really the light and thus we shall find the different volumes of the quantum uniqueness.We can see the synchro or the effetcs of the gravity on the system for an evolutive point of vue.

The thermodynamical parameters of course permits to see the different steps.

But for results, it's necessary to have a system of real fractalisationn and too the captors of evolution in gravity systems.

The spherical superimposings are thus in a dance of frequencies, rotations, and informations thus, there the volume is esential .

I have a big unknown which makes me crazzy with a stirling approximation and some substitutions, but I have problems for the distribution of fractalisation because I superimpose the gravity and the quantic finite number .And of course 1 rests like it is and the others no, but the difficulty is for the synchro of rotating volumes of spheres implying mass, a parameter of evolution is necessary , if not all is difficult , like a limit.

But if the correct fractal of a volume of sphere is made, it's possible .

But Of course we don't know the ultim code in the gravity studied.

A possiblity is to insert a system well studied which polarises and has its frequences of evolution , thus we can extrapolate the correct serie, but of course we don't know how will be the fractalization of the light.

It's a real puzzle, but I will arrive ....I hope .This number makes me crazzy.

Very best Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Dear Eckard, you write ...

"... you are arguing that any single photons does not hit only a particular point of the area of the detector but the whole area"

That is correct! The question often asked in connection with the Tonomura 'single emissions' double-slit experiment (1989) is "how could single emitted electrons randomly striking the detection screen form the same typical interference pattern over time?" My answer to this is that the "electron emitted" is not the same as the "electron detected" on the screen. I view the 'electron emitted' as a tiny 'burst of energy' that propagates continuously as a wave and going through both slits at the same time projects onto the screen an interference pattern (invisible by itself). At any one point on the screen the 'accumulated energy' may not have reached a minimum threshold level for it to be manifested. But over time when more emitted electrons radiate the screen in the same pattern, some points on the screen will have reached this threshold and will 'pop', emitting a flash of light. These points will of course be more likely to occur at those places in the interference pattern on the screen that receive the greatest radiation. Over time, these points of light will fill in the typical interference pattern.

This view is compatible with the 'probabilistic interpretation' of QM. Interestingly, Schrodinger himself thought along the same lines when he thought of the wave-function as giving the distribution of electrical charge.

Central to my view is that although globally energy 'propagates continuously' as a wave, locally it 'interacts discretely' when local equilibrium conditions are met and so 'measurement/observation' are possible. Based on this view I am able to derive Planck's Law (or variation of this) without the use of 'energy quanta' and statistics.

Finally, let me say that some of my descriptions of these ideas may suffer from serious "diction and grammatical errors" in Physics that will make some physicists cringe. I apologize in advance for this, as I also confess that I may lack the background to speak physics fluently and without flaw. But the main reasoning and ideas I believe are correct. These are well grounded to 'sensible experience' and make me feel very confident in these. My main motivation is to 'find sensible meaning' where such meaning currently is not found. But I acknowledge that much help is needed by physicists that can make the arguments more convincingly and more elegantly than me. They will also be able to make many more connections to Physics than I can, limited in this area as I am.

Sincerely,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Dear Constantinos,

In Z. Phys. 31, 681 (1925) Kramers and Heisenberg wrote something that I consider wrong: "When an atom is exposed to radiation... it radiates secondary spherical waves ...". Perhaps they were misleadingly inspired by acoustical waves originating from a breathing sphere.

Compton wrote in P.N.A.S. 11, 303 (1925) what I consider more correct: "... a wave with a single quantum of energy can produce an effect in only one direction".

My point is: Electromagnetic waves can be attributed to dipoles, quadrupoles or the like but not to monopoles.

Einstein contributed to the mistake by Kramers and Heisenberg when he wrote in Ann. Phys. 17, 132 (1905): " The energy of a light ray outgoing from a point is not continuously spread over great and greater volumes, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta localized at space points, each which moves without dividing and can only be absorbed and emitted as a whole."

Albert Einsteins father was an electrical engineer. We EEs used to operate with fictitious point charges and line currents. However, I am certainly not wrong when I clarify that these ideals must not be considered reality. A point is still best described as something that has no parts, and it can therefore not be reconciled with a wave.

Sincerely,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Echard,

I have read and re-read your post to me regarding my rhetorical abuse of the term "(quantum) weirdness". I agree. I have to refrain from aggravating potential supporters by inflaming their sensitivities. The very controversial nature of the claims is enough to make them offensive and to recoil away from these.

As a way of explanation, however, let me just say that I find it both necessary and honest to plainly speak my mind, not self-censor ideas, and trust that others will be swayed or dissuaded by the reasoning alone. It's all so very innocent. No harm or disrespect intended. We must be able to honestly and openly converse about even the most sacrosanct of topics in Physics. Otherwise, Physics becomes a Cult of Personalities, and not an open engaging intellectual journey embarked by people with passion for ideas and for Truth and for Reason. Since we are all seeking the same thing, an Understanding of our World that 'makes sense', I really don't see any cause for concern. I think all great physicists of the past would embrace such intellectual attitude and spirit. Einstein I think would laugh and enjoy all criticism and doubt. We honor great physicists by embracing their passion for Physical Reality and for Truth. How can anyone take offense by any idea that helps explain perplexities and clarifies dilemmas. If we knew the shape, form and source of the next good idea, we would know the idea itself. Truth is often revealed in ways that we cannot have predicted. So we need to be open to all ideas and not prejudge them. Above all, we must not kill the messenger because we disapprove of the message.

Best,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Greetings Eckard,

It is bewildering to me why just the mention and re-examination of fundamental views held by our illustrious predecessors should raise such response and resistance. If such unquestioning attitude was to have prevailed in times past we would still be living in an Aristotelian Universe and the Church would still be the Source of Unquestioned Knowledge. It is our human right to question and to seek truth in ever evolving terms, in our terms as seekers.

I agree with you when you say that "ideals must not be considered reality". In mathematics there is no conflict between ideas and reality. Only ideas exist! But in Physics the lines are often blurred. In mathematics quantities are pure whereas in physics quantities carry units. Measurement is I believe the essence of Physics! Observation is a form of measurement, as is also understanding (as we seek equilibrium between Observation and Object).

Thus far the application of Mathematics to Physics (picking up on an earlier topic) is in the form of mathematical models of reality. And as has been well pointed out by others, such models make physical sense in restricted domains only, but the mathematics still yields results in all domains. If we are to avoid the many theoretical pitfalls that mathematical models of Nature can lead to, we need a Mathematical Foundation of Physics where all Basic Law are exact mathematical identities (tautologies) that describe the interaction of measurement. Since we can only know what we can measure and observe (that is, we can only know our measurements) such a Mathematical Foundation of Physics I believe will avoid theoretical results that pit us against our own sensible experience. In one of the short notes I show that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of energy (measurement).

All the best,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Steven, Your attempt to justify Kramers and Heisenberg deserves attention because it requires minimal knowledge to understand my objection. Look at page 582 of how electromagnetic waves propagate according to theory as well as measurement.

One has to be aware that both E and B are orthogonal to each other and to the direction of propagation given by E X B. The spatial pattern is antisymmetric along the axis.

It contrasts to the spherical symmetry of acoustic waves which could easily be described by spherical Bessel function sinc without directivity.

If I read the old papers correctly, when Compton provided evidence for the directivity of electromagnetic radiation, this was interpreted as evidence for Einstein's quantum/particle hypothesis.

Eckard

[deleted]

Steve, I am sorry. You did not yet manage revealing a single reasonable idea or at least objection of you to me. Someone who claims to be a theorist must be in position to write down his contribution in detail.

Heisenberg came from Sommerfeld in Munich where he dealt with hydrodynamics and was inspired by Born to create something of purely kinematic nature: speculations on resonances at orbital frequency in Bohr's model. He admitted that Bohr's theory of hydrogen as well as Kramer's dispersion theory seem very much formally to him. Accordingly, he wrote a paper "On the Quantum Reinterpretation of Kinematical and Mechanical Relations" and arrived at the "Canonical (verschaffte) Quantization Condition" pq-qp=h/i2pi.

Heisenberg was well aware of dipole and quadrupole expressions in the classical theory, cf. Z Phys. 33, 879 (1925).

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Constantinos,

I realized your desire for confirmation of what you consider a mathematical demystification of h. To me h is just a fundamental constant. I see an unjustified mysticism introduced by Heisenberg's so called canonical quantization condition in Z phys 34 (1925). Could you please explain to what interpretation you are objecting to?

Best,

Eckard

[deleted]

Hello Eckard, always good to hear from you!

It has been my understanding that Planck's 'quantization of energy' hypothesis (E = hf) is absolutely necessary to derive his blackbody radiation formula. In spite of the many attempts at the time, it is believed that there is just no other way this can be derived using continuous (Classical) processes and not using energy quanta. It is accepted that this is how the Universe works. Energy quanta are an established fundamental fact of Physics. This, along with Einstein's photon hypothesis became the foundations of Quantum Physics and have lead to a counter-intuitive view of how the Universe works.

The central result in my notes is that this view is not necessary. That it is possible to mathematically derive Planck's Formula using simple continuous processes and not using energy quanta. In fact, Planck's Formula, as well as the quantization hypothesis (that change in energy is proportional to the frequency of radiation), are mathematical characterizations of exponential functions of time. This idea of discrete energy quanta has lead to many counter-intuitive interpretations in Quantum Physics. And though the mathematical formalism of QM and its ability to describe physical phenomena is very impressive and significant, the 'physical explanations' to all this is just lacking. Just consider for example the explanations given for the double-slit experiment! Without challenging the mathematical formalism as such I seek to provide a view that yields sensible 'physical explanations' that hopefully could lead to 'Physical Realism' in our understanding of Physics.

In the mathematical derivations in my papers that lead to Planck's Formula, Planck's constant h naturally comes up as an 'accumulation of energy' (a time integral of energy). It can be interpreted as the 'minimum accumulation of energy' that can be manifested (measured). The meaning of Planck's constant in QM has been viewed as a 'quantum of action'. Certainly both interpretations are consistent with the units of h. As a time integral of energy, h in fact does not have to be a constant and the mathematical formulations still would be valid. That h is a 'minimal accumulation of energy that can be manifested' is an imposition by local equilibrium conditions when there is measurement, or other forms of interaction.

This view of h, as 'accumulation of energy', becomes important also in my explanation of the double-slit experiment. There, a key component of the argument is the 'accumulation of energy' on the detection screen that is spread over the screen as an interference pattern. When locally this accumulation reaches a minimal threshold ( possibly h) energy is manifested. The view I hold that globally energy propagates continuously as a wave but locally it interacts discretely, also fit with the interpretation of h I have as 'accumulation of energy'.

In many other ways also this quantity, the 'accumulation of energy', (and not just the constant h) seems to be more primary and if you start with it, it is possible to mathematically derive some Basic Law of Physics, like Conservation of energy and momentum and Newton's Second Law of Motion. A brief outline of this argument can be found in Prime physis and the Mathematical Derivation of Basic Law. Interestingly also, I plausibly argue in The meaning of 'psi': An Interpretation of Scroedinger's Equation that the wave-function can be interpreted as giving the distribution in space and time of this quantity. This comes very close to Schroedinger's original intuition that the wave-function gives the distribution of electrical charge.

Best,

Constantinos

[deleted]

Dear Constantinos,

Thank you for the explanations. Just a hint: Are you familiar with cutoff frequencies? For instance, a cavity cannot transmit transversal waves below a certain value of frequency f.

I see the conjugate relationship between f and (elapsed) time t corresponding to the relationship between Energy E and distance/radius q:

q=ct

E=hf

Accordingly, "Heisenberg's" uncertainty likewise affects signal processing. See my essay, topic 527.

We may hopefully agree in that so called quantum of action h is not at all a quantum but just a constant factor to the quantum of just one minimal period of a wave.

Based on Heisenberg's musing, Born and Jordan created in Z Phys. 34, 858 (1925) a complex matrix theory of quantum mechanics that used the misleading expansion from minus infinity to plus infinity. I see this a source for a lot of ongoing confusion.

Best,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard, . . . no I am not familiar with cutoff frequencies. Is there a connection that you are hinting at?

[deleted]

Ten Reasons to restitute Concept of Time in Physics with Concept of Numeric Order

1.with clocks we measure numeric order t0,t1,t2...tn of physical events

2.t1 is "before" t2 equivalently as number 1 is before number 2

3.in Special Theory of Relativity fourth coordinate X4 is spatial to:

X4 = i x c x tn

4.numeric order of physical events runs in a timeless space

5.fundamental unit of numeric order is Planck time tp

6.velocity v of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn: v = d/tn

7.frequency of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn:

frequency = 1/tn

8.numeric order of events running in timeless space has no duration

9.a sense of duration is result experiencing numeric order of events through the psychological time past-present-future

10.symbol t in physics represents numeric order tn

Out of developing concept of space-time into the concept of timeless space where with clock we measure numeric order of t0,t1,t2...tn physical events follows:

1.paradox of time travel is resolved. No time travel is possible. One can travel only in space.

2.paradox of twins is resolved. Both grow older in a timeless space.

3.Zeno problems of motion are resolved: motion happens in space only and not in time

4.for immediate physical events as EPR and others numeric order is zero: tn = 0

5.for physical events which happening requires "tick" of a clock numeric order is more than zero

6.at the Planck scale information and energy transfer is immediate. Numerical order of events at Planck scale is zero: tn = 0

7.at the photon scale information and energy transfer has velocity c, numeric order tn is more than zero

8.at the larger scale then photon information and energy transfer has velocity lower than c, numeric order tn is more than zero

[deleted]

So now there are two mechanisms that give direction to the arrow of time - wave function collapse and generation of entropy. Put them together into one model and get a really nice publication.

[deleted]

Hi Captain,

there is no "arrow of time". Physical change run in a timeless universe. Arrow of time is what here we call " numeric order".

yours amrit

[deleted]

Hi Amrit,

I agree.

You see the evolutive space time but I ask me how many people sees it really.

I discussed about that with Jayakar who works with the backround time.

When Einstein spoke about the space time, it's important to insert the evolution,it's essential even.Like that we can have different durations correlated with the evolutive space and mass.

It's like a taxonomy of the time correlated with mass and space evolution.

People has difficulties to accept our actual constant duration.Irreversible in the physicality and only different in its steps of evolution.In all moment of the evolution, the duration is constant, perhaps different in its periodicity but constant.

Just a thought

Regards

Steve

[deleted]

Steve,

material change have no duration, they have only numeric order that runs in a timeless space.

Yours AmritAttachment #1: According_to_the_Formalism_d__v_x_t__Spacetime_is_Timeless.pdf

[deleted]

Hi Amrit,

Thanks , I like you know your works, I find them physicals and spirituals.

Thanking you for the sharing.

Best Regards

Steve

« Previous Page Next Page »