"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Patok on 8 Mar 2010 19:34 Wayne Throop wrote: > ::: 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle; when a particle and an > ::: anti-particle annihilate and become energy, does this represent a > ::: real transition from matter to energy? > > :: First of all, matter-energy conversion has nothing to do with > :: particle- wave duality. > > : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> > : Interesting. Tell me more. Isn't a particle usually matter, while > : energy (EMR) is in wave form? > > No. > > : Doesn't the opportunity to measure a photon either as a wave or as a > : particle represents influencing it to convert from the one form into > : the other? > > Also no. > > One of these days, you really ought to twig to the notion that > perhaps you don't understand QM well enough to be dissaatisfied with it > in any meanginful way. That's highly unlikely to happen, because: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. -- Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
From: Wayne Throop on 8 Mar 2010 19:31 ::: Interesting. =A0Tell me more. =A0Isn't a particle usually matter, ::: while energy (EMR) is in wave form? :: No. : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : Wow, you're in a helpful mood. It's difficult to expand on that anaswer, since you're provided no clue as to why you might think such a bizarre thing. In the case of, for example, hidden variables, it was at least possible to expand just a bit, since you said you thought their lack was an "assumption" that people weren't questioning. As it turns out, that's neither an assumption, nor is there a particular shortage of people questioning it. Now as to the distinction between matter and energy, somebody else mentioned that the distionction between bosons and fermions is of interest in that regard. But I think mainly, it's of interest because neither particle/wave, mass/energy, nor fermion/boson correspond to macroscopic distinction between matter and everything else (though fermion/boson comes close). Why you thought particle/wave corresponded to mass/energy (or matter/energy), rather than being almost completely uncorrelated, is again, unclear, since you haven't explained why you would think such a bizarre thing. It's not as if this lack of correspondence is a deeply held secret or anything. If you cared to know about it, you would. This sort of thing seems symptomatic of your general "I'm better off not knowing" policy. I think it may be time for you to question that policy, just a teeny tiny little bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality is the concept that all energy (and thus all matter) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. Being a central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inadequacy of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" in fully describing the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Tue Sorensen on 8 Mar 2010 22:56 On 9 Mar., 01:31, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > ::: Interesting. =A0Tell me more. =A0Isn't a particle usually matter, > ::: while energy (EMR) is in wave form? > > :: No. > > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : Wow, you're in a helpful mood. > > It's difficult to expand on that anaswer, since you're provided no clue > as to why you might think such a bizarre thing. > > In the case of, for example, hidden variables, it was at least > possible to expand just a bit, since you said you thought their > lack was an "assumption" that people weren't questioning. As it > turns out, that's neither an assumption, nor is there a particular > shortage of people questioning it. > > Now as to the distinction between matter and energy, somebody else > mentioned that the distionction between bosons and fermions is of interest > in that regard. But I think mainly, it's of interest because neither > particle/wave, mass/energy, nor fermion/boson correspond to macroscopic > distinction between matter and everything else (though fermion/boson > comes close). Why you thought particle/wave corresponded to mass/energy > (or matter/energy), rather than being almost completely uncorrelated, > is again, unclear, since you haven't explained why you would think such > a bizarre thing. > > It's not as if this lack of correspondence is a deeply held > secret or anything. If you cared to know about it, you would. > This sort of thing seems symptomatic of your general "I'm better > off not knowing" policy. I think it may be time for you to > question that policy, just a teeny tiny little bit. I make a point out of learning something all the time. I have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. But I prioritize what I focus on, and my ideas about cosmology are some of my lowest-priority ideas, precisely because I am rather unsure of their merit. On the other hand I love science and love to speculate about how the various forces and phenomena might work. One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. Instead, matter and energy (and I basically understand EMR as energy), while of course being interconvertable, are the two most significant mutual interactors in the universe. I believe that the development and fate of the universe depends on how matter and EM radiation interact with the spatial/gravitational environment. Because it seems so logical: matter/mass is holding the universe together. As more and more mass is being turned into radiation by stellar fusion - the single biggest thing going on in the universe - mass is losing its hold on the universe, which therefore accelerates its expansion (in time as well as space). Hence, by this view, the basic and main events of the universe depend on the interaction between the increasing and decreasing amounts of radiation and matter. Hence, understanding the exact difference between matter and energy/radiation is rather important for the further formulation of this idea. See? (By the way, I do know and accept that photons also have gravity, so that mere conversion from matter to EMR does not in itself decrease the total amount of gravity in the universe. It does however have an effect on universal time, which speeds up as the disintegration of matter proceeds, because matter moves much slower in time than energy/ EMR does.) If you think this idea MUST be wrong, then please (look, I said the magic word) explain to me why. I guess one of my problems is that I have hitherto understood photons as behaving *either* as waves *or* as particles at any given time (like when being measured by particular equipment, designed to measure *either* waves *or* particles), and not being of the dual nature *all* the time. Because it has seemed to me that photons would only act qualitatively as one or the other in cases where they were being influenced to, such as in specialized measuring equipment. So my question becomes: are we sure of the nature of photons (using them as exponents of all EMR) when they AREN'T being measured? If photons travel with the speed of light and have no rest mass, then surely they are not, and do not behave as, material particles?? I really don't think it's "bizarre" to think that "particle" is the word usually used of a piece of fermionic matter; a particle with mass, moving at sub-lightspeed. And that EMR is in wave form. The only thing I can find wrong with these terms is that they do not include the duality aspect. And all right, maybe fermions are also a form of waves, and yes, there is a particle nature to photons as well, but I will insist to my dying day that there comes a time when it is no longer useful to speak in such inclusive terms, describing all matter and radiation as both particles and waves, precisely because these phenomena sometimes interact with each other *as* either one or the other! And it is this that I am trying to understand, and indeed make other people understand. How can they interact with one another in highly specific ways if their natures are always as vaguely dual as it seems to me you're maintaining? It does not compute. Hence my assertion that physicists have stared themselves so blind on the matter-energy equivalence that they have become incapable of seeing the significance of important and qualitative matter-energy interactions. By all means, comment at length. - Tue
From: mpc755 on 8 Mar 2010 23:19 On Mar 4, 8:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... > > 1. Don't the terms "causality" and "determinism" actually mean the > exact same thing? If processes follow the rules of causality, then the > outcomes are also determined, aren't they? People tend not to like > determinism, because they see it as negating free will. But wouldn't > you say that determinism is something quite different from *pre- > *determinism, which is more a destiny kind of thing? So shouldn't > science-minded people embrace the term "determinism" just as much as > we do "causality"? > > 2. In your opinion, do the terms "simplicity" and "complexity" need > particular definitions in each case of use in order to make sense? > Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, > amphibians? That the brain is more complex than a stone? That a > computer is more complex than an abacus? That a gold atom is more > complex than a hydrogen atom? Do we need to define simplicity/ > complexity any further than to degree of atomic/biological/ > technological organization? > > 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle; when a particle and an > anti-particle annihilate and become energy, does this represent a real > transition from matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just mean a > jumble of teensy-weensy elementary particles? If the particles really > become energy, do we know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from > its material shackles and lets it become energy? And for that matter, > are we really sure that photons, etc. have a dual nature, and that > they don't just become particles when they need to interact with > something as particles, i.e. that they are actually not waves and > particles at the same time, but can change between those states > depending on the environmental circumstances? > > Are you confused yet? :-) I'm just trying to adjust my own > understanding by finding out if there is something resembling an > established consensus about these things. > > - Tue Sorensen Matter and aether are different states of the same material. I named the material mather. In terms of E=mc^2, it is the mather transitioning from matter to aether and the expansion in volume associated with the mather which is energy. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. The mass still exists in nature after a particle and anti-particle are 'annihilated'. The matter which was the mass still exists, as aether.
From: Wayne Throop on 8 Mar 2010 23:11
: Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared : themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. And you seem to be saying that you prefer not to know what they have concluded, to keep yourself from preconceptions. That this is an actual advantage. This is remarkably wrong-headed and short-sighted of you, and so I remark upon it. : If you think this idea MUST be wrong, I'm not commenting on your idea(s), because so far, here, you've presented mere word salad, so there's not much to comment on. I'm commenting on your methodology, how you evaluate what "seems logical", and your accounts/hopes/whatnot of how your ideas will be an improvement on current theory. All of which are not promising. Not promising at all. If you don't know why (for example) physicists have (in some cases quite reluctantly) settled on a theory in which there are no hidden variables, but still has correlations of spacelike separated measurements, the chances you can come up with a theory that resolves their concerns are somewhere between nil and zip. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw |