For the first time-an inner contradiction found in QM !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 17 Feb 2010 13:59 On Feb 17, 6:27 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > ---------------- > > for me space is nothing!! > > what matters and what we should focus our > > interest is MASS and MATER > > iow > > all tha dealing with space hoping that it will magically solve our > > unsolved problems > > is a wast of time!! > > we have instead concentrate of properties of matter > > I think that I glimpse what you mean about space. But an analogy is > Pythagorus's attitude to irrational numbers. You can build a > mathematical line out of an infinite number of fractions, yet even > though you define the line in fractions, non-fractions arise from > seemingly nowhere. But, most of the numbers that are useful have > labels. It is easy to label fractions, but not so easy to label all > the non-fractions, though there are some special ones with labels, eg > pi. But by all means, yes, concentrate on the matter/mass. > > > btw > > you should know that there are even simpler > > and more 'primitive' physical entities than photons!! > > it is "gravitons ' or neutrinos etc !! > > while no one even expect to 'see' them > > Agreed, I was not being complete in listing all known possibilities. > > > > Using E=hf for a 'blue' photon gives (say) twice the value for f that > > > it does for a 'red' one. (Though colour is not a property of the > > > photon.) > > > The reciprocal of f is the wavelength, so the wavelength for blue > > > light is half that of red light, so I think that explains why blue > > > light gives a clearer understanding of details (hence Blu-ray?). > > > Beyond that you need an electron microscope. > > > > But the ultimate instrument is the universe itself? > > > ????ultimate for what ?? > > i doubt it .. > > Again, true. I nearly added a extra idea to that statement as to > where the universe in the equation begins and ends. E.g. Is it just > the observable universe? The BB? The part of the universe which can > interact with us? What? > > > First estimate E> for the universe from mcc > > > sorry i dont knoe what is mcc ?? > > --------- > > with a guess at the mass of the universe > > -------- > > who can know the mass of the universe ?? > > it sound fantastic ! > > Apologies, I just meant E = m c squared. The basic word editor over- > taxed me. > > > but not all masses are defined by > > E=hf > > there are the gravitns' black matter etc > > that we know very little about them > > I don't know enough about that to try to include them all. And I was > using E=hf regardless of legitimacy and maybe out of context. It > would probably be OK to include dark energy which is supposed to be > quite a sizeable chunk of the total energy? I also said that I was > putting aside quanta for a while but then went straight on to use a > quantum equation E=hf. Oops! > > > we dont have to go so far for understanding > > instantaneous or not > > I am not at all sure about this. > Either, > assuming quantum effects, how do you get from quantum 1 to adjoining > quantum 2? It has to be instantaneous? > Or, > dropping quantum effects, how do you get from any point 1 to a point > 2, when there are an infinite number of points intervening? This is > the paradox raised by Zeno. I don't understand it perfectly. The maths > answer is, I believe, to say that you can take an infinite number of > steps in a finite time. For example, the infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + > 1/8 + 1/16 etc etc adds to a finite total = 1. But that is only OK as > long as you are not labelling all the terms of the series as you add, > as you cannot stick separate labels on an infinite number of terms. > > I don't really like either of the options. > > > and you cant that anything is happening instantaneously > > yoiu have no experiental tool even to detect > > it and say > > it was instananeous > > on the other hand > > we canknow that time is actually > > motion dependent !! > > and that is good to tell yus that > > no motion no time- nothing happened > > Not clear about this last point? ------------------ time is not natures invention it is a human invention that actually described motion comparison - to some arbitarry choses motion reference... 2 btw if you do all the above vast analysis in order to solve the enigma i presented to you ie where is the *specific time duration "foot hold* is- in the photon energy formula E=hf than you dont have to wonder to the end of the universe in order to find it ... ATB Y.Porat -------------------
From: ben6993 on 17 Feb 2010 15:51 On Feb 17, 6:59 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > time is not natures invention > it is a human invention that actually > described > motion comparison - to some arbitarry choses > motion reference... I do not know enough to agree or disagree with you. I know that colour is a human invention, whereas many people feel (wrongly) that it is a property of light. I have heard that time's arrow maybe only a macroscopic quality. I certainly 'feel' that time is a property of the universe, a dimension, but what would I know about it, my opinion is useless I am afraid. Sorry. Unless I can follow some reasoning ...? > 2 > btw > if you do all the above vast analysis > in order to solve the > enigma i presented to you > ie > where is the *specific time duration "foot hold* is- > in the photon energy formula > E=hf > than you dont have to wonder to the end of the universe > in order to find it ... I was using the mass/energy of the universe to show how I thought the need for the quantum arose. Focus all the energy you can muster (ie all the energy in the universe) on the problem of resolving small details and that gives the smallest resolution possible, a single quantum. And to see smaller details is impossible in our universe. Once you have resolved down to the quantum you cannot look within it. And that should apply to time quanta too. But if you do not accept time as a property of the universe I am unsure where you go next on that one. With colour as a mental property, you look for the nearest equivalent in physics in the wavelength of light. Is there some property of light or whatever that you feel is associated with time passing? I am still glimpsing your unease (I think) about time with respect to photons, but I am not exactly clear what you mean. Is it that the creation of a photon can derive from a loss of energy from an atom. That energy can be expressed as a freqency f , wher E=hf. And a frequency necessarily involves some change over time. Ie something vibrating with that frequency stops vibrating at that frequency. Then the photon is formed instantly, without passage of time. After that, it moves at speed c. It is said to be ageless and not experience the passage of time. Yet it is described by Maxwell's laws which use interrelated changes of electrical and magnetic fields over time. If that is what you mean ... then yes it does seem odd to me. But I think the oddness is explained by relativistic effects. The viewpoints in two different frameworks are amazingly different when the two frameworks are in relative motion near c. I wrote a long paragraph on this but had to erase as I lost the thread. I need to re- read that topic yet again. Regards Ben
From: Y.Porat on 18 Feb 2010 01:34 On Feb 17, 10:51 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 6:59 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > time is not natures invention > > it is a human invention that actually > > described > > motion comparison - to some arbitarry choses > > motion reference... > > I do not know enough to agree or disagree with you. I know that > colour is a human invention, whereas many people feel (wrongly) that > it is a property of light. I have heard that time's arrow maybe only a > macroscopic quality. I certainly 'feel' that time is a property of > the universe, a dimension, but what would I know about it, my opinion > is useless I am afraid. Sorry. Unless I can follow some > reasoning ...? > > > 2 > > btw > > if you do all the above vast analysis > > in order to solve the > > enigma i presented to you > > ie > > where is the *specific time duration "foot hold* is- > > in the photon energy formula > > E=hf > > than you dont have to wonder to the end of the universe > > in order to find it ... > > I was using the mass/energy of the universe to show how I thought the > need for the quantum arose. Focus all the energy you can muster (ie > all the energy in the universe) on the problem of resolving small > details and that gives the smallest resolution possible, a single > quantum. And to see smaller details is impossible in our universe. > Once you have resolved down to the quantum you cannot look within it. ------------------- you an still zoon in by waht i call **th e power of thinkng** see my abstsrct it is mostly zooming into the nuc though the dimensions od th iner nuke are far smaller than the abiliy of out cureent tools to actually see it !! it is by acumulating information from differnt disciplines and cross verifying it ... ----------- > And that should apply to time quanta too. But if you do not accept > time as a property of the universe I am unsure where you go next on -- i ddin say that time is not a poperty of the universe i said that time is sort of being mystified as an independent creature for itself! time is not like say mass or length time is as i said motion comparison iow if there will be no motion- there will be no time !!! unlike say length or mass that will laways be let emtell you a thought experiment that i did while i was an\bouth 16 years old suppose that all motion in the universe stops completely simultaneously - for one tousand years (incuding the electrons quarks photons etc -in your body ...) and 'after that' will simultaneously beging again at once moving my question was: will you notice that in that case 1 billionyears passed ??!! so that is what i mean that time is motion comparison dependent -------------- > that one. With colour as a mental property, you look for the nearest > equivalent in physics in the wavelength of light. Is there some > property of light or whatever that you feel is associated with time > passing? > > I am still glimpsing your unease (I think) about time with respect to > photons, but I am not exactly clear what you mean. > ------------------- my unease is not with photon my unease is about th enonsense physics of anyting to happen with ' zero time needed ' sine allour physical phenonenon are MOTION DEPENDED and since i hope you get now how i understnd Time as motiondependent - no physical process can be done by 'zero time' it is a self contardiction to the essence of anything to happen !! to happen means totake time !!! to happen means to make some **change** to make a chnge there must be some *movement* (or else you wil not not notice it happening) and to make some movement means** by definition of time ** ''to take time''' (to take some relative movement ) !!! -relative movement and Time are hte same for me !!------------------ common i am becoming (driven to be ((God forbid )- a philosopher at my becoming an old man near (72) (:-) -------- ------------- > Is it that the creation of a photon can derive from a loss of energy > from an atom. That energy can be expressed as a freqency f , wher > E=hf. And a frequency necessarily involves some change over time. Ie yess indeed all physics is about mass in motion! > something vibrating with that frequency stops vibrating at that > frequency. Then the photon is formed instantly, without passage of > time. ------------- no htat is not how i understnt it i said the motion of some basics inside matter IS ALWAYS INMOTION WITH TH EINNER MOTION AT c aht happence is diverting that inner motion from inner motion - outwards !! sot of suppose a satellite orbiting around our earth now in order of sending it to say the moon you dont have to 'propell is from stand still position you have only to push it perpendicularly to its tangential direction of its movement !! ATB Y.Porat --------------------------- After that, it moves at speed c. It is said to be ageless and > not experience the passage of time. Yet it is described by Maxwell's > laws which use interrelated changes of electrical and magnetic fields > over time. If that is what you mean ... then yes it does seem odd to > me. > > But I think the oddness is explained by relativistic effects. The > viewpoints in two different frameworks are amazingly different when > the two frameworks are in relative motion near c. I wrote a long > paragraph on this but had to erase as I lost the thread. I need to re- > read that topic yet again. > > Regards > Ben
From: ben6993 on 18 Feb 2010 03:04 On Feb 18, 6:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > see my abstsrct > it is mostly zooming into the nuc > though the dimensions od th iner nuke are > far smaller than the abiliy of out cureent tools > to actually see it !! > it is by acumulating information from differnt disciplines and cross > verifying it ... > ----------- I have looked more closely at your abstract. You have clearly spent a lot of time on this and it is not easy to understand. Also, as I do not have the relevant current physics at my fingertips so I find it hard to comment on the quality either of your work or the corresponding current state of physics in the areas you deal with. But I certainly recognise the time and effort you have obviously spent on it. You said you have used arithmetic and I can see that you have done that for calculating energy levels using a (sort of?) difference engine, or using multiple increments of a constant energy value. I know very little about the distribution of protons and neutrons within the atom but I can make a few comments as follows. You have the protons strung out in a line in the alpha nucleus. That makes sense in termes of protons all having the same charge and therefore repelling one another as far as possible while still connected or 'touching', but what of the nuclear glue force? Wouldn't that (if strong enough) bring them into a heap or cluster? Also, I thought that protons morphed into neutrons and vice versa with the exchange of smaller particles. That would be harder to do if they were all strung out in two separate lines? A proton in the proton line changing into a neutron would have to get out of the proton line and into the neutron line? A question I have is what effect does interference between proton charges have on the location of the electon? Two or more protons in a nucleus should interfere where their pull on the electrons should be banded into relatively stronger and weaker fringes? > i ddin say that time is not a poperty of the universe > i said that time is sort of being mystified as an > independent creature for itself! > time is not like say mass or length > time is as i said > motion comparison > iow > if there will be no motion- there will be no time !!! > unlike say length or mass that will laways be > let emtell you a thought experiment that i did > while i was an\bouth 16 years old > suppose that all motion in the universe > stops completely simultaneously - > for one tousand years > (incuding the electrons quarks photons etc -in your body ...) > and 'after that' will simultaneously beging again at once > moving > my question was: > will you notice that in that case 1 billionyears passed ??!! > so that is what i mean that time is motion comparison dependent This is not too unlike thoughts I have had in the last year. I too have thought how very important movement was. My thought arose out of trying to imagine multiverses. (All speculation and no physics, alas.) An analogy is with the growth of a baby or cell culture. Every so often there is mitosis or cell fission. For a baby both new sets of cells are in its body, but say space fissured in a similar way (though not limited to only two new quanta fro each old one). We somehow have a choice of which new cell or quantum of space to jump into. And these are alternatives. If we choose one then the others are never again accessible. (This would be an instantaneous jump of the sort we have been discussing.) The only way that I could think for us to make that choice as to which one to 'pick' is through our motion. Inanimate objects still have to choose but their motion is decided for them by their inertia (Newton's first law of motion). We are not picking from from a choice of entering say two or more completely separateuniverses. The choice is made at each quantum of space and there is no rule which says eg all type A quanta go into universe A. It is a mix and match composite made quantum by quantum eg we could have chosen AABBAABABBBAAAB ........etc for whichever quanta our bodies occupy. If that process stopped for 1000 years as you suggest in a thought experiment, then yes time would have stopped. But for me that is just saying if time were to stop then it would stop. If everything in say a particular rock were to stop moving (while the rest of the world carried on) then in my speculation the rock could not make the necessary choices of which quanta to move to. (Though the rock can't really stop moving because of inertia, and all things are moving wrt something else. If there is no such thing as absolute time and space then where oh where could the rock be when it stopped?) Also, if a rock had somehow 'lost' a thousand years, would we notice? > no htat is not how i understnt it > i said > the motion of some basics inside matter > IS ALWAYS INMOTION WITH TH EINNER MOTION AT c > aht happence is > diverting that inner motion > from inner motion - outwards !! > sot of > suppose a satellite orbiting around our earth > now in order of sending it to say the moon > you dont have to 'propell is from stand still position > you have only to push it perpendicularly to its tangential direction > of its movement !! But a photon has to get from non existence to moving at speed c somehow. All I can think of is that it manages this within one quantum of time. It must just show that a lot can happen in one quantum of time? Regards Ben
From: ben6993 on 18 Feb 2010 03:35
On Feb 18, 6:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: etc PS I don't understand the count of the number of protons and neutrons you have in your first diagram of your abstract, which is an alpha particle? Unless you are showing the same protons at multiple positions? |