Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?


Mitchell Jones wrote:
> In article <1124373347.431146.311610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > > In article <1124201592.846978.173470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > > > > In article <ddl255$bfl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <mjones-3E63CC.01391913082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > > Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >In article <ddd7a5$r5a$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > > > glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The *field* causes an attractive force.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >***{"The field" is just a label asserting that the particle behaves
> > > > > > >the
> > > > > > >way the equation says it behaves. It causes nothing, hence explains
> > > > > > >nothing, because it adds nothing. You might as well tell us that the
> > > > > > >equation causes the behavior of the particle, as to tell us that
> > > > > > >"the
> > > > > > >field" causes it. --MJ}***
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >***{No, it isn't "as if" a particle carried the force across the
> > > > > > >intervening space. The reality is that we know for a fact, in all
> > > > > > >cases
> > > > > > >whatsoever in which a force is delivered to a target, that an entity
> > > > > > >was
> > > > > > >the carrier of the force. We know that because the alternative to
> > > > > > >the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have it backwards. The particle is an interpretation of the
> > > > > > field.
> > > > >
> > > > > ***{No, I don't have it backwards. When I speak of fields, I recognize
> > > > > that continuum mathematics is an approximation that breaks down when
> > > > > the
> > > > > scale is small enough, and that the actual force carriers are discrete,
> > > > > not continuous. That means, for example, that a charged particle moving
> > > > > through a magnetic field experiences a series of discrete bumps as it
> > > > > is
> > > > > deflected from individual flux lines, and that it does not change its
> > > > > direction in a smooth curve. Thus I did not disagree when you said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "...in some time interval you may or may not get some momentum
> > > > > p=h/lambda transferred."
> > > > >
> > > > > And I did not disagree when you said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "...the momentum transfer is sudden and finite."
> > > > >
> > > > > My point of disagreement came when you said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "It is *as if* a little billiard ball knocked into a particle..."
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of "as if" in the above suggests that explaining "sudden and
> > > > > finite" momentum transfers by postulating impacts with unseen particles
> > > > > ("little billiard balls") is a mere metaphor, rather than an accurate
> > > > > description of the essence of what is going on. Indeed, in your very
> > > > > next sentence you stated quite explicitly your belief that the
> > > > > particulate description is merely "a metaphor for something that the
> > > > > field did."
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore I must repeat myself: no, it isn't "as if" a particle carried
> > > > > the force across the intervening space. The reality is that we know for
> > > > > a fact, in all cases whatsoever in which a force is delivered to a
> > > > > target, that an entity was the carrier of the force. We know that
> > > > > because the alternative to the notion that forces are carried by
> > > > > entities is the notion that they leap into existence out of nothing, or
> > > > > that they are carried by "force fields," which is just an empty label
> > > > > saying the same thing. The key insight is that either something--some
> > > > > thing, meaning an entity/particle--is there to deliver the force to its
> > > > > recipient, or nothing--no thing, meaning no entity/particle--is there.
> > > > > If you insist that no thing is there and yet the force gets exerted
> > > > > anyway, you are proclaiming a belief in magic, plain and simple. And
> > > > > saying a "field" is there, meaning a ghostly presence that it isn't an
> > > > > entity and isn't composed of entities, is just a convoluted way of
> > > > > saying, again, that the force came from nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you disagree with the above, please insert your reasons at the
> > > > > appropriate locations.
> > > >
> > > > A little entity, as you call it, would have a hard time interfering
> > > > with itself through the two slits of a Young's experiment.
> > >
> > > ***{While I sympathize with your interest in that particular conundrum,
> > > I must point out that even it it were totally unexplained at the present
> > > level of knowledge,
> >
> > which it is not.
>
> ***{There are a number of partial explanations put forth by persons who
> think in causal terms, but none that are completely satisfying. Any such
> attempt, however, is superior to the QM claim that a "probability wave"
> passes through both slits, interferes with itself, and magically
> delivers the electron to a position on the screen when an observation is
> made. Such verbiage does not rise to the level of explanation for the
> simple and sufficient reason that proponents of QM explicitly deny,
> adopting the perspective of Max Born, that the Schroedinger wave, a.k.a.
> deBroglie wave, is composed of entities. (In that regard they are of a
> kind with those in other areas of physics who deny that "force fields"
> are composed of entities.)
>
> The reason for such denials is not difficult to understand. If the
> proponents of QM alleged that lesser, unobserved entities were involved
> in producing the probabilistic behavior which the wave function
> describes, they would be asked to identify those lesser entities and to
> state the principles of their operation, something which they know for a
> fact that they cannot do. Hence to avoid being put in that uncomfortable
> (for them) position, they deny that lesser entities are involved, and
> invoke magic instead.
>
> Such behavior is not new. Throughout human history, allegations of magic
> have been pressed into service as *pretend* explanations, by men whose
> character flaws prevented them from admitting that they could not find a
> real explanation. Thus the modern claim that a non-material "probability
> wave" followed by a "wave function collapse" causes the photon to behave
> as if it passed through both slits at the same time, is no different in
> principle from the stone age tribesman's claim that the crops failed
> because the gods were angry.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> > The fact that it is not behavior consistent with an
> > explanation involving little entities in no way says that it is
> > unexplained. The fact that you have a hard time believing the better
> > explanation in no way invalidates it.
>
> ***{The "better explanation" you have in mind would be that
> "Schroedinger's equation told the photon how to behave," right? :-)

Well, not exactly, no, because Schroedinger's equation doesn't apply to
photons.
Dirac's equation pertains to charged fermions, and there is a field
term in Dirac's equation that describes the *interaction* between
fermions. Nature tells that interaction how to behave, we just observe
what nature tells its creatures.

>
> If not, then please state what you believe the "better explanation" is,
> and tell me how it differs from the above.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> > > that would not mean we should embrace the notion of
> > > forces springing into existence out of nothing. When you don't have an
> > > answer to a problem, the proper response is to admit to yourself that
> > > you don't have the answer, and simply keep looking. To embrace magical
> >
> > You and TomGee both with that "magical" word. So if it doesn't bear
> > resemblance to macroscopic, deterministic, time-ordered behavior, then
> > it's magical? What's magical about it?
>
> ***{The denial that the phenomenon arises out of a causal process is
> what's magical about it. It's the difference between alleging, for
> example, that Brownian motion occurs due to the impacts of unseen
> entities, and alleging that it takes place because some psychic, or god,
> or government, or equation, ordered it to do so. Causes are real,
> identifiable entities that follow continuous pathways through space to
> the location where the effect is produced.

That sentence right there (above) is the cornerstone of your prejudice
and also where you are wrong. There is no such limitation on the agents
of cause and for you to constrain it so requires justification on your
part.

> Magic accepts no such
> limitation, and, for that reason, is neither part of reality, nor part
> of science. --MJ}***

Neither does science, pal.

>
> > > thinking because you can't bear to admit you do not know an answer is to
> > > set a course toward intellectual disaster. Like any vice, with
> > > repetition it gets easier, and as your mind fills up with the sorts of
> > > garbage opinions to which magical thinking leads, your reasoning
> > > abilities will progressively decline. Frankly, that is not a path that I
> > > would wish on my worst enemy.
> > >
> > > Regarding the supposed single photon version of Young's double slit
> > > experiment, I would agree that self-interference by one particle moving
> > > through a true vacuum--i.e., where no etherial medium is present--would
> > > be hard to imagine. However, if we suppose that the particle is moving
> > > through an aether, multitudinous scenarios arise by which that medium
> > > might be set into vibration, resulting in waves that travel ahead of the
> > > photon, through the slits, and establish a pattern of standing waves on
> > > the other side. Result: when the photon pops through one of the slits,
> > > its motion on the other side would be influenced by the pattern of
> > > standing waves which were present there, leading to the observed
> > > results. The devil, of course, is always in the details; and in this
> > > case crucial details are matters of speculation, not fact.
> >
> > Yes, and of course there's the small problem that while one can
> > probably construct a scheme where an aether would predict the behavior
> > of this *one experiment*, the further implications of the aether would
> > predict behavior which is *ruled out* by experiment.
>
> ***{You do not and cannot know that, because such knowledge would
> require awareness on your part not merely of every aether theory anyone
> has ever come up with, but also awareness of every aether theory that
> anyone *might* come up with. In fact, it is explicity the goal of every
> competent theorist to come up *only* with explanations which do not
> conflict with any facts, whether experimental or otherwise. In that
> regard, aether theories are no different than any others, and you can no
> more dismiss a particular variant because some other variant failed than
> you can dismiss a particular variant of the big bang theory because some
> other variant failed. The only way to dismiss an entire class of
> theories, as opposed to specific variants, would be to find a false
> premise that was demonstrably essential to all variants worthy of the
> name. While that is easily done with big bang theories, finding grounds
> sufficient to dismiss all aether theories would be a hopeless task,
> since no knowledgeable physicist or engineer nowadays claims that the
> vacuum is empty, and since anything real which might be there could
> reasonably be characterized as an aether. --MJ}***

And so you rest your case that *eventually* a viable ether theory will
be found that does all these things. Article of faith. That's your
perogative.

>
> > At which point,
> > one would have to abandon the aether theory, even if it does a fine job
> > of explaining double-slit interference (which, by the way and as you
> > admit, you have not shown at all, and further evaluation of an idle
> > speculation is not effort-effective).
>
> ***{I admit that every attempted causal explanation of double slit
> interference of which I am aware has some flaw. For many, the flaw is
> that they contradict experimental results in some other area, as you
> said. And those which do not clash with experiment suffer from lack of
> detail, and thus are better described as *approaches* to a theory, than
> as theories themselves. The worst of these, however, are superior to the
> postulation of magic. --MJ}***

Not so. If everyone of the "nonmagical" ideas has a flaw, then at some
point one might wonder whether one's view of nature is a tad too
confined and ask whether a less constrained concept of causal agent
might be in order. Especially if it's nature's concept.

>
> > > Hence I am
> > > comfortable with the view that this is a matter that will be fully
> > > explained later, when more is known about the structure and properties
> > > of the medium, of photons, and of barriers with slits cut in them to
> > > permit the passage of photons.
> > >
> > > Bottom line: this is just a problem which cannot be completely solved
> > > with the information presently available, like millions of others, and
> > > that state of affairs in no way supports the view that reason ought to
> > > be abandoned in favor of magical thinking.
> > >
> > > --Mitchell Jones}***
> > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... >>> with itself through the two slits of a Young's experiment. ... Such verbiage does not rise to the level of explanation for the ... adopting the perspective of Max Born, that the Schroedinger wave, a.k.a. ... >> through an aether, multitudinous scenarios arise by which that medium ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... Here you are trying to answer questions that physics does not try address. ... moves because of stress in the aether. ... electrodynamics was falsified by the MMX so something needed to change. ... law as fundamental or would you want some explanation? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wave as wave, particle as particle
    ... > do you explain the fact that phosphors got a hit. ... > experiment, it still exhibits interference. ... But a wave of light is not a perfect entity with exactly the same ... This aether is made of point particles (aetherinos ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A new look ast some old data/ideas
    ... there was no "aether drift" and even though it wasn't correctly ... particles then the question of "medium" is irrelevant. ... wave equations. ... carrying the transverse wave disturbances which we understand as ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Double slit, quantum eraser, and delayed choice experiments are evidence of aether
    ... The aether. ... particle is always detected entering or exiting a single slit.. ... wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. ... 'Particle' is in quotes because a photon ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)