Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

In <448AF971.8040006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sent to sci.physics on Saturday 10
June 2006 17:54, srp (srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) had a brainstorm and wrote:

T Wake a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:448A0D2C.2070105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My view is. If something can be scattered against something, then
that something physically exists. The rest is thin air to me.

The physical existence of something that can be scattered against is
not an assumption to me.

No, but the lack of existence of everything else is.

In my view, it is not even in the picture. Concluded to be out of the
picture, if you wish.

Nothing wrong with that, but it is _still_ an untestable assumption.

The validity of scattering as the only means of a proof of existence
has to be proven though - otherwise this is an assumption.
Maybe to you and possibly to the rest of the community. But not to me.

Ok, however leaving your head in the sand does not imply that a theory is
based on a valid premise. Remember, your theory needs to convince people
it is sound. If your only response to questions over its validity is as
above then.... well...

My theory, like any other theory, does not need to convince anyone.

True. However, for it to spread it has to convince people

If it makes sense to someone before that person has made up his or her
mind on some other theory, then that person will adopt it.

This carries the implication that it is not strong enough a theory to appeal
to people. If it is scientifically valid then scientists will change their
minds and adopt it.

There is no way to change a person's mind once it is made up.

Well, I don't really agree there.

Despite what people want, science has _lots_ of assumptions. You are
trying to eliminate all of them and still have two.
Not my view. I have only one criterium, and it is proof enough of
physical existence to me.

Ok. As long as you are happy. This provides little which can help advance
the sum total of human knowledge and understanding.

Proof to you does not equate to proof to others though.

As I said, no _convincing_ is required. People that think an idea makes
sense will adopt an idea.

Yes. Not the same as what is implied above.

Let me get this straight - for my own thinking.

1 - you demand rigorous criteria for assuming validity (particle
scattering)

Yes.

But I do not _demand_. I set that criterium for my own exploration.
Others do what they want.

2 - you assert that anything which cant be tested for doesn't exist

Yes.

3 - you also assert that anything not part of a working model doesn't
exist

No. Never said that.

OK, maybe I misunderstood some of your earlier posts.

4 - you agree that we can recreate the Doppler based redshift here on
Earth and it is seen in our measurements of the Sun

Sure. Very simple phenomenon.

Despite all the above, you feel it acceptable to add some previously
unknown effect to account for the observed red shift in the spectra of
large scale structures?

No previously unknown effect. Some very simple effect not well
understood and not taken account of.


Why do you ask for the model to be more complicated while it answers the
same question then?

Is that correct?

With above mentioned reserves, yes.

The Doppler shift is not so much based on GR as the product of several
theories (including the fundamentals of EM) and experiements conducted
on Earth and within the solar system.
No disputing that. Hubble red shift still not proven to be strictly
Doppler based.

It is not proven to be caused by any other effect.

My model hints otherwise.

OK and a fair point. However, what other reasons do you have to belive your
model is more correct than the current one?

Does your model produce an expanding, contracting or steady state universe?

If it is anything other than expanding, what does your model use to explain
the age of the universe and homogeneity of the CMBR?

Why add to the complexity of the model when we have one which functions
and describes the observed data?

There is no way to add complexity to that model. If any other cause
needs be taken into account, then the Hubble red shift becomes unusable
to calculate distances as a strictly Doppler based shift.

Yet, the red shift data produces distances which match the parallax with
very good accuracy.

If you say the model is wrong, how do you account for the matched data?

Once more, the Aether can be used as an example. You demand more rigorous
proof of the cosmological red shift cause than you do to dismiss Aether.
Any reason for that?

I do not demand proof that the Hubble red shift is totally Doppler
based.

I say that my model reveals that the cosmological red shift cannot
possibly be caused entirely by a Doppler effect. The Pioneer spin
slow down anomaly seems to confirm this direction since from my
model, the cause would be the same as that of most of the Hubble
red shift. Something that could be confirmed by a very simple
experiment carried out in deep space.

Well, fair one.

Simple though the experiment may be it would take about thirty years to get
the data back and collated.

Does your model make any other testable predictions?

Nothing about the Doppler-esque Red Shift of light from large scale
structures is contradicted by Earth based experiments. In fact, it is
supported by the fact we can replicate it on Earth.

What other verification would you require?
That light photon trajectories deflected by galactic masses on their
way here do not use up some energy changing direction.

An interesting one.

While the "deflection" of a photon as it travels from Large Scale
Structure X to Earth is not the same as (for example) bouncing off a
wall, there is some. Mostly this is (according to GR) related to the
curvature of space time.

I am talking about photon that travel about (and are deflected by) large
scales structures on their way here.

Again, this is simply down to curvature of space time (according to GR).

It is a given that some of the red shift is accounted for by the distance
involved, but not all - which is why H_0 is based on a distance to
recession relationship.

In addition to this, it would imply that all photons suffer an equal
proportion of direction changes based on how far away they are from Earth
- independent of what masses are in the way.

No. It would depend on how many large deflecting structures they travel
by on their way here. Since there is general approximate isotropy, then
the farther they come from, the most deflected they will have been, and
the more deflection related red shift will have accumulated.

Yet we don't see this. Photons show a red shift proportional to their
distance, not the amount of mass between us and the structure.

Or are you implying that all the photons are arriving here after massive
amounts of deflection and presenting a completely false image of the
heavens?

Laws of sciences are always limited in their domain of applicability, if
nothing else because they can only describe situations we can experience
and re-create.

In my model, the electrostatic inverse square law is fundamental and
universal, for example.

Well, I can agree that this has the best chances of being a "universal" law
in the sense meant here, this has not been tested.

The inverse square applies to most interactions - which means you could
probably expand this "law" to cover more than the electrostatic
interaction.

This implies that the law is not fundamental as it is capable of being
developed upon and expanded. As with pretty much everything we have in
physics it explains a small part of a much larger picture.

Gravity can be overcome by a tiny magnet,
I don't think so. When you see a tiny magnet escape the Earth on its
own, give me a call.

When you attach a fridge magenet to the fridge, the magnetic interaction
between them has overcome the Earth trying to pull the magnet down. I
have a lot of paper clips on my desk and the tiny magent is powerful
enough to overcome gravity and lift them.

Every atom in the molecules making up my hand are also held together
by electromagnetic forces. When I raise my hand, they all remain
together, apparently overcoming the Earth trying to pull them down.

The electromagentic force in the atoms is *also* overcoming the
gravitational interaction which is trying to pull it all together. The
electromagnetic interaction prevents the equally charged atoms closing in.
This is another example of Gravity (by far the weakest force) being
overcome by something else.

That's simply how inverse force relations with distance work.

It is not just distance in that example. Gravity is still the weakest force.

The fundamental physical laws are simply laws humans set out which we
_think_ accurately describe the way nature works.

From my perspective, the electrostatic inverse square law is a
physical law that we now understand and that is not a matter of
opinion.

Not doubting that. I don't mean to imply there are any faults with the
inverse square law as it applies to the EM force. However it is far from a
complete description of the "reality."

It is eminently possible
that as we discover a new part of nature, the laws need to change, and
this has been a hallmark of science.

I don't think this will happen with the electrostatic inverse square
law.

You have no idea if that is the case though. It may be the case that under
extremes of temperature and pressure the force interaction between two
point charges is different.

Newtonian gravity works fantastically for pretty much everything that people
do on a daily basis. However, there comes a time when its approximations
are slightly off.

While it is unlikely, it is possible this is the case with the EM Force.


How? When we have an accurate model of the universe which is valid and
applicable in all domains, what else is there to research?

All avenues that will become available for further research based on
that new understanding, no doubt.

Which in turn will indicate that our understanding is incomplete. The circle
continues.

I do not think all those "forces" are needed. In my model, EM covers
all angles.

Really? How does it explain the force holding quarks in the centre of a
proton?

What about neutrinos?

I see no reason why we could not eventually clearly understand the
whole sheebang.
Because we are part of it.
I don't see this as a hurdle.

But it means we cant see the whole picture.

Why not ? If all stable matter in the universe is made up of only
electrons, quarks up and quarks down, what is difficult about
seeing the whole picture ?

Well, bosons are not made up of either electrons or quarks.

We can experimentally test and
describe only that which _we_ can recreate and experience.

Sure. All made up of the same basic stable scatterable particles.

This still avoids the issue of gravity.

For example nature doesnt care we are limited to a four dimensional
existence - there could easily be another seven dimensions curled up as
string theory predicts. We have no way of knowing this, or testing for it
at this time.

My own model requires 11 dimensions, but it turns out deceptively
simple anyhow. More dimensions simply reduce the complexity of the
required math.

OK. How do you test for the existence of the other dimensions?

There is no reason to think that we will ever hit the point where we can
see, experience and model all of nature.

I think we will understand it all.

No. What determines that it isn't there is that it is impossible to
detect it.
Until the ability to detect improves I assume? Then was it always there
or did it appear?
With our technology, if we have not yet detected it locally. it simply
isn't there, from my viewpoint.

Every day technology improves and detects new things. We are not at the
pinnacle of technological development.

What other stable scatterable particles can there be in stable matter ?

We have no way of being completely sure the standard model describes every
particle. It is a remote possibility that bosons are made up of something
else or that quarks are not the fundamental particle.

We are only just reaching the point at which we can verify the existence of
quarks, let alone break them down into something else.

With our technology we have not detected any other reason for the
cosmological red shift _other_ than the recession and associated Doppler
effect. Yet you imply there could still be another reason.

Yes.

While I agree that there probably is no Aether, that is a bold
statement to make.
Well, then, trust your own judgment. Strike it off if you are
convinced that it can't exist. That's what I did.

A phrase which would spell the death knell of science if it was ever
widely adopted.

I think the opposite. It would start fundamental research rolling again.

What would there be to research? Your statements, if true, imply there are
no new particles and no new interactions to discover. What remains?

Not if the so-called fundamental physical laws that GR rely on break
down close to t=0. They can't be universal if they break down at any
level.

Another trip down semantics lane.

The basic assumption of GR is that the fundamental physical laws are
applied equally everywhere.

Good. Then why does the fundamental physical law that GR says applies
everywhere break down close to t=0 ?

Because we know the GR is a classical theory and doesn't describe the
interactions between particles.

Gravity is an interaction between two particles with mass. In until
approximately t=1x10^-35 seconds the universe consisted of just "energy."
At this point there is no gravitational interaction, GR ceases to apply.

I have never read anything which ascribes GR the status as "end theory." If
it was, it would describe gravitational interaction on the quantum level.
It doesn't.

GR has, as its basic assumption, the assumption that the physical laws apply
everywhere. This is true. GR is an approximation of a "more fundamental"
theory of gravity.

As an example, children often think the Sun goes round the Earth until
they are taught otherwise.

But once they are told what the situation really is, they think
otherwise.

Not usually the case. It normally takes considerable explanation and
demonstration. You can not simply go to them and say "despite you watching
the sun go round the Earth, it is actually the other way round" and they go
"Oh yeah, that makes sense."

It took humanity years to accept this, but _now_ it is common sense.

<snip due to time constraints>


The fact that any change in direction of a particle requires an
expenditure of energy. If the energy is not provided from outside,
then it must be drawn from the internal complement of the particle's
energy.

I take it you disagree with some of the principles of GR then?

I set the agenda on this one. No delays allowed. And already too
late for any attempts at recuperation.
Ok. Your agenda will not get valid work accepted faster than any other.
In my view, it does ensure optimal velocity, given the circumstances.

What circumstances?

The circumstances that I have no degree, thus no credibility, coupled
with the fact that reviewers will accept no paper not directly
incremental on established paradigms.

That last statement is far from the truth.


Are you talking about H_0? Lambda? Cosmological expansion? Recession?

I am talking about the main subject of this thread. The notion that
the BB concept is grounded in the belief that the Hubble red shift
is strictly due to Doppler shift.

The "subject" of this thread is "Quantum Mechanics: established fact?"

Yes, the concept of a t=0 event, from which what we know of as the
universe expanded is based on the Doppler interpretaion of the red shift
evinced by all large scale structures.

Exactly.

However, "Big Bang" theory has additional support (CMBR for example)
which is in keeping with its predictions.

Actually I never saw a clear link.

That does not imply there isn't one. The search for, and subsequent
discovery of, the CMBR supports the t=0 event theory.

But since I do not think the
cosmological red shift is entirely due to Doppler shift, the point
is moot to me.

Well, it may be. But from the point of view of developing a valid theory of
everything it is not.


To send a heavy wheel deep in space, far from any large body, set it
in rotation and observe if whether or not it will gradually slow down.

It seems to me that theory says that it will rotate forever. My model
says it will gradually slow down and in time, completely stop rotating.

(I might be missing something here but...) Why will it rotate for ever?
What suggests it will?

I think it will not rotate for ever. But the community apparently does.

Really? Who and why? Are you suggesting the "community" support a perpetual
motion device?

Simple CM work law W=Fr cos(theta)

been discussed extensively here in more than one thread.

Not a thread I have read. Discussion on USENET does not equate to support by
the scientific community.

(There is no single organism as the scientific community. In general, get
three scientists together and you will have five different ideas on how
things happen.)

Ever since Newton, a rotating body is assumed not to require any
work being done.

Well, this also requires no friction or interaction by other forces. I would
be interested where in the universe you can find such a place.

As with the Aether, the model (verified from paralax, spectral
analysis etc) implies there is no need to find another reason. They
may be one, but the model doesnt require it.
Then the model is flawed.
All models are flawed in one respect or another.

By your own assertion, this means there is no other reason.
???
You stated that if the model didnt require something (Aether in the
example) then it didnt exist.
No, I said that since it can't be detected, then I conclude that it does
not exist.

We have not detected anything causing the photons from distant objects to
lose energy, other than the experimentally verified Doppler effect.

That's why I proposed the wheel test. To clear out this no-work done
issue on change in trajectories.

The wheel would not be an analogue to the path of a photon.

On the contrary. The more important it is, the more it needs to be
reviewed.

I feel otherwise. I feel that enough time has been wasted.

A review would speed things up though.

What formal publication allows is the formal community discussing
the issue. Not required either for spreading the ideas.
True. Ideas can spread in many forms. For an idea to gain scientific
acceptance, though, it is slightly different.
Not my problem any more. I did what I had to do. The rest is not
my baby.

If people can not cite the "idea" then it will be phased out of the
conciousness eventually.
I don't think so.

Time will tell. There are millions of un-cited theories around. I bet
less than 1% of the population can think of more than a few.

No doubt, but irrelevant in my view.

If and when it gets used as a citation, the orthodox community will
have been defeated in maintaining the status quo. And real research
will then resume. If I am still around, I will deeply enjoy.
I have never seen the "orthodox community" in science. When I was still
interested and able to go to conferences there was constant debate and
very little which could be described as orthodox.
And zero progress. That's orthodoxy in full regalia.

Nonsense. There has been more progress in science in the last twenty
years than in the four hundred before it.

Ok. How is integrating QM with GR going ? Hasn't this been on the cooker
for 70 odd years ?

Yes. Isn't science great. In less than 100 years we have gone from thinking
there is an Aether to being able to break down protons into their
components. Amazing isn't it?

The fact that science has not yet solved the question _you_ want answering
is not a sign of the lack of progress.

What progress has been made ?

The very existence of QM is progress in itself.

When has internal structure of nucleons been integrated in the
SR definition of mass ?

So you ignore all the other progress in science because your pet questions
have not been resolved?

I know of no one active in the physical sciences who is trying to
maintain the status quo. (Drug reps are a different matter...)
Scientific research is about finding out new things. All the students
studying for their PhDs for instance need to add to the sum total of
human knowledge. This is not done by re-inforcing the status quo.
That's exactly what I have been seeing happening for the past decades.

Again, I suspect you are either looking in the wrong place or simply
offended that the "scientific community" dont agree with your particular
world view.

Not at all. I observed that for decades before I even settled on a
particular world view.

Well, without being unduly rude, I suspect you had already settled on that
world view and simply saw the information to support it.

Very little research that I have either seen or taken part in has reinforced
the status quo. People seek fame and scientists are the same.

No, but I can scatter against the particles that are interacting. The
interaction can then be studied and ascertained. It has been long ago.
Yet this does not prove the existence of gravity. There are no known
particles of gravity - some are theorised but none have been found.

Your absolute requirement for scatterability means gravity no longer
exists.
Absolutely not.

So how to explain a force which has no mediating particles and cant be
"scattered" against?

A simple force interaction between charged particles. Coulomb, Maxwell.

Gravity works on forces without a charge.

Interesting, yet you miss the fact we verify the particle
interactions and scale that up to produce the cosmological data used
day in and day out.
I don't think the "scaling" has been done correctly. No re-scaling has
been done, for example, since we have found out the internal structure
of nucleons. The Pioneer so-called "anomalous" acceleration is
directly tied to that faulty scaling, in my view.
Ok, this isnt quite true though. The internal structure of nucleons has
been determined for quite some time (and predicted for longer).
Not that long ago. Quarks up and down were detected only in the second
half of the 1960's.

A lot has happened in the last forty years though. Most of current
cosmology has been determined in that intervening period.

I don't see much change from what Gamow wrote in the 1940'.

Look harder.

What about the internal structures changes the way things scale up?
SR was developped 100 years ago, defining rest mass based on the notion
that nucleon rest mass was invariant. Never was adapted to take into
account that nucleon inertia would vary with proximity of large
quantities of matter due to coulomb interaction.

How does this answer the "pioneer anomaly" better than any other
reason?
Simply because the effective mass of the Pioneer crafts can only be
slightly larger in deep space than measurable at Earth's surface.

How do you verify gravity exists? On the particle level it is very
different to what happens on the big scales.
This is the general view. My model reveals a different picture.
Discussed in some other thread lately, mainly with Freddifizzx and
also Ken.
Ok. Do you model it as the same as on the large scale then?
In my model, there is only one scale. That of the only physically
existing scatterable particles.

There is no physically existing scatterable particle of gravity.

I don't think there is, nor need for one.

At the particle scale, gravitational forces are almost non-existent.

Your view. Not mine.

Really? What do you see as the gravitational interaction between (say)
quarks then?

--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... but the lack of existence of everything else is. ... it is not even in the picture. ... Maybe to you and possibly to the rest of the community. ... My theory, like any other theory, does not need to convince anyone. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... but the lack of existence of everything else is. ... My theory, like any other theory, does not need to convince anyone. ... theories (including the fundamentals of EM) and experiements ... Yet they are not effected by charged particles. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... but the lack of existence of everything else is. ... My theory, like any other theory, does not need to convince anyone. ... theories (including the fundamentals of EM) and experiements conducted ... induced in particles as a function of the distance between elementary ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Theism and Deism (was Plague)
    ... But sufficient evidence exists to convince even the worst ... If I'm going to trust my wife then I demand that there is evidence she ... >>We were talking about miracles in the context of showing the existence ... >>of God so I think foretelling a remarkable sign would be appropriate. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: can Pythagorass theorem be proved without the idea of the area of a rectangle being a*b
    ... Just establishing the existence of similar triangles takes some work. ... It's very easy to assume the nature of the metric without realizing ... At best a picture is an aid to ... Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. ...
    (sci.math)