Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

T Wake a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:448B2FEE.3040703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T Wake a écrit :
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.
Not from my perspective.

In this, your perspective is not an issue.

To me, only my perspective (on my own model) is an issue.

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
Not at all. It simply has to be available to interested people before
they finally make up their mind on they theory they prefer as the most
fundamental.

Yet it still has to convince them, otherwise they will read it then read other things, which do convince them.

Every reader will be the judge as to whether the logics is convincing
or not.

If my writing was well done and the equations sets and derivations
make sense to them, they will see the coherence. Otherwise, they
will dump it and go on to read so other stuff.

That simply is life. Why should this be a problem?

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.
This never happened in all of history.

Well, again we will have to disagree on this.

No sweat.

There is no way to change a person's mind once it is made up.
Well, I don't really agree there.
Well then, this is a difficult to circumvent hurdle. I simply do not
believe that people will change their mind once it is made up in
a given direction un such fundamental issues.

Some people, once convinced about something are difficult to re-educate, I agree.

Generally speaking though, progress and work in science requires a very open minded approach.

In the past. Only up coming generations gave life to ideas cooked up by
the preceeding generation(s). That happened as these young ones were
reading all that was available at the time before they made up their
minds as to which ideas they prefered.

Nothing has changed.

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.
Exactly the same. People who have already made up their mind in
a given direction will find afterwards that all other directions
make less sense from the get go and are not likely to reconsider.

Only those who have not yet made up their mind are likely to
really dig sufficiently to really grasp the various diverging
options offered.

From what I have observed, that's simply how the human mind
works.

Trying to change the mind of someone who has already chosen
a direction turns out to simply be a waste of time and energy.

I may be forced to agree.

Then we generally agree on this.

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?
I ask nothing of the sort. Answering these questions will resolve
more than before since they would for starter explain very simply
the two Pioneer so-called anomalies.

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?
Already explaining the Pioneer anomalies seems interesting to start
with, no ?

Does your model produce an expanding, contracting or steady state universe?
From the looks of it, a slowly expanding 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?
It is expanding. But involves no BB type occurrence.

So what is it expanding from?

Could have been as simple as the coming into being of two pairs
of electron-positron for reasons to yet to be ascertained. But
other scenarios no doubt are possible.

The two positrons plus one electron mutually capturing at low
energy in a threesome that then accelarated until they could
not get any closer and SB (Small Bang ;-)) one proton has now
come into being releasing three hugely energetic mesons that
most probably immediately split into more pairs, and progressively
more protons and neutrons would be produced, the first hydrogen
atoms, and so on and so on...

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.
Parallax is useful only to fairly short distance it seems to me.

Nope. Parallax can be effective to very long distances. (not the 500million light year sort of distances though).

Isn't 500 M only back screen door in the kitchen compared to
the visible part of the universe ?

The key part is, it matches at the distances we can use it.

The
whole solar system is already a mere point-like event compared to even
the local galaxy.

Yes. Parallax works beyond our local group though.

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?
I am implying nothing of the sort. When the results of possible wheel
test are in. This will no doubt be looked into.

The problem here is you are suggesting a theory which inherently fails to explain the existing data, yet you suggest because it _may_ answer one or two current issues it is worth looking into.

_You_ say that my theory inherently fails to explain the existing data.

That's not my view.

If your theory is sound, it will explain the current data and make new, testable predictions. It needs both.

No doubt. Those who will explore it will no doubt consider this as
fundamental, don't you think ?

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.
It has been to my satisfaction.

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

Can I respectfully suggest you broaden your knowledge.

You combine resolute, wilful reluctance to accept something which is beyond your satisfaction

What don't I accept? I accept all that is in my model.

with the assertions that the orthodox scientists are reluctant to see your point.

Can you see the irony?

Well, you say I assert that orthodox scientists are reluctant to
see my point. I assert no such thing. I simply think that orthodox
scientists don't care about my point. I just don't care back.

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.
In my model, it is fundamental.

The inverse square law is unlikely to be a "fundamental" theory

It is not a fundamental theory. It is a fundamental interaction law.

to the universe as it "simply" describes how the magnitude of force between two objects varies with distance.

Shade of meaning. In my model, it describes how how much energy is
induced in particles as a function of the distance between elementary
charged particles. Period.

It makes no predictions about the force, nor does it describe how the
> force is transmitted.

Why should it make prediction. It simply is an observed phenomenon.
It is how two charged particles are observed to interact with each
other. I see nothing more to it.

It is "part" of a bigger law.

I don't see any other electrostatic law at the fundamental level.

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.
In my model, it is not "overcoming" gravitation. It is the same as
gravitation.

Really? I suspect that is a flaw in your model then. There is a gravitational attraction between the two particles, yet the electromagnetic force prevents them from coming into direct contact. Does your model provide a single force which is both attractive and repulsive at the same time?

The electrostatic force (Coulomb) is attractive between heterostatic
particles and repulsive between homostatic particles.

In my model, physical energy is induced by the force. Energy is
induced as a function of the distance between charged particles.
direction of motion outwards between homostatic particles and
direction of motion inwards for heterostatic.

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.
Not in my model. It is the only force.

Ok, how does gravity or whatever you choose to call your force, explain radioactive decay and the photoelectric effect?

In my model, gravity acts only between elementary particles. Radioactive
decay and photoelectric effect have the same explanation that you can
find in any ref book. No doubt to be further clarified and refocussed
in time if need be, if my model requires it.

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."
In my model, it is enough.

Good for you.

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.
I am positive that this is the case. The universe would simply collapse
otherwise. From my model, anyway.

Circular reasoning.

It may be the case that under
extremes of temperature and pressure the force interaction between two
point charges is different.
Not in my model. Inverse square interaction is more fundamental than
temperature and pressure.

Well, I never said they were fundamental. However as we get the ability to press to greater pressures and temperatures what was previously thought of as "fundamental" often changes.

High energy experiments definitely are interesting. But my main personal
concern is stable matter. That which makes up the universe that
we know.

Well, bosons are not made up of either electrons or quarks.
You mean photons mainly, no doubt?

Scatterable. No problem either.

Yet they are not effected by charged particles.

They are in my model. Light is deflected when grazing masses no ?

What about W and Z bosons?

If any were located by scattering in normal stable matter, then it
must have been these last few minutes.

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.
We got to it only in this post. See above.

Yet there are no scatterable particles of gravity, which is what I meant.

I see. None are required in my model.

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?
If only their existence allows explaining the observed behavior,
then their existence is proven de facto.

But they are not scatterable etc. You have reverted away from your previously defined criteria for what is and isn't "there."

Not at all. They simply are geometric tools that allow the interaction
between scatterable particles to be studied and understood.

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.
So you think that a hydrogen atom can be made of other scatterable
particles besides 1 electron, 1 quark down and 2 quarks up ?

What else ?

Well, until there is enough energy in an experiment to possibly split the quark who knows. What is there in your theory which dictates the quark is fundamental? Even in the standard model there is nothing compelling it to be so.

The elementary nature of quarks up and down has been demonstrated
to my satisfaction, just like that of electrons and positrons. Very
simply.

Until the proton was split, it too was assumed to be the fundamental particle.

Yes. Hence the need to integrate the now known structure in the SR
definition of rest mass.

The "scatterable" requirement is yours not mine.

Absolutely.

We are only just reaching the point at which we can verify the existence of quarks, let alone break them down into something else.
As far as has been demonstrated to my satisfaction, quarks up and down
are elementary, and so is the electron.

Ok. Once more your satisfaction requirements differ if you already agree with an idea.

How so? Why should I disagree with confirmed and satisfying experimental
results ?

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?
As far as stable elementary particles go ? Yes. I think we have them
all.

So what fundamental research into particles is worth doing?

For finding elementary stable charged particles ? I think no more since
we have them all.

For high energy unstable states, this is still on going.

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.
But this is the BB assumption. We turn in circles it seems to me.

Very true. Your theory has a universe which is slowly expanding, therefore at somepoint the t=0 event still occured.

No doubt about it.

The "age" of the universe is not directly linked into the recession speeds nor is it a direct consequence of either big bang theory or GR.

Not in my model. I couldn't figure a way to determine the time frame. From all indications (isotropic spherical view) I figure we can only
see part of it as it stands.

It strikes me as your theory does little other than move the t=0 event back a bit.

I think it does much more.

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.
Then it should be interesting to see the outcome of my little wheel test, don't you think?

Well, maybe. I am not convinced your predictions differ from GR at this time.

What if it actually proved that GR is not the end theory after all.

No one thinks it is.

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.
Or a very sophisticated dead end. The future will tell.

Unlikely. And even if it is, this isn't proven by your wheel experiment.

The future will tell. The model also addresses both Pioneer so-called
anomalies.

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 generally disagree that GR is the final theory.

Very few people think it is. No one who has actually studied it does.

Then I agree with most on this issue, apparently.

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.
Then prove me wrong. See other post.

Well, submit your paper to every journal then. If every one returns it then you are correct.

Carry out the experiment and see what happens.

A tad too time wasting. Besides, the dice are already cast.

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.
Not if the cosmological red shift eventually turns out not to be
entirely Doppler based.

here is more support for the big bang than the red shift. The red shift is, if anything, a problem as it implies a universe accelerating faster than the "normal" t=0 event theories imply. Getting rid of it would do nothing to dismantle the "big bang."

More than you think makes no sense with an exclusive Doppler based
Hubble red shift. The relativistic mass of farthest galaxies simply
make no sense at near light speed, among other things.

The t=0 event is also supported by your universe, which you state is slowly expanding. The age of the universe implies a t=0 event.

I have no problem with t=0 at some point.

The red shift just talks about what happened after about t=3 seconds.

Only if the Hubble red shift is exclusively Doppler based.

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.
Not my view.

The your theory will not be a valid theory of everything.

Never said it was. I will not be the judge of this.

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?
No. But classical mechanics asserts that no work is done by a rotating
body. Just check back basics. Every elementary mechanics books teaches
exactly that.

This has very little to do with GR then.

It has nothing to do with GR.

Well, this also requires no friction or interaction by other forces.
Yes. It is assumed that if there is no friction nor interaction by
other forces, the rotating motion will last forever.

I would be interested where in the universe you can find such a place.
Just have my little wheel sent far enough from large masses in deep
space and wait. When all remaining measurable interactions have been
factored out, I garantee you it will gradually slow down and eventually
stop, for no reason explainable by the CM work equations.

Well, again this is something which will not really change the interpretation of GR.

Yes, since GR cannot account for either of the Pioneers so-called
anomalies.

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.
It absolutely will. Made up of scatterable particles (thus physically
existing, like photons) constantly changing direction.

Yet it has mass and is travelling in a circle around its own axis.

It is made of scatterable particles constantly changing direction about
a common axis.

A photon moving from A to B can follow a non-straight line in the presence of a large mass object. This is not the same as a wheel rotating in space.

It is exactly the same: a scatterable particle changing direction about
a given axis.

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.
Not my view. But if you can explain to me what in the math of my
little pdf paper warrants rejection, I am willing to correct any
mathematical defect and waste some more time resubmitting it.

Dont bother. You are happy with the way things are going.

No sweat.

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?
I think it would be fine if the results had been integrated to SR.

Asking for a lot in a short space of time.

40 years is not a short space of time. It is 40 years wasted.

The fact that science has not yet solved the question _you_ want answering is not a sign of the lack of progress.
On such fundamental issues, it is in my view.

What progress has been made ?
The very existence of QM is progress in itself.
80 years ago. Then QED, fine. What else.

QCD out, inadequate.

Haha. Ok. You will assert you point of view to dismiss anything suggested. As mentioned earlier I suspect you are correct in that some people are unable to change their opinions once it is formed.

I am convinced that my model is sound, yes. Why shouldn't I ?

Gravity works on forces without a charge.
All stable elementary scatterable massive particles that make up stable
matter have charge: electron, quark up, quark down.

Yet gravity affects the path of a photon (no charge).

In my model, charges are in the picture even for photons. Maybe not
charges as you use to think. The sign is an acquired property in my
model, not an intrinsic property of a charge.

It affects the electron in the same way as the positron, so it isn't working on "charge."

Unless your view says otherwise.

Precisely, see just above.

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?
The same as electrostatic interaction. Already discussed here in the
past.

It cant be the same as this works independent of the charge of the quark.

It is the very same in my model.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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. ... 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. ... 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: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... >>>>methodology of science. ... To me, as long as the person is honest, ... >> Please tell me that you inferred their existence because of some ... supposed quantum particles. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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)