Light particles illuminate the vacuum

Feb 26, 2013
Light particles illuminate the vacuum
This is an artist's impression of the creation of an entangled photon pair, a process which is seeded by the vacuum fluctuations. The source of the pair is an actual microscope image of the chain of Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices of the metamaterial sample in which the dynamical Casimir effect was studied. The speed of light in this material could be varied by changing the magnetic field through the SQUID loops. Credit: Aalto University

Researchers from the Finnish Aalto University and the Technical Research Centre of Finland succeeded in showing experimentally that vacuum has properties not previously observed. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, it is a state with abundant potentials. Vacuum contains momentarily appearing and disappearing virtual pairs, which can be converted into detectable light particles.

The researchers conducted a mirror experiment to show that by changing the position of the mirror in a vacuum, can be transformed into real photons that can be experimentally observed. In a vacuum, there is energy and noise, the existence of which follows the uncertainty principle in .

Light particles illuminate the vacuum
This optical microscope image shows the chain in which the dynamical Casimir effect was studied. The speed of light in this material could be varied by changing the magnetic field through the SQUID loops. Credit: Aalto University

If we act fast enough, we can prevent the particles from recombining – they will then be transformed into real particles that can be detected', says Dr. Sorin Paraoanu from Aalto University.

For the experiment, the researchers used an array of superconducting quantum-interference devices (SQUID). These parts resemble devices used in imaging small magnetic fields in the brain. By changing the magnetic field, the speed of light in the device can be changed. From the standpoint of the electromagnetic field of the vacuum radiation reflecting from this kind of device experiences it as a moving mirror.

This image shows how the measurements were made. This open dry dilution fridge by BlueFors Cryogenics is similar to the one where the measurements for the study were made. This one is capable of reaching temperatures below 7 mK (-273.143 C). Credit: Aalto University

"By quickly varying the speed of light in the array, we can extract microwave photons out of the vacuum's ," explains doctoral student Pasi Lähteenmäki from Aalto University.

Future research directions for these kind of devices include the creation of an artificial event horizon and observation or emanating from it. The present observation will help cosmologists to get closer to the riddle of the birth of the universe and advance the development of extremely powerful quantum computers.

Explore further: New method for non-invasive prostate cancer screening

More information: www.pnas.org/content/early/201… /1212705110.abstract

Related Stories

Scientists create light from vacuum

Nov 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results will be published tomorrow ...

Researchers create light from 'almost nothing'

Jun 06, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of physicists working out of Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, have succeeded in proving what was until now, just theory; and that is, that visible photons could ...

Noise is not necessarily detrimental to quantum devices

Feb 04, 2013

The researches of the Aalto University and the University of Oulu have succeeded to simulate a phenomenon called motional averaging, which demonstrates that in certain conditions externally-induced fast fluctuations ...

Recommended for you

New method for non-invasive prostate cancer screening

16 hours ago

Cancer screening is a critical approach for preventing cancer deaths because cases caught early are often more treatable. But while there are already existing ways to screen for different types of cancer, ...

How bubble studies benefit science and engineering

17 hours ago

The image above shows a perfect bubble imploding in weightlessness. This bubble, and many like it, are produced by the researchers from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland. What ...

Famous Feynman lectures put online with free access

18 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Back in the early sixties, physicist Richard Feynman gave a series of lectures on physics to first year students at Caltech—those lectures were subsequently put into print and made into text ...

Single laser stops molecular tumbling motion instantly

22 hours ago

In the quantum world, making the simple atom behave is one thing, but making the more complex molecule behave is another story. Now Northwestern University scientists have figured out an elegant way to stop a molecule from ...

User comments : 415

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Twin
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2013
This subject is way over my head, so please don't flame me if my question doesn't make sense.

Are you creating the photons by the energy of your device, or are you getting energy (photons) for free from the vacuum?
VendicarE
3 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2013
Both.

The photons constitute the vacuum, so they are present before the experiment. They are boosted to higher energies and separated by the apparatus.

The quantum vacuum is full of momentary fluctuations in charge polarization and all other properties. These charge separations occur on all scales of magnitude, theoretically down to the plank length and perhaps beyond.

What this experiment did was to boost some of the largest charge polarizations into detectable photons.

In principle the same thing can be done for any particle, with increasing levels of difficulty.

ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (24) Feb 26, 2013
This subject is way over my head, so please don't flame me if my question doesn't make sense.
In dense aether model it's quite easy to understand. The virtual particles of vacuum are nothing else, then the density fluctuations of it, similar to Brownian noise of the underwater, as observed at the water surface. These density fluctuations are moving back and forth fast, so that their action remains roughly balanced. But if you put the mirror into their path for a moment, some disbalance emerges and the density fluctuation of the underwater will create an observable wave at the water surface. The only trick here is, how to switch the mirror on and off in sufficiently fast way.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (24) Feb 26, 2013
The simplest way, how to achieve it is to place the mirror on the surface of fast rotating rod. When some density fluctuation of vacuum will emerge around it, it would normally bounce back from mirror and it would disappear after moment, so it wouldn't remain observable. But it cannot, because the mirror isn't already in its place - so that instead of it the vacuum fluctuation will radiate itself in form of observable photon of infrared light. Such an experiments were done already - so you can make sure, I'm not bull*ing you.

But the rotating mirror is a bit steampunk technology in research of vacuum, because it has to rotate very fast for to get some observable effect and it's not very practical from long-term perspective. A much more efficient way would to use the electrically switchable mirror - and this is just what the above experiment was about.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (22) Feb 26, 2013
The mirror which the scientists used was based on the fact, the reflecting behavior of metals is based on freely movable electrons. When the electrons cannot move, they cannot bounce and reflect the light. Can we make freeze movable electrons temporarily? Yes, we can - with using of so-called SQUID device. The SQUID is a tiny barrier inside of superconductor, through which the electron pairs can move freely. How is it possible? Well, this picture illustrates it. Normally, the electrons are forced to overcome obstacles like the cross-countryskier in the rough terrain. They're losing an energy during this and they become tired and slow fast.

But under low temperatures the electrons can employ a simple but effective trick - they can condense into pairs, which are held together at distance. Such a pair of electrons can overcome obstacles without lost of energy and it becomes superconductive.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2013
@Twin: The Casimir static and dynamical effect may derive from vacuum forces or simply relativistic van der Waal forces. [ http://en.wikiped...r_effect ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2013
The Casimir static and dynamical effect may derive from vacuum forces or simply relativistic van der Waal forces. [ http://en.wikiped...r_effect ] In either case you don't get energy from free, as always, you are just converting between forms.

[Oops, the rest cut off in edit:]

If you let a van der Waal force do work as solid states plates attract, have you got energy for free? No, you have to put in work again to place the system in the initial configuration. Same applies for vacuum forces.

To make such forces do continuous work in a device akin to an electric motor, you would have to supply energy from the outside. [ http://en.wikiped...et_motor ]

Also, crackpot troll alert: Since there is no "aether" in physics, it is always trivial to "understand" anything by such ideas and simultaneously impossible to actually _understand_ anything. I wish they just trolled their own anti-science sites. :-/
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (19) Feb 26, 2013
If you look at my picture carefully, you will realize, that the SQUID barrier can be crossed with electron pair only under situation, when the width of barrier perfectly fits the mutual distance of electrons within the pair. If the distance of electrons will become larger or smaller than the width of SQUID junction, then the electrons cannot travel across it anymore. Well, and this distance can be affected with external magnetic field. The electrons moving in parallel in magnetic field are influenced with so-called Lentz-Lorentz force, which is trying to separate them. Because the width of SQUID must remain precisely tuned, even the very weak magnetic field can interrupt the flow of electron pairs across SQUID barrier. The electrons will not move and the SQUID barrier will not reflect the light anymore. Because the magnetic field can be alternated fast with electric current of electromagnet, the reflectivity of quantum mirror can be modulated accordingly in very fast pace.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (26) Feb 26, 2013
Since there is no "aether" in physics
In contemporary physics we have no cold fusion, scalar waves, antigravity or magnetic motors yet - despite all these phenomena were observed and described already (cold fusion at 1926, scalar waves were described with Tesla just few year later, the principle of magnetic motor was patented at 1828 already). Is it the problem of these phenomena after then - or just mainstream physics? BTW The dense aether model was proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904 with the same result - it's not my finding...
EyeNStein
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2013
Creating new photons in vacuum isn't difficult though: Radio transmitters have been doing it for years.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 26, 2013
Are you creating the photons by the energy of your device, or are you getting energy (photons) for free from the vacuum?
The rotating or switching mirror generates the light from vacuum and you must exert an energy from outside to keep it in motion. It means, the dynamic Casimir effect is behaving like sorta viscosity of vacuum and it dissipates the energy of reflecting bodies into heat. Because - as I already said above - the reflectivity of mirrors is caused with movable electrons, then even the free charged particles (electrons) should be slowed down with vacuum in dense aether model, when their speed will become close to the speed of light. This effect is not equivalent to increase of mass, predicted with special relativity, as it really acts like the viscosity of vacuum (dragging force) - not just the increase of the momentum of electrons.
Radio transmitters have been doing it for years.
They're doing light with charged electrons in their wires, not with vacuum.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (21) Feb 26, 2013
The dynamic Cassimir effect is a microscopic version of so-called Fulling–Davies–Unruh radiation and it has an mechanical analogy at the water surface with Fulling–Davies–Unruh. When such beetle is moving fast, above certain threshold of its acceleration it will generate the ripples at the water surface. This may happen only when the beetle will move with speed, which is close to the speed of the surface waves (i.e. the speed of light in the vacuum analogy of that effect). It may serve as an illustration, that the water surface is actually fully fledged mechanical model of the vacuum - the dozens of vacuum phenomena can be demonstrated with it.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 26, 2013
Errata: "with Fulling–Davies–Unruh.." should be "with whirligig beetles". These beetles are communicating and seeking for prey with motion in circles along water surface, which generates the tiny surface ripples, when the diameter of the circles decreases bellow some treshold. It enables the beetles to switch from "echolocation mode" into "stealth mode" immediately, while they still remain in motion with full speed.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2013
are you getting energy (photons) for free from the vacuum?
The following link introduces into a theoretical understanding of this energy and furthermore they demonstrate a successful conversion of this energy into classical mechanical energy, as it was already performed in the laboratory.

IMO it demonstrates rather the famous lifter effect and it wouldn't work in actual vacuum.
Ober
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2013
@ValeriaT, while I don't understand all of what you are saying, AND ppl often reflect you as a crank, there is some merit to your words. It has been experimentally shown that placing a speaker under a water tank and producing frequencies just below that which would make waves on the surface, that you get something very similar to a vacuum. If you drop a water droplet on this surface it will hover just above it, as when the water tries to drop under graviy, the surface vibration pushes it back up, hence the hovering. Now when this was done with two droplets, and a double slit barrier set up, the droplets approached the slit, then performed interference producing the normal interference pattern. The amazing thing was that the droplets remained as droplets. So the experiment was like firing electrons at a double slit. They also noticed that hydrodynamic equations were analogous to many quantum mechanical equations for this setup.
So water in this case, acts like the vacuum of space.
Ober
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2013
I'd also like to point out that making photons from the vacuum has been done before. The explanation last time was that when a virtual photon pair appears between mirrors, it would normally cancel each other out, and hence dissapear again. However by making the mirrors vibrate, they could change it so that the wavelength of certain virtual photons could appear, but not cancel each other out, due to the mirrors changing distance, and thus not enabling them to reflect and cancel. This would cause them to escape the apparatus, and emerge as REAL photons. No this is not free energy, the energy input to chill the device and operate the squid far excedes that of the emiited photons. But it does show that QM is correct in its predictions of virutal pairs of particles in the vacuum. Now consider this virtual particle soup to be vibrating like the water in the tank as I mentioned above, and bingo you have an analogy of particle/wave duality. In my mind the vacuum fluctuations is the aether!!!!!
Ober
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2013
The key to the water tank experiment was that the vibration in the water is below the threshhold to be noticable on the surface. I'd also like to point out that the quantum vacuum also seems like this. The particles are there and vibrating, but in such a low way, that they are not observable in the real world. For water, adding a droplet was analogous to a particle in real space. So the outcome from these experiments would be that particles in the real world, can have many of their mysterious behaviours explained, by considering that they interact with the quantum vacuum. THAT is the missing part of quantum mechanics in my mind, which unlocks the mystery of the double slit experiment. Particles are guided by their continual feedback with the vacuum, this in turn can aggect other particles, not just now be in time as well, as the vacuum of space can have vibrational info imparted on it, which can affect a new particle arriving on the scene. Entanglement may comes from this as well.
Ober
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2013
In my mind, the missing parts of all our science is space itself.
We seem to have limited ourselves to just the water droplets (matter) on the surface of the water (space). Once we start to pay more attention to SPACE, our science will rocket ahead.

No this is not crank or cult science, it is REAL SCIENCE!!!
Please open your eyes and look at this concept!!!!

Here's a link to the water tank experiment.
http://www.pnas.o...41/17515

Note however you can't read the entire article!!!
VendicarE
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2013
A radio transmitter creates photons through electromagnetic inuction. You are quite right.

"Radio transmitters have been doing it for years." - EyeNStein

But this is not what was done here.

In the experiment they took existing charge polarization fluctuations that spontaneously occur in the in the vacuum and boosted their energy and spacial separation to the point where they can be detected as "real" photons.

VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2013
If in a cubic centimeter of empty space, I can gleen enough energy to power all of mankind for a billion years, I will be happy enough.

"In either case you don't get energy from free, as always, you are just converting between forms." - Tombiorm

How deep is the well?
Ober
2 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2013
PLEASE read this article. It is a REAL EYE OPENER!!!

http://www.pnas.o...455.full
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2013
So water in this case, acts like the vacuum of space.
It's low-dimensional low density analogy of it. I'm of course aware of Couder/Fort experiments. In double slit experiment the wake wave of vacuum (which is formed by particle motion through vacuum foam) is what makes the interference pattern - not the particle itself (it's too small for being able to do it).
Ober
2 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2013
I agree totally ValeriaT. I've re-read the article myself of course, and read about the liquid waves piloting the particle. Seems pretty convincing to me. I am surprised that the article states that they are unsure of the analog of the liquid bath. Why haven't they jumped to the Quantum Vacuum/foam leap??? It looks to me, like it is standing out like dogs balls. I will certainly read your posts in a different light from now on. I suggest others read that article, so they can be more knowledgeable about what you are talking about. I think you are pushed as a crank, due to ignorance of this very old Pilot Wave idea, and the latest research which demonstrates QM behaviour using pilot waves on a macroscopic scale. Note that many big names in science were partial to the Pilot Wave concept!!!!
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2013
If you look at my picture carefully, you will realize, that the SQUID barrier can be crossed with electron pair only under situation,


Uuh, Zephyr, your picture is the Christmas E-card someone sent ya last year.

Post the electron ducks picture, ya know, the one with the electron ducks paddling through the aether and making dual waves in the particulate matter?
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2013
Well, you may imagine the pair of ducks swimming across ripples and connected with straw. For the sake of conceptual consistency of my theory.
I think you are pushed as a crank, due to ignorance of this very old Pilot Wave idea
LOL, those who are downvoting me even don't know what the Pilot Wave is...;-) The advantage of ignorants is, they don't require any reason for their ignorance.
FainAvis
not rated yet Feb 26, 2013
So maybe the origins of the universe are in little pops.
Thrasymachus
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2013
We are downranking you so other users can filter the comments by rating. That way, they don't have to wade through multi-posts of your verbal diarrhea.
brt
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2013
I'm in college. And thanks to this site and all its' marvelous trolls (and trolls of other online sources as well), I now know that there is no way in hell I'm going to ever venture into theoretical physics. Applied it is...
Ober
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2013
Well I just down voted you Thrasymachus, as you obviously didn't read the article I posted regarding Pilot Waves. I too have been guilty of thinking ValeriaT is a crank, but after reading that article, I think he does know what he is on about, but maybe does throw a little crank in as well!!!!

So Thrasymachus, please read the article I posted, then comment on that!!!!
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2013
I read it, and you're as irrelevant as he is.
Ober
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2013
So who's the TROLL now Thrasymachus, you haven't commented on the article, just ME!!! This site is not about personnel attacks mate, it's a SCIENCE site. So keep your mind off me, and comment on the article you just read.
Zep Tepi
2.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2013
Okay, first post here, not a scientist, but it is my understanding that a photon is emitted when an electron changes, or moves, from one state/position around the nucleus of the atom to another.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2013
Researchers from the Finnish Aalto University and the Technical Research Centre of Finland succeeded in showing experimentally that vacuum has properties not previously observed. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, it is a state with abundant potentials. Vacuum contains momentarily appearing and disappearing virtual pairs, which can be converted into detectable light particles.
The researchers conducted a mirror experiment to show that by changing the position of the mirror in a vacuum, virtual particles can be transformed into real photons that can be experimentally observed….

This is amazing, but the crucial problem is that it means the vacuum space has infinite energy, which is not likely to be so! Maybe this idea could solve the problem.
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
LarryD
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2013
Okay, this is way above my laman head and gives me a lot more to read but I admit that at this point I am not sure I understand what a 'pilot wave' actually IS, I'm working on it. Ober, has the Aether been resurrected? ValeriaT, my humble opinion has always been that at the quantum level particles/waves behave in a deterministic manner. That is to say they follow paths that depend on their properties and where any interaction has consequences. It is we who have to employ probability theory to try to understand what is going on and therefore to us certain things become indeterminate and therefore seemingly unpredictable. The water beetle does go part of the way in analogy but what about a spider on a solid surface? The spider is constantly waiting for those 'ripples' (vibrations) and reacts accordingly but itself does not send signals. Is there a possible analogy with electrons? One electron pilot wave and another is attracted? What I wouldn't then understand is the pilot wave origins.
vidyunmaya
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2013
Sub: Concepts
Source, Fields, Flows and Reflector Concepts are evolved from and out of Vacuum-Space
http://vidyardhic...ion.html
oelabs
3 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2013
That's new for me.
Ober
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2013
LarryD, as far as I know, the Aether has not been officially resurrected as such, but it is being dug up again and again, to try and explain what is happening. Space is not merely a backdrop, a set on which the actors (matter) play on. Space IS something!! Even Einstein states 4 dimensional space time. Then consider that quantum mechanics predicts a quantum foam for the vacuum of space, which is backed up by this very phys.org article, then empty space consists of something, which pilot wave theory makes use of to explain QM behaviour. Pilot waves seem to give a very good explanation for the wave/particle duality of matter. A particle moves, thus interacting with the liquid in the tank giving off a wave. The wave feedsback to the particle imparting motion. The two feedback continually. From this quantisation emerges. Also the liquid in the tank (since it is rippling with the wave from the particle) has a history of the particles motion imprinted on it, ie lots of waves.
Ober
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2013
Those waves combine via addition and subtraction, to create a new wave, (ie interference) which imparts motion to the particle again.
These waves are called pilot waves, as they steer (pilot) the particle. This way, a particle can seem to behave in a spooky fashion, ie the dual slit experiment. When you consider the particles wave in the liquid will travel through both slits and interfere, the particle will only go through one slit, but will then be piloted by the emergent interference wave from the liquid. Hence the particle travels and produces the interference pattern, even though it was just ONE particle!!! Thus wave/particle duality is explained neatly. The article I linked to stated that they observed this very behaviour at MACROSCOPIC levels using a tank of liquid, with liquid drops on the surface. Their experiment seems so simple that practically anyone can reproduce this and observe lots of QM behaviour right before their eyes. Remember though this is an analog. Study it!!
Ober
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2013
So now to get back and relate the pilot wave article with this Phys.org article. For the pilot wave analog, if you were to place a dropper into the liquid in the tank and suck a bit up, then release a drop onto the surface, you would get a pilot wave particle. In this phys.org article the SQUID device is acting like the dropper. It is "grabbing" a photon from the quantum vacuum, ie a virtual particle, and turning it into a real particle. In the pilot wave analog, the liquid in the tank would be the quantum foam/vacuum, ie virtual particles. The droplet on the surface is the REAL particle. It is my belief (coming from pilot wave theory) that matter constantly interacts via continual feedback with the quantum vacuum. Note though to meet conservation rules, two photons (particles) emerge from the squid device. In no way, do I believe the universe is a fish tank with liquid in it, but is merely an analog to study to gain insights into the quantum world.
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2013
This subject is way over my head, so please don't flame me if my question doesn't make sense.

Are you creating the photons by the energy of your device, or are you getting energy (photons) for free from the vacuum?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The energy comes from the dynamics of the moving electric field.
Parsec
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2013
I'm in college. And thanks to this site and all its' marvelous trolls (and trolls of other online sources as well), I now know that there is no way in hell I'm going to ever venture into theoretical physics. Applied it is...


Nah its not that bad. This site is a crackpot magnet. Crackpots would never adventure into a real lab because of fear of embarrassment. I have worked in a lot of labs so I can assure you this is the case.

Unfortunately, the high percentage of crackpots also makes people real quick to condemn and discard legitimate queries. Don't take it personally.
Ober
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2013
I don't know why I'm getting down voted, but if Einstein was around today he wouldn't have been able to discover relativity. The multi-dimensional maths Einstein used, was unknown to him. He looked through many maths documents until he discovered a book written in the 1850's about a purely mathematical theory for multi-dimensional manifolds, which was considered absolutely useless in its time (the 1850's). I'm sure you TROLLS would have down voted that book. If Einstein had his filter set to > 1, then he would have missed it, and relativity would not have come to be!!!!
Ober
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2013
Just for my interest, am I considered to be a Crackpot, or suggesting CRANK science?? FYI I do have a science degree, as well as graduate diplomas and have worked in labs for 5 years. I also have work in theoretical physics which has been published via peer review. However, given the posts here, I am doubting my sanity and hoping I'm not falling into a Crank Hole!!!!
So please feel free to comment, however make it a serious comment and not just an insulting post.
P.S. I really do want to know the answer to this :-) Also note, that I will not reveal my identity, so please don't ask for links to my published articles. <-- Crank alert!!!! NO just my desire to remain anonymous on the web, thats all. If you must, my best work related to quantum entangled particles near an event horizon. What happens if one particle enters the horizon and the other remains outside. Does entanglement remain intact!!!! The answer is probability > 0!!!!! ie YES to some degree, but not NO!!!
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2013
The advantage of ignorants is, they don't require any reason for their ignorance.


You define yourself so well by this statement: Why can you not see that you are the role model when it does not "require any reason for ignorance"?
Germanphys
3 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2013
The experiment ist fascinating, but not completely new. I think it was done in December 2012 at the university of Goeteborg
(pro-physik - 02 Dec 12)
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2013
"but it is my understanding that a photon is emitted when an electron changes, or moves, from one state/position around the nucleus of the atom to another." - Zep

A photon is a bundle of self self propagating electromagnetic field. If you distort an ambient electric or magnetic field in any way then that field propagates outward from that disturbance carried by photons.

Now try and remember that photons have no definite size and there is no such thing as magnetism and you have a clearer picture.
vlaaing peerd
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2013
We thank Casimir for his love for mayonaise. Without mayonaise, no dark energy. That's why you have to put it on your fries. period.
VendicarE
not rated yet Feb 27, 2013
You presume wheather you know it or not that all frequencies of EM radiation are found in the vacuum.

This is not the presumption of physics. Eceryone presumes that the frequency distribution goes to zero at some high frequency that is large enough that we don't yet have evidence for it.

"vacuum space has infinite energ" - Vacuum Mechanics

Infinity generally means failure.
VendicarE
not rated yet Feb 27, 2013
Without scale, what distinguishes a little pop from a big one?

"So maybe the origins of the universe are in little pops." - FainAvis
Hakan1997
not rated yet Feb 27, 2013
I agree totally ValeriaT. I've re-read the article myself of course, and read about the liquid waves piloting the particle. Seems pretty convincing to me. I am surprised that the article states that they are unsure of the analog of the liquid bath. Why haven't they jumped to the Quantum Vacuum/foam leap??? It looks to me, like it is standing out like dogs balls.

Dogs balls?

I will certainly read your posts in a different light from now on. I suggest others read that article, so they can be more knowledgeable about what you are talking about. I think you are pushed as a crank, due to ignorance of this very old Pilot Wave idea, and the latest research which demonstrates QM behaviour using pilot waves on a macroscopic scale. Note that many big names in science were partial to the Pilot Wave concept!!!!


Ober & ValeriaT. Maybe you should form a science group?
rubberman
1.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2013
Okay, first post here, not a scientist, but it is my understanding that a photon is emitted when an electron changes, or moves, from one state/position around the nucleus of the atom to another.


Any atomic "particle" can generate a photon through collision or excitation. It is the generation of the photon which causes the change in position of the electron.

If Einstein had access to the information we do in this day and age, there would be no debating on this forum as to how everything really worked...and I'd be tending bar on the next cruise ship to proxima centauri.
LarryD
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2013
Ober, must thank you for your time and trouble to explain. I really do appreciate it. Unlike you I don't have a science degree but did go to tech col. and workrd in industrial QC labs. So I have a science b/grd. Now retired and catching up on all those topics that interest me.
Okay back to Pilot Wave theory. It seems that some author's place Pilot Wave theory in an 'ontological' category which gives it a 'metaphysical' coat while those in favour seem to give it a firmer math base. In my previous comment I infer that I favour those 'ontologies' that suggest independence of observer simply cos I think the quantum realm is itself deterministic (not that we are). But I have problems with this. I can accept and understand duality (we use it in every day life all the time) but usually one dual partner comes out as REALITY, that is one d.p. has a 'stronger base', 'more stable' etc. I'm sure you understand. The problem would then be trying to determine which d.p. will 'be reality'. (cont.)
LarryD
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2013
(cont.)
Making the bold assumption that this d.p situation exists then should we also assume that the above mentioned Virtual Particles are also (virtual) d.p.'s? If V.P.'s are dual then do we not have to determine first which of ITS partners is the one most like to become 'real'. How many ramifications might there be on this?
If we do not know how to determine which 'reality' is most likely then how do we know which 'reality we are studying?
Thanks for having patience with the old guy.
Meanwhile I'll have a look at the maths too and maybe that will help me.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2013
Ober & ValeriaT. Maybe you should form a science group?


This is the best example of human entanglement you can get: They are not two identical entities but are so indistinguishable that they are a SINGLE entity. There is no measurement possible to disentangle them.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2013
Entanglement is a concept of Copenhagen quantum mechanics, which you're fighting with all the time...
geokstr
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2013
Without scale, what distinguishes a little pop from a big one?

"So maybe the origins of the universe are in little pops." - FainAvis

In certain universes, any pop greater than 16oz is by law considered too big.
Zep Tepi
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2013
Thanks VendicarE, Rubberman for your posts. Helpful.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2013
Entanglement is a concept of Copenhagen quantum mechanics, which you're fighting with all the time...


Entanglement was coined by Schroedinger to describe the interaction of two or more waves. It has NOTHING to do with "particles" as required by Copenhagen Voodoo! Two separate waves (called "particles" by the Copenhagen nincompoops and their zombie- followers) cannot be entangled. Thus entanglement has nothing in common with the Copenhagen interpretation; just as Einstein correctly pointed out when he and his two students formulated the EPR paradox: Separate wave-entities ("particles" as claimed by the Voodoo believers) cannot communicate faster than the speed of light. Thus, they can NEVER be entangled as is claimed by those who believe in the Voodoo of "wave-particle duality"
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2013
Sadly for johanfprins, entangled particles do seem exhibit simultaneous changes even when separated by distances so far that faster than light communication would seem needed to synchronize the change.

Einstein is looking more and more wrong with every passing year.
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2013
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought entangled particles could not be manipulated to change one and thus change the other, which would not allow for communication, just measurement.

I thought the whole principle of entanglement is that if one of the entangled particles is measured, you could infer the properties of the other that is hypothetically halfway across the universe. But I didn't think you can manipulate one and by doing that change the other entangled particle.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2013
Sadly for johanfprins, entangled particles

Why do you call two parts of an entangled coherent wave "particles"? PLEASE define what a "particle" is and then give me experimental evidence that in the "entanglement experiments" it MUST BE separate "particles" which are "entangled"!

seem exhibit simultaneous changes even when separated by distances so far that faster than light communication would seem needed to synchronize the change.

This is PROOF that they are not two separate "particles" but form a SINGLE COHERENT WAVE!!

Einstein is looking more and more wrong with every passing year.
No he does NOT: He was right: When you have two separate electrons at ANY distance from one another, and you wiggle one, the other will ONLY know about this wiggle after the information reaches it with the speed of light. If this were not the case, our radio-waves would be instantaneous and NOT moving with a speed c. Thus you do not have separate "particles" involved at all!
johanfprins
2.2 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2013
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought entangled particles
There are no "separate, entangled particles" in our universe.

I thought the whole principle of entanglement is that if one of the entangled particles is measured
NOT one of the "entangled particles": It is a SINGLE wave and if you do a measurement that disentangle this SINGLE ENTITY into two separate parts: These separate parts parts MUST correlate since, just before the measurement they were not separate "particles": Whatever the latter means!
you could infer the properties of the other that is hypothetically halfway across the universe.
Correct.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2013
Entangled particles are for example atoms inside of boson condensate. They can be even observed under the microscope and laser light like the isolated glowing points, so they're definitely remain a particles - yet they're entangled. Therefore these entangled atoms are not a "single wave", but rather system of particles, which are moving in synchrony.

If the entanglement would mean, that the atoms are forming single wave, then it would mean, we developed a very interesting way, how to dissolve the atoms and their ultradense compact nuclei into continuum just by their cooling - which is apparent nonsense. But the trolls dedicated to their ideas blindly may not be indeed able to recognize such a paradoxes of their theories.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2013
You have two entangled particles with opposite momentum.

You measure the momentum of one with great precision and the position of the other becomes undefined.

Do not do the measurement and the position of the other can be resolved with greater precision.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought entangled particles could not be manipulated to change one and thus change the other" - Everything
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2013
False.

"They can be even observed under the microscope and laser light like the isolated glowing points" - ValeriaT
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2013
The amplitude of the wave function is parametric. It has no meaning other than being a complex number.

The congegate square of the amplitude, once normalized, is interpreted as a probability.

The amplitude of the wave function then does not correspond to any real physical property, or physical manifestation of anything real. It is an abstract quantity.

I have never seen a complex number of apples. Neither have I ever seen a wave with a complex amplitude.

Both are unreal.

"This is PROOF that they are not two separate "particles" but form a SINGLE COHERENT WAVE!!" - johanfprins
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2013
Not true.

An electron has a non-zero probability of being anywhere. Hence if you wiggle one at one point there is a nonzero probability that the effect can be instantaneously observed at another point irrespective of the separation between the two points.

In other words, the "real" speed of light is infinite and it is only through scattering events between the photon and virtual particles that exist in the vacuum does the effective average speed go to c.

There is a non-zero probability that the photon will reach it's target without any scattering, in a delta t = 0.

"When you have two separate electrons at ANY distance from one another, and you wiggle one, the other will ONLY know about this wiggle after the information reaches it with the speed of light" - Johanfprins
VendicarE
2.5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2013
This is correct. Entangled entities are described by a singular wave function and hence are in that respect a single entity.

"There are no "separate, entangled particles" in our universe." - Johanfprins

A problem arises in that the wave function can have lobes of local maxima that are widely separated in space and that modification of the one lobe seems to instantly alter the character of the second lobe even though it may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

The mechanism by which this occurs is a mystery even though the amplitude of the wave function itself has no physical manifestation.
LarryD
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2013

In other words, the "real" speed of light is infinite and it is only through scattering events between the photon and virtual particles that exist in the vacuum does the effective average speed go to c.

VendicarE
Please can you tell me how you know or have worked that one out. I am ready to accept that the speed of light might be greater than we 'observe' but how do you get an 'average' from infinity? Where might I find this info?
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2013
You can see it reported in a variety of ways. Often in experiments that report superluminal speeds they refer to the group velocity of a pulse as being c but detection of at delays that are less than d/c because the start of the wave arrives at the destination before the bulk of the wave does.

You can also find it in more detailed explanations of particle propagation functions in QED and QCD.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2657

http://www.elecen...2010.pdf
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2013
False. "They can be even observed under the microscope and laser light like the isolated glowing points" - ValeriaT

The main problem of many blind supporters of mainstream physics is, they even don't know the mainstream physics and its experiments: "We observe the lattice from the negative z axis. Each small bright spot is due to a single atom. " (compare the snapshots here too)
You should rather talk about libertians and rygtards here, as the physics is not for you. Johan F. Prins understands some physics at least.
LarryD
1.7 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2013

In other words, the "real" speed of light is infinite and it is only through scattering events between the photon and virtual particles that exist in the vacuum does the effective average speed go to c. VendicarE

Yes I am aware that during wave propagation superluminal v
is accepted but please note I am a layman not a practicing physicist and the maths in the link you provided (thank you for that) will take me while to read (read briefly and not fully understood). But while a curve can have plus/minus infinity (fig 1.,c,vg, infinity)graphical representations don't mean 'real' and I can't find the calculation in the paper that shows an 'average' obseerved c from infinite c. Superluminal does not mean infinite...or does it these days?
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2013
A problem arises..... that modification of the one lobe seems to instantly alter the character of the second lobe even though it may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

Correct! And this proves that these lobes ARE NOT separate entities (called "particles" by nitwits): They are components of a single holistic wave which is in immediate contact with itself within the total volume it occupies in three-dimensional space. Similarly the two lobes that form when a coherent wave moves through two slits are in instantaneous contact: This is the best proof ever that "wave-particle duality" is Voodoo-physics.
The mechanism by which this occurs is a mystery

No it is NOT! This is how a coherent wave behaves: It can exist of different volumes while still being a SINGLE coherent wave which is in immediate contact with itself.
the amplitude of the wave function has no physical manifestation.
The ST of Relativity demands that it must be a physical manifestation!
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2013
Entangled particles are for example atoms inside of boson condensate. They can be even observed under the microscope and laser light like the isolated glowing points, so they're definitely remain a particles -
If it is really a boson condensate you will not be able to observe separate entities, since the entities that form a boson condensate are not distinguishable after they have formed the condensate.
yet they're entangled.
They are not "entangled" but are separate distinguishable entities (or else you would not have seen them) which are resonating with one another.
This is what also happens in a superconductor, and therefore boson charge-carriers are NOT a prerequisite for SC to occur.
Therefore these entangled atoms are not a "single wave", but rather system of particles, which are moving in synchrony.
Correct! And that is why this state is a Boltzmann-Condensate: NOT a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

You just keep on harping the same tune without trying to think
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2013
If the entanglement would mean, that the atoms are forming single wave, then it would mean, we developed a very interesting way, how to dissolve the atoms and their ultradense compact nuclei into continuum just by their cooling - which is apparent nonsense.
Correct! That is why this phase IS NOT a Bose-Einstein Condensate: If you can see the original separate entities, they are distinguishable (even though they are identical), and therefore the condensate IS NOT a Bose-Einstein Condensate. If you cool any gas and avoid the gas from forming another phase, the gas-atoms will, according to Boltzmann statistics, lose their kinetic energies, and end up interacting with one another through quantum fluctuations. Such a condensate IS NOT a Bose-Einstein Condensate since one can still observe, and thus distinguish, the original entities.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2013
You have two entangled particles with opposite momentum.
You measure the momentum of one with great precision and the position of the other becomes undefined.


Nonsense: The measurement of the momentum of an electron does not make its position undefined. If this were so, Galileo's inertia will be null and void, and ALL the physics done since Galileo, also Schroedinger's equation will be null and void.

The reason is as follows: An electron has rest mass, which means that there must be an inertial reference frame within which the center-of-mass of the electron is stationary: The latter means that the position of the electron manifests with 100% accuracy, and since it is stationary, its momentum must also manifest with 100% accuracy to be simultaneously ZERO!

johanfprins
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2013
The amplitude of the wave function is parametric. It has no meaning other than being a complex number.

As usual you do not know your physics. When a light-wave moves through a material, its wave amplitude becomes a complex number function.
A stationary light-wave within a laser cavity has to be modeled in terms of a complex wave-amplitude because light does not have an aether. This complex wave amplitude gives a REAL ACTUAL intensity for the wave!
The congegate square of the amplitude, once normalized, is interpreted as a probability.
Wrong interpretation since it leads to Voodoo!
I have never seen a complex number of apples. Neither have I ever seen a wave with a complex amplitude.
Only because you are restricted to live in 3-dimensional space. If you could have lived in the 4-dimensional space within which electromagnetic waves live, you would have been able to see the complex wave-amplitudes. They are real my friend: The earth is not flat!
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2013
There must be a way to harness vacuum energy.

Intuitively it's obvious, because we can harvest solar energy which easily produces more energy than the cost in resources, labor, and energy to make the collectors.

It would seem that if scientists could engineer some sort of nano material or some other apparatus to harvest vacuum energy, even if it was absurdly small amounts, it would be revolutionary because it could work at night or on bad weather days when solar doesn't work, or it could power computers and space craft.

To me, a large amount, or large rate of collection per unit area or unit space is not necessary for some practical benefit to be achieved. Considering a solar panel can capture 10% of the sun's energy touching the panel.

A "small" vacuum energy device could harness a billionth of a billionth of 1% of the energy adjacent to itself, and it would still power an entire type 1 civilization, possibly even an entire type 2 civilization...we can dream at least...
DavidW
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2013
The advantage of ignorants is, they don't require any reason for their ignorance.


You define yourself so well by this statement: Why can you not see that you are the role model when it does not "require any reason for ignorance"?

The advantage of ignorants is, they don't require any reason for their ignorance.


You define yourself so well by this statement: Why can you not see that you are the role model when it does not "require any reason for ignorance"?


You're right. I think Val realizes that. It is human nature to over-react to others that attempt to hurt us. It's an attempt to take control from another.
DavidW
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2013
The stupid trolls,


You mean the one's that hate each other and call each other by their actions, instead of what they truthfully really are, important life? The one's that ignore the basic and real universal truth that we are equal and then propose that they are above the very truth itself, in complete and total nonsense? The ones keeping their hearts closed and pushing hate, lies, and ego while dismissing the real truth?
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2013
To enlighten those who gave me negative feedback...

I did not say nor imply that such devices were currently possible.

I was merely hypothetically exploring the practical application of such a device, if it were ever invented.

Imagine all the people who laughed when Tesla and Edison were talking about running electricity all over the nation and the world!

Seriously, somebody had better hope something like this does become possible one day.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2013
ValeriaT's original claim was that individual atoms that constitute a bose einstein condensate could be resolved while in the condensate.

The first link he offers to support his view does not involve a Bose Einstein condensate, and the second link is invalid.

"The main problem of many blind supporters of mainstream physics is, they even don't know the mainstream physics and its experiments: "We observe the lattice from the negative z axis. Each small bright spot is due to a single atom. " (compare the snapshots here too)" - ValeriaT
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2013
You asked for references. I gave you references.

I can only reiterate what I said earlier.

The probability of a free particle is non-zero everywhere in the universe outside of it's own self interference.

The electrons in your breakfast toast have a finite but exceptionally low probability of instantly bonding with a rock orbiting M87.

"Superluminal does not mean infinite...or does it these days?" - LarryD
VendicarE
not rated yet Mar 01, 2013
Quantum Mechanics respects relativity only on average, but in some cases like entangled particles, not at all.

"The ST of Relativity demands that it must be a physical manifestation!" - johanfprins

"They are components of a single holistic wave which is in immediate contact with itself within the total volume it occupies in three-dimensional space." - johanfprins

All of space actually, since there is a nonzero probability of finding any given particle anywhere in the universe under the rules of QM.

The wave function is either real or not real.

If real, then Relativity must go.
If not-real then we are lost as to why the mathematics works.
VendicarE
not rated yet Mar 01, 2013
Light is not composed of waves. It is composed of particles. The photoelectric effect tells us this.

"When a light-wave moves through a material, its wave amplitude becomes a complex number function." - Johanfprins

The complex part of an electromagnetic wave is of course the magnetic part. But we know that magnetism is a fictitious force, manifesting simply through the false presumption that charge fields are immune to relativistic effects. IE, that electrons have a fixed apparent charge irrespective of their velocity relative to an observer.

Johanfprins is living in the 1940's era of continuous fields.

Modern physics treats fields as quantized entities not continuous ones.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2013
"The congegate square of the amplitude, once normalized, is interpreted as a probability." - Vendicar

"Wrong interpretation since it leads to Voodoo!" - Johanfprins

I sympathize, but it is the reality we seem to be stuck with. Even a simple double slit experiment shows this to be the case.

The intensity fall off for the interference pattern does not rise and fall in intensity the manner required by simple trigonometric interference, but rather by the square of that interference.

The fundamental experiment fails to support your view.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2013
Four dimensional space doesn't exist either.

"If you could have lived in the 4-dimensional space within which electromagnetic waves live" - Johanfprins

Why pretend?
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2013
The uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the wave like properties in the propagation of matter and is easily derived from wave mechanics, and confirmed by ubiquitous experimentation.

In 1 dimension...

dx*dp >= hbar/2

"The measurement of the momentum of an electron does not make its position undefined." - Johanfprins

Major Fail.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2013
False

"An electron has rest mass, which means that there must be an inertial reference frame within which the center-of-mass of the electron is stationary:" - Johanfprins

If I stick an electron to a pith ball attached to a string and spin it around my head then there is no non-accelerating reference frame in which the electron has a center of mass, yet it continues to have rest mass.

On atomic scales electrons have no well defined position because they are constantly being destroyed by virtual positrons in the vacuum. E P' E' goes to (E P') E' goes to 0 E' goes to E But translated.

Reaction chains of any length can exist and hence E and the final E' can be located anywhere.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
There must be a way to harness vacuum energy.


There is no REAL experimental proof that there is "vacuum energy": Just as there is NO REAL experimental proof that there is an electric-field energy around a solitary charge, like the charge of an electron. The concept of "vacuum-energy" is based on the unproven assumption that there is such an electric-field energy. Even mathematics gives clear evidence that such a field does NOT exist since the integrals which are derived in terms of this postulate explode to become infinities. When this happens in physics it is impeccable evidence that your postulates on which you are basing your model are just plain WRONG.

However, when you have a matter-wave, you can "extract" or rather "borrow" energy (delta)E from the fourth dimension in which the wave ALSO exists, provided you use this energy within the allowed time-interval (delta)t. The energy then again "disappears" from our three-dimensional space. It is this energy which drives SC.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
There is no REAL experimental proof that there is "vacuum energy"
Cassimir force is demonstration of such an energy and it can be demonstrated macroscopically. Actually, we can observe this energy with naked eye at the superfluid helium, which never freezes at room pressure. Something must therefore keep its atoms in never-ending motion. The public demonstration of Yildiz-Perendev motor at Delpth university (after which the motor has been completely dismantled into its parts) illustrates, that this energy is real and it can be utilized in practical applications.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
If you are incredibly stupid, you will conclude that this energy is "vacuum-energy". It is not: It is part of the energy of the wave which is not permanently present within our three-dimensional space.

In the case of superconduction, a localized electron-orbital borrows energy (delta)E which is enough to break free and move to the next orbital site within the allowed time interval (delta)t. Thus, work is done by energy extracted from a source outside three-dimensional space, and this energy is returned to the source after the work is completed within the allowed time-interval(delta)t. This is, according to thermodynamics, how it must be for any work-cycle when this cycle does not generate entropy. The work to move the orbital is thus "free energy" within our 3D-space.

In principle this means that it might be possible to build a vehicle that propels itself through space without burning up fuel and, thus dissipating energy which increases the entropy of our universe.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
In principle this means that it might be possible to build a vehicle that propels itself through space without burning up fuel and, thus dissipating energy which increases the entropy of our universe
The increasing of entropy is not always connected with dissipation of energy. At the cases of macroscopic quantum systems (like the oriented magnetic domains) you should introduce an energy from outside for their further entropy increasing instead. Magnetic domains are islands of atoms, which are already oriented mutually. The strong magnetic field leads into their fragmentation - so if you remove the magnet from ferromagnet, they just WANT to reorient and grow again with quantum fluctuations of vacuum. And this is just the moment, when you can drain the free energy from vacuum.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2013
BTW For me it's funny to observe, how the guy, who himself suffers with ignorance of mainstream physics ("room temperature superconductivity isn't possible") acts like very dogmatic and conservative person regarding the findings of other people. If the mainstream physics would be stuffed with people like you, its religious stance would be even way more worse.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
I can only reiterate what I said earlier.
The probability of a free particle is non-zero everywhere in the universe outside of it's own self interference.

This is Voodoo! There ARE NOT "particles", only localized
electromagnetic-waves, which for some stupid reason are called "particles". The probability of finding a single free electron in the universe is the energy-volume of the wave divided by the volume of the universe. There is no other probability involved.
The electrons in your breakfast toast have a finite but exceptionally low probability of instantly bonding with a rock orbiting M87.
Voodoo! Firstly there NO electron="particles" within my breakfast cereal, and secondly if my breakfast cereal for some reason emits an electron, this electron-wave is too far away to resonate with a rock orbiting M87. There is ZERO PROBABILITY that it will bond with such a rock instantaneously.

VendicarE
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Casimer force and hence vacuum energy has been verified experimentally on numerous occasions.

"There is no REAL experimental proof that there is "vacuum energy"" - Johanfprins

In addition Casimer forces are now so well established that they are recognized as one of the most fundamental assembly problems in nano-technology.

The question of how deep the zero point energy well is. QM theory puts it dozens orders of magnitude higher than it can possibly be.

If it were so high then the universe would gravitationally collapse in on itself.

There is no known resolution to this predictive failure in QM.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Quantum Mechanics respects relativity only on average, but in some cases like entangled particles, not at all.

Quantum mechanics is a result of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic waves and their interactions: Nothing else. A coherent EM wave is in instantaneous contact with itself. When it it forms different 3D components by, for example, moving through slits these components are still in instantaneous contact; since it is still a single coherent wave.
All of space actually, since there is a nonzero probability of finding any given particle anywhere in the universe under the rules of QM.
Voodoo! What you call a "particle" is a localized EM wave, and it occupies a specific energy-volume in three dimensional space. There is no probability to find the same wave outside of its own energy-volume!
The wave function is either real or not real.
What do you mean by real? Are you talking about the fact that the wave-amplitude is a complex function? Please define!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Wrong.

"When this happens in physics it is impeccable evidence that your postulates on which you are basing your model are just plain WRONG." - Johanfprins

lim x-> infinity of x/x = 1

The value of x becomes infinite and yet the ratio remains fixed.

Similarly

lim x-> infinity of (x-x) = 0

Even though x and x go to infinity.

If you can partition your function cleverly so that your infinities cancel then you can still produce a result that converges.

VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2013
Since you are living in the 1950's non-quantized field era, it would seem self evident that electric fields contain energy since bringing two dissimilar charges closer together liberates energy.

"The concept of "vacuum-energy" is based on the unproven assumption that there is such an electric-field energy." - Johanfprins

Perhaps you have an alternate view that involves rubber bands and a pully.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2013
Borrow energy from the fourth dimension ay?

"However, when you have a matter-wave, you can "extract" or rather "borrow" energy (delta)E from the fourth dimension" - Johanfprins

Isn't that where Bigfoot and his duck live?

Quack... Quack... Quack....
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
Light is not composed of waves. It is composed of particles. The photoelectric effect tells us this.


No it does not! I have explained the photo-electric effect OVER and OVER and OVER on this forum. It is modeled in detail in terms of wave-interactions on page 379 of my book. Why do you not want to first do your homework before displaying your ignorance? Are you able to read.

Johanfprins is living in the 1940's era of continuous fields.
Oh, I did not know that continuous fields only existed in the 1940's. I thought EM waves were already discovered in 1860.
Modern physics treats fields as quantized entities not continuous ones.

That is why "modern physics" (I assume you mean QFT) is only valid in Alice's Wonderland, and propagated by Voodoo Shamaans like you.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013

That is quite the bottle of compressed air in that "motor" ValeriaT
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
"The congegate square of the amplitude, once normalized, is interpreted as a probability." - Vendicar
"Wrong interpretation since it leads to Voodoo!" - Johanfprins

I sympathize, but it is the reality we seem to be stuck with.


It is NOT a "reality" we are stuck with: What you state is a moronic interpretation of reality!
Even a simple double slit experiment shows this to be the case.
No it does not!
The intensity fall off for the interference pattern does not rise and fall in intensity the manner required by simple trigonometric interference, but rather by the square of that interference.
So? This does not prove that a photon-wave's intensity is a probability distribution. Only a fool will conclude the latter.
The fundamental experiment fails to support your view.
It does not fail to support my view: It supports my view fully and it does so without having to assume Voodoo concepts like "wave-particle duality".
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2013
Neat. You get quantized absorption from wave interaction ay?

You should have someone check your mathematics.

"It is modeled in detail in terms of wave-interactions on page 379 of my book." - Snicker
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
Four dimensional space doesn't exist either.
Why not?
"If you could have lived in the 4-dimensional space within which electromagnetic waves live" - Johanfprins
Why pretend?


I do not have to pretend.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Yes. That is your problem. They didn't exist in the 1940's either.

Fields are necessarily quantized. This is imposed upon them by conservation laws and General Relativity.

"Oh, I did not know that continuous fields only existed in the 1940's." - Johanfprins
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
I sympathize... I really do.

"That is why "modern physics" (I assume you mean QFT) is only valid in Alice's Wonderland, and propagated by Voodoo Shamaans like you." - Johanfprins

You can scream and rant in anger all you like.

Mother nature will not hear your complaints and change how she works to appease your ideological expectations of how she must do her thing.

Perhaps you can find an alternate universe in which to live that is more in tune with your 1940's view of how the world must work.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Because there is no evidence for it.

"Why not?" - Johanfprins

Feel free to offer any.

"I do not have to pretend." - johanfprins

Then you must be mentally ill.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
The uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the wave like properties in the propagation of matter
Nope! The fcat that an electromagnetic wave (in fact ANY wave) lives in real and reciprocal space has been well known long before the 20th century. This has NOTHING to do with the "uncertainty" in position and momentum of a "particle".
for and is easily derived from wave mechanics, and confirmed by ubiquitous experimentation.
In 1 dimension...
dx*dp >= hbar/2

For ALL waves the equation is:
dx*dk>=1/2: It is also valid when the wave is stationary (position x=0 and momentum p=0); in which case dk HAS NOTHING to do with dp whatsoever.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
No one said it was.

"So? This does not prove that a photon-wave's intensity is a probability distribution." - johanfprins

It is the complex square of the wave function that produces the probability distribution. Not the raw wave function itself.

As I said earlier, the light curve of the light/dark intensity bands in a double slit experiment are not those of sine wave interference.

The brightness curve matches a sign wave interference pattern that is squared in amplitude.

Observation does not match your theoretical expectations.

Now... When do you intend to abandon your nonsense like a good scientist would?
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
So your view then is that water waves exist in the 4th dimension right along side bigfoot.

I see.

"The fcat that an electromagnetic wave (in fact ANY wave) lives in real and reciprocal space has been well known long before the 20th century." - Johanfprins

"It is also valid when the wave is stationary (position x=0 and momentum p=0)" - johanfprins

How sad for you that electrons can never be stationary.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
"An electron has rest mass, which means that there must be an inertial reference frame within which the center-of-mass of the electron is stationary:" - Johanfprins
If I stick an electron to a pith ball attached to a string and spin it around my head then there is no non-accelerating reference frame in which the electron has a center of mass, yet it continues to have rest mass.

You have proved on numerous occasions that you are stupid, but not in my wildest dreams did I expect that you could be such a moron. It has a center-of-mass which is stationary relative to the pith ball (because you glued it to the pith ball) and it also has NO momentum relative to the pith ball. Thus relative to the pith ball x=0 AND p=0.
On atomic scales electrons have no well defined position because they are constantly being destroyed etc. etc. etc.
QFT Voodoo! The center of mass of an atomic e-wave coincides with the COM of the nucleus, and it has NO momentum relative to the nucleus:
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Perhaps you could explain again how your spatially distributed wave manages to localize itself to a particular electron in a particular atom on a photographic plate and do so before the bulk of the wave is even emitted by the source.

"It does not fail to support my view: It supports my view fully and it does so without having to assume Voodoo concepts like "wave-particle duality"." - johanfprins

I'm looking forward to your quacky non- response.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
So now center's of mass are relative to an objects classical velocity v<
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
There is no REAL experimental proof that there is "vacuum energy"
Cassimir force is demonstration of such an energy and it can be demonstrated macroscopically.

There is no proof whatsoever that the Casimir force demonstrates "vacuum-energy". It can also be modeled much more simply in terms of van der Waals forces. Another alternative, and simpler model, can be found in my book on page 453: Since my model is simpler it is most probably a better model than "vacuum energy": Occam's razor!
Actually, we can observe this energy with naked eye at the superfluid helium, which never freezes at room pressure. Something must therefore keep its atoms in never-ending motion.

This does not prove "vacuum-energy" but quantum fluctuations (delta)E for (delta)t (see page 453 in my book) which are also responsible for superconduction. It does NOT PROVE that the vacuum on its own has any energy!
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
So no centers of mass are relative when an objects classical velocity is very much less than c?

Are you re-writing Newton now?

The fact is, center of mass, is a pretty much useless concept for atomic scale objects.

An electron for example is subject to annihilation by positron/electron pairs that arise in the vacuum. The electron at point x combines with a spontaneous positron nearby and at some distant place the positron's spontaneous partner presumes the role of the original electron.

Where is the center of mass in that environment?

Good luck answering that question.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
I live in a world where F*dx=dE

What world do you live in?

"There is no proof whatsoever that the Casimir force demonstrates "vacuum-energy"." - Johanfprins

Do you know what a Hamiltonian is?

Maybe you think it is vudu?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
The increasing of entropy is not always connected with dissipation of energy.
When you have a cyclic engine that does work, the increase in entropy IS connected to the dissipation pf energy: Superconduction occurs by the cyclic motion of localized electron-orbitals, where work is done to move an orbital without the dissipation of energy, or the accumulation of kinetic-energy which must eventually dissipate and increase the entropy. This is the case I was posting about.
Your attempt to be a smart-ass is thus not relevant: It has less value than a fart in a perfume factory!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
BTW For me it's funny to observe, how the guy, who himself suffers with ignorance of mainstream physics ("room temperature superconductivity isn't possible")


Are you talking about me? Where have I stated that room temperature superconductivity is not possible? It will be stupid of me after I have been the first scientist to demonstrate in 2000 that it is possible.

acts like very dogmatic and conservative person regarding the findings of other people. If the mainstream physics would be stuffed with people like you, its religious stance would be even way more worse.

This is exactly what YOU are doing! Not me: My opinions are all based on experimental evidence and logic: And I have changed my viewpoints when experimental evidence and logic demanded that I do. You on the contrary can only bleat like a lost sheep AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
Casimer force and hence vacuum energy has been verified experimentally on numerous occasions.
I have not disputed this. What I dispute is that it is caused by "vacuum-energy" which does not exist.
In addition Casimer forces are now so well established that they are recognized as one of the most fundamental assembly problems in nano-technology.
So? Does this prove "vacuum energy". It does not! Just as the blip discovered at CERN last year does not and can never prove that this blip gives matter mass.

The question of how deep the zero point energy well is. QM theory puts it dozens orders of magnitude higher than it can possibly be.If it were so high then the universe would gravitationally collapse in on itself.There is no known resolution to this predictive failure in QM.

The resolution is obvious! There is no "vacuum-energy" whatsoever!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Given that F = dE/dx it would appear that it must.

"It does NOT PROVE that the vacuum on its own has any energy!" - johanfprins

General relativity alone proves that.

Special relativity as well of you wish to preserve conservation of energy.

An electron and positron repel each other. But the positron may just have come into existence. In that case the positron will feel the presence of the electron before the electron knows about the existence of the positron. Yet the positron will be immediately attracted to the electron, and gain energy.

The energy gained by the positron must come from the field surrounding the electron, and hence the field contains must contain energy.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2013
Which are just another name for vacuum energy.

"It can also be modeled much more simply in terms of van der Waals forces." - johanfprins

The simple name change has confused you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013

lim x-> infinity of x/x = 1

The value of x becomes infinite and yet the ratio remains fixed.
That is allowed by calculus.

Similarly

lim x-> infinity of (x-x) = 0

Even though x and x go to infinity.

Nope!!! Not similarly. The calculus operator of taking the limit is distributive: Thus:

lim x-> infinity of (x-x) = lim->infinity of x MINUS lim->infinity of x= ((x=infinity) minus (x=infinity))= bullshit!

If you can partition your function cleverly so that your infinities cancel then you can still produce a result that converges.
Not in the case when two terms separately go to infinity! Where did you learn calculus: At a Voodoo-college in New Orleans?

VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
And yet the vacuum is full of photons, as well as electric and gravitational fields.

"The resolution is obvious! There is no "vacuum-energy" whatsoever!" - Johanfprins

Thereby proving your argument to be childish idiocy.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
Since you are living in the 1950's non-quantized field era, it would seem self evident that electric fields contain energy since bringing two dissimilar charges closer together liberates energy.

You will notice that I was considering a SOLITARY charge. When there are TWO charges you do not have a SOLITARY charge. To have experimental evidence that there is an electric field energy around a SOLITARY charge, you must measure this energy without using other charges. I do not dispute the experimental fact that there is a force between two charges.
"The concept of "vacuum-energy" is based on the unproven assumption that there is such an electric-field energy." Perhaps you have an alternate view that involves rubber bands and a pully.


Simple electrostatics! One can have a region in space within which there is NO electric-field energy, since the charges in space are arranged to cancel the field at this point. But when placing a charge at this point it experiences a force.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
"lim x-> infinity of (x-x) = lim->infinity of x MINUS lim->infinity of x= ((x=infinity) minus (x=infinity))= bullshit!" - Johanfprins

Correct. So we have two infinities that can be shown to cancel to zero.

Renormalization of course, is doing exactly the same thing, but on a more sophisticated level.

It took three decades to find the mathematical rigor behind the renormalization procedures used in QED.

Since you seem to live in the 1950's I can see how the news never reached you.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
You can thus have a solitary charge with no electric-field energy around it, but when placing a second charge nearby, it will experience a force. And this is exactly what the nincompoops who developed quantum electrodynamics missed. And this is why they had to subtract infinity from infinity to triumphantly claim that it fits the gyro-magnetic ratio of the electron up to 100 decimal points. Why not one million decimal points? A trillion? I can fudge far better than that!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
And yet the vacuum is full of photons, as well as electric and gravitational fields.
There is no experimental proof for this statement whatsoever!
Thereby proving your argument to be childish idiocy.

I think that the concept of "vacuum-energy" is childish idiocy!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Even a solitary electric charge feels it's own self energy. Just as a solitary body feels it's own gravitation.

In fact, it is the gravitational field's own self energy that makes the transmission of gravitational waves possible, and makes gravitational field theory complex due to it's self modifying nature.

"When there are TWO charges you do not have a SOLITARY charge." - Johanfprins

In your view then the field materially changes through all of space if suddenly a test charge comes into existence in order to probe an electrostatic field?

You certainly are living in Funky Town.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
"And yet the vacuum is full of photons, as well as electric and gravitational fields." - VendicarE

"There is no experimental proof for this statement whatsoever!" - johanfprins

Well, if energy isn't being transmitted through space, then somehow the sun must know when to magically shine when I open my eyes.

Is such magic part of your Funky Town Universe?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
"lim x-> infinity of (x-x) = lim->infinity of x MINUS lim->infinity of x= ((x=infinity) minus (x=infinity))= bullshit!" - Johanfprins
Correct. So we have two infinities that can be shown to cancel to zero.

You must be joking! Is there a candid camera focused on me?

Renormalization of course, is doing exactly the same thing, but on a more sophisticated level.
Exactly! That is why it is absolute Vodoo nonsense!

It took three decades to find the mathematical rigor behind the renormalization procedures used in QED. Since you seem to live in the 1950's I can see how the news never reached you.

I followed all these Vodoo shenanigans closely. There is no proof whatsoever that there is ANY mathematical rigor behind this process. Both Feynman and Dirac stated that there is no proof of mathematical rigor whatsoever; and neither have stated otherwise before they died!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Fools think many foolish things.

"I think that the concept of "vacuum-energy" is childish idiocy!" - Johanfprins

"Why not one million decimal points? A trillion?" - Johanfprins

Your anger at not being able to understand QED makes me fart with laughter.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Only if you can manage to prove that dE/dx = F is false.

Good luck with that little boy.

"One can have a region in space within which there is NO electric-field energy, since the charges in space are arranged to cancel the field at this point. But when placing a charge at this point it experiences a force." - johanfprins
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
Both Feynman and Dirac stated that there is no proof of mathematical rigor whatsoever; and neither have stated otherwise before they died!

Wasn't it Albert Einstein who suggested that the key to success in anything was not revealing your sources?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Even a solitary electric charge feels it's own self energy. Just as a solitary body feels it's own gravitation.

A solid body has a volume and therefore the different parts can interact by gravity. According to QED the charge of an electron is a point charge so how can it feel its own self-energy in the same way?
In fact, it is the gravitational field's ...

Since you cannot even understand simple electrostatics, it would be stupid of me to engage you on gravity. Let us just stick to the electron for the time being.
"When there are TWO charges....
In your view then the field materially changes through all of space if suddenly a test charge comes into existence in order to probe an electrostatic field?
Why through "all of space". Can you prove experimentally that there is an electric-field energy through all of space when there are only two charges? This will require a third charge; etc, etc.
You certainly are living in Funky Town.

No YOU are!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Dirac died 30 years ago, and Feynman 4 years later.

"Both Feynman and Dirac stated that there is no proof of mathematical rigor whatsoever; and neither have stated otherwise before they died!" - johanfprins

Times change. You remain stuck in 1950.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Well, if energy isn't being transmitted through space,
Where did I state that electromagnetic energy is not transmitted by waves moving through space? Why do you always try and put words in other people's mouths instead of just sticking to the bare-bone facts that are being considered?
Is such magic part of your Funky Town Universe?
No only in a demented mind like yours who think that you have made a valid logical argument.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
Fools think many foolish things.


You are convincing me that this is so in your case.

Your anger at not being able to understand QED

It is not a question of not understanding it but not accepting Voodoo in physics and the raping mathematics in order to claim that two undefined numbers can be subtracted from one another to get a defined number up to 100 decimal places.

makes me fart with laughter.


These sounds are probably more intelligent than the ones coming through your mouth! You are an expert at farting around!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Only if you can manage to prove that dE/dx = F is false.
Why must this be false if there cannot be electric field energy around a solitary charge? Only when there are at least two charges can there, according to Coulomb's law, be an equal and opposite force on the two charges.
You can have a region in space within which there is NO electric-field energy, since the charges in space are arranged to cancel the field at this point. But when placing a charge at this point it experiences a force."

Take two circular sheets of opposite charges in a capacitor configuration: Between the sheets you will have an electric field energy. Outside the sheets there will not be an electric-field energy. If you now place a test-charge on the axis of the sheets outside the sheets, you will place the test-charge in a field-free region. Is there a force on the test charge? It is simple to show that there is. Does this mean that there was an electric-field before placing the test charge: NO!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
Dirac died 30 years ago, and Feynman 4 years later.


So what changed since then that proves that they were wrong in stating that renormalization is not mathematically rigorous? NOTHING!

ValeriaT
3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
Renormalization is not mathematically rigorous, but the physical reality is not mathematically rigorous as well (it leads into singularities, which are solved just with renormalization) - so that this approach may still lead into testable predictions.

Do you understand the principle of renormalization? Show us - or you're incompetent to talk about it here at all. I cannot waste my time here in discussions with people, the stance of whose are based on religious attitude. It applies both to the proponents of mainstream physics, both their opponents.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Good luck answering that question.


If virtual positrons were real and interacting with "real" electrons that often you would see several disastrous side-effects:

1, Molecules would be highly unstable.

2, The presence of anomalous "Waste heat" coming from "nowhere," as these annihilation events would produce gamma ray photons, presumably with also an equal and opposite momentum virtual electron (giving the appearance of a violation of conservation to the casual observation, assuming only partial knowledge the part of the observer,) Therefore also reinforcing 1 above.

3, number 2 above would produce a net gain in thermal energy in the universe because you will have gained the net "mass-energy" equivalent of a positron and an electron, the "virtual positron" having annihilated the original "real" electron, therefore the total mass and energy(temperature, EM radiation, etc,) of the "observable universe" would be increasing constantly, contrary to observation.
VendicarE
not rated yet Mar 03, 2013
Well.... No you wouldn't

"If virtual positrons were real and interacting with "real" electrons that often you would see several disastrous side-effects: - Lurker

The reason of course is that the virtual positrons and electrons barely emerge if at all as separate entities before they are annihilated by other real or virtual particles.

The interactions are on average extremely close range so it looks like the "real" electron is absorbed into the vacuum while it's virtual counterpart takes it's place some trivially small distance away. Small enough to blur the electrons position.

Still, there is a non zero probability that the electron will appear anywhere in the universe.

It isn't just positrons/electron pairs of course that will produce the apparent translation, Gamma Rays of sufficient energy to produce spatial charge polarizations of sufficient magnitude can do the same thing.

Cont...
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2013
Cont...

It is this infinite mesh of reactions that Feynman diagrams depict.

http://en.wikiped..._diagram
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Renormalization is not mathematically rigorous, but the physical reality is not mathematically rigorous as well (it leads into singularities,

In all my work, I have found that when you get singularities it is mathematics telling you that the postulates on which you based your model are WRONG! When I then retraced my steps I always found a mistake.
When you get sihgularities which are solved just with renormalization) - so that this approach may still lead into testable predictions.

This is called FUDGING the mathematics to fit your preconceived ideas.
Do you understand the principle of renormalization? Show us - or you're incompetent to talk about it here at all.
Fudging can be done by any moron! Why must I prove to YOU that I can act like a moron? I am not one, and refuse to join your dogmatic religious belief in mainstream physics. Why "renormalize" when you can model the physics SIMPLY and adequately without generating mathematical singularities? Occam's razor!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
I cannot waste my time here in discussions with people, the stance of whose are based on religious attitude. It applies both to the proponents of mainstream physics, both their opponents.


YOU have proved OVER and OVER and OVER again on this forum that you are the WORST culprit when it comes to this manner of behavior. Compared to you the proponents of mainstream physics are innocent: So keep on reciting your mantra: AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT,AWTAWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT,AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT,AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT,AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT,AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT,AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT,
AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
Good luck answering that question.


If virtual positrons were real and interacting with "real" electrons that often you would see several disastrous side-effects:


There are no "virtual positrons". They ONLY form by pair formation from actual light-waves which have the required energy: They then again annihilate when they entangle with REAL electrons to form REAL light-waves. This is ALL that we know experimentally! Why do you state that this happens "that often". How "often"? This statement and the rest of your arguments are PURE speculation with no experimental basis; and are based on CORRUPT mathematics generated by FUDGING!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Still, there is a non zero probability that the electron will appear anywhere in the universe.Cont...


There is NOT! Nature is not Voodoo: As Einstein correctly pointed out God does not play dice; and Galileo correctly pointed out: "God does not push planets along epicycles". QFT and renormalization are the same as believing in epicycles: It fits the data but the physics is gobblydegook!

It is this infinite mesh of reactions that Feynman diagrams depict.


You just admitted that these interactions cannot even be experimentally verified because they are "virtual". At least epicycles, which are also "virtual" can be seen from earth.

You can fit any data to any infinite number of mathematical terms, and get a good fit! This does not mean that these "virtual terms" model the physics involved! So the fit obtained by using an "infinite mesh of Feynman interactions" is worthless. Such a model is not even wrong!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Perhaps you could explain again how your spatially distributed wave manages to localize itself to a particular electron in a particular atom on a photographic plate and do so before the bulk of the wave is even emitted by the source.


There is no experimental evidence whatsoever that an electron-wave can collapse to be observed by an atomic-sized detector BEFORE this have has been emitted by its source. You must be demented to claim such Voodoo nonsense.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
So now center's of mass are relative to an objects classical velocity v<


If the reference in which the center-of-mass is stationary, is attached to another object which moves with speed v, the COM is still stationary within this moving reference frame: Have you EVER heard about Galileo and Newton's first law? Obviously NOT! Tsk, tsk!

Try and read a primary school book on physics! You should already find these facts in such a book!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
So no centers of mass are relative when an objects classical velocity is very much less than c?
According to Galileo and Newton's first law ANY object with rest mass has an inertial reference frame within which its COM is stationary. The COM mass only moves relative to other reference frames which moves relative to the stationary COM.
Are you re-writing Newton now?
No YOU are doing this!
The fact is, center of mass, is a pretty much useless concept for atomic scale objects.
If it is useless, momentum and position are also useless concepts since they can then not be defined.
An electron for example is subject to annihilation by positron/electron pairs that arise in the vacuum.

Not so: Where is your experimental proof for this Voodoo statement? There is NONE!!
The electron at point x combines with a spontaneous positron nearby and at some distant place the positron's spontaneous partner presumes the role of the original electron.
Real Voodoo: LOL!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
I live in a world where F*dx=dE. What world do you live in?
No you do not since this equation only makes sense when the COM as defined by Newton makes sense. You have just now stated that the COM does not make sense on the atomic scale, which means that F*dx=dE cannot apply. You cannot have your cake and eat it little boy!

"There is no proof whatsoever that the Casimir force demonstrates "vacuum-energy"." - Johanfprins
Do you know what a Hamiltonian is?
Yes I do, but it seems YOU do not! The Hamiltonian is the boundary conditions in operator format which when it operates on the wave-function, gives you the allowed solutions when these boundary conditions apply. If the equation is that for a single electron: ONLY one of these solutions is possible NOT a linear combination of these solutions. A linear combination is only possible if each solution represents a different electron so that these actual electron-waves can superpose: BUT not when you only have a SINGLE electron!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
A linear combination is only possible if each solution represents a different electron so that these actual electron-waves can superpose: BUT not when you only have a SINGLE electron!


Dirac's equation is for a SINGLE electron: NOT for an infinite sea of electrons. The allowed solutions obtained from this equation for a SINGLE electron, demands that at equilibrium this single electron MUST have an energy equal to MINUS INFINITY!! Thus Dirac's equation for an electron explodes into nonsense which is then FUDGED by claiming, without any real experimental evidence, that there is an infinite sea of electrons which fill all these negative energies.

Similarly von Neumann's assertion that all the allowed wave functions form a Hilbert space for a SINGLE electron, so that these wave-amplitudes can be superposed as if each wave-function is an actual electron, is just as much nonsense. A single electron can ONLY be one of these equations: NOT superposition of all of them.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
An electron and positron repel each other.

They have opposite charge and therefore cannot repel each other:
But the positron may just have come into existence.
They BOTH come into existence simultaneously when a light wave with enough energy decays by pair-formation.
In that case the positron will feel the presence of the electron before the electron knows about the existence of the positron.
They are entangled and appear simultaneously: Why would the one know about the existence of the other before this happens?
Yet the positron will be immediately attracted to the electron, and gain energy.
So?
The energy gained by the positron must come from the field surrounding the electron, and hence the field contains must contain energy.
There is NO electric-field energy around ANY solitary charge. The interaction is solely because you have TWO charges: If they could be solitary charges there WILL not be an electric field-energy in space around either.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
If it happens, then what stops a "virtual particle" from popping into existence in the middle of a "real" particle, fusing with it... essentially bypassing force(s) for example? Essentially this would be "spontaneous fusion".

While the odds of that happening would be very small, it would seem that for massive bodies, such as planets and stars, it should happen quite often on the whole due to the shear number of atoms and particles involved. Why haven't I seen THAT described anywhere?!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
"It can also be modeled much more simply in terms of van der Waals forces." - johanfprins
Which are just another name for vacuum energy.


No it is NOT: Van der Waal's forces are caused by resonance between existing matter-waves across the gap between the surfaces and NOT from energy that "Voodoo-magically" appears from the vacuum.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
@ Lurker2358,

You are correct in pointing out effects that should have been observed if there were to be a vacuum-energy which does not relate to existing matter. Only an existing wave can, when it resonates with another wave have a change in energy (delta)E for a time (delta)t in order to shift its center-of-mass: But this shift has NOTHING to do with "uncertainty" in the position of the center-of-mass. It only allows the wave to collapse into the atomically sized detector with which it resonates.
It is the same process that allows the wave to scale an energy barrier; which is called by the misnomer "tunneling". If an object has to tunnel TROUGH a barrier, it can only do this by violating the conservation of energy! Thus it "borrows" the energy required not to violate the conservation of energy, then jump the barrier, and then return the energy from where it came. Although it seems as if this energy comes from the vacuum, it does not. It is energy of the wave itself outside 3D space.
Whydening Gyre
2.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
If it happens, then what stops a "virtual particle" from popping into existence in the middle of a "real" particle, fusing with it... essentially bypassing force(s) for example? Essentially this would be "spontaneous fusion".

While the odds of that happening would be very small, it would seem that for massive bodies, such as planets and stars, it should happen quite often on the whole due to the shear number of atoms and particles involved. Why haven't I seen THAT described anywhere?!

Damn good question. I have an idea on that.. Massive bodies have sufficient accrual of other atoms/particles/etc. to absorb the reaction an occurance like this would cause. Depends on how massive the body is, I figure.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Absolutely nothing prevents it. In fact it happens all the time.

"If it happens, then what stops a "virtual particle" from popping into existence in the middle of a "real" particle, fusing with it... essentially bypassing force(s) for example?" - Lurker

These kinds of reactions are what give rise to spontaneous nuclear decay, spontaneous electron transitions, tunneling, etc.

The general rule is that since energy, charge, etc are preserved some energy, charge, etc. from the reaction makes it's way back into the vacuum.

No one knows the mechanism behind the accounting but the outward results are predicted by an add hock collection of conservation laws and forbidden reactions.

As for the probability of some electron from M87 spontaneously taking part in a reaction here, the probability is just exceptionally low.

Theoretically it is still permitted and expected.

VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2013
The probability functions of QM have no low probability cutoff.

Your concern is similar to the realization that at the atomic near atomic level ice crystals should spontaneously form in a glass of room temperature water because thermodynamics permits it.

They do.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Pure nonsense.

"You are correct in pointing out effects that should have been observed if there were to be a vacuum-energy which does not relate to existing matter." - Johanfprins

The existence of vacuum energy is strictly a result of the finite propagation speed of fields.

Lets assume I have an electron that has existed for some considerable length of time that it's electric charge can be detected at some distance.

At some closer distance let some disturbance create a charged particle/antiparticle pair. That pair will immediately feel the field of the electron. Yet the electron will not feel the effect of the pair.

Now if the electron itself was part of some pair production it can be combined with it's opposite to produce a net zero electric field once again. If this is done before the other particle pair's field can be felt by the electron we have a situation in which the electron influences the particle pair, but can not be influenced back since it no longer exists cont...
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
to receive any signal from the particle pair.

So if there is to be conservation of energy and momentum, and if communication speeds must be lower than c, it follows that the field itself must energy and momentum felt by the original particle pair.

So fields carry momentum, energy and all other field properties.

In QED and QCD, fields are quantized, which means that the fields are propagated by carrier particles, gravitons, photons, gluons etc.

These particles fill space and in total constitute the random vacuum fluctuations that are ZPE.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Mindless.

"Only an existing wave can, when it resonates with another wave have a change in energy (delta)E for a time (delta)t in order to shift its center-of-mass:" - johanfprins

Yammering nonsense about the "center of mass" of a particle is like discussing the radius of a proton.

It is a classical concept that has zero applicability to the quantum world.

And it has even less applicability to the Quacky wave nonsense posted by johanfprins.

Waves of course, have no mass, and hence have no center of mass.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
Absolutely nothing prevents it. In fact it happens all the time.


It does not EVER happen! Prove it experimentally: Please STOP making idiotic assertions for which you have NO experimental evidence whatsoever!

These kinds of reactions are what give rise to spontaneous nuclear decay, spontaneous electron transitions, tunneling, etc.

No it is not "vacuum energy" that causes this, but resonance energy which HAS NOTHING to do with the vacuum at all. If there is NOT an existing wave within 3D space, such resonance energy will NOT appear spontaneously from the vacuum.

No one knows the mechanism behind the accounting


The mechanism is simple unless you want to model it in terms of a vacuum-energy, which DOES NOT and CANNOT exist on its own.

but the outward results are predicted by an add hock collection of conservation laws and forbidden reactions.


Ad hock means that you do not know what the hell you are doing: And the reason for this is that QFT=Voodoo!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Oh yes.. I forgot.

"It is energy of the wave itself outside 3D space." - johanfprins

Energy lives in the forth dimension...

Ahahahahah.... Quack.... Quack... Quack...

Here is how to use your aura and fifth dimensional chakra.

http://www.youtub...ig_eUj-8
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
As for the probability of some electron from M87 spontaneously taking part in a reaction here, the probability is just exceptionally low. Theoretically it is still permitted and expected.


It is NOT possible at all except in Alice's wonderland. There is ZERO probability that it can happen since probability does not play any role at all: God does not play dice!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
The probability functions of QM have no low probability cutoff.


THERE ARE NO PROBABILITY FUNCTIONS!! Only a moron will believe that QM is controlled by an inbuilt probability and uncertainty in nature!!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Lets assume I have an electron that has existed for some considerable length of time that it's electric charge can be detected at some distance. At some closer distance let some disturbance create a charged particle/antiparticle pair.


What disturbance will do this and where does this particle/antiparticle pair come from? Please stop spinning fairy tales and give a physics mechanism.

That pair will immediately feel the field of the electron. Yet the electron will not feel the effect of the pair.
Why not? An EM signal takes the same time to travel from the electron to the pair as it takes to travel from the pair to the electron! Are you REALLY so daft?
Now if the electron itself was part of... etc., etc, etc.
Pure gobblydegook Voodoo!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
All spontaneous radioactive decay is the result of these vacuum fluctuations upon the particle decaying.

"It does not EVER happen! Prove it experimentally:" - Johanfprins

If the laws of thermodynamics say that a glass of room temperature water can spontaneously freeze, prove it experimentally.

Burp!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
to receive any signal from the particle pair.So if there is to be conservation of energy and momentum, and if communication speeds must be lower than c,
Why lower? I thought that the field between charges moves with the speed c!
it follows that the field itself must energy and momentum felt by the original particle pair.So fields carry momentum, energy and all other field properties. So?! Who has denied this?

In QED and QCD, fields are quantized,


Why must they be quantized? There is no bloody reason whatsoever that an EM field MUST be quantized except reasons based on Voodoo!.
which means that the fields are propagated by carrier particles, gravitons, photons, gluons etc.
Voodoo!

These particles fill space and in total constitute the random vacuum fluctuations that are ZPE.
More Voodoo!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
"Only an existing wave can, when it resonates with another wave have a change in energy (delta)E for a time (delta)t in order to shift its center-of-mass:" - johanfprins

Yammering nonsense about the "center of mass" of a particle is like discussing the radius of a proton.


Are you claiming that a proton does not have a radius? Why are they so anxious to measure a radius for the proton? In fact it was recently reported that the most recent measurement of this radius is not what is predicted by QFT! But YOU claim that according to QFT the proton does NOT have a radius!! So you are again posting a LIE!

Waves of course, have no mass, and hence have no center of mass.


So a wave has no energy? You could have fooled me!!! AS far as I know a light-wave has energy proportional to E^2 PLUS B^2. Or are you claiming that an EM field has no energy! My God, you are really lost in madness! Any entity with energy has mass according to E=m*c^2! Have you EVER heard of Einstein?
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
The origin is not relevant. But lets say we have a particle accelerator that pumps enough energy into the vacuum to produce a couple of oppositely charged particles.

"What disturbance will do this and where does this particle/antiparticle pair come from?" - Johanfprins

"An EM signal takes the same time to travel from the electron to the pair as it takes to travel from the pair to the electron!" - Johanfprins

The charged pair arrise within the field of the existing electron and hence feel it immediately. The electron on the other hand will not feel their charge until a time of at least dx/c.

And if I cancel the electron's charge before the particle pair's field reaches the position of the electon, it will never be felt.

So we have the particle pair changing energy and momentum because of the electron, but the electron never feeling a reciprocal force.

You only have two choices. Conclude that there are no conservation laws, or conclude that energy and momentum are cont.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
cont... carried by fields that are no longer associated with the particles that created those fields.

In other words they are part of the ZPE that fills the vacuum.

Poor JohanFprins... His world of quackery is collapsing around him.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Yup.

"Are you claiming that a proton does not have a radius?" - Johanfprins

"Why are they so anxious to measure a radius for the proton?" - Johanfprins

They aren't. They are interested in measuring the bonding properties of the 2S energy transition of muonic hydrogen.

It is only reported as the "radius" of the proton to give the experiment some connection to the real world for unsophisticated thinkers like you.

The muon, due to it's higher mass and higher frequency has an existence distribution that is closer to the proton and interacts with the proton via the nuclear force more often. This probability of interaction is translated for you into an effective radius, which of course has no applicability to physics, but gives those of you who think of protons as ball bearings something to imagine.
Antoweif
1 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2013
Well, as an unsophisticated thinker myself, I think that your explanations are within the radius of a trash bin, VendicarE.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
"Waves of course, have no mass, and hence have no center of mass." - VendicarE

"So a wave has no energy?" - Johanfprins

You are confusing center of mass with energy.

You are also ignorant of the fact that an objects center of mass is dependent upon the spatial distribution of the mass, and the relative velocity of the observer.

The "center of mass" is a fine concept for high school physics texts to teach Newtonian mechanics.

It has no relevance to modern physics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
Oh yes.. I forgot."It is energy of the wave itself outside 3D space." - johanfprins.
Energy lives in the forth dimension...


According to you energy lives in vacuum where there is NO matter or light waves within that vacuum. Energy from no energy!! What a laugh!

Ahahahahah.... Quack.... Quack... Quack...
Here is how to use your aura and VACUUM WITH NO MATTER OR LIGHT!

http://www.youtub...ig_eUj-8
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
And yet this is how the universe works.

"I think that your explanations are within the radius of a trash bin, VendicarE." - Anteweif

You may now present a valid counter argument, or continue to soil your underpants in content free protest.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
Conservation laws and the finite speed of light force that conclusion.

"According to you energy lives in vacuum where there is NO matter or light waves within that vacuum." - Johanfprins

It is the fundamental feature of the standard model of quantum mechanics.

http://www.phy.du...ces.html
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
If the laws of thermodynamics say that a glass of room temperature water can spontaneously freeze, prove it experimentally.
Burp!


The laws of thermodynamics does NOT say this, since this will violate the conservation of energy! To form ice, the molecules have to lose kinetic-energy! Any FOOL, even YOU should know this!
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
"The laws of thermodynamics does NOT say this, since this will violate the conservation of energy!" - Johanfprins

No violation of energy conservation is needed since it is presumed that the heat is radiated away.

There is a finite non-zero probability for this under the laws of thermodynamics.

Once again, Johanfprins shows himself to Quack, Quack... Quack....
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
The origin is not relevant. But lets say we have a particle accelerator that pumps enough energy into the vacuum to produce a couple of oppositely charged particles.


How the bloody hell does an accelerator "pump energy" into the vacuum"? You are completely insane! When there are no collisions of the accelerating "particles" with other matter, no energy is dissipated to generate excited matter states. You are insane you know: How about standing at a corner pumping energy into the "vacuum" by gyrating your under-body? A Frenchman will tell you: "Monsieur the Mademoiselle has left long ago".

The charged pair arrise within the field of the existing electron and hence feel it immediately. The electron on the other hand will not feel their charge until a time of at least dx/c.
So? Neither will they feel the electron's charge until after they have formed their own charges: The light-wave which forms them has no charge! Are you really so stupid?
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
We have no idea why fields are quantized, but we know from the photoelectric effect that not only he emission but the absorption of photons is a quantum effect and we can't figure out a way for distributed entities to instantly manifest localized quantum properties.

"Why must they be quantized? There is no bloody reason whatsoever that an EM field MUST be quantized" - Johanfprins

We always come back to this same problem. How can extended objects become instantly localized.

Quantizing the field provides one mechanism, but leaves us with the Feynman path integral.

No one is happy about this, and progress in resolving the issue has been glacially slow.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
There are a variety of methods. But the standard method is through particle collision.

Producing rapidly accelerating boundary conditions (reflectors) can do it as well.

The alteration in any field strength of course changes the energy density of the space containing that field.

"How the bloody hell does an accelerator "pump energy" into the vacuum"?" - Johanfprins
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
And if I cancel the electron's charge before the particle pair's field reaches the position of the electon, it will never be felt.
How the hell are you going to do this: By shouting disappear Sesame?!
So we have the particle pair changing energy and momentum because of the electron, but the electron never feeling a reciprocal force.

Because of? How does the electron do this if the light-wave generating the pair has NO charge? NOT from non-existent vacuum-energy I can assure you!
You only have two choices. Conclude that there are no conservation laws, or conclude that energy and momentum are by fields that are no longer associated with the particles that created those fields.

When a light-field has enough energy to form an electron-positron pair, the energy of the light-field is equal to that of the pair which are moving with equal momentums from one another. Where does this violate the conservation laws: Only within your demented mind sonny!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
No one said anything about "accelerating" particles.

No acceleration is needed.

The charge separation occurs producing two particles inside the field of the electron. They experience a force due to that field, but the electron does not do so immediately since it the fields of the pair have not had time to reach the electron.

So we have a violation of conservation of momentum unless we conclude that the electric field carries momentum and energy. That carrier is a photon of course, but in reality there is no mechanism to direct it immediately toward the electron.

The entire process is stochastic and in reality is carried out by a series of diffusive spatial polarization exchanges that are biased in such a way that the positive polarization's are more likely to drift toward the original electron.

"When there are no collisions of the accelerating "particles" with other matter, no energy is dissipated to generate excited matter states." - Johanfprins

CONT...
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
cont... if that electron's charge is removed from the picture through annihilation then the (charge, energy, momentum) bias is never resolved and will persist as a component of vacuum energy, carrying with it, momentum, energy and charge.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
"Are you claiming that a proton does not have a radius?" - Johanfprins; Yup.

"Why are they so anxious to measure a radius for the proton?" - Johanfprins; They aren't.

So they just throw all these millions of dollars at this question because they are not interested in the answer? You are getting more and more demented by the second!
They are interested in measuring the bonding properties of the 2S energy transition of muonic hydrogen.

But not in the radius of the proton?! Then why are they reporting this radius? My God!! LOL.
It is only reported as the "radius" of the proton to give the experiment some connection to the real world for unsophisticated thinkers like you.


You ARE really insane you know! Why do they not report it in the "sophisticated" terms of QFT for "sophisticated thinkers" like YOU!? LOL! After all, why do they publish misleading information in a peer-reviewed journal just to please "unsophisticated idiots"? Please go and see a shrink!!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Due to casimer forces conductive plates are pushed together, thereby converting vacuum energy into real kenetic energy of motion.

Energy can also be pumped back into the vacuum by the separation of these plates against the Casimer force that is pushing them together.

"How about standing at a corner pumping energy into the "vacuum" by gyrating your under-body?" - Johanfprins

And once again, you do nothing but Quack... Quack... Quack...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
Well, as an unsophisticated thinker myself, I think that your explanations are within the radius of a trash bin, VendicarE.


Bravo!!
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
As explained to you above, the data they are looking for is not the radius of the proton. It is the spectral chararcteristics of muonic hydrogen.

It is reported to you as a radius simply because you are not sophisticated enough in your grasp of physics to understand what they are really measuring, and it's implications.

"So they just throw all these millions of dollars at this question because they are not interested in the answer?" - Johanfpirins

The fact that you continue to think that they are measuring the radius of a proton illustrates nicely your lack of comprehension.

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
They don't.

"After all, why do they publish misleading information in a peer-reviewed journal just to please" - Johanfprins

You aren't reading peer reviewed journals. You are reading watered down popular science for kids.

Sadly, your knowledge of science is limited and you can't tell the difference.

That is why you Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
The net charge carried by a photon is zero.

The net charge carried by a electron/positron pair is zero.

"How does the electron do this if the light-wave generating the pair has NO charge?" - Johanfprins

zero = zero

That is how.

You however are not a zero. You actually know some high school level science and would be invaluable in the production of packaged toiletries as well as in the bathroom fixture industry.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
In dense aether model it's quite easy to understand. The virtual particles of vacuum are nothing else, then the density fluctuations of it, similar to Brownian noise of the underwater, as observed at the water surface. These density fluctuations are moving back and forth fast, so that their action remains roughly balanced. But if you put the mirror into their path for a moment, some disbalance emerges and the density fluctuation of the underwater will create an observable wave at the water surface. The only trick here is, how to switch the mirror on and off in sufficiently fast way.


When people ask questions on a science site, you troll, it is because they want someone who understands the science to answer.

So shut up Zephyr! You are just a troll and a fraud. Leave real science to those that understand it.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
Oh that is simple.... It doesn't...

"When a light-field has enough energy to form an electron-positron pair, the energy of the light-field is equal to that of the pair which are moving with equal momentums from one another." - Johanfprins

Unless the particle pair appears within an existing electric field, say from a nearby electron.

The electron of course, won't feel the charge separation from the electron/positron pair until some time later. By which time it may not even exist, or may have moved.

Hence the need for a stochastic and quantized view of electrostatic fields - and all other fields.

http://en.wikiped...integral
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
Neither Galileo or Newton had the concept of "rest" mass as different from any other mass.

"According to Galileo and Newton's first law ANY object with rest mass has an inertial reference frame within which its COM is stationary." - Johanfprins

Your failure, of course, is your inability to recognize that the center of mass of an object changes depending on the relative velocity of the observer.

Your high school level understanding of physics is the reason why you constantly fail.

You need to get your brain out of the 1800's.
DavidW
1 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2013
crackpot troll alert - Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
your picture is the Christmas E-card - Q-Star
The advantage of ignorant - ValeriaT
your verbal diarrhea - Thrasymachus
marvelous trolls - brt
you're as irrelevant - Thrasymachus
So who's the TROLL now - Ober
Crackpots would never adventure into a real lab - Parsec
the high percentage of crackpots - Parsec
power of ignorant - natello
stupid trolls- natello
Voodoo Shamaans like you - johanfprins
Only a fool will - - johanfprins
you must be mentally ill - VendicarE
you are stupid - - johanfprins
Your attempt to be a smart-ass - johanfprins
I have been the first scientist - johanfprins
Fools think - VendicarE
You are an expert - VendicarE
by any moron- johanfprins
you are the WORST - johanfprins
You must be demented - johanfprins
Only a moron - johanfprins
You are also ignorant - VendicarE
Any FOOL, even YOU - johanfprins
Are you really so stupid - johanfprins

All of these statements are lies. We are not our actions.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Momentum and position, charge, etc are part of the static discripton of a system in newtonian physics that is needed to project it's future state.

"If it is useless, momentum and position are also useless concepts since they can then not be defined." - johanfprins

The center of mass is not such a property, and changes depending on the relative velocity of the observer for v approaching c, for objects in strong gravitational fields, or objects that are accelerating.

Center of mass is a popular idea among high school students because it makes some kinds of newtonian era physical calculations easier.

DavidW
1 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2013
the raping mathematics in order to claim that two undefined numbers can be subtracted from one another to get a defined number up to 100 decimal places - johanfprins

VendicarE, that's reality based math. The point must be accepted or everything after it is irrelevant to the original point.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
VendicarE, he has you there.



Isn't that cute the way DavidW pretends to understand the discussion taking place here! Makes me want to scritch him behind the ear.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Johanfprins may not understand it, but progress has been made in science since 1950.

https://workspace...-new.pdf

"So what changed since then that proves that they were wrong in stating that renormalization is not mathematically rigorous?" - johanfprins
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Comparisons of measurement with the Bell inequalities tell us that he does.

"There is ZERO probability that it can happen since probability does not play any role at all: God does not play dice!" - johanfprins

You may now soil your diaper in arm waving disagreement.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
repost - corrected.

"It does NOT PROVE that the vacuum on its own has any energy!" - johanfprins

General relativity alone proves that.

Special relativity as well of you wish to preserve conservation of energy.

An electron and positron attract each other. But the positron may just have come into existence. In that case the positron will feel the presence of the electron before the electron knows about the existence of the positron. Yet the positron will be immediately attracted to the electron, and gain energy. The energy gained by the positron must come from the field surrounding the electron, and hence the field contains must contain energy.
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2013
Johanfprins made a point on "the raping mathematics in order to claim that two undefined numbers can be subtracted from one another to get a defined number up to 100 decimal places" - johanfprins

Maggnus,
I don't know about you, but one of my math teachers kissed me right on the lips in front of the whole class in excitement of my test scores. Now I may be a bit rusty, but the crux here is that regardless where this may lead, on this day you are not taking basic math into account.

johanfprins has simply proven that VendicarE has not presented sound math skills. VendicarE has still to address this, in acceptance. Then we can take another step.

Math is great gift. How come you guys are throwing it way? Back up.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
@DavidW

Graph theory shows that QED is renormalizable.

References have been provided.

Your complaint is moot.
DavidW
1 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2013
Theory is just that...a guess.

Solid math takes precedence over theory.

You talk like theory is a governing law. It's not. In phyics, math is. Get the math right first.

DavidW
1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
Two undefined numbers cannot be subtracted from one another to get a defined number!

Do you agree or not?

This is why you keep ending up with, 'It has to be this or that', every time at the end of your comments. You refuse to see the basics and then just dismiss basic solid math to your favorite theories. One day, you may understand.

On one hand you want to define something and say it's important. Then on the other everything in which you base your something important is not important. Which is it? See? That's how you get in this hole of thought. You contradict yourself and any laymen can see that. Please reconsider.
johanfprins
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
"So a wave has no energy?" - Johanfprins
You are confusing center of mass with energy.

You are the one who is confused: A wave is a field and therefore it has a distributed energy E. According to Einstein E=m*c^2 for all forms of energy. Thus, a wave has distributed mass: And for any distributed mass you have a center-of-mass.
You are also ignorant of the fact that an objects center of mass is dependent upon the spatial distribution of the mass, and the relative velocity of the observer.


Where have I stated this? Your problem is that you place words in another persons mouth, which this person has NEVER uttered, but which you wish he did, in order to justify your own illogical thinking!

The "center of mass" is a fine concept for high school physics texts to teach Newtonian mechanics.It has no relevance to modern physics.

Wow!!! Inertia is an inbuilt concept into ALL the equations of physics; also "modern physics" including Schroedinger's equation. continue
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
Inertia can ONLY be defined in terms of a center-of-mass which is stationary when no force is acting on the entity's center-of-mass:

Only in the case of a light-wave, does one not have inertia, since the center-of-mass of the light-wave always move with a speed c relative to any inertial reference frame. Thus even to state that an entity does not have inertia, the entity must have a center-of-mass that is always moving. A photon thus has a center-of-mass which is always observed to move with the speed c.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2013
"I think that your explanations are within the radius of a trash bin, VendicarE." - Anteweif.

And yet this is how the universe works.


Only according to VendicarE's hallucinating mind and based on no experimental evidence. VendicarE thinks that when he/she states how the "universe works" this is how the universe MUST work. The rest of us with sane minds, however, know that what we think we know is correct today might be found wanting in the future; and therefore one should always question what we know; especially when people like VendicarE wants to force us to believe in Voodoo!

VendicarE do you really believe that you are God?

johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
"According to you energy lives in vacuum where there is NO matter or light waves within that vacuum." - Johanfprins. VendicarE: Conservation laws and the finite speed of light force that conclusion.
This is a lie: They DO NOT "force that conclusion": "That conclusion" is a hallucination within the minds of the illogically insane.

It is the fundamental feature of the standard model of quantum mechanics.
That is why the "standard interpretation" of quantum mechanics is nothing else but Voodoo! This interpretation has led physics into a dead-end and is wasting billions of dollars on futile research, like hunting for the "Higgs boson".

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
"The laws of thermodynamics does NOT say this, since this will violate the conservation of energy!" - Johanfprins. VendicarE: No violation of energy conservation is needed since it is presumed that the heat is radiated away.

Let us recoup your statement:
If the laws of thermodynamics say that a glass of room temperature water can spontaneously freeze, prove it experimentally.

Now you state that the heat is radiated away! I assume that you mean this can also happen "spontaneously"! According to TD, heat cannot move from a higher temperature to a lower temperature: Thus it violates all the laws of energy to state that it can spontaneously dissipate into the surroundings and freeze the water while the surroundings remain at a higher temperature.

According to you: 1. Galileo's inertia is invalid: 2. A center-of-mass is a redundant: 3. Heat can flow from a lower temperature body into higher temperature surroundings.

You have the answers to ALL our energy problems!
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
We have no idea why fields are quantized,
I agree that YOU and the people who reason like you have no idea how nature works at all. If you do not have an idea WHY fields are quantized how do you know they MUST be quantized?
but we know from the photoelectric effect that not only he emission but the absorption of photons is a quantum effect and we can't figure out a way for distributed entities to instantly manifest localized quantum properties.


You cannot figure this out since you are not capable of thinking logically: Let me try and help you:

Obviously, the emission and absorption of light at the atomic scale is by quanta: This is what Planck discovered: Planck DID NOT discover that all fields MUST be quantized! All he discovered is that an atomically-sized source cannot emit MORE EM energy, and also not LESS EM energy than that of a quantum; AND that an atomically sized detector cannot detect MORE EM energy, and also not LESS EM energy than that of a quantum.

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
...and also not LESS EM energy than that of a quantum.


Planck did NOT model the light field within the black-body cavity as quantized fields. In fact, he derived the black-body spectrum in terms of a DISTRIBUTED stationary light field formed by stationary waves with different allowed frequencies as mandated by the boundaries of the cavity.

All he discovered is that the energy of these light waves cannot increase continuously when the temperature increases: And the reason for this is that the sources within the walls of the cavity can only produce light with any one of these frequencies in quantum packets. Thus, the energy which can be added to a continuous stationary light wave with frequency (nu) cannot be less than h*(nu) at a time. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LIGHT FIELD WITHIN THE CAVITY IS QUANTIZED!! It means that the photon is "swallowed" by the continuous light field to become part of the continuous light field.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
It means that the photon is "swallowed" by the continuous light field to become part of the continuous light field.


The photon HAS to inflate to adjust to the boundary conditions that define the size of the cavity. Thus the photon loses its separate existence and becomes indistinguishable as we later found out must be the case for Bose-statistics to apply when photons form a condensate. Each allowed stationary wave is thus a boson-condensate which CANNOT exist of separate bosons since if it did, the bosons would be distinguishable, and must then be subject to Boltzmann statistics.

In contrast the stationary waves, each of which is a condensate of bosons, are each a separate entity in its own right, and can thus be modeled in terms of Boltzmann statistics; just as Planck had done to derive the black-body spectrum.

At an equilibrium temperature T, one will have that the sources within the walls of the cavity will emit just as many photons as...
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013

"Theory is just that...a guess." - DavidW

If that is your belief then you are an ignorant religionist.

Every proof in mathematics is potentially false due to human fallibility.

The established rules of mathematics may not be applicable to the real world.

Without application to the real world, mathematics is nothing more than a pointless curiosity.

Physics is the application of mathematics to the real world.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
I will be happy to do so once you prove that in the real world, 1 apple 1 apple = 2 apples in every instance and over all of history.

"You talk like theory is a governing law. It's not. In phyics, math is." - DavidW

I am awaiting your proof.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Childish...

"Two undefined numbers cannot be subtracted from one another to get a defined number! Do you agree or not?" - DavidW

We don't have two undefined numbers, we have one infinite series of additions which can be separated into three infinite sub series, A, B, and C. and for which A and B can be placed in 1:1 correspondence and shown to cancel, leaving the series C.

The procedure is repeated until the series C has a real value.

A series for which this is possible is said to be renormalizable.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
At an equilibrium temperature T, one will have that the sources within the walls of the cavity will emit just as many photons as..
photons are absorbed within the walls from the cavity. Thus photons are emitted into the cavity and then inflate to merge (entangle) with the continuous EM waves within the cavity.

In turn, a continuous EM wave resonates with an absorber within the walls, which can only absorb an amount of energy h*(nu): An amount of energy equal to h*(nu) thus disentangles from the stationary continuous EM wave, and collapses to be absorbed by the absorber in the wall.

The EM-field within the cavity remains a continuous field and IS NOT a quantized-field in the sense as assumed by QFT. It DOES not consist of a wave AND "particles" which are "complementary". The quantum interactions are purely caused by the fact that sources (antennas) for EM waves on the atomic scale cannot emit more than and also not less than a quantum of EM-energy at a time.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Yup. That is what high school level physics tells you.

"Thus, a wave has distributed mass: And for any distributed mass you have a center-of-mass." - Juhanfprins

It isn't wrong. It simply has no applicability to modern physics since the center you compute moves as the relative velocity of the observer and field change.

What turns out to be a nice simplifying assumption for high school students turns into a complicated mess that reduces the understanding of the underlying physical system.

You may insist on living in the 1800's but the rest of us do not.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
You didn't, and that is your failure.

"Where have I stated this?" - Johanfprins

"Inertia is an inbuilt concept into ALL the equations of physics; also "modern physics" including Schroedinger's equation." - Johanfprins

Yes. It was re-defined by Einstein, and no longer means what your high school text books tell you it means.

This is also why you fail.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
PHOTO-ELECTRIC EFFECT:

It has been mentioned many times on this forum that the photoelectric effect proves wave-particle duality. We can understand that in 1905 this WRONG conclusion seemed inevitable. At that point in time it was believed (according to the Drude model) that there are "free electron particles" within a metal; and that therefore the incoming light must also consist of particles which "collide" with these electrons and "kick" them out of the metal.

We know now that his is not the case since the valence electrons constitute the glue that chemically bonds the atoms together. Assuming N atoms, each with a valence electron, we now know that when we solve Schroedinger's equation for an ideal metal, the solutions are very much the same as for the stationary light-waves within a black-body cavity; except that the electrons which entangle to form these stationary waves now follows Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Thus, ignoring temperature effects there are NO ..
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
"Inertia can ONLY be defined in terms of a center-of-mass" - Johanfprins

For a photon p = h/lambda * R'

So a photon's momentum is only a function of it's wavelength and a unit vector specifying the direction.

In this instance there is no center at all.

In the case of composite objects, momentum is simply the sum of all of the individual momenta, and again, the center of mass does not enter into the picture.

And once again we see that the concept of "center of mass" is nothing more than a shortcut high school students for doing some kinds of physics calculations in Newtonian mechanics.

The concept has no general applicability to modern physics.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
Thus ignoring temperature effects there are NO..
quantized "particles" within such a metal. This can also be experimentally confirmed by measuring the heat capacity of the valence electrons which is too low to be caused by N free electrons.

However, we also know that when we send an electric-current through the metal, it conducts as if it has N free charge-carriers. WHY? BY sending through a current, one changes the boundary conditions: The stationary electron-waves cannot be zero at the contacts anymore. This has been solved by assuming periodic boundary conditions, and the it is then found that the electric-field "creates" wave-packets (pseudo-electrons) that conveys the current.

It seems logical to conclude that these wave-packets are not there when there are no contacts and an electric-field between the contacts. Thus, before switching on the electric-field the valence-electrons are continuous extended waves (NO "particles"). When switching on the electric field...
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
When switching on the electric field...
the delocalized waves superpose and collapse into N wave-packets which then transfer the current. When switching off the electric-field, these wave packets spread to again become delocalized stationary waves.

Now send a laser beam with frequency (nu) into such a block of metal. Two things happen:

Firstly the continuous light wave resonates with the standing electron-waves within the metal. These energy-levels can only absorb light in quanta. Thus a quantum of light disentangles from the laser beam and becomes absorbed.

Secondly, light is also an electric-field, so that the absorbed quantum forms a wave-packet. If the energy of this wave packet is less than the workfunction, it can spread, or lose energy by radiation or phonon-creation. If on the other hand the wave-packet's energy is more than the workfunction, it will be ejected as a free electron.

Thus the photo-electric effect does not prove wave-particle duality at all.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
We always come back to this same problem. How can extended objects become instantly localized.
This is exactly what coherent waves can do when the boundary conditions change, they must adjust their size and shape to fit the boundary conditions. If this requires the wave to collapse it has no choice: If the boundary conditions change instantaneously, the wave has to collapse instantaneously: QED!

Quantizing the field provides one mechanism, but leaves us with the Feynman path integral.
Correct! And this is Voodoo physics!

No one is happy about this, and progress in resolving the issue has been glacially slow.

I am glad you admit this: The progress has been glacially slow since you all have been barking up the wrong tree!
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
"How the bloody hell does an accelerator "pump energy" into the vacuum"?" - Johanfprins


There are a variety of methods. But the standard method is through particle collision.Producing rapidly accelerating boundary conditions (reflectors) can do it as well.
This does not mean that you are pumping energy into a vacuum: It only means that you are exciting the "particles" (which are really waves) into higher
wave-states. Where does "vacuum-energy" comes into the equation?

The alteration in any field strength of course changes the energy density of the space containing that field.
Yes!! but this does not mean that there is energy within a vacuum without matter-fields already being present to occupy that space! There is no energy around these fields!

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
"When there are no collisions of the accelerating "particles" with other matter, no energy is dissipated to generate excited matter states." - Johanfprins

No one said anything about "accelerating" particles. no acceleration is needed.
Then why do you need accelerators to "pump energy into the vacuum"?

The charge separation occurs producing two particles inside the field of the electron. They experience a force due to that field, but the electron does not do so immediately since it the fields of the pair have not had time to reach the electron.


Are you now talking about pair formation? If you do, are you assuming the presence of a solitary electron before pair formation occurs? If so then you are wrong! There is NOT an electric energy-field in space around a solitary electron. When the pair forms, at a distance x from the solitary electron, the solitary electron will only become aware of their formation after a time t=x/c; and vice versa.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
Due to casimer forces conductive plates are pushed together, thereby converting vacuum energy into real kenetic energy of motion.
So if you have two surfaces of semi-infinite solids facing one another there can be no Casimir forces? The force HAS NOTHING to do with pushing the plates together!

Energy can also be pumped back into the vacuum by the separation of these plates against the Casimer force that is pushing them together.
Vodoo! The explanation of the Cassimer force as vacuum energy is complete nonsense: The energy comes from resonant interactions between the electrons near the two surfaces which allow the electronic states to borrow energy for limited times. There is NO vacuum energy BETWEEN or OUTSIDE the plates!

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
No one said you did.

"Then why do you need accelerators to "pump energy into the vacuum"?" - Johanfprins

In fact, I gave you an example of how it can be accomplished by just separating two metal plates and overcoming the casimer force.

You are prone to making false assumptions.

That is another reason why you are chronically failing.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
As explained to you above, the data they are looking for is not the radius of the proton.
Then why are they making a hallabaloo about the fact that the radius they measure does not fit the standard model? They must be very unsophisticated to do this: Are they wasting everybody's time "oh sophisticated one"!

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
No one said anything about "semi-infinite solids facing one another".

Those words are a fiction that you have invented for yourself.

"So if you have two surfaces of semi-infinite solids facing one another there can be no Casimir forces?" - Johanfprins

You need to spend more time thinking and less time constructing the fantasy universe you live in.

johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
"After all, why do they publish misleading information in a peer-reviewed journal just to please" - Johanfprins: VendicarE: They don't.
Oh yes they have!

You aren't reading peer reviewed journals. You are reading watered down popular science for kids.
Have you read the peer reviewed publication on this topic? If you did not then you are jumping to conclusions without checking your facts: Which is not surprising since this is par for the course for YOU! If you have read the peer reviewed publication, did they mention the radius of the proton or did they not? How about an honest answer for a change?

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Becuse they didn't.

"Then why are they making a hallabaloo about the fact that the radius they measure does not fit the standard model?" - Johanfprins

As explained to you several times now, your confusion over the reported measurement of the proton "radius" is due to the fact that you are reading popular science for written for kids and don't have the brain power to realize that it has been dumbed down so that you can understand it.

I provided you with a more accurate explanation of what was observed and of you of course ignored it because it doesn't fit your 1950's view of what these scientists are actually doing.

Your attempt to understand the world with 1950's era high school physics is a failure.

It doesn't even permit you to understand or even conceptually place modern scientific research.

That is why you constantly fail.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Physorg is not a peer reviewed science journal.

"Oh yes they have!" - Johanfprins

Your continued implication that it is, is just more evidence of your confusion.

johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
"How does the electron do this if the light-wave generating the pair has NO charge?" - Johanfprins


The net charge carried by a photon is zero.The net charge carried by a electron/positron pair is zero. zero = zero. That is how.
Thank God you at least know this! But you should note that you avoided answering my question; followed by shouting insults!
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
"Have you read the peer reviewed publication on this topic? - Johanfprins

Yes. I even provided you with a link to the paper.

You either didn't read it, or couldn't understand it, or both.

The researchers measured the spectral characteristics of muonic hydrogen and comparing those results with theoretical calculations of the properties of that atom.

It was found that measurement was found to be in slight disagreement with theory.

Protons of course, have no radius.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
"When a light-field has enough energy to form an electron-positron pair, the energy of the light-field is equal to that of the pair which are moving with equal momentums from one another." - Johanfprins.


Unless the particle pair appears within an existing electric field, say from a nearby electron.
A nearby SOLITARY electronm as you are assuming, does not have an "existing" electric-field around it.

The electron of course, won't feel the charge separation from the electron/positron pair until some time later. By which time it may not even exist, or may have moved.
Neither will the electron positron realize there is a SOLITARY electron nearby until some time later.

Hence the need for a stochastic and quantized view of electrostatic fields - and all other fields.
Nope! There is NO NEED for this Voodoo whatsoever!

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
But you didn't, and got all confused.

"Thank God you at least know this!" - JohanfPrins

Reminding you that zero plus zero = zero is now part of your informal education.

Why wasn't it previously?
rubberman
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2013
Wow. "But we know that magnetism is a fictitious force," - Vendi

It's the only force dude. At the very basic level of all matter/energy is positive and negative "charge" and it's interaction.... it is the only way to make a binding field for energy in any form to be detectable by us. Particle physics should have stopped at the atom and stuck to chemistry and material bonding, as there is only energy at the atomc level, no particles present. This is why "particle" physics needs fictional "particles" to keep it's astrophysical theories afloat, hypothetical particles to be a force carrier for gravity, and particles that can't exist outside their bound form to make up a proton. Particle physics has no place inside the atom and it's "assumptions" on atomic properties are the reason the physics has stalled. "We found the Higgs!!!" It lasts for a nanosecond....but were still here...yay!?
Not even wrong.....
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
"According to Galileo and Newton's first law ANY object with rest mass has an inertial reference frame within which its COM is stationary." - Johanfprins

VendicarE: Neither Galileo or Newton had the concept of "rest" mass as different from any other mass.


Obviously not! Einstein had not yet been born when they were alive! Did you not know this? But we now know it! So at that time they did not need to make this distinction. But WE now need to do so! I am getting tired of your childish efforts to score cheap points.

Your failure, of course, is your inability to recognize that the center of mass of an object changes depending on the relative velocity of the observer.
I would say that it is YOU who are having this problem.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
"A nearby SOLITARY electronm as you are assuming, does not have an "existing" electric-field around it." - Johanfprins

No. Not in the way you envision it.

The electric field surrounding an electron is the result of the electron's dynamic equilibrium with the particles around it that constitute the vacuum, and their dynamic equilibrium with the particles around them, and so on.

The reason why an electron's electric field falls off with the square of the distance is simply because geometry in addition to a macroscopically constant population of virtual particles across all volumes.

rubberman
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
I do have to agree that there is no set radius to a proton, it's outer boundary is dependant on it's atomic state.

"The electric field surrounding an electron is the result of the electron's dynamic equilibrium with the particles around it"

This I would disagree with, the electron generates it's own binding field, the energy is configured so that no external manifestation of the field is detectable, other than a negative charge.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
"If it is useless, momentum and position are also useless concepts since they can then not be defined." - johanfprins
VendicarE: Momentum and position, charge, etc are part of the static discripton of a system in newtonian physics that is needed to project it's future state.
My my! I would NEVER have thought that you would know this! congratulations.

The center of mass is not such a property, and changes depending on the relative velocity of the observer for v approaching c, for objects in strong gravitational fields, or objects that are accelerating.
It does NOT change within its own inertial reference frame. That it changes position within other reference frames is so obvious that it goes without saying! So what are you trying to say?
Center of mass is a popular idea among high school students because it makes some kinds of newtonian era physical calculations easier.
It is inherent in all the equations of motion, whether only Newtonian or after Newton.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
the raping mathematics in order to claim that two undefined numbers can be subtracted from one another to get a defined number up to 100 decimal places - johanfprins

VendicarE, that's reality based math. The point must be accepted or everything after it is irrelevant to the original point.


Thank you for bringing in sanity! I really appreciate it. It is refreshing.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
"So what changed since then that proves that they were wrong in stating that renormalization is not mathematically rigorous?" - johanfprins. VendicarE:Johanfprins may not understand it, but progress has been made in science since 1950.

https://workspace...-new.pdf


Progress?!! LOL. It is mathematical Voodoo ALL THE WAY! No matter how many attempts will EVER be made to rationalize it: It will stay mathematical Voodoo!
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
"There is ZERO probability that it can happen since probability does not play any role at all: God does not play dice!" - johanfprins. VendicarE: Comparisons of measurement with the Bell inequalities tell us that he does.


It does NOT tell you so at all! There is NO inbuilt "wave-particle duality" and which require an inbuilt probability into the equations of quantum mechanics. The only probabilities are the same you get in classical mechanics: Nothing more! You should stop making claims that cannot be verified by ANY experiment.

Taking a break to get away from VendicarE's insanity for a while!

Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
magnetism,,,


It's the only force dude. At the very basic level of all matter/energy is positive and negative "charge" and it's interaction.... it is the only way to make a binding field for energy in any form to be detectable by us.


Show us the maths, the model. An intuitive description is not enough. At this scale, intuition has been an abject failure. Everything that has withstood the rigors of experiment was at first considered counter-intuitive.

NO ONE has yet been good enough to unify gravity with the other forces,,, every attempt so far has fallen apart,,,

The maths, the models, the observations, the tests,,,, if it lacks any one these, it's a poor candidate for stating "It's the only force dude." That's a much too definitive, positive, emphatic, and categorical statement to apply for something that contradicts all observation and experiment.

DavidW
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
Every proof in mathematics is potentially false due to human fallibility.



I agree. In this case, it is you that is making the mistake.

The established rules of mathematics may not be applicable to the real world.


In other words, basic math means nothing if you say so. Undefined is undefinded. Your humility is in order.
DavidW
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
We don't have two undefined numbers, we have one infinite series of additions which can be separated into three infinite sub series


Well, there you go. Infinity is lack of a definition. There is where you make your mistake. You are not getting anywhere with this.
DavidW
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013

Reminding you that zero plus zero = zero is now part of your informal education.



Don't use math. You already said it may not apply.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013

Don't use math. You already said it may not apply.


And there he goes again. Scritch scritch DavidW.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
"It does NOT PROVE that the vacuum on its own has any energy!" - johanfprins . VendicarE: General relativity alone proves that.
Special relativity as well of you wish to preserve conservation of energy.

Very wild statements: As usual without any experimental proof! Where has an experiment been done that gives ANY evidence that the theory of general relativity and vacuum energy is related?!

An electron and positron attract each other. But the positron may just have come into existence. In that case the positron will feel the presence of the electron before the electron knows about the existence of the positron.
How? They come into existence simultaneously!!
Yet the positron will be immediately attracted to the electron, and gain energy. The energy gained by the positron must come from the field surrounding the electron, and hence the field contains must contain energy.
And the electron of the pair will also be immediately attracted to the positron! Senseless!
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
johanfprins has simply proven that VendicarE has not presented sound math skills. VendicarE has still to address this, in acceptance. Then we can take another step.

Math is great gift. How come you guys are throwing it way? Back up.


Bravo!! Heisenberg corrupted physics by claiming that we do not have to visualize physics since mathematics on its own determine physics. Mathematics is the language of physics but it can also be a lie when a physicist is too stupid to make the correct postulates: as in the case of QFT: Furthermore, mathematics can never determine physics, AND even less so when you need to fudge it in order to get the results that you want to get. As is also done in QFT!

Another break for now!
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2013
March's buzz word to use is 'Voodoo.' February's was 'criminal scumbag.' Remember all, there must be at least one use of this word in every post, or Johan will personally chide you, and you definitely do not want to mess with the Johan.
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
"Show us the maths, the model. An intuitive description is not enough."

If there is math that can describe this relationship, I am not capable of it. I can't even tell you the ratio of positive to negative energy in each packet (proton/electron) that are required to bind the energy in it's form and manifest the properties it does that enable it to interact with it's atomic counterparts. Fortunately no part of my life requires this math be performed. Assigning integer charges to atomic "components" is an interesting way of trying to make the math work...dividing atomic particles into subatomic particles and assigning values to those components even though they cannot be measured individually is also an interesting way of making the math work...if only reality could co-operate on an observational level. Math is useless if one variable is a question mark, or if the equation assumes a variable is correct that isn't. What letter represents DM in the equation of the universe?
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
"NO ONE has yet been good enough to unify gravity with the other forces,,, every attempt so far has fallen apart,,,"

Perhaps we should leave this endeavor to more qualified scientists outside of the realm of particle physics, since they are the ones who can't seem to get it right so far. They have been at it for quite some time yet 100 of them randomly selected and asked their opinions on these topics of conversation wouldn't agree any more than the people on this forum. The more we learn, the more divided these camps become, this should be enough evidence that a fundamental "retooling" is required based on the things we measure and observe today, instead of adhering to a philosphy that was developed before we knew what we do now.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
If there is math that can describe this relationship, I am not capable of it.


Then why say so definitively that they are wrong?

Assigning integer charges to atomic "components" is an interesting way of trying to make the math work...


Ya have that backwards.

Assigning the charges and THEN OBSERVING leads to the maths, show where the maths don't work, and then ya are on to something.

if only reality could co-operate on an observational level.


Reality IS what we observe.

Math is useless if one variable is a question mark, or if the equation assumes a variable is correct that isn't.


I'm not sure what that means. Do ya mean that the maths which have let us predict the placement of spacecraft with pinpoint accuracy? The maths that allow us to predict motions of astronomical objects as far into the future as our computer memory allow? The maths that can geo-locate any object with pinpoint precision? Just a few "useless" maths.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
"NO ONE has yet been good enough to unify gravity with the other forces,,, every attempt so far has fallen apart,,,"


Perhaps we should leave this endeavor to more qualified scientists outside of the realm of particle physics, since they are the ones who can't seem to get it right so far.


Many disciplines beside "particle" physicists have worked on this. But be that as it may,,,

The statement "they are the ones who can't seem to get it right so far" is just about as ridiculous as any thing that has been ever posted on the these commentary threads.

General Relativity is just about the most completely tested and validated theory in all of physics. Right behind the THE most completely tested and validated theory in physics,, QM and the Standard Particle Model.
Whydening Gyre
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
Finally, you all begin to (dimly) see the dichotomies built into our universe to achieve - balance... Not the actual balance, mind you, just what it takes to get close enough...
The sooner we accept, tho sooner we understand.
(sorry for the weak sophism)
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2013
Scientists and mathematicians seem to disagree with you.

"I agree. In this case, it is you that is making the mistake." - DavidW

The renormalization group was initially devised in particle physics, but nowadays its applications extend to solid-state physics, fluid mechanics, cosmology and even nanotechnology.

http://en.wikiped...on_group
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Please make up your mind. Earlier you lamented the lack of math.

"Don't use math." - DavidW

My the way David, what does...

Lim N-infintiy ((sum(1 to N) 1 ) 42 - (sum(1 to N) 1))

Cantor is watching.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
"Infinity is lack of a definition." - DavidW

I take it then that you argue on that basis that integration is an invalid concept.

If so, then I can't think of a single mathematician who would agree with you.

If not, then you have just contradicted yourself.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
I don't say so.

"In other words, basic math means nothing if you say so. " - DavidW

But you seem like you need to pretend that I have said so.

I am simply pointing out that 1. mathematical proof is open to error and hence the term "proof", with it's equivalence to absolute fact is in fact sits at least one step from fact since there is always a potential for error.

Second we have no "proof" that mathematics is ultimately applicable to the real world.

Three may very well be scales of existence where 1 plus 1 equals 3.

Can you prove that this is not the case?
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Heat capacity is a bulk material property and not a property that can correctl assigned to electrons.

"measuring the heat capacity of the valence electrons" - Johanfprins

Childish nonsense.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
These of course would be the vacuum particles that you claim to not exist.

"It only means that you are exciting the "particles" (which are really waves) into higher wave states" - Johanfprins

Hahahahahahahhaha.....
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
The lack of observed magnetic monopoles tells a different story.

"It's the only force dude." - Rubberman

Find one and you might have a point.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
"The only probabilities are the same you get in classical mechanics:" - Johanfprins

If so then why are your predictions of the intensity profiles of the interference patters behind a double slit, wrong?

You hold that they trace out sin(theta) but in reality they trace out a sin**2 intensity profile.

Poor often wrong JFprins.

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2013
@DavidW
Graph theory shows that QED is renormalizable.
References have been provided.


Fudging, fudging all the way. Whatever rationalization anybody proposes, it is mathematical nonsense to state that you can subtract two undefined numbers (both infinity), no matter if they are concocted of many terms or not, in order to replace the difference with the finite number which your preconceived, experimentally un-provable model wants it to be. You can call it renormalization, whatever this stupid term means, but it is NOT normal mathematics and also NOT REAL physics.

Your complaint is moot.
No his complaint is NOT moot! It is your assertions which are insane!
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
...a physical system affects the solutions of equations describing that system.

http://en.wikiped...n_theory

It is possible to ignore the physical.
When the control you exercise over the physical no longer impresses you.

Thks for everyone's input.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
A photon thus has a center-of-mass which is always observed to move with the speed c
You see - after then it cannot be pure wave only.


Why not? it is the wave's distributed mass energy that has a center-of-mass. There is nothing more than the wave! The center-of-mass IS NOT A "particle" on its own.

Einstein himself defined the "particles" just like the "objects with center of mass".


I do not think Einstein was as stupid as that! Saturn is an object with a center of mass; so is the Sun, the Earth, Venus, Mars etc. Are these "objects" "particles"? NOT on your ninny!

Mathematical wave has neither beginning neither end defined, it therefore has no center of mass.


We are talking about physical waves each of which is subject to boundary conditions (FOUR integration constants which determine the physics!): Therefore a wave ALWAYS has a beginning and an end!

On this point the particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics is based.
No it is not! continu
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2013
BTW the existence of center of mass implies the nonzero mass of photon in AWT (between many other predictions).


No it does not since an EM wave does not move within an aether. Thus there is NO aether involved at all!

In AWT the objects of finite size are always objects of finite mass and inertia. W.I.K.I.: My logics is undeniableeee.
How can your logics be correct if it is based on an aether which does not exist. But do not feel too bad: The mainstream physicists like VendicarE, similarly base their models on a vacuum-energy which, just like the aether, also does not exist. You are thus not a bigger crackpot than VendicarE is! You are right there swimming along within the illogical mainstream.

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Theory is just that...a guess." - DavidW
VendicarE: If that is your belief then you are an ignorant religionist.


Obviously a theory is based on postulates and these are guesses. The only way to know whether these guesses might be correct is to test your theory by experiment.

Every proof in mathematics is potentially false due to human fallibility.


Possible: But this does not mean that you are allowed to generate math proofs which violate what have already been proved in math, and then claim that you can do this since it then gives you the physics you want.

The established rules of mathematics may not be applicable to the real world.


That is a guess, which has not yet been proved to be correct by any experiment! But of course you do not require experimental proof. You believe that if you can fudge math to get the physics parameters that you want, then the math is correct even if it violates all the math rules that preceded your "new concocted math."
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"You talk like theory is a governing law. It's not. In phyics, math is." - DavidW.

VendicarE: I will be happy to do so once you prove that in the real world, 1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples in every instance and over all of history.


All experimental data to date have shown that 1 apple plus 1 apple =2 apples. So it is not up to DavidW to prove that it can be otherwise: It is up to YOU to prove that it can be otherwise if you believe that it can be otherwise. You REALLY do not understand the scientific method, do you?

I am awaiting your proof that 1 apple plus 1 apple can be something else than 2 apples. It will probably be in the same vein as 1 infinity minus 1 infinity = a finite number (which we conveniently choose as the mass of the electron!) Can you not see the Voodoo involved?
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Two undefined numbers cannot be subtracted from one another to get a defined number! Do you agree or not?" - DavidW
We don't have two undefined numbers, we have one infinite series of additions which can be separated into three infinite sub series, A, B, and C. and for which A and B can be placed in 1:1 correspondence and shown to cancel, leaving the series C.


What are the values of these series? Finite or infinite. If they are finite why fudge around with an undefined mathematically suspect procedure called "renormalization"?

The procedure is repeated until the series C has a real value.


What procedure is repeated?

A series for which this is possible is said to be renormalizable.


Which is a meaningless term for a mathematically meaningless procedure!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Thus, a wave has distributed mass: And for any distributed mass you have a center-of-mass." - Juhanfprins
VendicarE: Yup. That is what high school level physics tells you.


Well if this is wrong why have they not yet corrected it in "high school level" physics and also not in University level text books. So we must first teach wrong physics to lay the foundation to understand physics?!

It isn't wrong. It simply has no applicability to modern physics since the center you compute moves as the relative velocity of the observer and field change.


So! It has ALWAYS done this, also in modern physics. Why is it now not applicable while this is inbuilt in ALL the SANE physics equations derived since Newton?

What turns out to be a nice simplifying assumption for high school students turns into a complicated mess


I do not see any mess! The mess is probably your inability to argue logically.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Inertia is an inbuilt concept into ALL the equations of physics; also "modern physics" including Schroedinger's equation." - Johanfprins
VendicarE: Yes. It was re-defined by Einstein, and no longer means what your high school text books tell you it means.


Einstein proved that all energy is mass-energy and that mass-energy is not just stationary energy, but also dynamic energy: This does NOT negate the presence of a center-of-mass for any mass-distribution. How does it negate the presence of a center of mass? When you have distributed mass you can calculate at any instant in time a center-of-mass for this mass-energy! ALWAYS!!

This is also why you fail.


Where did I fail? It is you who claim that it is not possible to calculate a center-of-mass: YOU FAIL!!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Inertia can ONLY be defined in terms of a center-of-mass" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: For a photon p = h/lambda * R'. So a photon's momentum is only a function of it's wavelength and a unit vector specifying the direction.


Wrong as usual: The momentum of a photon is p=E/c where E=m*c^2 is the dynamic mass-energy of the photon which allows one to calculate a center-of-mass for the photon at which the momentum-vector acts.

In this instance there is no center at all.


The photon has a distributed mass-energy without a center-of-mass?!! Now this is REAL Voodoo!

In the case of composite objects, momentum is simply the sum of all of the individual momenta, and again, the center of mass does not enter into the picture.


The path that the composite object follows is traced out by its center-of-mass, even when this center is at a position at which the mass density is zero, as in the case of a hollow ball.

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Then why do you need accelerators to "pump energy into the vacuum"?" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: No one said you did.
In fact, I gave you an example of how it can be accomplished by just separating two metal plates and overcoming the casimer force.


Cassimir and Polder discover a force between two parallel plates: Quantum Field Theorists postulate that this force is caused by vacuum-energy: This is a postulate that requires experimental verification which HAS never been supplied. I ask how one can "pump energy into the vacuum". And you reply by "seperating plates to overcome the Casimir force". So you are proving a postulate by using the postulate itself to prove that the postulate is correct: Brilliant!!

You are prone to making false assumptions.
We all are! But I have NEVER used an assumption as proof that the assumption is correct as YOU have just done.

That is another reason why you are chronically failing.


You should take the beam out of your own eye!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"So if you have two surfaces of semi-infinite solids facing one another there can be no Casimir forces?" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: No one said anything about "semi-infinite solids facing one another".Those words are a fiction that you have invented for yourself.


It is clear that you have never heard of a "thought-experiment". Have you studied physics anywhere? A "thought-experiment" was invented by Einstein. The purpose is to create a situation which, although not physically possible, questions the assumptions on which a model is based. Since the Casimir effect is being modeled by vacuum-forces that push the plates together, it is a very valid experiment to ask whether there will still be forces between the two surfaces when it is not possible for "external" vacuum forces to push the surfaces together: The latter will be the case for two semi-infinite solids.

You need to spend more time thinking and less time constructing the fantasy universe you live in.
Ditto!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Then why are they making a hallabaloo about the fact that the radius they measure does not fit the standard model?" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: Becuse they didn't.
Really!

As explained to you several times now, your confusion over the reported measurement of the proton "radius" is due to the fact that you are reading popular science for written for kids and don't have the brain power to realize that it has been dumbed down so that you can understand it.


So why are YOU wasting your "sophisticated" insight (LOL) by following this forum? They should have dumbed it down more so that even YOU can understand it!

I provided you with a more accurate explanation of what was observed


As usual, your explanation was based on Voodoo!

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Oh yes they have!" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: Physorg is not a peer reviewed science journal.
Where did I claim this? Stop creating straw men!

DavidW
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
By the way David, what does...

Lim N-infinity ((sum(1 to N) 1 ) 42 - (sum(1 to N) 1))


This equation is flawed.
Okay, from what I can tell, the formula above says: If a person can and does make a math formula represent nonsense that others can too.

If I have infinite apples and subtract a collection from another collection within that sum, as long as the speed of light is real, that I will have apples. Removing the apples (as they are defined) leaves us with nothing more than we started with.

So is this equation flawed: E=mC^2. It may be beyond my math skills the correct it properly, but I think the intent here can be adjusted, if need be, to be represented better…

LifeTruth(E=MC^2). Now Lim has a more profound meaning: Without Life and Truth nothing else is real, not even mathematical non-sense.

We have to get past this name calling stuff... those are all lies and they should not have place to move within us and any worthy cause.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
"Have you read the peer reviewed publication on this topic? - Johanfprins.
VendicarE: Yes. I even provided you with a link to the paper.
You either didn't read it, or couldn't understand it, or both.


I must admit that I only scanned it, but that probably gives me a better understanding than you will have after having read it a million times!

The researchers measured the spectral characteristics of muonic hydrogen and comparing those results with theoretical calculations of the properties of that atom.


And they concluded that there is a discrepancy with the measurement when you use an electron: And that this can be ascribed to a change of radius, which cannot be modeled by QFT! So there is a problem with QFT, which any sane person already knows since 1930!

Protons of course, have no radius.


And in which volume does the fictitious quarks and gluons live?
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"Thank God you at least know this!" - JohanfPrins
VendicarE: But you didn't, and got all confused.


YOU are the one that is confused and living in cloud-cuckoo land!
Reminding you that zero plus zero = zero is now part of your informal education.
YOU are the one who claims that this need not be so so! Not I!

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
"A nearby SOLITARY electronm as you are assuming, does not have an "existing" electric-field around it." - Johanfprins
VendicarE: No. Not in the way you envision it.


Not in ANY way.

The electric field surrounding an electron is the result of the electron's dynamic equilibrium with the particles around it


Which particles is around a solitary electron?

that constitute the vacuum, and their dynamic equilibrium with the particles around them, and so on.


There are NO "particles" constituting the vacuum: This is a Voodoo postulate without ANY experimental proof!

The reason why an electron's electric field falls off with the square of the distance


There is NO electric-field around a solitary electron that falls off of ANY power with the distance whatsover.

is simply because geometry in addition to a macroscopically constant population of virtual particles across all volumes.


Voodoo again with NO experimental proof whatsoever!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
I do have to agree that there is no set radius to a proton, it's outer boundary is dependant on it's atomic state.
Correct!!!
The proton is a wave, and a wave morphs its size (and shape) to adjust to the boundary conditions. It should therefore not be surprising if the muon gives a different result!

"The electric field surrounding an electron is the result of the electron's dynamic equilibrium with the particles around it"

This I would disagree with, the electron generates it's own binding field, the energy is configured so that no external manifestation of the field is detectable, other than a negative charge.
Very good!!
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2013
March's buzz word to use is 'Voodoo.' February's was 'criminal scumbag.' Remember all, there must be at least one use of this word in every post, or Johan will personally chide you, and you definitely do not want to mess with the Johan.


Thank you! But as you can see I am trying not to become personal anymore but to rather describe the concepts being raised for what they are: It is really easy since concepts like "wave-particle duality", "complimentarity", quantum field theory, etc. are all Voodoo!

Good night for now!
Whydening Gyre
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
March's buzz word to use is 'Voodoo.' February's was 'criminal scumbag.' Remember all, there must be at least one use of this word in every post, or Johan will personally chide you, and you definitely do not want to mess with the Johan.

Thank you! But as you can see I am trying not to become personal anymore but to rather describe the concepts being raised for what they are: It is really easy since concepts like "wave-particle duality", "complimentarity", quantum field theory, etc. are all Voodoo!

Good night for now!

How many points for using "Voodoo" AND "criminal scumbag"?
Whydening Gyre
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
I do have to agree that there is no set radius to a proton, it's outer boundary is dependant on it's atomic state.
Correct!!!
The proton is a wave, and a wave morphs its size (and shape) to adjust to the boundary conditions. It should therefore not be surprising if the muon gives a different result!

"The electric field surrounding an electron is the result of the electron's dynamic equilibrium with the particles around it"

This I would disagree with, the electron generates it's own binding field, the energy is configured so that no external manifestation of the field is detectable, other than a negative charge.
Very good!!

Funny how this accurately describes complementary "voodoo"...
Whydening Gyre
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
The only TRUE, important thing is the ACT of BALANCE. Everything observed/used to show that to our POV is just details...
DavidW
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
The only TRUE, important thing is the ACT of BALANCE. Everything observed/used to show that to our POV is just details...


That would be incorrect.
The most important thing in life is life. That is also true, and a truth. The statement itself has no meaning if not true. Therefore, truth is equal to life as most important.

There can be more than one most important from our perspective, but truth and life are always how we receive and/or understand any real importance.
Whydening Gyre
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2013
The only TRUE, important thing is the ACT of BALANCE. Everything observed/used to show that to our POV is just details...


That would be incorrect.
The most important thing in life is life. That is also true, and a truth. The statement itself has no meaning if not true. Therefore, truth is equal to life as most important.

There can be more than one most important from our perspective, but truth and life are always how we receive and/or understand any real importance.

oh, Jane - you ignorant slut...:-) Everything IS alive - just depends on the POV you wish to adopt.
Maggnus
2.5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2013
Thank you! But as you can see I am trying not to become personal anymore but to rather describe the concepts being raised for what they are:


I've noticed, although your arrogance is leaking out such that almost every post drips with it. That said, your intellegence shows, and you seem to know your subject.

Keep on him Vendi, looking past all the insults, I can see you're scoring more than being scored on.

I would just love to lock the two of you in a room with an unbreakable glass partitian between you and access to a blackboard on each side, then let you both go at it. You'd leave most posters on here behind, but what a spectacle!
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2013
There once was a wave.
Named Jp-Ve.

Entangled they were,
Superposition abound.

A wave it is.
Entangled no less.

With superposition
now gone.

See! The wave! Jp-Ve!
Was never to be.
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
@Maggnus
Undisturbed, unobserved, unmeasured.
They agree.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
Scientists and mathematicians seem to disagree with you.
You are claiming that THEY are scientists and mathematicians? They are NOT in the real universe: Maybe in Alice's wonderland!

The renormalization group was initially devised in particle physics, but nowadays its applications extend to solid-state physics, fluid mechanics, cosmology and even nanotechnology.


Your statement is flawed. It should read: It has also CONTAMINATED solid-state physics etc. This is why we have a ridiculous model called BCS for superconduction; which just like the models for particle physics is just plain Voodoo!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2013
I clicked wrongly!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
I don't say so.

"In other words, basic math means nothing if you say so. " - DavidW

But you seem like you need to pretend that I have said so.

I am simply pointing out that 1. mathematical proof is open to error and hence the term "proof", with it's equivalence to absolute fact is in fact sits at least one step from fact since there is always a potential for error.

Second we have no "proof" that mathematics is ultimately applicable to the real world.

Three may very well be scales of existence where 1 plus 1 equals 3.

Can you prove that this is not the case?


As usual you are reasoning from the wrong side of your alimentary canal: If you make a statement without proof, it is YOU who must supply the proof that your statement is correct: To challenge somebody else to prove that you are incorrect, while the onus is on you to prove yourself correct, is despicable logic!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
"measuring the heat capacity of the valence electrons" - Johanfprinseat.
VendicarE: Heat capacity is a bulk material property and not a property that can correctl assigned to electrons. Childish nonsense.


Another example of how little physics you know! The jump in heat capacity at the critical temperature of a superconducting metal is caused by the electrons alone, and it is routinely separately measured in Solid State Physics. You can separate the heat capacity caused by the "vibration" of the atoms and the heat capacity caused by the electrons on their own. This was already done at the beginning of the 20th century, and it was then noted that although there are N charge-carriers within a metal, the heat capacity IS NOT caused by N free entities! Please do your homework before blowing your false horn!

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
"It only means that you are exciting the "particles" (which are really waves) into higher wave states" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: These of course would be the vacuum particles that you claim to not exist. Hahahahahahahhaha.....


Where was I talking about vacuum-particles? Note that I wrote "particles" in order to dumb down the discussion so that hopefully even you can understand it. THERE ARE NO PARTICLES within real space and also not virtual ones within the vacuum!!

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
"It's the only force dude." - Rubberman.
VendicarE: The lack of observed magnetic monopoles tells a different story. Find one and you might have a point.


The particle physicists believe in Voodoo singularities like the Higgs boson and monopoles: So why should he find a monopole to convince YOU? How about finding a virtual vacuum particle to convince us: Those who are sane of mind?!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
"The only probabilities are the same you get in classical mechanics:" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: If so then why are your predictions of the intensity profiles of the interference patters behind a double slit, wrong?


Where have I predicted it wrongly? Quote please: I am getting sick and tired that you are trying to put words in my mouth.

You hold that they trace out sin(theta) but in reality they trace out a sin**2 intensity profile.


Where have I done this? Again you are blatantly lying in order to try and score a cheap point!

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
I do have to agree that there is no set radius to a proton, it's outer boundary is dependant on it's atomic state.
Correct!!!
The proton is a wave, and a wave morphs its size (and shape) to adjust to the boundary conditions. It should therefore not be surprising if the muon gives a different result!

"The electric field surrounding an electron is the result of the electron's dynamic equilibrium with the particles around it"

This I would disagree with, the electron generates it's own binding field, the energy is configured so that no external manifestation of the field is detectable, other than a negative charge.
Very good!!

Funny how this accurately describes complementary "voodoo"...


How did you come to this wrong conclusion? Explain please!
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2013
@Maggnus
Undisturbed, unobserved, unmeasured.
They agree.


NO we do not!! I do not believe in the Voodoo of wave-particle duality, probability waves, vacuum energy etc. There is NO experimental evidence that these concepts might even be correct!
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
It is self evident that human error exists in mathematical proof.
Mathematical proof itself is therefore no guarantee for correctness.

"If you make a statement without proof, it is YOU who must supply the proof that your statement is correct." - Johanfprins

In addition, I will restate that there is no proof that you can offer that mathematics can be used to quantitatively describe the real world in detail.

Feel free to try and produce one.

Your characterization of these facts as "despicable logic", tells me that in addition to being a quack, you are also a low IQ whiner.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
No, as you stated earlier, you believe that energy exists in the 4th dimension.

Isn't that where Bigfoot and UFO's live?

"I do not believe in the Voodoo of wave-particle duality, probability waves, vacuum energy etc." - Johanfprins

Quack... Quack... Quack...

"There is NO experimental evidence that these concepts might even be correct! " - Johanfprins

You mean other than virtually every experiment probing the atomic world since 1880?

Yes. Once you exclude every experiment on the atomic nature of matter since 1880, there is absolutely no evidence that atomic scale entities propagate as waves and interact as particles.

After all, doing so is against the laws of your high school understanding of physics.

Quack... Quack... Quack...
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
"If you make a statement without proof, it is YOU who must supply the proof that your statement is correct." - Johanfprins
VendicarE: It is self evident that human error exists in mathematical proof.


No it is not! A human can make an error in applying mathematics incorrectly but it is not self-evident that correctly derived mathematics, according to the rules that have worked for hundreds of years, is wrong just because humans make errors!

Mathematical proof itself is therefore no guarantee for correctness.


It is the ONLY proof that has consistently worked in physics to date! So what are you trying to say: More gobbledegook in which you are an expert?

In addition, I will restate that there is no proof that you can offer that mathematics can be used to quantitatively describe the real world in detail.


So far it has worked: So the onus is on YOU to prove that correct mathematics cannot be used to quantitatively describe the real world in detail.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
Until the day that there real is experimental evidence that correct mathematics based on the correct postulates do not quantitatively describe the real world, your arguments are irrelevant. If you do think it is possible that correct mathematics based on correct postulates might not describe the real world quantitatively, it is incumbent on YOU to give the reasons why this could be so.

To challenge somebody else to prove that an irrelevant statement, which you plucked out of the air, is wrong, is again despicable behavior on your part!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2013
No, as you stated earlier, you believe that energy exists in the 4th dimension. Isn't that where Bigfoot and UFO's live?


It is more realistic than to think that vacuum consists of "virtual particles".

"I do not believe in the Voodoo of wave-particle duality, probability waves, vacuum energy etc." - Johanfprins
"There is NO experimental evidence that these concepts might even be correct! " - Johanfprins


VendicarE: You mean other than virtually every experiment probing the atomic world since 1880?


Give me a single experiment that give this evidence when correctly interpreted! I challenge you!

Yes. Once you exclude every experiment on the atomic nature of matter since 1880, there is absolutely no evidence that atomic scale entities propagate as waves and interact as particles.


The evidence is that every atomic scale entity is an EM-wave and it interacts with the other entities as EM-waves are known, since 1860, to interact with one another.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
Actually, monopoles are predicted by Maxwell's equations, and maxwell is classical wave mechanics.

The fact that monopoles don't exist tells us something about how classical mechanics fails to predict the behavior of atomic scale objects.

"The particle physicists believe in Voodoo singularities like the Higgs boson and monopoles:" - Johanfprins

Neither of which are predicted by quantum theory to be singularities.

Quantum theory tells us that these objects have indeterminate size, and may or may not have internal structure depending upon the boson being considered.

Fermions like the electron also have indeterminate size of course. And like many Boson's, the electron has no apparent internal structure.

Johanfprins believes that his high school physics proves the last 150 years of science to be all wrong.

We sympathize with beginners like Johanfprins who demand that physics started and end with Newton.

Nature however, doesn't respect the whining of Johanfprins.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
To the extent that every proof is open to human error, no proof is truly proven.

"it is not self-evident that correctly derived mathematics, according to the rules that have worked for hundreds of years, is wrong just because humans make errors!" - Johanfprins

Johanfprins would rather this not be so.

Despite his whining, the reality of the situation remains unchanged.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
I asked Johanfprins for proof that mathematics is capable of discribing the real world.

His response...

"So far it has worked:" - Johanfprins

.. is not a proof.

So this begs the question... What was the purpose of his whining when I made the observation of lack of proof in an earlier post?

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
Nature forces such a conclusion upon us.

Experiment tells us that light interacts as quanta. Conservation laws and Einsteinian relativity tell us that the vacuum is filled with ambient electromagnetic energy. That energy interacts as quanta.

"It is more realistic than to think that vacuum consists of "virtual particles"." - Johanfprins

Your desire to ignore aspects of reality that do not mesh with your understanding of high school physics explains why you quack.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
The fact that monopoles don't exist tells us something about how classical mechanics fails to predict the behavior of atomic scale objects.
VendicarE: Actually, monopoles are predicted by Maxwell's equations, and maxwell is classical wave mechanics.


One of Maxwell's equations is that the divergence of B is zero EVERWHERE within a magnetic field. No sources and no sinks.

"The particle physicists believe in Voodoo singularities like the Higgs boson and monopoles:" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: Neither of which are predicted by quantum theory to be singularities.
which quantum theory are you know talking about? The one in which Dirac represents "particles" as delta-functions, or your own delusional interpretation?
Quantum theory tells us that these objects have indeterminate size,
"Indeterminate size" hey? Stop playing semantics. You are NOT funny!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
Johanfprins believes that his high school physics proves the last 150 years of science to be all wrong.
Please define what you mean by high school physics and what is being proved wrong in high school physics by your hallucinations! If your "modern physics" has proved that a center of mass does not exist, why is it still being taught in high school physics that it does?
We sympathize with beginners like Johanfprins who demand that physics started and end with Newton.
You see this is why you are such a despicable scoundrel: Where have I EVER said that "physics ended with Newton".
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
"it is not self-evident that correctly derived mathematics, according to the rules that have worked for hundreds of years, is wrong just because humans make errors!" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: To the extent that every proof is open to human error, no proof is truly proven.
This is a possibility, but you have no evidence that the time-tested rules of mathematics are wrong just because humans make mistakes.

I thus deduce that you do not believe that the description of physics should be based on mathematics! What should it then be based on? Oh I forgot, it must be based on deliberately fudged mathematics by using renormalization to get the physics answers you already decided beforehand that you want to get.

Well I have more faith in sticking to the rules of mathematics which have withstood the test of time than to rape mathematics in order to get results that fit my preconceived ideas based on wave-particle Voodoo!.

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
I asked Johanfprins for proof that mathematics is capable of discribing the real world.


You know that this is something that nobody can prove: And you should also know that even though nobody can prove this, it DOES NOT mean that mathematics is NOT capable of describing the real world. The only proof we have is that to date there is no proof that CORRECT mathematics, which does NOT explode into infinities, does not describe the real world, and therefore all sane physicists use mathematics to do so, without fudging the mathematics.

If you in your "sophisticated mind" think that you have evidence that it is not so, then it is up to YOU to give the evidence on which you base this opinion. Thus, I am now challenging YOU to prove that mathematics is NOT capable of describing the real world.

"So far it has worked:" - Johanfprins

.. is not a proof.


Where have I claimed that this was a proof? Again you are putting words in my mouth to play silly semantics.

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
Experiment tells us that light interacts as quanta.


Partly correct: It ONLY tells us that on an atomic scale light is emitted as waves each of which has a quantum of energy relating to the frequency: No experiment EVER proved that a quantum of light is a "particle". This is a wrong conclusion derived from the photo-electric-effect when in 1905 it was still believed that there are freely moving electrons within a metal. Since Schroedinger postulated his equation, we know that this is not so: There are no free electrons with which a "light-particle" can "collide".

Conservation laws and Einsteinian relativity tell us that the vacuum is filled with ambient electromagnetic energy.


It only tells you that emitted EM energy always consist of actual waves and that therefore a quantum of EM energy is still an EM wave, not a "particle"! It also tells you that these quanta can form a condensate by losing their separate existences; as they do when generating a laser beam!
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
I take it then that you believe that because mathematics contains sets that contain an uncountably infinite number of items, that the universe also contains such things?

Mathematics tells us that if we have a number, that we can subdivide it into an infinite number of parts.

If we have the same number of apples, can we divide them into an infinite number of parts?

Mathematics contains the concept of absolute position (x,y,z) etc.

If the universe is composed of waves as you have stated. What is the absolute position of a wave?

"Until the day that there real is experimental evidence that correct mathematics based on the correct postulates do not quantitatively describe the real world, your arguments are irrelevant." - Johanfprins

You are right. Mathematics is a very good approximation to nature.

But I asked for proof.

You haven't provided any.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
I'm sorry, but experiment does not show that light is emitted as "waves".

"It ONLY tells us that on an atomic scale light is emitted as waves each of which has a quantum of energy relating to the frequency:" - Johanfprins

Experiment shows that light is emitted as quanta, and that the emitter of that quanta recoils instantaneously with an exact momentum of E/c.

Never is the emitter found with an intermediate momentum. So never is it seen emitting the photon over an extended period of time, and hence never is the emitter oscillating and emitting a wave.

VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
Every experiment ever done, produces light as quantum particles.

"No experiment EVER proved that a quantum of light is a "particle"" - Johanfprins

If you can produce a single experiment in which you can show that light is emitted as a wave, you will win a Nobel Prize in Physics, and deservedly so.

Good luck with that.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
The photoelectric effect isn't an effect that is confined to metal surfaces. It is seen in every instance where electrons are liberated from a surface by light. Such electrons are referred to as "photoelectrons".

"This is a wrong conclusion derived from the photo-electric-effect when in 1905 it was still believed that there are freely moving electrons within a metal." - Johanfprins

Photoelectron spectroscopy uses the energy levels of metallic and non metallic photoelectrons to produce a spectral signature of the atoms composing a material.

Depending on the frequency of light used, UV, X-rays etc, bonding or non-bonding electrons can be selected thereby selecting either an molecular or atomic spectra for the target.

Poor johnfprins. He knows so very little.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
High school physics woul dbe the physics you were taught in high school.

"Please define what you mean by high school physics and what is being proved wrong in high school physics by your hallucinations!" - Johanfprins

You did go to high school didn't you?

As to what in high school physics is proven wrong by modern physics.... That would be virtually everything.

Which is why you are constantly wrong in the childish assertions you make about modern physics.

VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
Can you prove that any mathematical proof is correctly derived?

"but it is not self-evident that correctly derived mathematics" - Johanfprins

More importantly, can you prove that mathematics is capable of quantitatively describing the universe?

I'm still awaiting your proof.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
Yes. But I am speaking of course in terms of the generalized form of Maxewll's equations.

Maxwell selected a special case where del.B = 0

This is only the case where monopoles are not present.

"One of Maxwell's equations is that the divergence of B is zero EVERWHERE within a magnetic field. No sources and no sinks." - Johanfprins

Of course the 2012 Europhysics Prize was awarded to Alan Tennant for finding magnetic monopoles in condensed matter.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
Yes. You see it is quite easy.

When something has a property (size position etc) that can not be determined, that property is said to be indeterminate.

""Indeterminate size" hey? Stop playing semantics." - Johanfprins

Odd. I thought I was just using a dictionary.

I am not sure how you manage to convince yourself that you can determine the exact position (coordinates) of a wave, but since you don't do anything more than hand wave, quack, and whine about the last 150 years of physics being all wrong, I really don't care to know.

I am not interested in abnormal psychology.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
So now that you have admitted that your trust in mathematics is based on faith, we can move on.

"You know that this is something that nobody can prove: And you should also know that even though nobody can prove this, it DOES NOT mean that mathematics is NOT capable of describing the real world." - Johanfprins

I have never seen a condition where 1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples is violated.

Why should I trust that I will never see the 1 plus 1 = 2 relationship violated on sufficiently small subatomic scales?

Be precise in your answer.

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
I take it then that you believe that because mathematics contains sets that contain an uncountably infinite number of items, that the universe also contains such things?


Of course, in the case of irrational numbers which clearly play just as an important role in nature as integers, you have such a series, but this series usually converges after enough FINITE terms to give you the number to enough useful decimal places that you require. When the series add to give infinities, it is highly unlikely that you have a description of nature anymore. And to then fudge the series to get the number you want, is nothing else but criminal.

If we have the same number of apples, can we divide them into an infinite number of parts?


We know we cannot: Why are you asking such a STUPID question? But you can divide continuous space into smaller and smaller volumes which after an increasing number of divisions can be considered to be a point.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2013
If the universe is composed of waves as you have stated. What is the absolute position of a wave?
I have stated that light and matter consist of EM-waves; and each separate EM-wave has a an energy E=m*c^2, so that it must have a center-of-mass: Therefore the absolute position of the wave at any instant in time is the position of its center-of-mass.

"Until the day that there real is experimental evidence that correct mathematics based on the correct postulates do not quantitatively describe the real world, your arguments are irrelevant." - Johanfprins
VendicarE: You are right.


So what is your problem?

But I asked for proof. You haven't provided any.


So did I from you! And YOU haven't provided any for your opposite viewpoint.

It seems that you just cannot get your head around it that in physics. like mathematics, there are AXIOMS (look up the word if it is the first time you see it) which you cannot prove but from which you can derive results which ..
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
which you cannot prove but from which..
you can derive results which can be tested experimentally afterwards.

If the results fit within the experimental limits to what we can measure, the axioms are accepted to be good.

It might, however, happen that at some stage in the future an experimental result is found which cannot be derived in terms of the accepted axioms (derive means here NOT making a stupid mathematical mistake). This requires a refinement in our understanding which in many cases leads to a paradigm shift. But before this point is reached we have to assume that our axioms are good.

It can also happen that the new experimental results cannot be derived in terms of the accepted axioms because the scientists involved are just too stupid to do this. It is then assumed that a new paradigm shift is required, while it is NOT. This is what happened after Planck discovered that on the atomic scale light must be emitted and absorbed as quanta. It did not change any of
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
It did not change any of the previous physics at all since the quanta are still light-waves. It only meant that it is impossible to create a source-antenna or a detection antenna which can emit or detect an EM wave with more energy or less energy than that of the quantum. The fact is that you can have coherent light waves with the same frequency which are emitted by "antennas" so that such a wave is still a continuous wave, just likr the photon-wave, but now has a higher energy: This is the case for a laser-wave.

Thus "particles" do not feature in quantum mechanics. The fact light-quanta can entangle with electron-waves are not surprizing, since both entities are EM-waves. Thus, it is possible to model all these interactions in terms of Maxwell's wave-equations, of which Schroedinger's equation is a special case for a stationary electron-wave. Thus, Schroedinger's wave is already commensurate with the Special Theory of Relativity. One does not need Dirac's abomination.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
"It ONLY tells us that on an atomic scale light is emitted as waves each of which has a quantum of energy relating to the frequency:" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: I'm sorry, but experiment does not show that light is emitted as "waves".


A photon has a frequency and a wavelength? Only a wave has this!

Experiment shows that light is emitted as quanta, and that the emitter of that quanta recoils instantaneously with an exact momentum of E/c.


So? A unidirectional light-wave has momentum, in addition to a frequency and a wavelength? You can easily derive this from Maxwell's equations. Why do you not try?

Never is the emitter found with an intermediate momentum.
Why should it be? Another one of your insane assumptions?

So never is it seen emitting the photon over an extended period of time,
Hallooo!! When emitting the photon, (delta)E*delta(t) controls the resonance: Are you stating that (delta)t must be zero?

How about reading a book on QM?

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
"No experiment EVER proved that a quantum of light is a "particle"" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: Every experiment ever done, produces light as quantum particles.


No it is not the case: A laser source produces a single macro-light wave with the same frequency and a wavelength of a photon with the same frequency; but this wave has a much larger continuous energy-field than the photon with the same frequency has.

A radio-antenna also emits a carrier wave with a single coherent frequency which has a much higher continuous energy-field than a photon with the same frequency has.

If you can produce a single experiment in which you can show that light is emitted as a wave, you will win a Nobel Prize in Physics, and deservedly so.


The laser was already discovered 50 years ago: I am thus too late.

Good luck with that.


Thank you! I have proved superconduction at room temperature in 2000: Do you not think this deserves a Nobel Prize?

Goodnight for now!
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013

"If we have the same number of apples, can we divide them into an infinite number of parts?" - VendicarE

"We know we cannot" - Johanfprins

Then you have just indicated that the rules of common mathematics do not apply to real world objects.

Does mathematics predict that an apple can not be infinitely subdivided?

If so, then show us.

If not then explain to us how you know mathematics can be known to property predict that 1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples?

VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
"I take it then that you believe that because mathematics contains sets that contain an uncountably infinite number of items, that the universe also contains such things?" - VendicarE

"Of course, in the case of irrational numbers which clearly play just as an important role in nature as integers" - Johanfprins.

Sets are not irrational numbers.

Why not try an answer the question put to you rather than yammering about an unrelated topic?

Here... I will ask you the question again.

I take it then that you believe that because mathematics contains sets that contain an uncountably infinite number of items, that the universe also contains such things?

Think real hard... And then try and answer it.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
Does continuous space even exist as a reality? Many physicists hold the view that space is quantized.

"But you can divide continuous space into smaller and smaller volumes" - Johanfprins

Please provide some proof that space is continuous, and not quantized.

Again... I await your proof.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
So you believe not only that energy exists in some non-existent 4th dimension and that all of high energy physics is wrong, but that neutral particles that have no dipole moment are electromagnetic waves.

"I have stated that light and matter consist of EM-waves; and each separate EM-wave has a an energy E=m*c^2, so that it must have a center-of-mass:" - Johanfprins

Where does the electric part come in?

Quack... Quack... Quack....

How does something that has no defined center have a center of mass?

Snicker...

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
Photons have never been detected as waves. They are only detected as discrete bundles of energy that have precise locations and arrive at a precise time.

"A photon has a frequency and a wavelength? Only a wave has this!" - Johanfprins

With "real" waves, the energy content of the wave is determined by the amplitude of the wave, not it's frequency. Yet with quantum waves it is determined by the wave's frequency and not the amplitude.

Which of course is another reason why your view of the world is based on nonsense.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
Lasers don't produce continuous waves. If they did then the exo-electrons produced by shining a laser onto a surface would not be emitted at a specific fixed energy, equal to the computed photon energy minus the surface work function.

In addition lasers would not show fixed relationship

delta lambda = (hbar/mc)(1-cos(theta))

since the radiation falling on the scattering particle would be continuous as long as it is in the laser beam.

"The fact is that you can have coherent light waves with the same frequency which are emitted by "antennas" so that such a wave is still a continuous wave, just likr the photon-wave, but now has a higher energy: This is the case for a laser-wave." - Johanfprins

Classical radiation theory can't even reproduce a black-body radiation spectra.

You are living in a universe of self delusion.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
And yet energy is absorbed and emitted in quanta. Producing the black body curve requires quantization of classical electromagnitism, compton scattering requires quantization in order to produce the correct relation between scattering angle and photon's change in wavelength, the photoelectic effect requires that photon energy be deposited onto an absorbing surface in quanta, etc. etc. etc...

"Thus "particles" do not feature in quantum mechanics." - Johanfprins

Your believe in continuous waves is pure high school level science hokum.

and still you Quack.. Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
"Never is the emitter found with an intermediate momentum." - VendicarE

"Why should it be? Another one of your insane assumptions?" - Johnfprins

Why? Because classical wave mechanics demands that it be so.

It also follows from your claim that waves are continuous, and that light waves can be explained by Maxwell's equations. Which is entirely false since Maxwell's equations do not produce quantized energy states.

Further if we are to believe your claim that EM waves are real waves caused by oscillating electric charges then it must also be true that over an interval through which half an EM wave is emitted, the emitter must have it's energy reduced by half.

Such energy states are not seen.

You seem to agree, which is a contradiction of your own initial premise.

You are astonishingly ignorant.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
"When emitting the photon, (delta)E*delta(t) controls the resonance: Are you stating that (delta)t must be zero?" - Johanfprins

Unless there is something else other than the particle doing the emitting, there can be no resonance, since there is nothing to resonate with.

Didn't you spend days yammering about how the vacuum was empty?

But looking over your fundamental error for the moment, it should occur to anyone that if emitting a photon of energy E takes time, then at half of that time interval the emitter should have a fraction of it's original energy.

Yet this is never seen.

Odd isn't it, how your "theories" never seem to work out and the last 150 years of particle physics that you claim is "utter rubbish", always produces the right answer.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
The power radiated by a radio antenna is proportional to the rate of photon production by the antenna * the frequency of the photons produced by the antenna.

For small radio antennas at low power it is even possible to count the number of photons emitted.

"A radio-antenna also emits a carrier wave with a single coherent frequency which has a much higher continuous energy-field than a photon with the same frequency has." - Johanfprins

Low-noise photon counting with a radio-frequency quantum-dot field-effect transistor

http://ieeexplore...=4873389

Odd how people are counting things that you claim don't exist.

It must be a conspiracy against high school physics.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
No doubt you have cured cancer as well.

"I have proved superconduction at room temperature in 2000" - Johanfprins

Did it involve your patent on storing energy in the forth dimension?

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
"...heat capacity of the valence electrons" - Johanfprins

Ya. All you have to do is lower the temperature of those valence electrons by 2'C and it will begin to snow inside your super-conductor.

Those of us who actually graduated from high school will note that heat capacity is not a term that is applicable to valance electrons.

Quack... Quack... Quack...

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
There is no meaning to your use of the phrase "higher wave-states".

"This does not mean that you are pumping energy into a vacuum: It only means that you are exciting the "particles" (which are really waves) into higher wave-states." - Johanfprins

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
By your own admission above, the energy has to be there before it can be "boosted to higher wave-states".

"Where does "vacuum-energy" comes into the equation?" - johanfprins

I take it that you don't even read what you write....

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
What makes you think that anyone claimed that it did?

"Thus the photo-electric effect does not prove wave-particle duality at all." - Johanfprins

The claim was that it shows light to be absorbed as quanta. From the double slit experiment we know they are absorbed at discrete well defined locations.

Waves are diffuse in both space and time, and do not have the characteristic of imparting a specific quanta of energy to a well localized point in space and time.

You seem incapable of clear, logical thought.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
There is no physical process by which electromagnetic waves spontaneously form into "packets".

If you have a mathematical description of how this happens in space then feel free to publish it, and your name will be in the running for a Nobel Prize.

"light is also an electric-field, so that the absorbed quantum forms a wave-packet" - Johanfprins

What process prevents your electromagnetic "wave packet" from spreading out? There is nothing in Maxwell's equations that produce such an effect.

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
Certainly this is not the case for standard waves.

"This is exactly what coherent waves can do when the boundary conditions change, they must adjust their size and shape to fit the boundary conditions" - Johanfprins

You are quite delusional.

"If this requires the wave to collapse it has no choice:" - Johanfprins

Since boundary conditions only exist at boundaries by definition then it follows immediately that your claim that they cause a wave function collapse is not only demonstrated to be wrong, but fantastically wrong.

You write words, but don't have a clue to what they mean.

That is why you fail.
DavidW
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2013
johanfprins,
Clearly VendicarE has had his brain washed, as so many of us have. You have made excellent points and I want to take the time to thank you for sharing your understanding. It was indeed a privilege to hear the challenge of so many ideas and directions hinging on falsifying mathematics.

Even Jesus, with all of the profound effects he has left on us, did not or was not able to open other people's hearts. This is a choice that each of us has to make ourselves. Anything less would not be true. If these ideas are not for the importance of everyone, then why peruse them? Please don't let him get your goat just because he can talk nonsense for a very long time. Stay away from the name calling and hold the spirit of helping life. Thanks again.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
"This is a wrong conclusion derived from the photo-electric-effect when in 1905 it was still believed that there are freely moving electrons within a metal." - Johanfprins
VendicarE: The photoelectric effect isn't an effect that is confined to metal surfaces.


Where have I claimed that it is an effect that is only confined to metal surfaces? Can you not argue without trying to dishonestly distort what the other person has stated?

It is seen in every instance where electrons are liberated from a surface by light. Such electrons are referred to as "photoelectrons".


Proving that I am correct to state that it is not produced by two "particles" that collide. Thanks for strengthening my argument.

Photoelectron spectroscopy uses the energy levels of metallic and non metallic photoelectrons to produce a spectral signature of the atoms composing a material.


Partly correct: It also provides information on how their valence-electrons have bonded. So what's new?
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2013
VendicarE: Depending on the frequency of light used, UV, X-rays etc, bonding or non-bonding electrons can be selected thereby selecting either an molecular or atomic spectra for the target.


So again: What's new, except that you are supplying further evidence that the photo-electric effect CANNOT be caused by the collision of two "particles"? Thanks for supporting my argument!
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
It was where you claimed that the photoelectric effect was a result of physicists wrongly believed that electrons were freely able to move within a metal.

"Where have I claimed that it is an effect that is only confined to metal surfaces?" - Johanfprins

But you are right on electrons not being able to freely move through a metal. Physicists have for centuries been working on the failed assumption that metals are conductors.

It is good to see you have figured out that metals have no charge carriers and that energy is conducted through metals via the 4th dimension.

Quack.... Quack... Quack...

Well done....
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
"Please define what you mean by high school physics and what is being proved wrong in high school physics by your hallucinations!" - Johanfprins
VendicarE: High school physics would be the physics you were taught in high school.
You did go to high school didn't you?


No I did not, since I was already so bright in primary school that I was promoted directly to university.

As to what in high school physics is proven wrong by modern physics.... That would be virtually everything.


I do not think soooo!! It is bad educational practice to first teach young people wrong physics if it is known that modern physics has proved it wrong. But if you want to make such unfounded, silly assertions, it is your constitutional right, in terms of freedom of speech, to post such nonsense. It is also my right, and those of others following this forum, to assert our freedom to think for ourselves and have a good laugh at you!

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
Absolutely. The absorption of a photon by an electron is absolutely not proof that there has been a "collision" between two particles.

It is evidence of energy from the 4th dimension and that everything is made from electromagnetic waves, and that electrons have a specific heat, and that protons have diameters, and all of the science since the mid 1800's is insanity and lunacy, as you put it.

"What's new, except that you are supplying further evidence that the photo-electric effect CANNOT be caused by the collision of two "particles"?" - Johanfprins

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
Does mental illness you suffer from run in your family?

"No I did not, since I was already so bright in primary school that I was promoted directly to university." - Johanfprins

Quack... Quack... Quack...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
Can you prove that any mathematical proof is correctly derived?


Can YOU prove that it is not the case, or if mistakes were made, that these can be ascribed to the mathematical axioms and operations being wrong and not human error; so that the mathematics has to be fudged by humans in order to get the results that they want to get; as is being done in QFT?

More importantly, can you prove that mathematics is capable of quantitatively describing the universe?


Can YOU prove that mathematics is NOT capable of quantitatively describing the universe? So far it seems that most scientists disagree with you since the do still use mathematics. How do you do your science without using mathematics?

I'm still awaiting your proof.
YOU are the one who are raising issues which, if they are not just the ramblings of an unhinged mind, YOU have to prove. There is nothing that I have to prove to you!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
Yes. But I am speaking of course in terms of the generalized form of Maxewll's equations. Maxwell selected a special case where del.B = 0


This is not a special case since it is the ONLY case that has been experimentally verified for Maxwell's equations.

Of course the 2012 Europhysics Prize was awarded to Alan Tennant for finding magnetic monopoles in condensed matter.


Magnetic field lines cannot start at a pole and end at a another pole to form a conservative field. Tennant's interpretation is based on the concepts of QFT, which are renormalized fudged concepts.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
""Indeterminate size" hey? Stop playing semantics." - Johanfprins: VendicarE: You see it is quite easy. When something has a property (size position etc) that can not be determined, that property is said to be indeterminate.


What is "cannot be determined"? The fact that no measurement of any property can, owing to purely experimental considerations, NEVER by without error; or are you stating that even if you could measure to 100% accuracy, you will not be able to measure that property at all and therefore it is indeterminate?

I am not sure how you manage to convince yourself that you can determine the exact position (coordinates) of a wave,


Even the Copenhagen interpretation accepts that you can determine the exact position of an entity with a center-of-mass, but it is then claimed that, owing to wave-particle duality, you cannot know its exact momentum: The fact is that any EM wave with any momentum p has a center-of-mass: Its position is thus NOT indeterminate!
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
It occurs to me that I do not need to since I am not defending the position that "proven" mathematics is free of error.

"Can YOU prove that it is not the case" - Johanfprins

You are.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
"You know that this is something that nobody can prove: And you should also know that even though nobody can prove this, it DOES NOT mean that mathematics is NOT capable of describing the real world." - Johanfprins
VendicarE: So now that you have admitted that your trust in mathematics is based on faith, we can move on.


Have you got any trust in mathematics? And if you have, what is it based on? And if you do not have, are you ever using mathematics even though you have no faith in it? Straight answers will as usual not be forthcoming from you.

I have never seen a condition where 1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples is violated. Why should I trust that I will never see the 1 plus 1 = 2 relationship violated on sufficiently small subatomic scales?


Why should you not trust? If they are still distinguishable as separate apples, why do you expect that the result should be different on an atomic scale?

Be precise in your answer.
Be precise in your questions please!
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
And again, it occurs to me that I do not need to since I am not defending the position that mathematics is capable of describing the universe.

"Can YOU prove that mathematics is NOT capable of quantitatively describing the universe?" - Johanfprins

You are.

We certainly know that mathematics isn't capable of proving or disproving every statement that can be stated mathematically.

Can you prove that those statements aren't applicable to the real world?
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
There are no such thing as a magnetic line of force.

Your high school understanding of physics has failed you yet again.

"Magnetic field lines cannot start at a pole and end at a another pole to form a conservative field." - Johanfprins

In fact, there is no such thing as magnetism.

It is simply a convenient fiction for people who's knowledge of physics is stuck in the mid 1800's.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
"If we have the same number of apples, can we divide them into an infinite number of parts?" - VendicarE
"We know we cannot" - Johanfprins
Then you have just indicated that the rules of common mathematics do not apply to real world objects.


No I have not! I really do not know what game you are trying to play but it is getting boring. Mathematics is the best language we have to model physics but not ALL mathematics apply to real world objects.

Does mathematics predict that an apple can not be infinitely subdivided?


Mathematics can NEVER predict physics, even though Paul Dirac believed it can. The correct mathematics that must used is determined by physics NOT the other way around! For example: Group theory DOES NOT define the laws of physics as the "particle physicists" want to believe. Physics define the symmetries which are found in Nature; and if the whole group of symmetries are not found, those that are there have not "spontaneously" broken themselves.

VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2013
As scientists we use the tools at hand to solve problems at hand.

This practicality says nothing about the view you are defending that mathematics is capable of describing the universe.

In face you pretty much have already admitted it isn't when you admitted that a count of 1 apples can not be infinitely subdivided while the count of 1 can be.

If there isn't a 1:1 correspondence between numbers and numerical counts of objects, which is the only way numbers apply to the real worls, then what is your basis for believing that numbers can describe the entire universe?

"So far it seems that most scientists disagree with you since the do still use mathematics." - Johanfprins

Clearly you don't have a clue as to what scientists think.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2013
That was really the question I asked you now isn't it?

"If they are still distinguishable as separate apples, why do you expect that the result should be different on an atomic scale?" - Johanfprins

You should try and answer it.

Think real hard.

I have noticed that you are pretty much incapable of answering any question put to you.

Given your high school level of science comprehension, this is not surprising.

VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2013
I see. So in your view, Dirac's prediction of the existence of the positron wasn't a prediction then.

And the prediction of the existence of the Electron Neutrino wasn't a mathematical prediction either.

And neither was the mathematical prediction of the Higgs Boson?

"Mathematics can NEVER predict physics, even though Paul Dirac believed it can" - Johanfprins

Perhaps when they moved you from public school to university as you have claimed, and you learned that energy exists in the 4th dimension and that all of modern physics is wrong, they left something out of your education.

You know... The education part...

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
"I take it then that you believe that because mathematics contains sets that contain an uncountably infinite number of items, that the universe also contains such things?" - VendicarE
"Of course, in the case of irrational numbers which clearly play just as an important role in nature as integers" - Johanfprins.

VE:Sets are not irrational numbers.


An irrational number has an uncountable set of numbers behind its decimal point: Does it not?

Why not try an answer the question put to you rather than yammering about an unrelated topic?


If you are more precise in your questions it will help: But it seems that you are more interested in playing semantic games.

I take it then that you believe that because mathematics contains sets that contain an uncountably infinite number of items, that the universe also contains such things?


Yes, any volume of continuous space have such a number of points. Similarly the points within the volume of an EM-wave.

Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2013
johanfprins,
Clearly VendicarE has had his brain washed, as so many of us have. You have made excellent points and I want to take the time to thank you for sharing your understanding. It was indeed a privilege to hear the challenge of so many ideas and directions hinging on falsifying mathematics.


That's what you got out of all the preceding? You didn't even get what the discussion is about right. I stand in stark amazment at your ostensive moronicness.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
"But you can divide continuous space into smaller and smaller volumes" - Johanfprins
VE: Does continuous space even exist as a reality? Many physicists hold the view that space is quantized.


Why should space be quantized? There are no sane reasons why it must be. Maxwell's equations give us electromagnetic energy which is continuously distributed within a volume in space: Since the EM wave is continuously distributed so why would space be quantized when there is not an EM wave within it?

Please provide some proof that space is continuous, and not quantized.


As usual it is up to YOU to prove that space is quantized even though Maxwell's equations, which we know model electromagnetic waves do not require that this must be so!

Again... I await your proof.
And again, I am awaiting YOUR proof!

Signing off for now!
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
Sorry Charlie. No physicist that I know of believe that group theory defines the laws of physics.

"For example: Group theory DOES NOT define the laws of physics as the "particle physicists" want to believe." - Johanfprins

Much of your education appears to have happened backwards.

Tell us more about your concept of the heat capacity of electrons.

That always makes me laugh.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
A monkey also has a tail, but that does not make the monkey a set.

"An irrational number has an uncountable set of numbers behind its decimal point: Does it not?" - Johnfprins

Neither are individual irrational numbers an infinite set because they contain an infinite number of digits in their representation.

Your failing here, tells us that you know neither what an irrational number, or an infinite set is.

Sadly whenever Johanfprins tries to state facts he generally gets them wrong.

He knows this, so he works very hard to state so very few of them.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
"Why should space be quantized?" - johanfprins

The question you are really asking is why space "should" NOT be infinately and continuously divisible.

Your use of the word "should" is of course entirely inappropriate here.

The idea stems from a generalized view of interaction in which the three spacial dimensions are just linearly independent degrees of freedom. Other degrees of freedom include, time, charge, spin, etc.

All are algebraically quantized to transform them in to gauge fields for consistency.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
But they don't give you quantization which is observed in nature.

"Maxwell's equations give us electromagnetic energy which is continuously distributed within a volume in space:" - Johanfprins

That is why Maxwell's equations have little to no value in modern physics.

Can you tell us where Maxwell's equations tell us that charge is quantized, where they tell us where charges must necessarily have spin, and where they tell us that charge never comes in amounts other than as an integral factor of 1/3.

Like Maxwell's science you are destined to remain permanently stuck in the mid 1800's.

But do not fret too much. It could be worse. You could be a quack creationist stuck in the 1700's.

Being a quack physics student stuck in the mid 1800's is vastly better.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
It is funny that you jumped into this thread defending someone who took a hard line, absolutionist, mathematical view of physics, and who stated that unless it can be proven mathematically it isn't physics.

"Have you got any trust in mathematics? And if you have, what is it based on?" - Johanfprins

And after a trivial amount of questioning you have been reduced to admitting that you can't prove that mathematics can describe the universe, forced to admit that you don't know if any mathematical proof is correctly proven or not, and that you have great faith in mathematics.

Unlike you and the person you chose to defend, scientists generally have a good understanding of how mathematics is applied to the real world, how that application changes over time, and how apparent reality can change depending upon the mathematical formulations used.

This is why modern high energy physics refers to the mathematics of modern high energy physics as the standard "Model".

CONT...
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
Cont...

If you had any understanding of how modern physics works, you would have noted the word "model".

Words have meaning. In science, words often have precise scientific meaning. You aren't aware enough of how science works to have deduced those meanings.

Now, as to your magical plasmonic waves from the 4th dimension that give electrons heat capacity, we will ignore that idiocy, and ask that you provide a precise explanation for the photo-electric effect, with specific attention being paid to the lack of delay between the arrival of very low intensity light and the liberation of electrons with a precise energy of hv = hv0 - work function.
where hv0 is greater than the work function.

Be precise.
DavidW
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
johanfprins,
Clearly VendicarE has had his brain washed, as so many of us have. You have made excellent points and I want to take the time to thank you for sharing your understanding. It was indeed a privilege to hear the challenge of so many ideas and directions hinging on falsifying mathematics.


That's what you got out of all the preceding? You didn't even get what the discussion is about right. I stand in stark amazment at your ostensive moronicness.


"falsifying mathematics" to fit a desired result is exactly what VendicarE is doing, then rambling nonsense. VendicarE is behaving as a child carrying on a tantrum...'I want...I want...'.

That's not science.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
Please prove that space is continuous.

"Yes, any volume of continuous space have such a number of points. " - Johanfprins

If you can't then why do you trust a mathematics in which it is assumed that space is continuous can properly describe the universe.

Please try and answer at least one question in your lifetime.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
Falsifying mathematics is impossible as far as I can tell, but it would be a great achievement if possible.

I think no one will ever do better than Goodel and his proof that mathematics is necessarily incomplete.

""falsifying mathematics" to fit a desired result is exactly what VendicarE is doing" - DavidW

I will ask the same question of you that I asked of the quack Johnfprins.

Can you prove that mathematics is capable of describing the universe?

Can you prove that mathematics is error free?

Will your dogmatic view of mathematical proof in physics turn into just another puff of faith filled smoke, as it did for the Quacking prinz?

For extra points, provide your answers in a mathematical form.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
"I have never seen a condition where 1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples is violated. Why should I trust that I will never see the 1 plus 1 = 2 relationship violated on sufficiently small subatomic scales?" - VendicarE

"Why should you not trust? If they are still distinguishable as separate apples, why do you expect that the result should be different on an atomic scale?" - Johanfprins

Is half an apple not half an apple?

Is 1/4 an apple not 1/4 an apple?

At what fraction of an apple does the fraction stop being an apple?

You seem to be just smart enough to realize that at small enough scales of subdivision, new rules that were invisible a the larger scales, come into play and the apple is no longer subdivisible without losing it's status as a fraction of the apple.

Your definition of an apple becomes increasingly meaningless as the subdivision proceeds to smaller and smaller parts.

In similar ways, your naive view of location, momentum, movement, and even existence become CONT...
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
increasingly problematic at smaller and smaller scales.

1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples.

Generalized this becomes

n apples plus n apples = 2*n apples

But the generalization as you now admit is false for sufficiently small values of n. In fact, it becomes increasingly unknowable where it becomes false since the definition of apple is not sufficiently detailed.

Electrons are certainly parts of the atoms that are parts of the apple. So is an electron a part of an apple?

Let's assume they are, then what about a subdivision of an electron?

What does it mean to subdivide an electon? Is it possible? Is a fraction of space containing some portion of the electric field held by an election a fraction of that electron?

If yes, then is the field continuous and can it be subdivided infinitely?

So at what value of n does the apple counting relationship break down if any?

If it breaks down, then you have admitted that the mathematical rules of counting apples do not apply cont...
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
CONT...

do not apply to counting apples, and by extension they don't apply to counting anything else either.

So if physics can't actually be trusted to provide accurate counts of things, what basis other than blind faith, do you have for believing that mathematics can describe the universe?

Johanfprins won't answer of course. This entire topic is way over his head.

Quack... Quack... Quack...
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
But that center of gravitation is different depending on the relative speed of the observer.

"The fact is that any EM wave with any momentum p has a center-of-mass: Its position is thus NOT indeterminate!" - Johanfprins

So which center of gravitation are you referring to?

Quack... Quack... Quack....
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
I have stated that light and matter consist of EM-waves; and each separate EM-wave has a an energy E=m*c^2, so that it must have a center-of-mass:" - Johanfprins


PLEASE first quote what you are going to address than to first comment so that nobody knows what you are addressing.

So you believe not only that energy exists in some non-existent 4th dimension and that all of high energy physics is wrong, but that neutral particles that have no dipole moment are electromagnetic waves.


Are you talking about photons? Then please do not call them "particles" since there is no such entity in this universe!

Where does the electric part come in?


So far I have asked you many good scientific questions, but all you came back with is verbal diarrhoea. So I am again going to ask you a simple question, which I am sure you will avoid: IS THE ENERGY OF A PHOTON ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY OR IS IT NOT? YES or NO!

I hope that you will answer.

Goodbye for now!
DavidW
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
VendicarE is still talking apples. ROTFLMAO

We say, "The laws of physics..." which are based on math.

VendicarE dismisses basic math when he feels like it...

The position of physics - use math, as it's dependable so far.

The position of VendicarE - Rape mathematics in order to claim that two undefined numbers can be subtracted from one another to get a defined number.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
DavidW still can't figure out how to count apples.

"VendicarE is still talking apples." - DavidW

"We say, "The laws of physics..." which are based on math." - DavidW

Mathematics certainly produces a nice concise form for the relationships, but they are based on thinking of course, some logical, some guesswork, and lots and lots of experimentation to show that the result is not violated.

Physcial law is seldom if ever based on and originates from mathematics.

DavidW didn't learn from his previous mistakes, and probably will not learn from the new one he has just committed.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
Lim x-> infinity of sum(x-x) - lim x-> infinity of sum(x) - lim x-> infinity sum(x) = 0

If each element can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with another element from another sum and shown to cancel then it doesn't matter how many individual elements there are in the sum or how partitions of the sums trend.

"Rape mathematics in order to claim that two undefined numbers can be subtracted from one another to get a defined number." - DavidW

DavidW is incapable of learning.
VendicarE
2 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
"PLEASE first quote what you are going to address than to first comment so that nobody knows what you are addressing." - Johhfprins

The Prins of fail can not answer any of the questions put to him of course, so instead he quotes himself and whines about his own comment.

"Then please do not call them "particles" since there is no such entity in this universe!" - Johnfprins

That is what we in the physics community call quanta of energy.

We don't care what you call it on planet idiocy.
VendicarE
2 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
There are so many logical failures in your questions that they can not be answered without first being corrected.

A wonderful example was the claim you made in the pre-amble to one question that electrons have "heat capacity". Others include your claim that energy is transmitted in the 4th dimension, that the photoelectric effect is due to the notion that there are unbound electrons in metals, etc., etc.. etc..

"So far I have asked you many good scientific questions," - Johanfprins

You see. Questions have to first make sense before they can be answered.

Now back to the photoelectric effect.

Answer the question put to you.
DavidW
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2013

DavidW is incapable of learning.


Translation: For some reason we can't brainwash him to ignore basic math and to accept the undefined as real definition. You know, like how people believe in God and all... well I want eveyone to believe me as if I am God and what I say is the truth.

I wouldn't doubt it VendicarE is paid to troll. It's either that or he need to give up physics and get into a hospital.
DavidW
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
Is you next question going to be, "Are you mad bro?" Pfff
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
The concept of a point is very important. Not only in conversational languages. In mathematics as well.

No mathematician (all the way up to now) is able to find a point that I arbitrary chose, that lies on a line. Lines are densely populated with points. Infinitely so.

Instructions to find such a point are very good approximations. In searching, Johann comes close to finding a point on a line (in space, the search is just as difficult, if not more so), yet like even the best mathematicians, the point chosen can never be found. Unless you are told where the point lies.

I see points have no boundaries. Another useful concept.

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2013
So I am again going to ask you a simple question, which I am sure you will avoid: IS THE ENERGY OF A PHOTON ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY OR IS IT NOT? YES or NO!


You avoided answering this simple question: Or is it so "wrong" that it has to be corrected? Well then correct it and answer it! If you do not do this it will be proof that you have admitted to just argue for argue's sake: i.e. trolling!

Mark Twain once remarked: "Today I have met a man who knows more things that are NOT so than any other man I have ever met!" This is an excellent description of Vendicar E. The problem with people who have this mentality is that they have a bag filled with an infinite number of "things that are not so"; and then proceed to shout down sane arguments with a barrage of garbage and irrelevance.

Bohr did the same with Schrodinger in 1926: So much so that Schr. fell ill: This did NOT deter Bohr from sitting next to Schr.'s bed and still bombarding him with "things that are NOT so".

cont
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2013
Bohr was well known NOT to allow other people to give their opinions; and to shout them down by using incoherent sentences: Just like VendicarE is doing on this forum.

It is unfortunate that people cannot always see through this devious and despicable approach, and finally give up in frustration, just like Schrodinger had done to the detriment of physics. This allowed Bohr to steer physics into Vodooland, where things happen without a cause. Nearly 100 years afterwards, physics is still sinking into this pit of quicksand.

The sad point of this is that to correct each of the infinite number of "things that are not so", is, as Schrodinger had found, so exasperating that it can make you sick. However, it is incumbent on sane people to keep on opposing "things that are not so" for the sake of the future of humankind.

But let us see if VE can answer a question without vomiting "things that are not so". Thus: IS THE ENERGY OF A PHOTON ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY OR IS IT NOT? YES or NO?
DavidW
1 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2013
Great stuff johanfprins.

I use similiar in stating: A human cannot count, let alone remember, all the lessons more painful than death itself. The truth is real and the truth is the only way in life to avoid such mistakes.

Yet, "Love your neighbor as much as yourself" is less words and right to the point to do the most good.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
@DavidW,

Thank you for your positive and honest support. You have been a great help to remind me that there are people who can make up their own minds; and therefore I should concentrate on the issues and not the behavior of my opponents.
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
IS THE...bla, bla, bla, YES or NO?...jp


What harbors the energy of the electromagnetic energy/fields?
Hint:

The use of the words 'current', 'fourth dimension', 'gravitation' ,'wave', 'photon' 'heat capacity' and 'space' are forbidden.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
What harbors the energy of the electromagnetic energy/fields?
Hint:
The use of the words 'current', 'fourth dimension', 'gravitation' ,'wave', 'photon' 'heat capacity' and 'space' are forbidden.


Why! You are a pain in the ass! If you have ANYTHING to contribute PLEASE use coherent sentences based on coherent ideas. I will then gladly argue logic with you.
Tausch
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
Each portion of the electromagnetic spectrum has quantum energies appropriate for the excitation of certain types of physical processes. The energy levels for all physical processes at the atomic and molecular levels are quantized, and if there are no available quantized energy levels with spacings which match the quantum energy of the incident radiation, then the material will be transparent to that radiation, and it will pass through.

http://hyperphysi....html#c1

According to the Planck hypothesis, all electromagnetic radiation is quantized and occurs in finite "bundles" of energy which we call photons. The quantum of energy for a photon is not Planck's constant h itself, but the product of h and the frequency. The quantization implies that a photon of blue light of given frequency or wavelength will always have the same size quantum of energy.
http://hyperphysi....html#c3

Do not argue with me. Correct the sources posted here
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
The answer to your question is no.
Tausch
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
The energy you are talking about is quantized. Called quantum energy.
Take a break. The longer, the better.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Each portion of the electromagnetic spectrum has quantum energies appropriate for the excitation of certain types of physical processes. The energy levels for all physical processes at the atomic and molecular levels are quantized, and if there are no available quantized energy levels with spacings which match the quantum energy of the incident radiation, then the material will be transparent to that radiation, and it will pass through.


At last you are becoming coherent. I have NEVER disagreed with what you have just stated!

According to the Planck hypothesis, all electromagnetic radiation is quantized and occurs in finite "bundles" of energy which we call photons.


Wrong! According to Planck the black-body EM waves are SINGLE stationary waves, each of which can have an energy that is totally determined by the temperature. All he discovered was that the sources adding EM-energy to these stationary waves cannot add LESS than a quantum of energy at a time!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2013
All he discovered was that the sources adding EM waves to these stationary waves cannot add LESS than a quantum of energy at a time!


He DID NOT discover that
all electromagnetic radiation is quantized and occurs in finite "bundles" of energy which we call photons.
This is a LIE!!!

The quantum of energy for a photon is not Planck's constant h itself, but the product of h and the frequency. The quantization implies that a photon of blue light of given frequency or wavelength will always have the same size quantum of energy.


Where have I EVER disagreed with this? Please read and try and comprehend by not jumping to insane conclusions which seem to breed in your head!

The answer to your question is no.


I assume that you are stating that the energy of a photon is not EM energy? Correct?

The energy you are talking about is quantized. Called quantum energy.
In most cases this is so when light is emitted and absorbed on the atomic scale:
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
In most cases this is so when light is emitted and absorbed on the atomic scale:
BUT not in all cases!

A source can also emit an EM wave that has a total energy of 2*h*(nu), where this wave is a single wave that DOES not exist of two separate quanta.

If you are a total idiot, you will conclude that this single wave consists of two separate "photon-particles: which are entangled, even though Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen correctly stated that two separate "particles" CANNOT communicate faster then the speed of light. This wave is NOT quantized to be a "bundle of two photons"; just as a laser beam is NOT a "bundle of photons" until it is forced by measurement to disentangle into separate photon-waves.

Thus your statement above that
all electromagnetic radiation is quantized and occurs in finite "bundles" of energy which we call photons.
is Voodoo physics!

DavidW
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
All he (Planck(hypothesis)) discovered was that the sources adding EM-energy to these stationary waves cannot add LESS than a quantum of energy at a time!


Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen correctly stated that two separate "particles" CANNOT communicate faster then the speed of light


Worth repeating for those of us that have a hard time hearing.

Oh yeah, if our math says 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 3 apples in the real world, then our is flawed in application to the real world. Oh, how the tower falls.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
Do not argue with me. Correct the sources posted.
Once you have corrected the sources posted I will read them again.
Then I will return here to conclude and concede Johanian physics is the working model of modern day quantum physics.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
This thread is closing. Along with the nut cases here.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Do not argue with me. Correct the sources posted.


What do you want me to correct? I agree that on the atomic scale light-waves with energies LESS THAN h*(nu) cannot be emitted or absorbed! That is ALL that your sources confirm! So what must I correct?

Once you have corrected the sources posted I will read them again. Then I will return here to conclude and concede Johanian physics is the working model of modern day quantum physics.


I do not think YOU will EVER be able to understand light-waves (a reasonable IQ is required), while you maintain that a SINGLE coherent light-wave must be a bundle of photons, each of which is supposedly NOT EM energy!

A coherent light-wave is a SINGLE wave which consists of continuous EM energy filling the WHOLE volume that the light wave occupies. There are NO separate photons within this volume! If there are, they will be DISTINGUISHABLE so that the light wave IS NOT an entangled condensate, and thus not a SINGLE coherent light-wave!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2013
This thread is closing. Along with the nut cases here.


I am glad that you are starting to realize that you are a nut-case: May I suggest psychiatric help? Although it is probably far to late in your case!
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2013
Even Jesus, with all of the profound effects he has left on us, did not or was not able to open other people's hearts. This is a choice that each of us has to make ourselves. Anything less would not be true. If these ideas are not for the importance of everyone, then why peruse them? Please don't let him get your goat just because he can talk nonsense for a very long time. Stay away from the name calling and hold the spirit of helping life. Thanks again.


There you go Johans, you have Jesus on your side!

BTW your handwaving is beginning to get a bit on the frantic side. There have been a couple of distinct requests for mathematical proofs from you, all of which have been ignored.

You are the one suggesting that our standard model (or our current understanding, you pick)is icorrect. Time to stop screaming about the lack of recognition your ideas inspire and start providing some actual proof. You know, the mathematical kind.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
BTW your handwaving is beginning to get a bit on the frantic side. There have been a couple of distinct requests for mathematical proofs from you, all of which have been ignored.
I am the ONLY one who have posted mathematical proofs on this forum have posted many mathematical proofs on this forum: They are just ignored as if they have NOT been posted: A reminder:

1. I posted that when you start from E^2=p^2*c^2 plus (m(0)*c^2)^2, from which Dirac AND Klein and Gordon also started, and use the same operator substitutions, one can (a) put m(0)=0 for a photon, and then obtain that the equation modelling the photon is Maxwell's equation: By not setting m(0)=0, and assuming a freely moving electron, one again obtains Maxwell's equation for a wave moving with speed v.

Thus both a freely moving photon and a freely moving electron are coherent EM waves. So I ma posting the mathematics but yopu just ignore it when it is inconvenient for you!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2013
2. I also posted the mathematics where I use the Lorentz transformation to show that a passing electron becomes longer when its speed increases, and develops a phase-time difference along its length which gives the de Broglie wavelength: thus again proving that this wavelength directly results from Maxwell's equations!

So it is totally deceitful when you claim that: "There have been a couple of distinct requests for mathematical proofs from you, all of which have been ignored.". Just the opposite is true: When I post mathematical derivations you just ignore them as if I have NEVER posted them, and then in a scurrilous manner blatantly LIE by claiming that I do not post mathematical proofs for my claims. Have you got NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER?

It is probably par for the course that a person who hides behind anonymity while attacking other people on a public forum cannot have any integrity! Who are you? What do you really know? Since you are ashamed to reveal this, it defines you!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
You are the one suggesting that our standard model (or our current understanding, you pick)is icorrect. Time to stop screaming about the lack of recognition your ideas inspire and start providing some actual proof. You know, the mathematical kind.


The mathematical proofs have been supplied and posted on this forum; but are ignored by people like you: These proofs impeccably show that a photon and an electron are both an EM-wave which, when moving freely, is each modeled by Maxwell's wave-equations for a wave with a specific frequency: i.e. a coherent EM-wave in both cases.

This, in turn, is convincing evidence that any model or theory which is based on "wave-particle duality" must be fatally flawed. It is thus obvious that the "standard model" MUST be Voodoo!