Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?

February 23, 2015 by Lisa Zyga feature
An illustration of the delayed-choice experiment, which shows that a photon exhibits both particle and wave behaviors. The physicists used this experiment to show that seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable after all. Credit: Ionicioiu, et al. ©2015 American Physical Society

Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?

In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable classical assumptions mentioned above—objectivity, determinism, and independence—are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with . The scientists show that, while any two of the three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable after all.

"Sometimes classical ideas may seem 'natural' and 'logical' simply because we do not test them too strongly," coauthor Daniel Terno at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, told Phys.org. "Quantum mechanics may be weird, but our classical illusions may be weird too—or simply impossible to maintain, no matter how the world really operates."

The findings could have widespread implications. For many decades, physicists have assumed that our everyday classical ideas are consistent with each other, and have used them to investigate the tensions between the classical and quantum world views. Hidden variable theories, for example, attempt to complete or improve quantum mechanics by reproducing the results of while incorporating these classical intuitions. If the new findings are correct, then they will demand that physicists question the basic tenets not only of quantum theory, but of classical theory, as well.

"Our take from this project [a warning: not a theorem, but an opinion] is that because the classical intuitions may be as weird as the quantum predictions, the entire motivation of the hidden variable program to explain quantum mechanics is somewhat pointless," Terno said. "There is no reason to exchange one type of weirdness for another, or to accept some and try to explain away the rest."

The uncovered incompatibility of the three assumptions centers on the quantum phenomenon of wave-particle duality. In their study, the physicists analyzed a version of the delayed-choice experiment, which demonstrates wave-particle duality with an interferometer. In this experiment, a photon behaves as a particle when the interferometer is open and as a wave when it is closed.

The experiment shows that, at any moment in time, a photon cannot be considered as either just a particle or just a wave, depending on the experimental set-up, but instead it has both properties. The experiment builds on the authors' previous work, in which they show how to simplify the demonstration of wave-particle duality.

In the new work, the researchers questioned the usual assumption that classical ideas, even if incompatible with quantum mechanics, are consistent. Here, objectivity is defined as a photon being either a particle or a wave, but not both. Determinism means that the outcome (whether the photon is a particle or a wave) can be determined if all information about the scenario, including any hidden variables, is known. Independence means that the outcome does not depend on the specific experimental setting.

As the physicists explain, because the photon demonstrates both particle and wave behavior in the two different experimental setups, then trying to satisfy all three requirements makes it impossible to have any experimental result at all. As long as different experimental setups yield different types of behavior, then the three intuitive ideas are incompatible, no matter what kind of theory is used. Terno explains this idea using an analogy with an overly demanding client:

"Our result was built similarly to what an annoying client wants from a travel agent: 'I should have this and that, and here and there, but not such and such, and definitely not this way...,' and at the end, no itinerary can satisfy all of the client's constraints. Something has to give.

"When one imagines a hidden variable theory that describes the experiments we consider, it has only so much freedom (seven parameters, to be exact). Putting constraints that are mathematical expressions of our three intuitive requirements reduces the freedom until nothing is left."

Because any two of the three ideas are mutually compatible, the physicists suggest that it seems most natural to drop the objectivity assumption, while keeping determinism and independence. This choice requires that wave-particle duality be accepted, regardless of its counterintuitive nature. However, knowing for sure will be a subject of future research.

Explore further: Experiment makes Schrodinger's cat choose—things can be real, or certain, but not both

More information: adu Ionicioiu, Robert B. Mann, and Daniel R. Terno. "Determinism, Independence, and Objectivity are Incompatible." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.060405

Related Stories

A new 'lens' for looking at quantum behavior

December 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, researchers Daniel Terno (Macquarie University, Australia) and Radu Ionicioiu (Institute of Quantum Computing, Canada) provide a new perspective on fundamental ...

Quantum physics just got less complicated

December 19, 2014

Here's a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has proved that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct are different manifestations ...

Recommended for you

Researchers improve qubit lifetime for quantum computers

December 8, 2016

An international team of scientists has succeeded in making further improvements to the lifetime of superconducting quantum circuits. An important prerequisite for the realization of high-performance quantum computers is ...

A nano-roundabout for light

December 8, 2016

Just like in normal road traffic, crossings are indispensable in optical signal processing. In order to avoid collisions, a clear traffic rule is required. A new method has now been developed at TU Wien to provide such a ...

113 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2015
There aren't two physics, either classical or modern, but classical physics is a subset of quantum mechanics.
movementiseternal
Feb 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2015
However, knowing for sure will be a subject of future research.


If objectivity is dropped, in what sense can you claim to know?

How you treat this physical problem has wider implications on what you can say of the rest of the world, including yourself in it. I would feel it rather more natural to drop either determinism or independence, because then at least you could say that things -are- something, and because rigid determinism has other conceptual problems such as "where did it start?".

mahi
1 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
The spoiled science now spoils the unspoilt!

savroD
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2015
This makes good sense to me. Humans have a hard time with objectivity to begin with. One need only look on Physorg comments to see some folks just steeped in their subjectivity on many issues. The most obvious one is climate change. Some people just relentlessly and foolishly deny the reality that humans can have a global impact this way. It's laughable to read the $hit the denialists will throw against the wall in the hope that something sticks. Well you want to see if humans can have a global impact, why don't we just nuke the planet. Now wouldn't that answer the question!
Jim4321
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
The determinism requirement was dropped years ago with the advent of chaos theory. I believe that the basic result is that almost all trajectories calculated from classical mechanics are chaotic -- that is the final conditions are exponentially sensitive to the initial conditions and thus cannot be determined with any finite initial precision. Thus dropping objectivity seems pointless. The incompatibility of classical mechanics (motion of point particles) with the theory of optics is of course what gave rise to quantum mechanics in the first place. From this press release, it is hard to see what the authors bring that is new.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
Doug,
No there is one physics, "modern physics" is the brain child of all the genius physicists we had in the first half of the 20th century. It was a very special thing to have Maxwell, Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and many others on walking around on this planet at the same time.
just_think_it
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2015
Kind of a wonderful article. Spring-And-Loop Theory has been pointing out the flawed assumptions of conventional physics for some time now.
http://just-think.../sal.htm
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
The determinism requirement was dropped years ago with the advent of chaos theory.


Chaos in itself doesn't imply indeterminism. Chaos isn't the same thing as randomness.

Knowing the exact state of every particle in a chaotic system will allow you to compute its exact future state. The problem is rather in knowing the exact state of every particle.

Indeterminism is the argument that the particles do not have an exact state and therefore the system cannot have an exact outcome.
kamcoautomotive
Feb 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
It is so funny to read this, because I know the real reason why they see this wave phenomena, and it is something if I told them they would realize just how stupid they have been. they are like children doing silly things. so absolutely silly..

Would you care to enlighten us "children"?
Oh - the 5 was an accident... The product of my finger being too itchy to hit "quote" button first. (Because comments like yours are usually evidence of misinformation).
vic1248
1 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
My take [a warning: not a theorem, but an opinion] is that reality is objective, deterministic and independent; however, our perceptions, calculations and measurements are always subjective, they can never be perfect and thus Empirical Science can never be perfect.

We are part of this reality but not in control of it; therefore, there must be a superior agency outside and behind this reality and in control of it.
vic1248
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2015
I shared the following on another forum just a few days ago:

[
Continuum vs. Quantum

Reality as a whole (continuum) is different than reality as a collection of particles (quantum.) Maybe reality is a product of "coexistence" of continuum and quantum, and that "transformation" takes place when dissecting the whole into parts/particles.

Of course, there is the Double-Slit experiment and the Wave-Particle Duality behavior of electrons and particles in general.

However, I am alluding to something more than Superposition and the Collapse of the Wave Function upon observation/measurement, I am thinking of a "Supernatural Consciousness" that transitions reality to what we observe, whole (continuum) or part/particle (quantum) while both exist at the same time.

I am a proponent of the nexus of physics and metaphysics, I believe the Natural extends from the Supernatural.
]
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
Continuum vs. Quantum

Reality as a whole (continuum) is different than reality as a collection of particles (quantum.) Maybe reality is a product of "coexistence" of continuum and quantum, and that "transformation" takes place when dissecting the whole into parts/particles.

Of course, there is the Double-Slit experiment and the Wave-Particle Duality behavior of electrons and particles in general.

However, I am alluding to something more than Superposition and the Collapse of the Wave Function upon observation/measurement, I am thinking of a "Supernatural Consciousness" that transitions reality to what we observe, whole (continuum) or part/particle (quantum) while both exist at the same time.

I am a proponent of the nexus of physics and metaphysics, I believe the Natural extends from the Supernatural.
]

Magic, Vic?
Drexus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2015
It's defeating to still read material that crutches on "collapsing the wave" to find either a particle or wave result. The act of observation (measurement) as a non-intrusive and valid process simply boggles the mind. To measure something requires interaction with it — fundamentally altering its state. Understandably, "collapsed the wave," results from removing an entire selection of probability when hitting it with a baseball-bat measurement tool.

With respect to the multiverse convergence theory: The convergence of all probable instances across the multiverse of said particle determines the probable state in the local instance. Any interaction with the particle axes-off large arrays of probability — and explains why a "single" photon can cause an interference pattern through a slit, why particles are created and annihilated randomly (the multiverse noise floor). The measurement defines the outcome, hence entanglement from a non-local multiverse.
fourinfinities
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2015
Sparse rooms "sound" different than ones cluttered with furniture and rugs, but what does an empty room sound like?

No one knows. One's mere presence in the room makes it not-quite-empty. This is the "effect of the observer," and it can be reduced, but not eliminated. A concert hall--with one observer it in--sounds quite like an empty concert hall; but a closet with one person in it does not sound at all like an empty closet. This "effect of the observer" is a classic result, but it but becomes pronounced at the quantum level.
Moebius
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2015
I wasn't surprised there isn't an example in the article of the 3 things being incompatible with any theory. Maybe the article is an example of the principle. It can be informative, accurate and interesting but never all 3 at once.
justindadswell
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2015
I believe this is the correct avenue. I have posts dating back to 2008 on "Closer to truth" where I was debating Wilczek's theory of a repeating/closed universe. I mentioned the duality of wave/particle and the doppler effect leaving basically a closed, yet infinite universe.
I hope we continue down it.
I for one really really think this is the answer. Taking the nature of infinity into account and the infinite possibilities it provides, this seems like the natural course. Infinite curves is the only way to combine what we know about reality.
(at best I could be a mathematician, I have received national/presidential awards for mathematics. Though mathematics isn't technically my field either. And I am not a physicist - by any stretch of the term.)
Moebius
not rated yet Feb 23, 2015
fourinfinities: an empty room transmits sound outside of it unless you specify the walls are perfectly rigid.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
And... What if you are just standing in the doorway, not actually "in" the room....?
Jim4321
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2015
The determinism requirement was dropped years ago with the advent of chaos theory.


Chaos in itself doesn't imply indeterminism. Chaos isn't the same thing as randomness.

Knowing the exact state of every particle in a chaotic system will allow you to compute its exact future state. The problem is rather in knowing the exact state of every particle.

Indeterminism is the argument that the particles do not have an exact state and therefore the system cannot have an exact outcome.


In physics (as opposed to mathematics) there is no such thing as knowing something exactly. For classical mechanics you only know the initial conditions over some small range -- perhaps a very small range -- but still finite. Hence, at some later time you only know the final conditions over a finite range, which is now much much (exponentially) larger because of chaos. In my view, this is essentially what it means to be indeterminate.
Jim4321
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2015
Of course, quantum mechanics is more completely random than classical mechanics. Nonetheless, for almost all problems, the results of classical dynamics become indeterminate at sufficiently late times. Tell me how well you know the initial conditions and there is a time that is sufficiently large enough so that the final conditions cannot be determined.
ilper
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2015
I don't know what these guys are talking about. The experiment they describe is a textbook example of Quantum mechanics. It is not a classical experiment in any way but in fact one of the first examples which lead to QM, surely described in any notebook (or its variant the double slit of Young). It is known long ago that the light is both a wave and particle at the same time. (wave particle dualism). I don't know who doubts or rejects this. So objectivity in their words is never present. So why bother about it??? Why do they think that the photon (or any other particle) is a classical particle, Maybe something in the presentation of the paper here is not alright. I must see the original paper because this here doesn't make sense for me.
Dethe
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2015
I dunno about strangeness, but apparently the classical models can be as good as these quantum ones..;-) Maxwell's vortex model of magnetic field gets back into mainstream physics....
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 23, 2015
This article, and the ongoing discussion, are a perfect example of high-falootin' intellectual discourse on a subject that no-one understands - namely wave/particle duality. This is a persistent conundrum that continually invades to pollute and confuse the scientific intellect.

To begin with, observations of the behavior of photonic waves are just that, observations, and they cannot serve to define what causes them because of this confusing dichotomy. Furthermore, light is a perception of the mind, via the stimulation of the cones and rods of the eyes' retinas delivering bio-electric signals to the occipital lobe of the brain. So long as a light source continues to radiate photonic wavelengths, those retinal components will continue to deliver that information to the brain to be interpreted as light.

In light of this, it is a simple matter to understand particle/wave duality.
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 23, 2015
I've said before that the reason that "even light cannot escape the gravitational pull of a black hole" is because once an object crosses the event horizon the pull of gravity is so strong that electrons are stripped from their nuclei, and visible light requires that atoms have stable electron orbitals in order to effectively transfer photonic oscillations to adjacent particles in the transmitting medium. That is why we can still receive X-ray emissions from black holes, because they are sourced from nuclear oscillations.

So, photons are not particles, but quanta of energy, as described by Einstein when he conducted his photo-electric experiment. He discovered that discrete quanta of ultra-violet wavelengths was required to evict an electron from the outer orbital of a Sodium atom.

So it is understandable that light propagates in waves throughout the medium, because oscillations are represented as such. "Photons" are transferred from particle to particle.
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 23, 2015
Lastly, the "photons" that reach the retina of the eye actually originate from its cones and rods. In other words, in order to understand how light works, we have to accept that photonic energy is transferred from particle to particle in the propagating medium, and a single photon does not travel across the Universe as a particle sourced from its point of origin to the eye. The "photons" that hit the cones and rods come directly from the particle that transfers the photonic energy to them, and while the energy source that emitted them may be (or may have been) many light years away, those photons are fresh and new.

Get it?

Waves. Photon particles (units originating in the transmitting particles). Where's the confusion?
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2015
Determinism, Independence, and Objectivity are Incompatible
We don't need to do any experiments for to prove it - this insight follows from solely semantic definition of these concepts, if we try to think consequentially about it. How something can behave deterministically, if it remains independent of observer at least a bit? How some observer can remain fully objective, if he has no full control over observation? Can he remain objective, if he always affects the observed object at least a bit?
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2015
What a title for an article !! If anyone doesn't believe standard models are weird then they need to check in somewhere. Neutron stars where a teaspoon of matter weighs the same as the earth?? Black holes with singularities and infinities?? Dark matter and dark energy?? This very closely resembles science fiction, but definitely not science. All three concepts require the laws of chemistry and physics to breakdown. None have been observed or experimentally confirmed. Don't even consider they make no sense at all. NONE.
Yet here we have them as near gospels of the standard model. The one that says gravity is the driving force for planet, star and galaxy formation.
Perhaps another vantage point might allow us to employ reason, common sense and still preserve the known laws of physics and chemistry. Electromagnetic forces have the necessary power to drive galaxy, star and planet formation without crazy math constructs.
Besides, new radio telescope data is supporting their models.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2015
Perhaps there are two (or more) "parts" to the universe and a single "Theory of Everything" is simply unachievable.

That is, quantum theory best addresses stuff (matter, energy, forces, etc.) and classical theory best addresses non-stuff and the effect stuff has on it (spacetime).

Perhaps the two concepts are just that fundamentally different?

DonGateley
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2015
Perhaps there are two (or more) "parts" to the universe and a single "Theory of Everything" is simply unachievable.

That is, quantum theory best addresses stuff (matter, energy, forces, etc.) and classical theory best addresses non-stuff and the effect stuff has on it (spacetime).

Perhaps the two concepts are just that fundamentally different?



I believe Gregory Chaitin has seriously considered the possibility of non-intersecting islands of mathematics. I'm not sure how far he took it but it is similar to what you are considering. Wouldn't it be a gas if they are unable to bring quantum mechanics and general relativity together because they aren't together and you just can't get there from here. :-)
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015
There is a reason the standard model fails so routinely. Even Einstein had great misgivings about relativity. The "spooky actions at a distance" troubled him until his death. He knew that this implied a speed faster than light and this would invalidate the theory. Tesla knew it too, referring to relativity as "a beggar in a purple robe".
This has led to the creation of the big bang, inflation, black holes, neutron stars and dark matter/energy. According to dark matter/energy theories we are some form of impurity!! LOL.
The problem with these concepts is that they require the known laws of physics and chemistry to break down. Until these concepts can be observed or experimentally confirmed I think it is unwise to accept them. Cosmology has become a reality produced by mathematics, invisible and unconfirmable. And it goes against all common sense as well.
How about a new vantage point? Gravity just doesn't get the job done. The electric models of cosmology are worth considering.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
I must be missing a point or two. " a photon behaves as a particle when the interferometer is open and as a wave when it is closed."

So the photon has an exact state, it just depends on an external factors like the open interferometer...right?

And wasn't wave/particle duality a part of quantum physics rather than classical? after all, we're dealing with photons here.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
You can't drop any of them, without all 3 you would stop asking the questions that are critical to discovery.

The concept of out of phase photon wave destruction is very interesting, it implies the photon is actually fluctuating between and negative and a positive state.

This implies that the photon is actually removing energy from the detector in it's negative phase.

which implies that photons are interacting with space time at a fundamental level.

Perhaps they are annihilating completely, only to be replaced by another Higgs/EMField style particle, that gets super excited by the supervoid left behind, literally accelerated to the speed of light in the same moment of time that the photon annihilates in.

When the photons are perfectly out of phase, the annihilating photons' supervoid is filled with the approaching photon in a "positive" state and effectively extinguished by the supervoid reaction.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
Which implies 2 things ...
1. Light transmission is a Newtons Cradle of infinite proportions
2. The supervoid reaction happens at the speed of light

It would also go along way to explaining the "Wave" functions of a photon.
Colour may be a function of the time it takes for the "New" phton to release it's energy.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
Taking it a step further, particle size would also appear to be critical, Electrons don't become photons or vice versa, which implies an intrinsic relationship to the particle size in these reactions, which implies each particle type has it's own "sea" of particles that are on the same/similar scale.

It would also go along way to explaining X ray radiation from Black Holes. you don't have to defeat Gravity over a distance, the Newtons Cradle effect does it for you.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
Sorry for the flood, but one more thought...
The "weight" behind the photon is "lighter" and the supervoid will move the "lightest" group of particles first, effectively sucking the trailing particles towards the photons destination.
There may also be less "resistance" in the photons trailing path because of it's destructive journey.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
In the article '...Determinism means that the outcome (whether the photon is a particle or a wave) can be determined if all information about the scenario, including any hidden variables, is known. Independence means that the outcome does not depend on the specific experimental setting...'
I think I have 'the wrong end of the stick' here. Isn't this a bit like saying 'If we knew everything about something then we wouldn't need to experiment but because we don't the result could be surprising and not what we THINK the outcome will be.'? Doesn't that go for just about any topic?
@BloodyOrphan...unless there super-extra dimensions eh?
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2015
Weird? Newton's "action at a distance" is just as magical as his prediction that according to the Bible the world will end in 2060. Yet our :intellectual elites" hail him as the greatest genius perhaps of all time. Leibniz had him dead to rights when he criticized him as believing God was a mere watch maker, impotent to change anything, including the 2060 end times voodoo he believed in.
Eikka
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
In physics (as opposed to mathematics) there is no such thing as knowing something exactly.


Yes, but that's a whole other topic. You're really talking about things like the Heisenberg uncertainty pricinple. On the pricinples of chaos and determinism/indeterminism, it doesn't matter. The chaos theory in itself does not imply that things do not have exact states.

The inability to measure the state does not mean it cannot be exact.

For example, suppose that there are no particles at all - only waves - but when we constrain the wave in our three (four) dimensions to measure it as a particle, the energy of the wave is pushed into yet another dimension that our experiment does not measure or can not measure.

Some of the properties of the "particle" elude us, so we falsely conclude that it doesn't have an exact state, whereas if we knew to measure the extra dimension, we could see that the wave has a definite shape, location and energy there.
swordsman
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015
Nonsensical article. Planck's Quantum Theory was based on classical theory, electromagnetics, chemistry, thermodynamics and probability theory. Quantum events are both electromagnetic and can be described within a small physical volume. Planck based his theory on an electronic model of the atom and stated that the model could just as well be mechanical. Electronic/mechanical analogs have been utilize in system analysis for decades. The "quantum wave" can be constrained to a small dimension in the same sense that a radar wave, although the dimensions are much smaller. The Heisenberg Principle is well known and exemplary in the field of electronics, in which any measurement produces an error. This error can be compensated for through the process of "characterization". Therefore, Heisenberg was quite incorrect.
DarkLordKelvin
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2015
Nonsensical article. Planck's Quantum Theory was based on classical theory, electromagnetics, chemistry, thermodynamics and probability theory. Quantum events are both electromagnetic and can be described within a small physical volume. Planck based his theory on an electronic model of the atom and stated that the model could just as well be mechanical. Electronic/mechanical analogs have been utilize in system analysis for decades. The "quantum wave" can be constrained to a small dimension in the same sense that a radar wave, although the dimensions are much smaller. The Heisenberg Principle is well known and exemplary in the field of electronics, in which any measurement produces an error. This error can be compensated for through the process of "characterization". Therefore, Heisenberg was quite incorrect.


Sadly, the above something of a "word salad" of misunderstood, misrepresented and incorrect concepts. The HUP is completely independent of any "measurement error".
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2015
Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
judging by MY life - it's weirder...
swordsman
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015
DarkLordKelvin: When you make disparaging remarks, you should back them up. This is simply "name-calling". I can back up all of my comments, and I accept the challenge (if you are wlling to give th/em. ALL single measurements are subject to error. That is the basis of the Heisenberg Principle.

How did you get five stars??? Perhaps this is not the forum for real science??
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015
baudrunner claimed
...once an object crosses the event horizon the pull of gravity is so strong that electrons are stripped from their nuclei
No. That ONLY occurs if electric or magnetic fields separate + & - charges, gravitation doesn't do that !

baudrunner continued
.., and visible light requires that atoms have stable electron orbitals in order to effectively transfer photonic oscillations to adjacent particles in the transmitting medium
Crap !
See Einstien's nobel re the photoelectric effect, the precursor of which is when an electron drops back to a lower level in its orbital that delta energy is released as a photon AND on a null geodesic, that and its maxwell eqn aspect show its not anything like U imagine eg Time for the photon does NOT matter - basic relativity...

The e- drops an orbital & whether its subsequently stable or not is irrelevant, its dropped its e- to photon and moved on, cest la vi...

bye
Ralph
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2015
It seems to me that the headline of this story . "Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?" is not a good description of the article's contents. The article actually seems to be contrasting hidden variable theory with usually-accepted ideas about quantum systems. But hidden-variable theory is not quite the same as "classical theory," even though it is true that hidden-variable theories try to explain quantum phenomena with explanations that can be worked out by way of classical mechanics. After all, hidden variables exist to try to explain quantum phenomena in terms we are used to. Newtonian mechanics, on the other hand, never even contemplated such odd experiments or their even odder results.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
@Mimath224

The photon "sea" is the extra dimension that we can't see in the experiments and the actual velocity is a derivative of the supervoid displacement, the only energy that is derivative of the original photon creation is heat which diminishes with the distance transmitted, all of this adds up with empirical observations.

If you are talking about some kind of mythical parallel space-time, why would an out of phase summation of the same photon beam create a destructive result ?

If it was extra space-time, you would have a half luminescence, not a zero luminescence result.
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
It would also go along way to explaining the "Wave" functions of a photon.
No, it would not. A single photon is the quantum of energy which is emitted by a transmitting particle to be absorbed by an adjacent particle and so on in the transmitting medium until they reach absorption by the retina where the energy is converted into bio-electric signals which travel via the optic nerve to the occipital lobe to be processed for the mind to perceive imagery. A single photon cannot exhibit a wave property any more than a single molecule of water can exhibit a water wave. You need a medium for the propagation of photonic waves and water to make water waves.

Crap !
Nope. As a matter of fact, cathodes in old vacuum tubes were once coated with sodium because this element readily surrenders an electron when an electronic potential is applied. Metals, which is what sodium is, are defined as nuclei in a sea of electrons.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2015
If you think of it as a "helix" vs a "wave", it starts to make sense...
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
@Mike_Massen, you appear to have your electronics theory mixed up your conjumbled compulsive/obssessive photonic theories. You do remember that electricity is measured in coulombs of electrons, where, according to Wikipedia, one coulomb is equal to 6.241×10^18 electrons?
DarkLordKelvin
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015
DarkLordKelvin: When you make disparaging remarks, you should back them up. This is simply "name-calling".
There was no name calling, I used accurate descriptions of the content of your post.
I can back up all of my comments ....
If you want I'll go back and parse your original post, but the biggest offender was your astoundingly arrogant claim that "Heisenberg was wrong", made all the more egregious by this statement below:
ALL single measurements are subject to error. That is the basis of the Heisenberg Principle.
Measurement precision has nothing to do with the HUP. The HUP essentially says that the information we can get about a quantum system is intrinsically limited. WH deduced this from the non-commutativity of matrices he was using to represent x and p in his calculations. Even infinitely precise measurements will reflect the intrinsic uncertainty quantified in the HUP.
DarkLordKelvin
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2015
It would also go along way to explaining the "Wave" functions of a photon.
No, it would not. A single photon is the quantum of energy which is emitted by a transmitting particle to be absorbed by an adjacent particle and so on in the transmitting medium

What medium? Also, what's in between your putative "absorbing particles"? How does the quantum of energy propagate across the gaps?
A single photon cannot exhibit a wave property any more than a single molecule of water can exhibit a water wave. You need a medium for the propagation of photonic waves and water to make water waves.

Hmmm ... this medium is sounding more and more like "aether" all the time ...

Dethe
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2015
I just found, that the Aharamov-Bohm effect has been modeled with water surface before thirty-five years already. This study predated the Couder & Fort experiments by the nearly three decades! Also Maxwell illustrated the Lenz/Lorentz force with Magnus-Robins force before it has been described in hydrodynamics. It would mean, that some aspects of hydrodynamics were revealed after these ones of vacuum.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
@BloodyOrphan, think you misunderstood me...I was asking a genuine question. The grav form is slightly different in hyperdimensional space (if such exists) and Coulombs Law is expected to change similarly. Certain contents of Maxwell's equations are expected to be slightly different also and if that's the case I wonder just how this affects grav/em fields. As a layman, I have only a basic idea of what might be involved and if you have other ideas I'd be interested. Please note that I'm considering macro N d (Tesseract, Glome etc.) and not compactification. Thanks for the chance to 'chat' anyway.
TheOrphan
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2015
@Mimath224

My comments relate to the working of a Interferometer, refer to the first paragraph of the Wikipedia description for an understanding of what I'm on about.
http://en.wikiped...erometry

I am happy to chat with you on any topic, I have always loved Quantum Physics and Theory, and I like to believe I have a very good grip on the subject material.

But I should also point out I am in no way qualified beyond my own thinking, and I am also a firm believer in the standard model.

String theory states there are 11 Dimensions in this Universe, I have no issues with the fact their calculations require 11 variables to attain their results, but that in no way whatsoever means a particles' position in this Universe can be described any better than with an x,y,z coordinate, the other 8 variables are about the particles' state in a time frame.

Clear as mud now Bud?? 8-)
gunnqu
not rated yet Feb 25, 2015
Why make a fuss? Everything is simple - the quantum theory is that part of the theory of probability, which refers to the behavior of point events in the 3 + 1 space-time [2].

AN WAVE FUNCTION IS AS REAL AS FUNCTION OF PROBABILITY IS REAL SINCE AN WAVE FUNCTION IS THE REPRESENTATION OF THE FUNCTION OF THE DOT EVENT PROBABILITY IN THE 3+1 SPACE-TIME:

Probability theory is a well-developed theory. Its consistency is proved centuries of experience. This theory is multifaceted - some parts describe probabilities of events of the insurance business, the other - probabilities of events of artillery, others - probabilities of events card games, etc. etc.
So, it turns out [2.pp.57--105] that the part of probability theory, which describes dot events in 3+1 space-time, is the quantum theory:

[1] Quznetsov G 2013 Logical foundation of fundamental theoretical physics (Lambert Academic Publ.,
[2] http://vixra.org/...51v5.pdf

gunnqu
not rated yet Feb 25, 2015
Hence, no gap between quantum and classical worlds...
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2015
baudrunner claimed
@Mike_Massen, you appear to have your electronics theory mixed up your conjumbled compulsive/obssessive photonic theories. You do remember that electricity is measured in coulombs of electrons, where, according to Wikipedia, one coulomb is equal to 6.241×10^18 electrons?
NO !

And SIGH, U r so very FAR off beam its scary, good thing U aren't tragic !

Electricity is measured in Watt Hrs ie Joules, a component of that for a specific circuit is current in AMPS but, u should know Eg 100Amps of current re a potential of 12v for say cycling a starter motor is NOT the same as 100Amps from overhead power lines - so OBVIOUSLY your shallow focus on No. of electrons is not just WRONG but, misleading, incomplete & staggeringly inept !

baudrunner claimed
...visible light requires that atoms have stable electron orbitals...
No, your meandering to try to counter my critique shows U don't understand basics OR can't articulate correctly.

Try again :-)
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2015
baudrunner added when I stated you dont NEED a stable orbital as if its an absolute requirement
Crap !
Nope. As a matter of fact, cathodes in old vacuum tubes were once coated with sodium because this element readily surrenders an electron when an electronic potential is applied. Metals, which is what sodium is, are defined as nuclei in a sea of electrons
Fine but, u don't seem to be aware that any frequency of light can be emitted from electron transitions regardless of in an orbital, it does not NEED a stable orbital & it doesn't NEED an adjacent particle as per your claim
..transfer photonic oscillations to adjacent particles..
Einstein's work & his subsequent Nobel prize covered this re the photo-electric effect.

I'm not saying its not helpful to have a stable orbit but, that idea is also probabilistic in any case unless u are close to absolute zero. Your Sodium lamp comment is fine but, doesn't counter or refute my statement

ie Try again.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 25, 2015
@BloodyOrphan Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts. I'm not sure where I stand these days (with theories one way then another) but I am a person who prefers situations that I can feel confident with and so that really puts in the Stanard Models camp (I think, ha!) with a personal exception, Time as I have mentioned on other threads. SString is interesting math wise and some are still not satisfied with a constraint of 11D. But I've digressed.
If higher dimensions exist then I wonder if a photon travels into or along the surface of a hypercube (or etc.) and does a photon suffer from the effects of the hyperD, a fractional radial element in the denominator for example.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
If anyone is interested the article can be gotten at arxiv (presumably a close match to the actual print version)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3963

The only 'real' proviso they have in there (as far as I can see) is that they assume superluminal information exchange is not possible.

Well, as they say in software development: "You can have it fast, cheap or correct - pick any two"
DarkLordKelvin
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
The only 'real' proviso they have in there (as far as I can see) is that they assume superluminal information exchange is not possible.


I should hope so ... not sure why they'd call that an "assumption" though, considering there's a sound physical explanation as to why it is impossible. I guess I'll have to read the paper, even though it sounds more like philosophy than physics to me.
TheOrphan
5 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
@Mimath224
There are so many assumptions that need to be made with hyper-dimensions, the easy answer is to use time as a catchall, but empirically speaking I can't see how they could really be a factor in our reality, there is no cause and effect in play when these particles change into a hyper-dimensional state and when they return.

Based on the collider experiments of the last 50+ years, I'd have to say it's not a possibility.

Which is why I always fall back on more "solid" particle theories like the one espoused above.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
@antialias_physorg
After reading the paper, I still tend to think all three criteria must be maintained, and the real problem with the experiment is all the assumptions made about a photons energy and velocity.

Again my theory above is a reasonable answer and does in fact satisfy all three criteria.
(especially considering the "slot" would be a high pressure aperture in the "photon sea" of particles.)

But my theory does raise the question of persistence, which I have regarded as high for the sub atomic particle range, and makes me wonder if temperature would have a destructive affect on the Higgs particle, and how photons and electrons compare to Higgs style particles in the scale department.

If all speed of light particle transmissions use this mechanism, I will have to rethink quite a few assumptions as well 8-)
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
@BloodyOrphan, yes I understand...sometimes though I like to explore 'what if...'
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
@BloodyOrphan, yes I understand...sometimes though I like to explore 'what if...'

This is where many of us get into trouble...:-)
When you throw all the "what if's" into the blender with all the "what's observed's", it becomes rather more difficult to determine what IS....;-)
KeithBrianJohnson
5 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
I don't like the definitions given. "Objective" shouldn't mean that the photon is either a particle or a wave; after all, the photon might merely be something (neither particle nor wave) that produces the effects you'd expect a particle to produce under some experimental setups and *the same thing* (but neither particle nor wave) that produces the effects you'd expect a wave to produce under other experimental setups. Like, for one possibility, a vibrating string. And their definition of "determinism" sounded like a characterization of predictability. For events to be determined is for an earlier state of being (not state of information) to permit only one possible later state of being (not state of information).
baudrunner
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2015
Mike_Massen doesn't know how light happens.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2015
@baudrunner ...
It would also go along way to explaining the "Wave" functions of a photon.
No, it would not. A single photon is the quantum of energy which is emitted by a transmitting particle to be absorbed by an adjacent particle and so on in the transmitting medium

What medium? Also, what's in between your putative "absorbing particles"? How does the quantum of energy propagate across the gaps?
A single photon cannot exhibit a wave property any more than a single molecule of water can exhibit a water wave. You need a medium for the propagation of photonic waves and water to make water waves.

Hmmm ... this medium is sounding more and more like "aether" all the time ...



Did you miss those questions/points, or just choose not to respond?
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 27, 2015
There is an argument that "classical" theory has already dropped the objective requirement in many arenas.

If you take something like conservation of momentum for instance, we have empirical evidence dating back forever that this phenomenon exists and is an intrinsic property of our space-time.

Yet we still have no real explanation as to why this happens.

This phenomenon tells us that the space-time has no resistance, yet when in a gravity well space-time exhibits properties of resistance against mass.

I think as time goes on, the problems we face in quantum science will start to answer the problems we left unanswered in classical physics, the questions don't go away if we drop objectivity, we just put them aside until we have more evidence.

It could be said we have already done this in quantum and classical theory, which is why we end up on plateaus of thought, without exploring the assumptions that got us there.
DarkLordKelvin
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
There is an argument that "classical" theory has already dropped the objective requirement in many arenas.

If you take something like conservation of momentum for instance, we have empirical evidence dating back forever that this phenomenon exists and is an intrinsic property of our space-time.

Yet we still have no real explanation as to why this happens.


Actually, "we" do. Conservation of linear momentum arises from the fundamental translational symmetry of space, according to Noether's theorem (which says that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system gives rise to a corresponding conservation law). Basically, the momentum is a constant of the motion along the path of least action. This can be extended to relativistic space-time (i.e. 4-space), but the math gets harder (i.e. tensors). For angular momentum, it is rotational symmetry that gives rise to the conservation law.
TheOrphan
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin

Those are very accurate ways of describing it, without a doubt.

But they don't give us any understanding of what's actually happening in the space-time.

It's even possible that this fundamental law we live by will cease to exist outside our known particle flooded Universe.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 27, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin

Here's another one,

We know that photons transmitted from extremely distant sources cool down over time.
This implies they are expressing heat in the form of smaller particles as they travel.
Yet this mass depletion doesn't affect the speed of the photon by any discernible amount.

This flies in the face of energy conservation.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin
Here's another one,

We know that photons transmitted from extremely distant sources cool down over time.
This implies they are expressing heat in the form of smaller particles as they travel.
Yet this mass depletion doesn't affect the speed of the photon by any discernible amount.
This flies in the face of energy conservation.
The language you have used there seems very confused, in proper physics terms anyway, but I suppose you are trying to ask about the "redshift paradox" .. i.e. how can a photon emitted in one part of the spectrum, be detected in a different part of the spectrum by an observer who is moving towards or away from the source? The answer is that energy is only conserved within a given reference frame; since the observer and source are in different inertial frames, it is allowable for the energy of the photon to be measured differently. Photons don't "cool" or otherwise lose energy "in transit", and certainly not by particle emission.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin

Those are very accurate ways of describing it, without a doubt.
They are more than that; they also provide rigorous definitions for, and explanations for the existence of, various types of momentum conservation.

But they don't give us any understanding of what's actually happening in the space-time.


Not sure who you mean by "us" there ... Noether's theorem gives physicists an understanding of what's actually happening, so that "we" can accurately predict classical trajectories, for example, and also derive momentum conservation laws for other cases, such as fields, and quantum mechanical systems.

It's even possible that this fundamental law we live by will cease to exist outside our known particle flooded Universe.
That statement is pretty much meaningless, since our physical laws are deduced from and anchored to phenomena in the universe we observe.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 27, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin

No I'm not talking about redshift, I'm talking about the supercooled telescopes used to detect the redshift.

To actually detect those super distant photon sources the telescopes must be cooled to minus-450 degrees F, just 10 degrees above absolute zero.

It's obvious I'm not getting through to you regarding the assumptions we have made, albeit very well researched ones, they are still assumptions.

The statement "Kinetic Energy Conservation is a function of the space-time continuum" is obviously not something you feel deserves more study, yet it is this study that will bring quantum sciences and classical sciences back into agreement.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2015
@Whydening Gyre

@BloodyOrphan, yes I understand...sometimes though I like to explore 'what if...'

This is where many of us get into trouble...:-)
When you throw all the "what if's" into the blender with all the "what's observed's", it becomes rather more difficult to determine what IS....;-)

I was rather thinking of a situation where there is little or no prediction of what 'a next step' might be and not just any 'what if'. While it is good to have 'standard models' to guide us they shouldn't leave us 'blinkered'...just my opinion.
DarkLordKelvin
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin

No I'm not talking about redshift, I'm talking about the supercooled telescopes used to detect the redshift.
The same core phenomenon i described is at work there.
... the telescopes must be cooled to minus-450 degrees F, just 10 degrees above absolute zero.
The reason for this is that the distant galaxies are moving away so fast that their photons are redshifted to very long wavelengths, so their photon energies are so low that they'd be lost in thermal noise at higher temps.
It's obvious I'm not getting through to you regarding the assumptions we have made, albeit very well researched ones, they are still assumptions.
You don't seem to understand what an "assumption" is in science .. we do make them, they are called postulates, but we can't "research them" ... that's why they must be assumed. Can you be more specific about what you are calling "assumptions" here? Is the principle of relativity an assumption?
DarkLordKelvin
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
The statement "Kinetic Energy Conservation is a function of the space-time continuum" is obviously not something you feel deserves more study, yet it is this study that will bring quantum sciences and classical sciences back into agreement.


You can string together whatever words you like .. it doesn't mean they have physical relevance. There is no "kinetic energy conservation" in any valid physical theory I am aware of, (except in the experimentally unrealizable case of perfectly elastic collisions) ... TOTAL energy is conserved within a given inertial frame though. The term "space-time continuum" is going to be problematic in any theory that incorporates quantum mechanics, since you're gonna lose the "continuum" part.

In other words, what the heck do you *think* you are talking about, and what does it have to do with physics?
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 27, 2015
The reason for this is that the distant galaxies are moving away so fast that their photons are redshifted to very long wavelengths, so their photon energies are so low that they'd be lost in thermal noise at higher temps.


Wow, how many times can you jump from wave terminology to particle terminology ?

Redshift is an expression of the expanding space time between us and the photon source.
I.E. The distance between each photon group increases with the space-time expansion lowering the photonic frequency.

Of course the speed of the source moving away from us will be a factor as well, but the far distant sources we see today are billions of years old and not likely to be moving at anywhere near the speed of light.

The super cooled telescopes are cooled so the photons aren't destroyed by the detectors.

And I understand English very well my friend.
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin

Now you are just playing semantic games, a prisoner of your own semantic conventions.

Conservation of momentum is what makes our orbit so persistent.

I.E. Kinetic energy conservation.

But whatever friend, live in you prison of "learning", if my abstracts hurt your brain I apologise, my intention is to explore the assumptions that limit us, and I'm happy to accept their failures if they are well reasoned.

Here's another question for you ...
Which particle has the bigger mass ? , an electron or a photon ?
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
Here's another question DLK, how do you calculate the frequency of xrays emited from a quasar ?

Unlike coventional RF on earth it can't be an alternating current wave form, so how do they calculate the frequency ?
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
Another question ...

What force(s) are in play when an electron recaptures a photon in QED renormalisation ?
Ralph
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2015
yes
viko_mx
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2015
We live in the world that will remain forever partially unknowable to us and to save us permanent wandering on the border between science and mysticism, God explained the basis of things and gave us laws to follow. But the ego, the desire to surpass a higher than us and thirst for sensationalism born speculative attitudes in academia. The result is a touching comic. Popular pseudo science. Nothing more.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2015
viko_mx claimed
We live in the world that will remain forever partially unknowable to us
Sure but, u Should be aware Science is asymptotic & improving & mysticism fizzles out.

viko_mx claimed
.. and to save us permanent wandering on the border between science and mysticism God explained the basis of things and gave us laws to follow
WRONG & stupidly so.

Negligible Science b4 & after Moses claimed a god spoke, thats ALL u have !

Religion has always retarded Science but, Science has given u immense use Eg communicate (Internet) & alleviate suffering, something Moses' god FAILED to due as it punishes !

viko_mx claimed
But the ego, the desire to surpass a higher than us and thirst for sensationalism born speculative attitudes in academia
Eg Ego of Moses' claim as some laws show god's ego !

viko_mx acknowledged
The result is a touching comic. Popular pseudo science. Nothing more
Exactly what religion is & has always been, Pseudo not evidentiary !
viko_mx
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
Who talk to you for religion? Religion is human invention. Fate in God is essential for life and basis for true honest science. Modern mistical spеculators are ateist in most cases. They are programmed in this way. They deny the truth because if recognize it will lose its status in the community. And this obviously food ego. Such is the life of the apologists of modern mythology whose speculative theories would have replaced faith in God with faith in their authority and that of their sponsors. And the worship of God with worship to the idols. Nothing new which has not happened in the human history.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
@BloodyOrphan

The reason for this is that the distant galaxies are moving away so fast that their photons are redshifted to very long wavelengths, so their photon energies are so low that they'd be lost in thermal noise at higher temps.


Of course the speed of the source moving away from us will be a factor as well, but the far distant sources we see today are billions of years old and not likely to be moving at anywhere near the speed of light..

These 2 comments seem to be opposite. The latter seems to ignore possibilities which have to yet to be proved one way or or another. Increased v due to DE and the large z figures of some distant objects for example. Perhaps you could clarify for me. Thanks
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
Hi Mimath,

It's fairly straight forward, the speed of light is constant, regardless of the speed of the source.

Redshift is a product of the actual space-time expanding, and altering the frequency of the photonic activity.

I.E. the space in between the constant speed of the photon groups has stretched.

The concept of the speed of light being constant is fundamental to distance calculations in astrophysics.

If the source is moving away from us, it will have an affect on the photonic frequency as well.
viko_mx
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
Space is geometric concept. Not physical and can not expand for this reason. Vacuum of cosmic space if physical object and also can not expand because it must suport its phisical characteristisc intact. Time is mesure that give to us the idea for the speed of phisical interactions in the vacuum of space. The consept space - time makes no sense exsept to serve a modern mythology.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2015
...photons are redshifted to very long wavelengths, so their photon energies are so low that they'd be lost in thermal noise at higher temps.
Wow, how many times can you jump from wave terminology to particle terminology ?
Wavelength and energy are both well-defined properties of photons..
The distance between each photon group increases with the space-time expansion lowering the photonic frequency.
Look, this is basic stuff, simple laws of physics. What do you think a "photon group" is, and what is it's relevance here?
...the far distant sources we see today are billions of years old and not likely to be moving at anywhere near the speed of light.
What is your basis for that statement?
The super cooled telescopes are cooled so the photons aren't destroyed by the detectors.
Nonsense. A photon cannot be detected non-destructively
And I understand English very well my friend.
I never implied you didn't .. it's physics I think you have issues with.
DarkLordKelvin
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin
Now you are just playing semantic games, a prisoner of your own semantic conventions.
Or, you just have no idea what you are talking about .. everything I have pointed out can be found in any freshman physics text, with the possible exception of Noether's theorem.

Conservation of momentum is what makes our orbit so persistent.

I.E. Kinetic energy conservation.
Ok, now you are utterly lost .. basic physics issues again
1) momentum conservation does not imply KE conservation
2) you are neglecting the gravitational potential energy, without which there would be no orbit
But whatever friend, live in you prison of "learning"
Hilarious.
... my intention is to explore the assumptions that limit us,
Fair enough, but you should make sure you understand "conventional" principles of physics first.
and I'm happy to accept their failures if they are well reasoned.
How will you know if you don't understand the physics used in the explanations?
DarkLordKelvin
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin

... Which particle has the bigger mass ? , an electron or a photon ?


If you mean rest mass, then the electron, clearly, since the rest mass of a photon is zero. However, if you are talking about mass as defined in special relativity, i.e. m=E/c^2, then it is possible to get a larger value for a photon than an electron. It's easier to do the comparison in units of energy (electron volts, eV, are the conventional units here http://hyperphysi...v.html), but you can easily convert back to mass units if you care. An electron at rest has a relativistic total energy of 511 keV, so a "gamma ray" photon with more energy than that (in the same reference frame) would likewise have a higher "mass", in this context.
DarkLordKelvin
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2015
Here's another question DLK, how do you calculate the frequency of xrays emited from a quasar ?


I really don't know anything about the physics of quasars, so I can't answer. I presume that there is an empirical relation that was derived from decades of observations, but I don't know what it is. There may be a theory that tells how to do it as well. If you want to look that stuff up yourself and ask a clarifying question about something specific, I *might* be able to help.

Unlike coventional RF on earth it can't be an alternating current wave form, so how do they calculate the frequency ?


No idea what you are getting at here .. why do you think it can't be an "AC waveform"? Photons are electromagnetic disturbances with a well-defined energy/wavelength relationship. As such, the X-rays emitted by quasars aren't "special" .. they're just photons. I initially thought you were asking about internal "structure" of quasars .. now I am less sure.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2015
Another question ...

What force(s) are in play when an electron recaptures a photon in QED renormalisation ?


Not sure why you specifically bring up renormalization, but if you have an electron interacting with a photon, that will always be through the electromagnetic force .. photons are the carrier particles of the electromagnetic force in the Standard model.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin, first let me say I much appreciate your polite tone and obvious genuine attempts at understanding/presenting current accepted theory in this area. So I trust you will take my following objective observations on your explanations to BloodyOrphan as being in the interests of advancing yours and everyone's genuine efforts/knowledge based on objective understanding. :)

Your reply to BloodyOrphan:
...distant galaxies are moving away so fast that their photons are redshifted...
You imply that SR factor (ie, relative 'motion of separation') is responsible for CMB photons redshift. But Standard Cosmology theory says "intervening expanding spacetime stretches photons after emission", as 'expansion theory' interprets far distant galaxies "moving-with" local spacetime, not "moving-through", it. Hence standard 'model' on cosmological scales treats SR 'relative motion 'through-spacetime') as 'minor' contributor to observed CMB 'net shifts'. See?

Cheers. Good luck. :)
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin, first let me say I much appreciate your polite tone and obvious genuine attempts at understanding/presenting current accepted theory in this area.
Thanks.
So I trust you will take my following objective observations on your explanations to BloodyOrphan as being in the interests of advancing yours and everyone's genuine efforts/knowledge based on objective understanding.
Yep. ;)

...distant galaxies are moving away so fast that their photons are redshifted...
You imply that SR factor (ie, relative 'motion of separation') is responsible for CMB photons redshift.
I see your point .. it was not intentional. I'll appeal to the 1000 char limit, as well as not knowing how much of the expanding space-time detail would be appreciated by the asker. I'll also point out that the true source of the redshift is largely irrelevant to the question I was asked (i.e. about the need for low-T detectors). Nonetheless, your clarification is most welcome.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2015
RC,
See how easy that was?
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
OK then, sine waves are a representation of circular motions.
In the case of RF for instance the electrons in the aerial go into the aerial and then are sucked out of the aerial, this causes a sine wave formation in the AIR.

In Space this does not happen, the photons and electrons are the result of heat based entropic dispersal, this would cause a square wave.

And if electrons have a larger mass, why is it they can escape a quasar but photons can't ?
Especially considering a photon is a carrier of electromagnetic force ?

If the gravity of the source is so high that light can't escape, then the only speed the particle would have would be from the electromagnetic forces in play, this would imply the EM force is operating at twice the speed of light.

And my statement about the speed of the distant Galaxies not moving at speed is no more presumptive than yours.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2015


Hi Mimath,

It's fairly straight forward, the speed of light is constant, regardless of the speed of the source.

Redshift is a product of the actual space-time expanding, and altering the frequency of the photoni....

@BloodyOrphan, Yes am aware of this, sorry but I didn't make my question clear. I refer to you own previous comments which seemed to express 2 different points of view. That is, one states objects moving away '...so fast...' & the other '...nowhere near the speed of light...'. In the first 'so fast' you may be comparing to everyday experience or to c. If it is the latter then the next comment contradicts the first. Indeed, as I understand the relativistic corrections, some objects billions of ly distant may be moving away at around 90% c
TheOrphan
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
Hi MiMath,

The first statement was a quote from DLK, the second statement is mine. and they aren't contradictory the frequency of the photon is what we are discussing, not the speed of light.

The reason I have a problem with the source speed, is the age of the photon, being 10-12 billions years ago, the speed of the source would likely be much much lower than C.

DLK seems to flip from cosmic expansion to source speed at the drop of a hat.

One second he tells me I'm wrong, the next he agrees with RealityCheck that redshift is expansion.

I have no idea what his background is, but he is contrary for the sake of blowing his own horn, and doesn't really care whether his statements are actually valid or not.

I'm happy to discuss things, and being an A+++ student, I know I have the ability to understand even his twisted semantics, but I'm not interested in playing semantic games as they are ultimately fruitless.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2015
Hi WG.
RC, See how easy that was?
Undertaking Science and Humanity discourse with polite, honest and objective interlocutors (such as DarkLordKelvin) is always easy for one equally so.

Things only get hard, and inevitably poisonous and counter productive, when one's "interlocutor" (insert here your 'favorite' bot-voting, dishonest, personal, egotistical, ignorant and malignant troll: "......") is IMpolite, DIShonest and SUBjectively motivated by self-serving confirmation bias and 'troll-mod gang' perpetrated lies/half-truths about one, irrespective of, and in proven denial of, known record/reality of facts/merits about that said one.

PS: Great to see participants of DarkLordKelvin's calibre join PhysOrg forum. There should be more such assets to the Science and Humanity Discourse. Kudos, DLK. Cheers.
DarkLordKelvin
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2015
OK then, sine waves are a representation of circular motions.
In the case of RF for instance the electrons in the aerial go into the aerial and then are sucked out of the aerial, this causes a sine wave formation in the AIR.

You are confused again .. any electric charge under acceleration will emit EM radiation ... in the case of radio waves, the emitting electrons oscillate within the metal antenna at the appropriate frequency ... once again, basic physics. Also, there is not really any "sine wave formation in the AIR", the EM radiation would have essentially the same properties if it were emitted in vacuum. Do you ever bother to check your statements before typing them in? A simple google/wikipedia search would reveal many of these issues.
In Space this does not happen, the photons and electrons are the result of heat based entropic dispersal, this would cause a square wave.
Where do you come up with this stuff? I am serious, what is your source for that claim?
DarkLordKelvin
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2015
And if electrons have a larger mass, why is it they can escape a quasar but photons can't ?
Especially considering a photon is a carrier of electromagnetic force ?


What makes you think electrons can escape from quasars? Also, I know that photons certainly can .. I don't know much about quasars, but I know they were originally detected because they emit radio waves. In other words, photons (EM radiation) can clearly "escape" from them.

And my statement about the speed of the distant Galaxies not moving at speed is no more presumptive than yours.


As I explained in my reply to RC, I intentionally oversimplified my answer, since the *source* of the redshift was not relevant there, only the fact that the detected photons are redshifted to very long wavelengths. Also, what about the question I asked you made you think I considered your statement about their speed to be presumptive?
DarkLordKelvin
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2015
Hi MiMath,

DLK seems to flip from cosmic expansion to source speed at the drop of a hat.

One second he tells me I'm wrong, the next he agrees with RealityCheck that redshift is expansion.
I have indeed said that you are wrong about a lot of things, but not about cosmic expansion. If you think differently, please the quote where I said you were wrong about that.

I have no idea what his background is, but he is contrary for the sake of blowing his own horn, and doesn't really care whether his statements are actually valid or not.
Utter nonsense .. I have disputed scientific claims you made on the grounds that they are not consistent with basic physics, and explained why in some detail. I have also answered the questions you asked me on this thread, although I notice you have responded to few (if any) of the ones I asked you in return. I take great care to make sure my statements here are scientifically valid before posting, I only wish others would do the same.
TheOrphan
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2015
Fair enough I stand corrected
TheOrphan
not rated yet Mar 01, 2015
Where do you come up with this stuff? I am serious, what is your source for that claim?


How can the destruction of gas create a alternating current ?
If gases are destroyed by a black hole, they would eject particles away from the gas.

My source is me, I realise my semantic knowledge is limited, which you take great delight in belittling, and if you want to berate my understanding of those semantics for laughs that's your prerogative I guess.

I'll just sign off these forums and let the big brains like yourself debate creationism.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2015
@BloodyOrphan Okay, thanks...don't want to get in the way of you and DLK.
DarkLordKelvin
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2015
Where do you come up with this stuff? I am serious, what is your source for that claim?
How can the destruction of gas create a alternating current?


Not sure what you mean by "destruction" of gases .. I read a bit about quasars, and at least some of the radiation coming from then is synchrotron radiation from electrons under intense acceleration around magnetic field lines. That makes good sense to me .. the same thing happens in stellar atmospheres. Also, it's not really "alternating current" ... it's EM radiation .. they aren't the same thing. It's true that AC in a wire emits radiation as well, but that's not the only way to get it. Any accelerated charged particle will emit EM radiation.

If gases are destroyed by a black hole, they would eject particles away from the gas.
I'm not an expert in this stuff, but I don't think that's how it works. The gravitational stress ionizes the gas, but all the particles remain "trapped".
DarkLordKelvin
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2015
My source is me, I realise my semantic knowledge is limited, which you take great delight in belittling, and if you want to berate my understanding of those semantics for laughs that's your prerogative I guess.
I am sorry that you feel that way .. it was certainly not my intent to belittle you, and I am not sure how you got that impression from what i wrote. I have been trying to help you. You are making declarative statements on a science site that are contradictory to fundamental principles of basic physics. The rule for making declarative statements in science is that one should either be prepared to explain one's reasoning in terms of basic principles, or one should be able to provide a reference in the scientific literature for one's claim. On a site like this, everyone is anonymous, so the only criterion for evaluating expertise is consistency with basic principles .. I actually think that is a good thing, since knowledge and understanding are paramount.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin

If gases are destroyed by a black hole, they would eject particles away from the gas.
I'm not an expert in this stuff, but I don't think that's how it works. The gravitational stress ionizes the gas, but all the particles remain "trapped".
Not too sure whether I have the right interpretation of your comment and please feel to correct me. As I understand it a BH will/would scatter waves/EM outward (as well as particles) in a process called superradiance and this leads, apparently, to Hawking Radiation (as yet not proven, I think) BH thermodynamics is similar to classical theories though some modification is used but both this and QM are required for a general BH, that is BH having spin, charge etc.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2015
@BloodyOrphan, DarkLordKelvin, Mimath224. My two cents...

The gamma/X-ray/UV radiation pressure in the vicinity of the accretion disc being 'tidally disrupted' into subatomic components (electrons, protons) would be intense. A substantial portion of lighter constituents (electrons) could be strongly impacted by outwardly directed radiation and accelerate it to escape velocities and beyond.

Also, much charged particle plasma flows may be entrained, accelerated further outward, by naturally formed 'particle accelerator' system of swirling/coiling e-m field 'force geometry' that arise around the plasma flows equatorial-disc-and-polar-jets system.

It is likely much 'deconstructed matter' (reduced to electrons, protons) mass ejected via polar jets eventually 'reconstitutes' to 'pristine' (not alleged 'big bang primordial') atomic/molecular hydrogen in each quasar/galaxy 'hemispheres' region, and also in deep intergalactic space, where it may form 'older looking stars'.

Cheers.
swordsman
not rated yet Mar 02, 2015
"In this experiment, a photon behaves as a particle when the interferometer is open and as a wave when it is closed."

In classical electromagnetic radiation theory, the predicted results of radiation through an aperture correlate thoroughly with measurements. It is quantum mechanics theory where the problem occurs.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.