Can the wave function of an electron be divided and trapped?

Can the wave function of an electron be divided and trapped?
A canister of liquid helium inside the blue cylinder allowed researchers to experiment with tiny electron bubbles only 3.6 nanometers in diameter. The work suggests that the wave function of an electron can be split and parts of it trapped in smaller bubbles. Credit: Mike Cohea/Brown University

New research by physicists from Brown University puts the profound strangeness of quantum mechanics in a nutshell—or, more accurately, in a helium bubble.

Experiments led by Humphrey Maris, professor of physics at Brown, suggest that the quantum state of an electron—the electron's —can be shattered into pieces and those pieces can be trapped in tiny bubbles of . To be clear, the researchers are not saying that the electron can be broken apart. Electrons are elementary particles, indivisible and unbreakable. But what the researchers are saying is in some ways more bizarre.

In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a distinct position in space. Instead, they exist as a wave function, a probability distribution that includes all the possible locations where a particle might be found. Maris and his colleagues are suggesting that parts of that distribution can be separated and cordoned off from each other.

"We are trapping the chance of finding the electron, not pieces of the electron," Maris said. "It's a little like a lottery. When lottery tickets are sold, everyone who buys a ticket gets a piece of paper. So all these people are holding a chance and you can consider that the chances are spread all over the place. But there is only one prize—one electron—and where that prize will go is determined later."

If Maris's interpretation of his experimental findings is correct, it raises profound questions about the measurement process in quantum mechanics. In the traditional formulation of quantum mechanics, when a particle is measured—meaning it is found to be in one particular location—the wave function is said to collapse.

"The experiments we have performed indicate that the mere interaction of an electron with some larger physical system, such as a bath of liquid helium, does not constitute a measurement," Maris said. "The question then is: What does?"

And the fact that the wave function can be split into two or more bubbles is strange as well. If a detector finds the electron in one bubble, what happens to the other bubble?

"It really raises all kinds of interesting questions," Maris said.

The new research is published in the Journal of Low Temperature Physics.

Electron bubbles

Scientists have wondered for years about the strange behavior of electrons in liquid helium cooled to near absolute zero. When an electron enters the liquid, it repels surrounding helium atoms, forming a bubble in the liquid about 3.6 nanometers across. The size of the bubble is determined by the pressure of the electron pushing against the surface tension of the helium. The strangeness, however, arises in experiments dating back to the 1960s looking at how the bubbles move.

In the experiments, a pulse of electrons enters the top of a helium-filled tube, and a detector registers the electric charge delivered when electron bubbles reach the bottom of the tube. Because the bubbles have a well-defined size, they should all experience the same amount of drag as they move, and should therefore arrive at the detector at the same time. But that's not what happens. Experiments have detected unidentified objects that reach the detector before the normal electron bubbles. Over the years, scientists have cataloged 14 distinct objects of different sizes, all of which seem to move faster than an electron bubble would be expected to move.

"They've been a mystery ever since they were first detected," Maris said. "Nobody has a good explanation."

Several possibilities have been proposed. The unknown objects could be impurities in the helium—charged particles knocked free from the walls of the container. Another possibility is that the objects could be helium ions—helium atoms that have picked up one or more extra electrons, which produce a negative charge at the detector.

But Maris and his colleagues, including Nobel laureate and Brown physicist Leon Cooper, believe a new set of experiments puts those explanations to rest.

New experiments

The researchers performed a series of electron bubble mobility experiments with much greater sensitivity than previous efforts. They were able to detect all 14 of the objects from previous work, plus four additional objects that appeared frequently over the course of the experiments. But in addition to those 18 objects that showed up frequently, the study revealed countless additional objects that appeared more rarely.

In effect, Maris says, it appears there aren't just 18 objects, but an effectively infinite number of them, with a "continuous distribution of sizes" up to the size of the normal electron bubble.

"That puts a dagger in the idea that these are impurities or helium ions," Maris said. "It would be hard to imagine that there would be that many impurities, or that many previously unknown helium ions."

The only way the researchers can think of to explain the results is through "fission" of the wave function. In certain situations, the researchers surmise, electron wave functions break apart upon entering the liquid, and pieces of the wave function are caught in separate bubbles. Because the bubbles contain less than the full wave function, they're smaller than normal electron bubbles and therefore move faster.

In their new paper, Maris and his team lay out a mechanism by which fission could happen that is supported by quantum theory and is in good agreement with the experimental results. The mechanism involves a concept in quantum mechanics known as reflection above the barrier.

In the case of electrons and helium, it works like this: When an electron hits the surface of the liquid helium, there's some chance that it will cross into the liquid, and some chance that it will bounce off and carom away. In quantum mechanics, those possibilities are expressed as part of the wave function crossing the barrier, and part of it being reflected. Perhaps the small electron bubbles are formed by the portion of the wave function that goes through the surface. The size of the bubble depends on how much wave function goes through, which would explain the continuous distribution of small electron bubble sizes detected in the experiments.

The idea that part of the wave function is reflected at a barrier is standard , Cooper said. "I don't think anyone would argue with that," he said. "The non-standard part is that the piece of the wave function that goes through can have a physical effect by influencing the size of the bubble. That is what is radically new here."

Further, the researchers propose what happens after the wave function enters the liquid. It's a bit like putting a droplet of oil in a puddle of water. "Sometime your drop of oil forms one bubble," Maris said, "Sometimes it forms two, sometimes 100."

There are elements within quantum theory that suggest a tendency for the wave function to break up into specific sizes. By Maris's calculations, the specific sizes one might expect to see correspond roughly to the 18 frequently occurring electron bubble sizes.

"We think this offers the best explanation for what we see in the experiments," Maris said. We've got this body of data that goes back 40 years. The experiments are not wrong; they've been done by multiple people. We have a tradition called Occam's razor, where we try to come up with the simplest explanation. This, so far as we can tell, is it."

But it does raise some interesting questions that sit on the border of science and philosophy. For example, it's necessary to assume that the helium does not make a measurement of the actual position of the electron. If it did, any bubble found not to contain the electron would, in theory, simply disappear. And that, Maris says, points to one of the deepest mysteries of quantum theory.

"No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement. Perhaps physicists can agree that someone with a Ph.D. wearing a white coat sitting in the lab of a famous university can make measurements. But what about somebody who really isn't sure what they are doing? Is consciousness required? We don't really know."


Explore further

Hunt for an 'unidentified electron object'

Provided by Brown University
Citation: Can the wave function of an electron be divided and trapped? (2014, October 28) retrieved 27 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-10-function-electron.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 28, 2014
As usual, article waxes on about the "strangeness" of quantum mechanics, while describing a phenomenon that is in no way strange.

Oct 28, 2014
There is no wave collapse. We appear to see a collapse but that is not the same thing as their being one.

The problems with interpreting wave collapse as a fundamental effect (as apposed to a perceived one) are many. Nobody has ever been able to characterize what causes a collapse. Quantum mechanics is not time dependent, but a collapse would imply a one-directional event. A collapse also implies that information has been created, which would violate the conservation of information.

The reason we perceive a collapse is also easy to understand. Take Schrodinger's Cat. A cat is in a box with a particle that has a 50% chance of decaying within a set period of time. If it decays in that set period of time a poison is released which kills the cat. As long as the box is sealed in a way that does not allow any information out, the cat will be in two states. Once the box opens, the observer will see the cat alive or dead, which would appear to be a wave collapse.

Cont.

Oct 28, 2014
However, this is just perceived as can easily be demonstrated with an extended experiment. A set of nested boxes of cats encase the original box.

The first cat will initially be both alive and dead, until the second cat opens that first box. At that point the second cat perceives the wave as having collapsed. But the third cat, outside the second cat's box, is now in a context where the first cat is still alive or dead, and two versions of the second cat have seen it alive and dead. That wave seems to collapse when the third cat opens its box. But this continues for as many nested cat boxes as the experiment uses.

So what is going on? What really happens is that the radioactive decay happens both ways initially (as before), so their are alive and dead cats in superposition in the original box. But when that box is opened this superposition extends to the second cat. That cat will now be in superposition with one seeing an alive cat the other dead cat. Cont...

Oct 28, 2014
Both of the observing cats will perceive a wave collapse. They each only see one result. But their are two of them now. In other words, superposition does not end at observation it simply extends to the observer, giving the observer an illusion of a collapse.

Note that this is completely deterministic. It has long been known that quantum mechanics can be formulated in a deterministic manner with the many worlds interpretation, which is what I have just described.

This consistently explains why we perceive wave collapses, why no information is actually created by that perceived wave collapse, why waves can be uncollapsed, and all the other many problems with the collapsing wave interpretation.

For some reason, the idea that we are all splitting into different versions of ourselves as we are exposed to multiple versions of particle behavior around us is too much of a leap for many people including many scientists to accept. ...

Oct 28, 2014
But it is the interpretation that actually takes quantum mechanics math at its face value and does not require an ill defined wave-collapse theory to be bolted on.

- end of wall of text -

Oct 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 28, 2014
~~"It really raises all kinds of interesting questions," Maris said.~~

Is there an appropriate award for such epic understatement ??

Oct 28, 2014
Now I'm going to be non-scientific for a moment, but I can't help but think that electrons have properties which exist in other dimensions (other than the 3+1 we know of). The weirdness comes about because we aren't seeing (detecting) their behavious in these other dimensions.
I'm still wondering if when one electron enters the helium tube, if it "breaks" up into several bubbles. ie 1 electron creates several bubbles of different size, or 1 electron creates 1 bubble, with the remainder of the wave function reflected. Now if it is reflected, how does that represent itself? If you detected a reflected electron, does the smaller bubble dissapear? I'm lost here. I know it's probabilities. Could this device be a filter to eliminate certain probabilities, yet keep the wave function uncollapsed? What happens if you repeat this experiment with multiple devices, does the electrons wave function come down to one specific result as the others have been filtered out?

Oct 28, 2014
But it does raise some interesting questions that sit on the border of science and philosophy.


Don't let Stumpy and Otto (sounds like a cartoon show from the '40's), hear this,... they might learn something.

it's necessary to assume that the helium does not make a measurement of the actual position of the electron. [....] points to one of the deepest mysteries of quantum theory.
"No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement. Perhaps physicists can agree that someone with a Ph.D. wearing a white coat sitting in the lab of a famous university can make measurements. But what about somebody who really isn't sure what they are doing? Is consciousness required? We don't really know."


More evidence that 'quantum interaction' does not constitute 'a measurement'. I've been saying this for years. While decoherence is valid as an explanation for loss of quantum behavior, it can not resolve this question.

Oct 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

rgw
Oct 29, 2014
Not trying or even pretending to be philosophical and certainly not scientific, I think that the universe is essentially infinite in both the macrocosmic and microcosmic arenas. I also believe that the universe is absolutely macro-comedic when it comes to describing the effect it has on me. I prefer the hint of humor as a motive for reality. Humor is always a result of intelligence. Traditional religions have no deliberate humor, and the spectre of an infinitely indifferent universe scares the 'hell' out of me.

Oct 29, 2014
It simply means that an electron is ITSELF an EM-wave and NOT a "particle"


Then how do you explain the fact that it has a mass?

KBK
Oct 29, 2014
Well, an electron is viewing position dependent while "naturally" in (quantum) situ (see: viewing position)

If we alter the viewing position of the commonality via shift or filtering (resonance etc) we get some portion thereof in either view or energy, as a differential. Neither has changed ...but the differential has changed.

To not mistake the differential encountered as the electron but merely as the differential between the frame and the viewed.

Oct 29, 2014
Eikka,
Then how do you explain the fact that it has a mass?
Einstein already explained this in 1908. An EM wave consists of distributed EM energy where the density is given by the sum of the squares of the electric-and magnetic field vectors. Since energy is mass, this density is dE=d(m*c^2)/dv where v is the volume.

Integrating over this one obtains that the total energy is E=m*c^2. Since the mass and mass-distribution is known, one can also calculate a centre-of-mass. Thus any EM wave has a centre-of-mass and when its mass volume does not spread out, as in the case of a a laser pulse, it moves like a body with mass m having a centre of mass and a momentum p=mc.
The latter can be derived by using the Poynting vector, and it also follows directly from the relativistic equation E^2=(p^2)/(c^2)+(m(0)*c^2)^2 where for light one sets m(0)=0 and E=m*c^2. Similarly for an electron wave, except that in this case m(0) is NOT zero, and the wave moves with a momentum p=mv.

Oct 29, 2014
I think that the universe is essentially infinite in both the macrocosmic and microcosmic arenas

...based on? Everything we know so far speaks against infinities (don't let approximations like 'inifinte densities' in black holes and singularities foll you. They are just that: mathematical approximations)

and the spectre of an infinitely indifferent universe scares the 'hell' out of me.

I find it infintely preferable over the idea of a universe which is out to get you.

Oct 29, 2014
Now I'm going to be non-scientific for a moment, but I can't help but think that electrons have properties which exist in other dimensions (other than the 3+1 we know of). The weirdness comes about because we aren't seeing (detecting) their behavious in these other dimensions.
Sounds a lot like string theory, or more properly brane theory, to me. So perhaps it's not so non-scientific after all! ;)

I'm still wondering if when one electron enters the helium tube, if it "breaks" up into several bubbles.
It appears so, if Maris is correct in his interpretation of the experiment.

If you detected a reflected electron, does the smaller bubble dissapear?
Apparently it does. It must according to quantum mechanics.

Remember however that they are not detecting the electrons, or the bubbles, in the body of the liquid helium; they only detect their charge reaching the bottom of the experiment.

contd

Oct 29, 2014
Any reasonable number of bubbles could simply disappear in the solution if they're parts of the wave function of a bubble where the charge detector detected a charge. Or disappear at the detector without registering if they don't happen to contain the charge. The physicists wouldn't be able to tell.

What happens if you repeat this experiment with multiple devices, does the electrons wave function come down to one specific result as the others have been filtered out?
According to quantum theory, it would have to.

I wasn't quite clear on what you had in mind with "repeat the experiment with multiple devices." If you elaborate a bit I'll try to give more answers, as best I know them or can figure them out.

Oct 29, 2014
Don't let Stumpy and Otto (sounds like a cartoon show from the '40's)
-And noumemon sounds like some sort of noodle soup, which is appropriate.
I've been saying this for years
-But since youve been saying it without any evidence to back it up, its really only philospittle isnt it? This is like thinking that kant could somehow channel quantum physics and predict the nature of the universe. Rubbish.

Note that it is scientists who devised the above experiments and who are speculating on the meaning of the results. Did they consult with the loonies down the hall? Doubtful. Also note the state of their conclusions.

"It really raises all kinds of interesting questions"
"No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement."

-You, on the other hand, have already answered the questions and decided what constitutes a measurement. Just by thinking REAL hard and reading 'critique of pure reason'. This is unscientific.

When they said philo they did not mean YOUR philo.

Oct 29, 2014
Also, we should keep in mind that these are not real bubbles as far as we know; using the bubble analogy is the best way to explain it without resorting to mathematics that are inappropriate for a general audience. But really these are just pieces of the wavefunction moving through the helium. And apparently how much of the wavefunction they represent determines how fast they move. Or so the physicists running it surmise.

Oct 29, 2014
More evidence that 'quantum interaction' does not constitute 'a measurement'
Actually it suggests that there may be ways around the uncertainty principle, of making measurements without collapsing the waveform. This of course contradicts what youve been saying for years doesnt it?

You will observe in future developments that it will be scientists who will design the experiments to clarify these issues, and it will be scientists who will interpret the results. Because it is scientists, and only scientists, who are qualified to do these things.

Not poets or landscape painters.

Oct 29, 2014
It simply means that an electron is ITSELF an EM-wave and NOT a "particle"


Then how do you explain the fact that it has a mass?
Not to mention the fact that it makes one dot on a scintillation screen or one track in a bubble or cloud chamber.

Oct 29, 2014
Suppose another detector to be mounted *above* the liquid helium so as to see the electrons reflected off the surface, its output coincidence-matched to the one at the bottom.

That would amount to which-way detection, wouldn't it?

Would the partial wavefunction-bubbles disappear?

Oct 29, 2014
Actually the welcher-weg information is detected when the electrons are detected at the bottom of the tube.

And if the bubbles disappear we'd never know. They're not real "bubbles," remember. It's just an analogy.

Oct 29, 2014
Hmmm, there is some evidence for the actual physical existence of these bubbles, including observations of how light shined through the helium is scattered, which can show what sizes the bubbles are. But it is all collective information about a mass of bubbles, not study of individual ones. The electrons in them have been "pumped" and made to take up principal orbital quantum states, and this has been verified to change the sizes and shapes of the bubbles, but again not individual bubbles, just as a collective property of some or all of the bubbles. In addition, individual bubbles have been "blown up" to make them large enough to be visible; but the expansion of an individual bubble has not been observed (and cannot be with current technology).

When we have sufficiently sensitive instruments, we may be able to observe the individual bubbles that represent partial wavefunctions; this may allow us to see them vanish when the electron is detected elsewhere. Or not...

Oct 29, 2014
somebody famous and noble (forgive not remembering his name) said that all the mysteries of QM can be traced back to the 2-slit experiment, and indeed this one too seems to dig up the century-old question about reality of the wave-function. or rather it supports the positive answer to it, in that the w-f is not merely an abstract, mathematical construct, but an actual field with electron being an excitation over it.

Oct 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 30, 2014
Eikka, getting in mind that according to the contemporary thought on QM "mass" is a disturbance in the Higgs field it's not so difficult to realize it being created the same way as an electron creates disturbance in the EM field by it's charge. So, the "mass" is a "charge", you don't necessarily need to imagine a small solid ball being there to have the property of "mass". :)
Actually the whole QM is pretty much about that - the particles not being solid balls.
But so the QM understanding of the term "particle" never was as something solid, so the statement, that it's a wave and not a particle is kind of meaningless by itself /because the particle is a wave with the exception of specific circumstances of interaction with other particles/.
This experiment seems a little impure to me.
I think I read somewhere that a source of single /or precisely quantifiable/ electron/s was created. So the really interesting to see would be what happens if you send precisely quantifiable number of

Oct 30, 2014
precisely quantifiable number of electrons /elementary charges/ through the helium medium.

Note: This article: http://arxiv.org/...4394.pdf is one reporting on creation of such a source.

Oct 30, 2014
We'll need more sensitive instruments to detect individual bubbles, pepe. Right now all we can see is ensembles of bubbles. I don't even know if the charge detectors used at the bottom of the tube can detect an individual electron charge.

Also, you should keep in mind that there are two definitions of mass: inertial and gravitational. As far as we know, these definitions are equivalent; General Relativity theory calls this the "equivalence principle." But we don't actually know for sure that they have the same source. It sure looks like they do, but no one has proven it, and having inertial mass arise from the Higgs and gravitational mass arise from interactions with gravitons is a bit of a puzzle. It raises a question about the fine tuning required to make this so. It is more parsimonious to assume a single origin for both, but it's not certain at this point.

Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 31, 2014
Humphrey Maris since more than 20 years is making very beautiful experiments testing all the consequences of his initial old proposition of one electron delocalized into a collection of bubles, moving independently. Superfluid quantum helium, does not make measurement of the bubles.
This open new ways to test experimently deeply, what is a ,quantum measurement, in particular, when a tiny partial buble is observed, the others made from the same unique electron, must disappear at the same time, given a strange noise, of all collapsing bubles at different places in the liquid helium at the same time..

Oct 31, 2014
I'd say you understand the issues, dedereu.

Nov 01, 2014
johan, your use of insults indicates your lack of reasonable arguments. You are on my ignore list and will remain there until you cease insulting me. I won't bother pointing this out again; either you will recover from your nastiness, or you will remain ignored. And at this point, you'll have to present proof that you're not just keeping on with your bullshit and convince a third party to tell me about it.

Good luck with that.

Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 02, 2014
johan, your use of insults indicates your lack of reasonable arguments. You are on my ignore list and will remain there until you cease insulting me. I won't bother pointing this out again; either you will recover from your nastiness, or you will remain ignored. And at this point, you'll have to present proof that you're not just keeping on with your bullshit and convince a third party to tell me about it.

Good luck with that.


It's not that he was insulting you per se, ....it's just that Insults are a structural part of his theory; in fact a necessity in maintaining the notion that the vast majority of physicists are as categorically wrong as he implies.

Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 02, 2014
Don't let Stumpy and Otto...hear this
@nou-nou-brown-cow-noodles
that is a personal conjecture made by the author,Kevin Stacey, and in no way constitutes proof of everyone's opinion (or even a majority of the opinions) or that this is even factual
it is called "color" or descriptive writing

don't mistake scientists seeking answers as some sort of evidence for philosophy
it's just that Insults are a structural part of his theory; in fact a necessity in maintaining the notion that the vast majority of physicists are as categorically wrong as he implies
For once, i am 100% supporting you
this is prins in a nutshell: his acerbic denigration is designed to bolster his faith in himself now that he is considered a crackpot by everyone in physics
it is how he maintains a grip and justifies his pseudoscience

I am being ignored by a faceless idiot who hides behind anonymity
@johanie-boy
he is not anonymous, moron

Nov 02, 2014
If we can split the electron wave function in two parts in an apparatus that allow us to collapse the partially reflected wave function after a not negligible time: what happens in the liquid helium at detection time ? bubble disappears or what ?
If we can trap the partially reflected electron wave function and try to detect it after an amount of time couldn't it violate the speed of light destroying simultaneously the bubble that is far away from the detection point ?

Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 02, 2014
Don't let Stumpy and Otto (sounds like a cartoon show from the '40's)

-And noumemon sounds like some sort of noodle soup, which is appropriate.


touché.

that is a personal conjecture made by the author,Kevin Stacey, and in no way constitutes proof of everyone's opinion (or even a majority of the opinions) or that this is even factual


Consensus in itself, is not valid evidence, nor the moda operandi in science.

His statement that I quoted was a directed analysis of the experimental facts.

"But it does raise some interesting questions that sit on the border of science and philosophy. For example, it's necessary to assume that the helium does not make a measurement of the actual position of the electron. If it did, any bubble found not to contain the electron would, in theory, simply disappear. And that, Maris says, points to one of the deepest mysteries of quantum theory.....: No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement."

Nov 02, 2014
Consensus in itself, is not valid evidence, nor the moda operandi in science
@nou
it is "Modus operandi " a Latin phrase, approximately translated as "method of operation"

and i never said that consensus was MO in science, i was actually stating: the authors statement is not evidence of consensus
His statement that I quoted was a directed analysis of the experimental facts
the statement is an authors interpretation of what is presented, not a "statement of facts" or even a "directed analysis of the experimental facts"

nowhere in that paragraph do i see justification for all physicists to agree on philosophy in science let alone that he is 100% correct in his interpretation of what is presented

in "fact", what you have given as proof is simply a single persons conjecture, much like the personal conjectures of your other scientists
if there were to be a study assessing all of them would there still be general agreement?
likely not

Nov 02, 2014
,... Logically, I don't need to provide proof that EVERY physicist thinks that philosophy is useful to science, nor even that a majority does,.. in order to refute absolutist claims that it isn't useful. I only need to provide evidence that some do,... and have provided an abundant list of such preeminent physicists.

You are constructing deliberately impossible standards to meet of 100% consensus, so that you can deny anything and everything that way.

I was actually stating: the authors statement is not evidence of consensus


For what purpose then? I never made that claim, so why mention it?

Nov 02, 2014
nor even that a majority does,.. in order to refute absolutist claims that it isn't useful. I only need to provide evidence that some do
@Nou
logically, the reciprocal is also true
and i am not an absolutist
i am defending my own POV

and again, there is also ample proof that philosophy is not needed in science by answering:
what does science do?
Science explains reality around us with as much detail as possible
this would include the "why" as much as anything else

asking questions to find out what happened is normally taught starting with: who, what, when, where, why and how
Science answers these questions as best they can with empirical evidence

philo simply adds another undefined and unprovable layer to the mix by causing confusion and showing that answers are subjective to the individual

which is true of philo, not science

therefore it is my contention that philo takes away from science more than it adds to it
it is a negative effect and not needed

Nov 02, 2014
You are constructing deliberately impossible standards
@nou
no, i am using argument to show where you are thinking philo instead of science
For what purpose then?
you used the author to contend a point, and then made the assumption:
His statement that I quoted was a directed analysis of the experimental facts
which is a fallacy
his statement is proof only that he interpreted this above material in a specific way

my argument : science is negatively affected by philo, especially the double talk and that philo is not needed
science tries to answer all questions as best as it can with empirical evidence, so that means it is far more effective than thought or speculation

in that manner, I have proven my point by using your own arguments as proof of point, as well as adding in my own

you believe philo is needed, you've only proved that others think like you
but not all do

i say it isn't because science already asks those questions
my point is made

Nov 02, 2014
You and Otto never argue against the specific point being made by me. Instead you argue against the General Validity of Philosophy of Physics even though this argument is an interjection and tangential. Therefor I must conclude that Otto, supported by you at minimum, are making Absolutist claims, rather than expressing a specific counter argument.

Nov 02, 2014
You are constructing deliberately impossible standards to meet of 100% consensus, so that you can deny anything and everything that way.
@nou
no, i am using argument to show where you are thinking philo instead of science

For what purpose? Are you the thought police? You don't think I know the difference?

His statement that I quoted was a directed analysis of the experimental facts

which is a fallacy
his statement is proof only that he interpreted this above material in a specific way


That's what "analysis of the experimental facts" means.

science tries to answer all questions as best as it can with empirical evidence, so that means it is far more effective than thought or speculation


Where have I ever claimed otherwise? Why are you inventing arguments that never existed,... except to make insulting accusations? Are you suggesting I know nothing of science or its mathematical foundations?

Nov 02, 2014
Therefor I must conclude that Otto, supported by you at minimum, are making Absolutist claims, rather than expressing a specific counter argument
@nou
are you illiterate?
or can you not read well?
do i need to use all caps?
i stated above my argument and my points
I have never been absolutist, and likely never will be because my mind follows the evidence, not the interpretations thereof

you are now making claims that seem logical on the face but to anyone reading the above exchange will be completely illogical and blatantly stupid
also a lie

My claim still stands:
you believe philo is needed, you've only proved that others think like you
but not all people do

i say it (philosophy) isn't (needed by science and especially by physics) because science already asks the questions needed

my point is made

which brings up another point Otto made about philo's
you seem to think as long as you can argue your POV, you are not wrong
one more reason to be anti philo

Nov 02, 2014
That's what "analysis of the experimental facts" means
@nou
philo double talk
you said
His statement that I quoted was a directed analysis of the experimental facts
then produced the final paragraph as refute to my point
that is a personal conjecture made by the author,Kevin Stacey, and in no way constitutes proof of everyone's opinion (or even a majority of the opinions) or that this is even factual
this indicates that you are using it as proof of consensus, or at least proof of factual evidence
which is why it was referenced... unless you were referencing evidence against your own argument, which you should have plainly stated

your argument FOR philo in science is plain to see by your writings, so without clear, concise arguments or explanations that specifically state anything (which is another trademark argument tactic from philo's) then modern convention would assume that your argument is counter to the proposed
thus against mine

Nov 02, 2014
so continuing to add, for no reason, the arguments like this
For what purpose? Are you the thought police? You don't think I know the difference?
is counter productive and against the argument strain in general

your proposal has been that philo's are needed in science, and your supporting evidence was the quote
But it does raise some interesting questions that sit on the border of science and philosophy
to which you added the quote, as a bait/troll post
Don't let Stumpy and Otto ...hear this
Now you are getting off topic with general assertions of idiocy and red herrings to distract from the argument

it is obvious that you will do such, being a philo
when you cannot refute with logic, challenge the definitions of something
then the semantics

your general statements are proven false because science already answer the questions needed to answer reality

philosophy is detrimental to science
and the above is just ONE reason why


Nov 02, 2014
you believe philo is needed


Nope, I never said that philosophy is a prerequisite to science making progress. I said specifically Philosophy of Physics is a valid and useful field pursued by physicists, and that interpretations of physics theories is itself Philosophy of Physics, as anyone can verify by clicking on the above link or by researching the innumerable books written by physicists on the subject.

I give my opinion to which I'm entitled to. You do not argue counter to that specific point but instead imply that because you interpret it as philosophical that it is an invalid point.

Nov 02, 2014
You and Otto never argue against the specific point being made by me. Instead you argue against the General Validity of Philosophy of Physics even though this argument is an interjection and tangential
I dont know about the stump but I disproved your assertions about ideas as being metaphysical. And your insistence that your sources are not mystics and religionists, which they are.

You insist on arguing science in philosophical terms. Your philosophy is derived from the people you cite. Their philosophies are invariably derived from religion and mysticism, specifically 'wrt' the unknowable nature of reality.

THEREFORE it is a valid approach to argue against your notions by discounting their origin. One need not try to wrestle with specifics of noodle soup when the ingredients can be shown to be inedible and the chef unqualified.

IOW it makes no sense to argue nonsense. It only makes sense to discount the source, and to cite experts who have said that it is nonsense.

Nov 02, 2014
Kant - mystic, religionist

"If you trace the roots of all our current philosophies—such as pragmatism, logical positivism, and all the rest of the neo-mystics who announce happily that you cannot prove that you exist—you will find that they all grew out of Kant."

"One of Kant's major goals was to save religion... from the onslaughts of science. His system represents a massive effort to raise the principles of Platonism, in a somewhat altered form, once again to a position of commanding authority over Western culture."

"Plato was more than a Platonist; despite his mysticism, he was also a pagan Greek... The Kantian mysticism, however, suffers from no such pagan restraints. It flows forth triumphantly, sweeping the prostrate human mind before it. Since man can never escape the distorting agents inherent in the structure of his consciousness, says Kant, "things in themselves" are in principle unknowable."
http://aynrandlex...uel.html

Nov 02, 2014
Heres a funny one;

"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader's critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the CoPR."

Nov 02, 2014
I never said that philosophy is a prerequisite to science making progress
@nou
you did infer that here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt when you said
If there are observable and quantifiable effects in "this world", then by definition it is describable, for the purposes of predictive knowledge, in "this world". The problem is when people expect "explanations" and "why", when physics can only supply the "how", and can only do so with mathematical models
which states that physics cannot supply the why of reality, only the how
so, who then supplies the why?
perhaps your words above can compel some logical answer?
But it does raise some interesting questions that sit on the border of science and philosophy

Don't let ...hear this
so now you've made references that compel one to think you are saying "philosophy is a prerequisite to science making progress" without using the specific term

Nov 02, 2014
so you retreat into philo double talk and back-talking to distract and redirect because you are not using a specific set of words
your inferences can be just as damning as your direct quotes if taken into context, and can be considered just as viable as a direct quote, if presented correctly, like above
interpretations of physics theories is itself Philosophy of Physics, as anyone can verify by clicking on the above link or by researching the innumerable books written by physicists on the subject
there are also plenty of books on Star Trek, to include users manuals for the Enterprise and the Klingon Bird of Prey, but that doesn't mean they are valid texts or science, does it?
no

conjecture is exactly that
and your opinion is proven false with the simple set of facts presented above: science answers reality by answering the fundamental questions to reality

the only way you can get a whole picture is by using provable science, not subjective argument

Nov 02, 2014
I give my opinion to which I'm entitled to
i never argued you were NOT entitled to your own opinion, but you are making assumptions about large numbers of physicists in two threads while not giving substantial proof of said argument, only small samples of certain scientists that represent your same POV
. It only makes sense to discount the source, and to cite experts who have said that it is nonsense
how do you discount empirical evidence?
you cannot... and THAT right there is the whole thing i am talking about

you cannot discount provable, repeatable empirical evidence and experiments
science provides the background that uses empirical evidence to build upon knowledge in order to walk to the future

philo's subjective BS can be interpreted differently by everyone
therefore there is no possible way for it to be beneficial to science

my case is made and you continue to dig your hole deeper

Nov 02, 2014
I disproved your assertions about ideas as being metaphysical


Well that was easy to do since I never actually said that ideas are metaphysical, but rather ideas that refer to entities that are.

And your insistence that your sources are not mystics and religionists, which they are.


I've only made reference to specific points of Preeminent Physicists.

Because Eugene Wigner, or Penrose, or Omnes, or d'Espagnat, ...Bohr, ...Heisenberg, ...Schröodinger, ...Pauli, ...Bohm, or ...Kant, ....all of whom you have attempted to discredit by calling them mystics, ....had made statements that Otto interprets as mystical or religious, does not logically render every statement they have ever made or that I have referenced, invalid.

Nov 02, 2014
Their philosophies are invariably derived from religion and mysticism, specifically 'wrt' the unknowable nature of reality.

Patently false. Not a single point I have made makes reference or was derived from anything "mystical" or "religious".

Your personal aversion to, and thus self-inflicted ignorance of philosophy of physics, requires me to respond to ridiculous accusations, mined from the internet, rather then substantive counter arguments.

Nov 02, 2014
It only makes sense to discount the source, and to cite experts who have said that it is nonsense


how do you discount empirical evidence?
you cannot... and THAT right there is the whole thing i am talking about

you cannot discount provable, repeatable empirical evidence and experiments
science provides the background that uses empirical evidence to build upon knowledge...

philo's subjective BS can be interpreted differently by everyone
therefore there is no possible way for it to be beneficial to science

my case is made and you continue to dig your hole deeper


I did not make that statement, Otto did. Looks like you'll be sleeping on the couch tonight.

I can not continue to respond to you two dingbats about the validity or relevance of philosophy of physics. Your own aversion to and thus ignorance of it, makes it pointless, vacuous, and lacking in substance. You don't even know who you're arguing with anymore.

Nov 02, 2014
ive only made Reference to Specific Points of Prerminent Physicists
-Yes, who were not doing physics at the time, nor were they being physicists. At the time they were being Mystics and Religionists. And their physics does not justify or legitimize their religious or mystical interpretations.

This is why for instance Einstein was angry at penrose. He was using physics and math to justify his mystical fantasies. Just like you.
not a single point derived from anything religious or mystical
This is because you are ignorant, or willfully ignorant (you did read the 2009 article) of the SOURCE of your 'points'. You cut out Kants reference to soul but keep his consciousness. You keep his reason but discard his faith.

Your philobabble is incomplete without these original, and inseparable, components. A quick search of your sources reveals that they certainly understood this. Especially kant and mr tempelton-winner.

Nov 02, 2014
you don't even know who you're arguing with any more
Sure - you're the pompous posturing asshole who thinks physics can be done by just talking about it (for an audience).

Am I right?

Nov 02, 2014
you don't even know who you're arguing with any more
Sure - you're the pompous posturing asshole who thinks physics can be done by just talking about it (for an audience).


I've never implied that "physics can be done by just talking about it", you lying troll. This is why a rational discussion with a clown like you is impossible , you just make up non-sense as you go along.

I've actually studied the mathematical foundation of qm and gr, have you? I don't need to be told how science works or is accomplished by two trolling dingbats who rarely even post on an actual substantive subject in physics.

No one posts more on religion at phys.org than you,... so your objection to my posts on philosophy of physics which actually is relevant is irrational.

Nov 03, 2014
ive actually studied the foundation of blah
-But certainly not as a physicist or mathematician would, eh? That's why they're qualified to conceptualize re the above article, and you're not. And that's why scientists make the advances in our understanding of the world, and philos don't, as hawking and Feynman and Krauss et al have told us.
i don't need to be told how science works
Only a philo with a formal education in wordplay (and nothing else) would make such an arrogant statement. OF COURSE you need to be told - you're not a scientist and you should stop pretending that you are.
no one posts more on religion than you
Actually religionists post more on religion than me. I only take the opportunity to correct them. The same with pseudoreligionists and mystics like yourself. And I will continue to do so.

And when you call people names I will respond in kind. Bitch.

Nov 03, 2014
I did not make that statement, Otto did
@nou
no, you made the comment and inferences that i am quoting above, not Otto
WTF? couch? HA
I can not continue to respond to you two dingbats about the validity or relevance of philosophy of physics
the only "dingbat" is you
i've proven my case fairly well, and all you can do is argue with Otto and make distractions, retractions, philo double talk, red herrings, straw-men and irrelevant posts about couches!

I know WHO, and i remember WHAT, it is YOU, nou, who has failed to keep track of what is going on

my point is, and i will simply copy/paste from the repeated posts above
you believe philo is needed, you've only proved that others think like you
but not all people do

i say it (philosophy) isn't (needed by science and especially by physics) because science already asks the questions needed
you fail again, nou
you've only proved you are the dingbat not capable of logical thought and response

Nov 03, 2014
It only makes sense to discount the source, and to cite experts who have said that it is nonsense - TheGhostOfOtto1923


how do you discount empirical evidence?
you cannot... and THAT right there is the whole thing i am talking about

you cannot discount provable, repeatable empirical evidence and experiments... - Captain Stumpy


It appears like you are responding to Otto. How could one think otherwise?

you are making assumptions about large numbers of physicists


I am, like what?

you cannot discount provable, repeatable empirical evidence and experiments


What evidence have I discounted? [if you were even responding to me which it appears you were not]

Your above to statements are on par with Otto's lies, in claiming that at the heart of my philo is mystics and religion.

Therefore, I won't be responding to vague anti-philo sweeping generality's. If you have an actual point to make that is ABOUT something, then I may entertain it.

Nov 04, 2014
It appears like you are responding to Otto. How could one think otherwise?
@Nou
sorry, that WAS my mistake... i thought that was your post, as i was working on pulling from your post at the time

apologies
i DID screw that up
I am, like what?
read your own posts
also, i DID quote that above a few times
see
@nou
it is "Modus operandi "
and re-read
Your above to statements are on par with Otto's lies
leave otto out of our disagreement...it was simple
you made the allusion that
you believe philo is needed
i never said/claimed/alluded to mysticism at all
i simply think philo's are NOT needed in science

now, at one time i actually agreed that they (philos) might be needed for fundamental questions, but now i think otherwise
it (philosophy) isn't (needed by science and especially by physics) because science already asks the questions needed
keep to the points, nou

you are confusing me with Otto
argue Otto's arguments with him


Nov 04, 2014
you are making assumptions about large numbers of physicists


I am, like what?


read your own posts


I don't need to because I wrote them, you need to.... I asked you to tell me where I'm making "assumptions about large numbers of physicists".

i simply think philo's are NOT needed in science


So capitalized "not". Are you making an Absolutists pronouncement, a la Otto, our just giving your opinion? Do you acknowledge that many preeminent physicists have in fact written on the subject? Do you acknowledge that interpretations of qm for example is as a matter of indisputable fact by definition, philosophy of physics?

Are you saying that one's philosophical outlook wrt Realism vs Positivism and so core interpretation of qm, does not guide one in hypothesis?

Or, are you just saying a truism no one has ever disagreed with,... that experiment and mathematical formulations of theories are developed by physicists, and not philosophers?

Nov 04, 2014
Science itself is a philosophy as well as a method of inquiry.

http://en.wikiped..._science


Nov 04, 2014
Well, anyway it was once. But it stopped being when philosophists stopped considering reality important and started deconstructing everything.

Nov 04, 2014
Well, anyway it was once. But it stopped being when philosophists stopped considering reality important and started deconstructing everything.


Unfortunately, some physicists, not all by any means, remain ignorant of basic philosophical epistemic considerations and fall into metaphysical speculations all the while claiming it's science. For, example, some physicists, not all by any means (hi Stumpy), actually believe that there are 'parallel worlds', or take as a point of departure that the wave-function is a Real entity, and see Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe".....


Nov 04, 2014
It simply means that an electron is ITSELF an EM-wave and NOT a "particle"

Then how do you explain the fact that it has a mass?

Not to mention the fact that it makes one dot on a scintillation screen or one track in a bubble or cloud chamber.

... Since the wave has a centre-of-mass and a momentum it can collide with atoms and molecules within a bubble chamber and thus leave a track. It is plain simple physics. No Voodoo like "wave-particle [duality]" and built-in "probability" is required.


This is what Schrödinger thought until H.A. Lorentz schooled him that such a electron "EM wave-packet" could only exist for enough time if it's dimensions are large compared to it's wavelength,..... yet the electron does not vanish into EM radiation when it's confined.


Nov 04, 2014
the impinging wave (no matter what its size) must morph to atomic size and thus leaves an atomically sized spot


What do you mean by "morph", why that particular spot and not another that 'matches its boundary conditions',.... and btw the electron confined to an atom does not even match the frequency of the photon (EM wave) that it absorbs,... but instead the difference in allowable electron energy states.

Nov 04, 2014
Also, if an electron is itself a EM wave, then shouldn't we expect a charge from say a gamma ray,... or iow why does the electron charge not vary?

Nov 04, 2014
Well, anyway it was once. But it stopped being when philosophists stopped considering reality important and started deconstructing everything.
Unfortunately, some physicists, not all by any means, remain ignorant of basic philosophical epistemic considerations and fall into metaphysical speculations all the while claiming it's science.
They're trying to make up for the shortfall of sensible philosophers due to their adoption of philo-sophistry. It's an effort, it must be admitted, with less than entirely satisfactory results.

contd

Nov 04, 2014
For, example, some physicists, not all by any means, actually believe that there are 'parallel worlds', or take as a point of departure that the wave-function is a Real entity, and see Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe"...
I've argued with others about math and its surprising utility in understanding the universe. The really effective argument is, offer a monkey two oranges, then only give him one. Don't get bit. Even a monkey knows that much math.

If you continue avoiding insults I'll continue talking with you. You're off ignore unless you go back to your old ways. You have made a transition and I am recognizing it. Don't blow it.

You would make me feel much more comfortable if you would tell me you think the Derridistas are crazy. Deconstruct deconstruction.

Nov 04, 2014
I will avoid insults if you avoid inferring things I did not say.

I've argued with others about math and its surprising utility in understanding the universe. The really effective argument is, offer a monkey two oranges, then only give him one. Don't get bit. Even a monkey knows that much math.


But why?

"The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious." - Eugene Wigner

Max Tegmark, .....taking his cue from Hugh Everett in proposing MWI via 'letting the mathematical structure do the interpretations',... attempts to answer Wigner's dilemma, by proposing that in some literal sense, the universe IS mathematics, or rather mathematics IS the universe.

Even worse, ...it is a matter of discovery which mathematical structure IS our world, and that any mathematical structure not applicable in this world, must be realized in other worlds. Tegmark adds the multiverse level, IV.


Nov 04, 2014


Now, had Max Tegmark the basics of philosophy, in particular epistemology, he would not have needed to speculate so deeply into metaphysics to resolve Wigner's problem,...

Mathematics are a-priori judgments of intuition, in synthesizing and conceptualizing experience. They're a means the mind evolved to order experience. Mathematics/Logic are not discovered, rather they are applied,.. i.e. they're presupposed. So, what this means is that, not only is the usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences, not mysterious,... but rather a foregone conclusion.

Nov 04, 2014


In other words,.... if the elements of logic/mathematics are an a-priori condition for experience to be possible, ... that ('hard-wired') a-priori intellectual faculties determine the form of experience given the nature of mind,... then it follows that elements of logic/mathematics are intrinsic to conceptualizations of reality, ...and so anything but mysterious.

In order for the monkey to be able to experience reality to begin with, his mind orders experience before he is conscious of it, via a-priori judgements of intuition, part of which are elements for which mathematics is derived by a more complex and sophisticated mind. His mind operates on experience it certain evolved ways, and he knows 'innately' that two oranges is more than one.

Nov 04, 2014
,... it is similar with time and space, causality, counterfactuality , locality etc,.. these are not things discovered, but applied. They are intuitions presupposed by the mind in ordering experience.

Nov 05, 2014
You would make me feel much more comfortable if you would tell me you think the Derridistas are crazy. Deconstruct deconstruction.

Yes, quite, that.

I was unaware of J. Derrida, which is not suprising since he appears to have been a far left marxist. To may knowledge he did not write on epistemology in relation to science (?).

Nov 05, 2014
This is what Schrödinger thought
Schroediger thought that a free electron can be modelled by a wave-packet. A moving electron has a k vector k=mv/(hbar) and a frequency (omega)=m/(hbar), so that (omega)=k/v. ONLY A SINGLE COHERENT WAVE WITH A SINGLE FRQUENCY CAN HAVE THIS RELATIONHIP.
until H.A. Lorentz schooled him that such a electron "EM wave-packet" could only exist for enough time if it's dimensions are large compared to it's wavelength,..... yet the electron does not vanish into EM radiation when it's confined.
Correct! Lorentz was correct that a single elctron-wave cannot be a wave-packet. I is not, since when it is movng freely, it is a coherent wave with a SINGLE frequency.

What is amazing about this is that the Copenhagenists are basing their "probability interpretation" (which is clearly Vodoo) by claiming that a free electron is a wave-packet: Even though Lorentz proved that this cannot be the case EVER!

Nov 05, 2014
,... it is similar with time and space, causality, counterfactuality , locality etc,.. these are not things discovered, but applied. They are intuitions presupposed by the mind in ordering experience.


I should add here that these intuitions above fail to order experience at the qm scale, exposing them as an artificial synthesis that are dependent on mind rather than reality itself.

Even in GR, the failure of absolute simultaneity, absolute space, and absolute time,.... show that these intuitions are an artificial ordering of experience,.. and that they must be redefined and equated to physical systems, a clock and a rod.


Nov 05, 2014
What is amazing about this is that the Copenhagenists are basing their "probability interpretation" (which is clearly Vodoo) by claiming that a free electron is a wave-packet: Even though Lorentz proved that this cannot be the case EVER!


Well, the Copenhagenists, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Jordan,.... did not regard the wave-function as representing a physical wave, so i'm sure this caried over to the Dirac equation. Lorentz show that Schrodibger's idea of a physical electron wavefunction can't be right.

I won't be able to respond further for a while,......

Nov 05, 2014
What do you mean by "morph",
When a carrier radio-wave encounters an antenna, it "disentangles" part of its distributed energy to enter the antenna. This means that this part "morphs" to adapt to the physical size of the antenna.

why that particular spot and not another that 'matches its boundary conditions',.
An atomicaly-sized antenna within the screen, cannot absorb less or more energy than h*f where f is the resonant frequencies of the antenna and the wave. When a continuous laser beam with frequency f (which has more energy than h*f) is used, it will, at each antenna (electronic state in the screen) with which it resonates, disentangle the amount of energy hf, which then morphs to the atomic size of the antenna and thus leave a spot.

If the impinging wave has ONLY energy h*f, it has a probability to resonate with any one of the available electronic antennas. The one with which it resonates first will absorb it.

Continued



Nov 05, 2014
Since the impinging SINGLE photon-wave has a diffracted wavefront after IT HAS MOVED SIMULTANROUSLY THROUGH BOTH SLITS, it will have a greater probability to resonate with an atomically-sized antenna in the screen at positions where its diffracted wavefront has a higher intensity. It wil then morph to the siize of the antenna with which it resonates, in order to be ab absorbed: AND THUS IT LEAVES A SPOT!

Spots from many successive single photon-waves must thus build up the intensity of the idenictal wavefronts arriving at the screen. THIS OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE INTENSITY OF THE DIFFRACTED PHOTON-WAVE IS PHYSICALLY A "PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION". The latter conclusion is clearly absurd Voodoo!

continued


Nov 05, 2014
and btw the electron confined to an atom does not even match the frequency of the photon (EM wave) that it absorbs,... but instead the difference in allowable electron energy states.


Obviousy not: It is a stationary EM wave with a stationary mass-energy m(0)*c^2=h*f (1) which is less than its rest mass energy h*f(0)=m(0)*c^2. It can also have higher energy energy-states m(n)*c^2=h*f(n). Since the electron-wave that absorbs the photon-wave with energy h*f, will gain this energy, it cannot remain a stationary wave with energy h*f(1)=m(1)*c^2. After absorption this energy, its energy must become h*f(1)+h*f. Thus it can ONLY absorb the energy h*f, if a stationary wave with mass-energy m(n)*c^2 =h*f(n) is allowed so that m(n)*c^2=h*f(n)=h*(f(1)+f). Therefore resonance occurs.

It is quite funny that this follows directly from the time-perturbed solutions of the Schroedinger equation that the resonace frequency is f=f(n)-f(1). Remember Fermi's Golden Rule?


Nov 05, 2014
Also, if an electron is itself a EM wave, then shouldn't we expect a charge from say a gamma ray,... or iow why does the electron charge not vary?


Maxwel's equations allow solutions for waves with distributed charge within them. Light-waves do not have charge, but distributed uncharged EM-energy. When a gamm-ray forms a electron and a positron, then surley the electron and positron are being formed from EM energy, which proves that the electron must be an EM wave.

After all, why would the continuously distributed energy of an atomic-orbital electron-wave increase when it absorbs a photon-wave consisting of EM energy if the electron's energy is not also EM energy?

Why an electon's charge does not vary has not yet been explained by anyone. It has to do with th magnetic-fied component of an electron's EM-energy; which has NOTHING to do with the "spin" of its charge, since a single charge that spins, or follows a circular path CANNOT have a magnetic moment on its own.

Nov 05, 2014
Well, the Copenhagenists, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Jordan,.... did not regard the wave-function as representing a physical wave,
Correct since they agued superstitious mysticism, not reality.

so i'm sure this caried over to the Dirac equation
Yes it did; and therefore the Dirac-equation and Quantum Field Theory are abominations.

Lorentz show that Schrodibger's idea of a physical electron wavefunction can't be right.
He only showed that a SINGLE electron wave cannot be a wave-packet. Wave-packets are only possible within conductors like metals, where they act as charge-carriers while an electric-field is applied. And here Lorentz is correct, since they only form and decay while there is an electric-field. Without the electric-field the electron waves are actual stationary waves, each filling the whole volume of the metal when it is perfect ideal metal. The applied electric-field causes these waves to superpose to form wavepackets.


Nov 05, 2014
Science itself is a philosophy
Philosophy Is Not a Science - NYT
[and by extension, Science is NOT a philosophy]
By J Friedland, philo
04-05-12

"So what objective knowledge can philosophy bring that is not already determinable by science? This is a question that has become increasingly fashionable — even in philosophy — to answer with a defiant "none." For numerous philosophers have come to believe, in concert with the prejudices of our age, that only science holds the potential to solve persistent philosophical mysteries as the nature of truth, life, mind, meaning, justice, the good and the beautiful."

"science cannot necessarily tell us what to value... evidence of how most people happen to be does not necessarily tell us everything about how we should aspire to be"

-Only science can ascribe real value to actions and attitudes devoid of political, religious, and traditional bias. Philo has always failed in this respect.

Nov 05, 2014
Yes, quite, that.
-Ever notice how effete intelligencia types, when they get backed into a corner, start talking with british accents? Why is that I wonder?
these intuitions are an artificial ordering of experience,.. and that they must be redefined and equated to physical systems, a clock and a rod
No, intuition is irrelevant to science. Science is the fearless exploration of the nature of reality devoid of intuition or notions of how things ought to be.

Science is the effort to eliminate preconceptions about the world, including any ill-conceived and naive attempts to define limits on what we can know a priori.

Something else the collapse of academic philosophy has taught us.

Nov 05, 2014
Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives,
Dover Publications, July 1997, p. 97. ISBN 0-486-29879-5

"The workings of intuition transcend those of the intellect, and as is well known, innovation is often a triumph of intuition over logic."

"Words and language, whether spoken or written, do not seem to play any
role in my thinking mechanisms. The mental entities that serve as elements of my thought
are certain signs or images, more or less clear,that can 'at will' be reproduced or combined."

Nov 05, 2014
I've argued with others about math and its surprising utility in understanding the universe. The really effective argument is, offer a monkey two oranges, then only give him one. Don't get bit. Even a monkey knows that much math.


But why?
Because the universe has more than one of most things. This makes counting an important description of the universe.

Nov 05, 2014
Now, had Max Tegmark the basics of philosophy, in particular epistemology, he would not have needed to speculate so deeply into metaphysics to resolve Wigner's problem,...

Mathematics are a-priori judgments of intuition, in synthesizing and conceptualizing experience. They're a means the mind evolved to order experience. Mathematics/Logic are not discovered, rather they are applied,.. i.e. they're presupposed. So, what this means is that, not only is the usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences, not mysterious,... but rather a foregone conclusion.
This is just exactly where the problem is.

One orange is certainly concrete enough; so is two oranges, and so is the difference between one orange and two oranges. Concrete enough to get you bit by the monkey. Where's the "abstractness" of one and two, if math is some abstract conception our minds make up? I don't see it.

contd

Nov 05, 2014
"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? [..] Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,'" - Albert Einstein

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - S. Hawking

""We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy

Nov 05, 2014
This is what I mean when I say that philosophy has gone off the track. Math is not abstract at all; it's concrete. It describes physical phenomena more accurately than language, because it's derived from obvious characteristics of the universe like countability. In physics, we let reality tell us which math works.

And the reason it works has nothing to do with epistemology. It's simply because counting things works; and it works because of the conservation laws. And those laws, according to Noether's Theorem, emerge from the dimensional symmetries of the universe. Thus, it is dimensionality that causes the unreasonable accuracy of mathematics, not some philosophical concept.

contd

Nov 05, 2014
Without conservation laws, there could be one orange, there could be two, or there could be infinity. And they would be no different, because we could not depend on them staying one, or two, or infinity; they would wildly fluctuate with oranges covering the entire Earth one moment and there never having been such a thing as an orange the next.

I'll also point out that conservation laws are the reason it's possible for there to be life; if molecules could not be counted on to be there a moment later, nothing could eat, respire, or procreate.

So we see that the most basic concepts of mathematics are embedded in the universe by its dimensionality. This is the reason math works so well.

contd

Nov 05, 2014
I'll also point out that you've accepted math a priori; I have not. I think math is a tertiary effect, and the conservation laws and the symmetries they make necessary, that lead to math, a secondary effect; the primary a priori reality of our universe is dimensionality. It is dimensionality that allows us to differentiate between one orange and another, and thus to form the concepts "one" and "two." It is dimensionality that forces oranges to be conserved (unless we eat one or feed one to the monkey).

So you see I don't need all these things you keep trying to say are foundational; they are derivable from dimensionality.

Nov 05, 2014
In order for the monkey to be able to experience reality to begin with, his mind orders experience before he is conscious of it, via a-priori judgements of intuition, part of which are elements for which mathematics is derived by a more complex and sophisticated mind. His mind operates on experience it certain evolved ways, and he knows 'innately' that two oranges is more than one.
If you really need me to, I can point out that an amoeba fed two pieces of food a day survives and an amoeba fed one dies. And amoebas have no brain, so they "experience" nothing, in the way you mean "experience."

Yet, the life or death of the amoeba is unquestionably real, and unquestionably due to its being fed or not fed. Like the monkey, it will do everything it is capable of to search for food, and like the monkey, if it fails it dies.

Dimensionality is not something we made up. It's something that was imposed on us and all our forebears. It's a brute fact, not a theory.

Nov 05, 2014
And "nothing" doesn't mean "no dimensions;" and because the dimensionality of the universe can change, that means the definition of "nothing" can change; this here is an 11 dimensional universe with one hyperbolic dimension, and six dimensions that are "curled up" to form "small" dimensions. Which precise particles emerge from the vacuum and redisappear back into it is determined by its dimensionality; "nothing" merely means "only the vacuum," and the vacuum is different in different dimensional frameworks.

Nov 05, 2014
You would make me feel much more comfortable if you would tell me you think the Derridistas are crazy. Deconstruct deconstruction.
Yes, quite, that.

I was unaware of J. Derrida, which is not suprising since he appears to have been a far left marxist. To may knowledge he did not write on epistemology in relation to science (?).
He was proven to be an idiot by the Sokal Affair. Or, more precisely, his followers were.

Whether he was left- or right-wing, or a centrist, is immaterial. But your insistence upon the unreality of math is right down his alley.

Nov 05, 2014
And we can finally answer the question, "Why are we here?"

The answer is, because many universes formed, and this one had the right dimensionality to form us.

Once such a universe formed, we were inevitable.

Nov 05, 2014
This is what I mean when I say that philosophy has gone off the track. Math is not abstract at all; it's concrete. It describes physical phenomena more accurately than language, because it's derived from obvious characteristics of the universe like countability.....


I'm not saying that math can't be applied to order experience. Obviously it can. I'm saying, to do so is a mental phenomenon.

What do you mean math is concrete? Are you saying it exists of itself in some physical way, a la Tegmark? We never discover or observe mathematical entities independently of their application. We can't apply a concept to physical objects at the same time both are discovered; ....the former must be presupposed as prerequisite.

If you're not saying that math is some physical presence, ... the other option would be that we learn math through our experience of reality. Is this it? If so, when? I'm proposing, it was during the evolution of our minds,... hard-wired so to speak.


Nov 05, 2014


.... in a way that operates autonomously prior to consciousness. I say this because our intuition of time is again a means of ordering experience. Do you think time is a physical entity, that in principal could be discovered independently of its application,... say like a time particle or time field? You may say time is a dimension,... however dimension is again not substantive either.

Keep in mind I'm not questioning math or times application to reality,..... (I've even stated it is a forgone conclusion and not mysterious) ,... I'm asking where does it originate. Do you think Tegmarks pov is a rational one.

Nov 06, 2014
I'm not saying that math can't be applied to order experience. Obviously it can. I'm saying, to do so is a mental phenomenon.
No, it's not. It's a basic characteristic of the universe. The difference between one and two is not a "mental phenomenon." It's the difference between life and death for the amoeba.

Nov 06, 2014
Yes, It's a basic characteristic of the universe as KNOWN BY A MIND. We already agree that the universe can be quantified.

The universe nor the amoeba asks itself questions about the relation between things,.... does reality even distinguish between things or is it One Thing? You're not answering my questions above.


Nov 06, 2014
Whether he was left- or right-wing, or a centrist, is immaterial.


I do not know of this guy, he would not made it across my radar screen for the reasons stated. Are you suggesting that a failed philo renders every philo thought invalid? Does a failed hypothesis in physics do so?

But your insistence upon the unreality of math is right down his alley.

What do you mean 'unreality'? If a bio-mechanism evolved with a means to order and synthesize experience which include a-priori judgements which are the elements of math, then this is a reality in that it was 'derived from reality', to facilitate experience/observation.

You seem to be suggesting math has some 'disembodied' existence of it's own, quite apart from conceptualizations. This proposition is orders of magnitude more metaphysical than my purely physical/mental account of 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics'.

Please answer the questions above before I can continue.

Nov 06, 2014
You first need to 'get out of your own way',.... in order to see the distinction between 'Application of mathematics' and 'ontological existence of mathematics'.

Nov 06, 2014
Keep in mind that implicit in Wigner's characterization of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics to the natural sciences as being a mystery, is the notion that mathematics is a mental construct. Tegmark logically solves this dilimma by proposing that reality and mathematics are one and the same,.... this is akin to Spinoza equating Reality and God to solve the apparent conflict,.... both enter into metaphysics.

Do you agree with Wigner that mathematics are a mental construct or Tegmark (and Penrose who has insinuated such) that mathematics is in some way a Real entity of its own? Taken to it's logical conclusion is Tegmarks metaphysics, and his IV multiverse of mathematical structures.

[I will read johan's post's lator when more time...]

Nov 06, 2014
Since the impinging SINGLE photon-wave has a diffracted wavefront after IT HAS MOVED SIMULTANROUSLY THROUGH BOTH SLITS, it will have a greater probability to resonate with an atomically-sized antenna in the screen at positions where its diffracted wavefront has a higher intensity.


My problem with this is that since the experiment is conducted with single photon (waves) with energy hf, obviously quantized, the photon flux would be unity, and so there would be no varying intensity wave-fronts.

Nov 06, 2014
Maxwel's equations allow solutions for waves with distributed charge within them. Light-waves do not have charge, but distributed uncharged EM-energy. When a gamm-ray forms a electron and a positron, then surley the electron and positron are being formed from EM energy, which proves that the electron must be an EM wave.


I think this side-steps the question since as you know e = mc² is rather ubiquitous, valid even for converting mechanical kinetic energy (-hbar²/2m ∇²) into electron-positron pairs and even protons, etc.

Electrons being themselves EM waves does not seem to explain charge,.. particularly when in principal nothing stops the production of a gamma ray being on par with an electron in terms of energy,... matter wave frequency being on par with gamma ray frequency. I'm sure the electron is very much higher than ever observed but the point is where is the charge of a gamma ray?

Nov 06, 2014
My problem with this is that since the experiment is conducted with single photon (waves) with energy hf, obviously quantized, the photon flux would be unity, and so there would be no varying intensity wave-fronts.
I cannot understand your argument. Diffraction has NOTHING to do with a "FLUX" waves, but with a SINGLE, coherent EM-wave moving though both slits simultaneously. A photon IS a SINGLE coheent EM-wave; since for such a wave one has that k=(omega)/c. So what has "flux" got to do with a SINGLE coherent wave moving through both slits as we KNOW that a SINGLEcoherent EM light-wave OF ANY ENERGY DOES? ALSO ONE WITH ENERGY h*f!

Nov 06, 2014
I think this side-steps the question
How does it sidestep the issue?
since as you know e = mc² is rather ubiquitous,
Exactly!! Thus, you have a neutral gamma-ray forming an electron and a positron! Opposite charges. NOBODY HAS YET EXPLAINED WHERE THESE CHARGES COME FROM: CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT "without sidestepping the issue"? .

Electrons being themselves EM waves does not seem to explain charge,.
As I have pointed out before, Maxwell's equations can be solved for an EM wave having a distributed charge. Since Maxwell's equations allow this why are you claiming it is not possible? Furthermore, Maxwell's equations, which are the reason why Special Relativity is valid, DEMANDS that a matter entity moving with a speed v MUST elongate IN ORDER TO HAVEa de Boglie wavelength. Since this is demanded by Maxwell's equations, why would an electron wave NOT be an EM-wave?. It comes from the same equations that model a single light-wave
Cont.

Nov 06, 2014
but for some Voodoo reason it is claimed that an electron wave has a different type of energy than EM=energy. WHY? A stationary atomic electron wave absorbs EM energy to increase its stationary mass-energy, which requires from it to form a higher energy electron-wave. Would it have been able to increase its mass-energy from EM energy, if its mass energy is not all along EM-eergy?

particularly when in principal nothing stops the production of a gamma ray being on par with an electron in terms of energy,... matter wave frequency being on par with gamma ray frequency. I'm sure the electron is very much higher than ever observed but the point is where is the charge of a gamma ray?
A positive charge and a negative charge cancel so that the gamma ray is neutral, until it forms a positron and an electron. It is totally understandable that a neutral entity an split int two parts which have oppositely charges: Is it not to you?

Nov 06, 2014
So what has "flux" got to do with a SINGLE coherent wave moving through both slits as we KNOW that a SINGLEcoherent EM light-wave OF ANY ENERGY DOES? ALSO ONE WITH ENERGY h*f!


The 'photon flux' is number of photons per surface area per second, which is intensity in terms of photons,... so if only one photon in the experiment then the intensity would be unity, and thus no varying wave-front intensity.

Nov 06, 2014
I think this side-steps the question,...since as you know e = mc² is rather ubiquitous,...

Exactly!! Thus, you have a neutral gamma-ray forming an electron and a positron! Opposite charges. NOBODY HAS YET EXPLAINED WHERE THESE CHARGES COME FROM


QFT says there is a electron field, etc. The point was that one could slam two neutrons together ,... or a cat and a hamburger,...and also produce a electron/positron pair, so it does not mean that electrons are EM waves.

Electrons being themselves EM waves does not seem to explain charge,.

Maxwell's equations can be solved for an EM wave having a distributed charge. Since Maxwell's equations allow this why are you claiming it is not possible?


Because Maxwell's equations require a charge density term, E•∇= ρ/ε ,..... ρ. If the electron was a EM wave itself, you would not require this term; the divergence of the electric field would be proportional to your EM-wave.

Nov 06, 2014
Yes, It's a basic characteristic of the universe as KNOWN BY A MIND.
Amoebas have no minds, but the difference between one and two is for them life or death. (At least in the scenario I have mooted.) There is no "knowledge;" either there is enough food or there isn't.

Nov 06, 2014
Whether he was left- or right-wing, or a centrist, is immaterial.
I do not know of this guy, he would not made it across my radar screen for the reasons stated. Are you suggesting that a failed philo renders every philo thought invalid? Does a failed hypothesis in physics do so?
This particular "failed hypothesis" has been adopted by the majority of philosophers, and that makes me generally reject philosophy. If physicists had suddenly started insisting the world is flat I'd reject them too.

But your insistence upon the unreality of math is right down his alley.
What do you mean 'unreality'? If a bio-mechanism evolved with a means to order and synthesize experience which include a-priori judgements which are the elements of math, then this is a reality in that it was 'derived from reality', to facilitate experience/observation.
It's not "derived from" reality. It IS reality. The amoeba dies or lives because of it.

contd

Nov 06, 2014
When you say "derived from" that has a specific meaning in physics; it means that the derived quantity is indeed a model of the human mind, not a basic feature of the universe. I contend that counting is not a model from the human mind, but a basic feature of the universe.

You seem to be suggesting math has some 'disembodied' existence of it's own, quite apart from conceptualizations.
That's correct, and I provided very strong evidence to support my contention. Life and death is about as "real" as it gets.

This proposition is orders of magnitude more metaphysical than my purely physical/mental account of 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.'
Live or dead is "metaphysical?" Not a chance. You haven't thought your way through your own arguments.

Nov 06, 2014
This is what I mean when I say that philosophy has gone off the track. Math is not abstract at all; it's concrete. It describes physical phenomena more accurately than language, because it's derived from obvious characteristics of the universe like countability...
I'm not saying that math can't be applied to order experience. Obviously it can. I'm saying, to do so is a mental phenomenon.
And I'm saying that the fact it works so well is no surprise at all; it's a direct description of the universe in the simplest possible terms. Math transcends language; not the symbols of math, but the underlying concepts. It doesn't matter if you're Chinese, an Urdu, a T'Kung, a German, or a Portuguese; a square root is a square root. Even changing the symbols doesn't change the meaning.

contd

Nov 06, 2014
The conservation laws are the most important determinants of the fact math works; the fundamental concepts of math, like the associative and distributive properties, are the direct results of these laws. So are axioms like the existence of the identity element, and of successors to it, and the existence of negatives, irrational numbers, and imaginary numbers.

And the source of the conservation laws is the symmetries of physics over various dimensions. This is the meaning of Noether's Theorem. So the effectiveness of mathematics is due directly to the fact of the existence of dimensions, and the type of math that works depends upon their exact configuration in our universe.

contd

Nov 06, 2014
What do you mean math is concrete?
I mean that it is a description of reality that transcends language, and that it is designed to completely represent the most important feature of the universe, its dimensionality. There is no question about why math works so well, given a realistic understanding of its development.

Are you saying it exists of itself in some physical way, a la Tegmark?
Not having read his book, I have no idea. It's on my list. I'll get to it sometime next year.

We never discover or observe mathematical entities independently of their application.
The amoeba never can discover or observe anything at all. It is incapable of "applying mathematical entities." Nevertheless it lives or dies by these same "mathematical entities," as you put it, without requiring any understanding at all.

contd

Nov 06, 2014
We can't apply a concept to physical objects at the same time both are discovered; ....the former must be presupposed as prerequisite.
But that's not the question. The question is, are the brute physical facts there whether we recognize them or not, or are they "constructions of the mind?" And the answer is, brute physical facts, like dimensionality and conservation laws, exist whether some sort of intelligence recognizes them or not.

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make sound?
Yes; sound is vibrations in the air.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise?
Only if there is something/someone to hear it and remember it later. Noise is not sound; noise is what is heard.

contd

Nov 06, 2014
If you're not saying that math is some physical presence,
I have no idea; I don't understand what "math is some physical presence" means.

the other option would be that we learn math through our experience of reality. Is this it? If so, when? I'm proposing, it was during the evolution of our minds,... hard-wired so to speak.
If it was hard-wired, it was hard-wired by the universe's behavior, as encoded in our instincts, and its accuracy has been tested and improved for over a billion years. Remember, we are talking about amoebae.

1 not equals 2. Even an amoeba "knows" that, in that it is hardwired to go hunting for the second if the first is not enough.

Nov 06, 2014
You first need to 'get out of your own way',.... in order to see the distinction between 'Application of mathematics' and 'ontological existence of mathematics'.
Ontological existence of mathematics is a prerequisite for life. Without conservation laws there is no certainty of the structure of the universe or anything in it from one moment to the next; that's why there can be no mathematics as we recognize the term in a universe without conservation laws. I can't even imagine what anything that even resembles anything I'd call "life" would be like under such circumstances; the thing itself could not count on existing from one moment to the next, so it could never reliably create copies of itself.

Nov 06, 2014
Keep in mind that implicit in Wigner's characterization of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics to the natural sciences as being a mystery, is the notion that mathematics is a mental construct.
I acknowledge that some physicists claim math is "unreasonably effective." I'm not sure I agree, given its origins. It might be quite reasonable after all.

Tegmark logically solves this dilimma by proposing that reality and mathematics are one and the same,.... this is akin to Spinoza equating Reality and God to solve the apparent conflict,.... both enter into metaphysics.
I cannot comment since I have not read his book.

contd

Nov 06, 2014
Do you agree with Wigner that mathematics are a mental construct or Tegmark (and Penrose who has insinuated such) that mathematics is in some way a Real entity of its own? Taken to it's logical conclusion is Tegmarks metaphysics, and his IV multiverse of mathematical structures.
I'm not sure I agree with either one. I'm also not sure I agree those are the only choices, either. I must also point out yet again that I have not read Tegmark's book so I cannot comment on it.


Nov 06, 2014
distinction between 'Application of mathematics' and 'ontological existence of mathematics'.
Yeah. The former is represented in despagnats strictly physics work. The latter is addressed in his hypergod-related mysticism.

Although I dont think the line is very clear with any of the mysticians you enjoy referencing. You cite their physics and math works as justification for their, and thus your own, speculations about ultimate meaning and unreachable realms (wizardry).

Tegmark - mystic

"The human mind then emerges from math, as a self-aware substructure of an extremely complicated mathematical structure... Given the mathematical equations that describe our Universe, an infinitely intelligent mathematician could in principle deduce the properties of both its material content and the minds of its inhabitants."
http://sureshemre...nd-mind/

Nov 06, 2014
"Halfway into his new book, "Our Mathematical Universe," the M.I.T. physicist Max Tegmark describes his "Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde Strategy": During the day he would do respectable work on mainstream topics in cosmology, but at night he would "transform into the evil Mr. Hyde" and indulge in writing "wacky" papers on "the ultimate nature of reality."

"There is nothing wrong with contemplating speculative ideas, but the problem is that while pretending to stay in the realm of science, the "Mr. Hyde" part of the book crosses over to what I must consider science fiction and MYSTICISM. It raises provocative questions that will make you ponder the essence of reality, but readers expecting the discussion to be as coherent and intellectually fulfilling as it is in the scientific sections will be disappointed."
-Edward Frenkel is a professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley

-Why nou? Why are you so enamoured with these dumbledorians? Hogwarts isnt REAL.

Nov 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 07, 2014
@ Noumenon

The 'photon flux' is number of photons per surface area per second, which is intensity in terms of photons,... so if only one photon in the experiment then the intensity would be unity, and thus no varying wave-front intensity.
Intensity is present within a volume. So which volume for a single photon-wave are you talking about? The volume that the photon-wave has just before it is aborsorbed by an ATOMICALLY SIZED absorber, where this "arriving" volume DOES HAVE a varying wave-front intensity since the photon-wave DID move through BOTH slits, or the size of the spot seen on the screen, which is determined by the size of the absorber; NOT the diffracted size of the photon-wave just before it is absorbed.

Nov 07, 2014
@ Noumenon,

QFT says there is a electron field, etc.
QFT assumes without any experimental proof whatsoever that a solitary electron has an electric-field around it that extends to infinity. Such a field is impossible to measure around a solitary charge. To measure it you need a second charge, so you are not measuring what is present around a solitary charge, but you are measuring solely an electric interaction between TWO charges.

To conclude from this that there MUST be an electric-field around a solitary charge is irresponsible quackery. If there are two possibilities: in this case a field or no field, and you cannot experimentally determine which one is correct, a responsible physicist will proceed as if either could be correct, and then see which one leads to an absurdity.

It is clear from QFT which one leads to absurdities, since the integrals of QFT explode into infinities which have to be fudged in order to "renormalize" the results.

Nov 07, 2014
@ Noumenon,

The point was that one could slam two neutrons together ,... or a cat and a hamburger,...and also produce a electron/positron pair, so it does not mean that electrons are EM waves.
So what is the energy that constitutes a neutron? A neutron has a de Broglie wavelength and as I have posted over and over and over again (with references) one can derive this wavelength from Maxwell's equations. Why would the neutron then exist of anything else than EM-energy?

Because Maxwell's equations require a charge density term, E•∇= ρ/ε ,..... ρ. If the electron was a EM wave itself, you would not require this term
Of course you require this term: Are you arguing that an electron does not have charge?

the divergence of the electric field would be proportional to your EM-wave.
Which electric-field are you talking about here? The one that most probably does NOT exist around a solitary electron.....continued

Nov 07, 2014
OR the localised-stationary EM-field within the volume of the solitary electron (with no electric field in space around this volume) which gives the electron its mass-energy?


Nov 07, 2014
The 'photon flux' is number of photons per surface area per second, which is intensity in terms of photons,... so if only one photon in the experiment then the intensity would be unity, and thus no varying wave-front intensity.

Intensity is present within a volume. So which volume for a single photon-wave are you talking about?

Intensity defined in terms of photons, is proportional to the number of photons,.... so if in the experiment a single photon at a time is used,... the Intensity must be unity; There IS no more intensity at one location of the screen as compared to another, so your "at positions where its diffracted wavefront has a higher intensity" does not work.

Nov 07, 2014
QFT says there is a electron field, etc.

QFT assumes without any experimental proof whatsoever that a solitary electron has an electric-field around it that extends to infinity. Such a field is impossible to measure around a solitary charge.


Not electric field,.... electron field,.. then for QCD, quark fields, etc.

The point was that one could slam two neutrons together ,... or a cat and a hamburger,...and also produce a electron/positron pair, so it does not mean that electrons are EM waves.

So what is the energy that constitutes a neutron?


I don't see how it makes sense to associate difference flavours of energy. Energy is just energy and has generalized units. As I said, purely mechanical energy could also create massive particles.

Nov 07, 2014
Because Maxwell's equations require a charge density term, E•∇= ρ/ ε,..... ρ If the electron was a EM wave itself, you would not require this term

Of course you require this term: Are you arguing that an electron does not have charge?


No, I thought you were arguing that electrons are EM-waves,... if so then why would the Maxwell equations require the ρ term or j term?

Nov 07, 2014
and thus your own, speculations about ultimate meaning and unreachable realms -Otto


I have not presented any speculations about metaphysics, ....you continue to either lie or continue to fail to comprehend my posts. I denounce metaphysics in science. If you were able to comprehend my posts you would have known this years ago. You would have also noticed that I condemned Tegmark, as well as others thinking that mathematics "exists" in some way on its own apart from its intellectual use in modeling or conceptualizing reality. You continue to spam with slander and irrelevancies in your 'accusation style' Jerry-Springer rants. You will be ignored unless you accidentally make a point.

Nov 07, 2014
Yes, It's a basic characteristic of the universe as KNOWN BY A MIND.

Amoebas have no minds, but the difference between one and two is for them life or death. (At least in the scenario I have mooted.) There is no "knowledge;" either there is enough food or there isn't.


Who quantified the food to one or two?

Are you suggesting that a failed philo renders every philo thought invalid? Does a failed hypothesis in physics do so?

This particular "failed hypothesis" has been adopted by the majority of philosophers, and that makes me generally reject philosophy.

A majority of philosophers? Can you substantiate that claim?

If physicists had suddenly started insisting the world is flat I'd reject them too.


There is no need to invent a ridiculous example, when the history of physics is littered with failed hypothesis.

Nov 07, 2014
I contend that counting is not a model from the human mind, but a basic feature of the universe.


Yes, a basic feature of the universe AS KNOWN,... by an observer that does not counting. The universe does not care about relations between 'parts' of itself,... it just is. It does not need to perform mathematical analysis in order for it to exist.

Nov 07, 2014
You seem to be suggesting math has some 'disembodied' existence of it's own, quite apart from conceptualizations.

That's correct, ...


But then,.....

What do you mean math is concrete?

I mean that it is a description of reality that transcends language, and that it is designed to completely represent the most important feature of the universe, its dimensionality. There is no question about why math works so well, given a realistic understanding of its development.


Yes, exactly, it's a "description", that is "designed" to "represent", given it's "development",... thus it is not in fact 'concrete' nor has any 'disembodied' existence apart from being a mental construct to represent the universe as perceived.

Admitting this does not mean that it has no application to understanding reality. We already agree that there is no mystery to its success.

Nov 07, 2014
We can't apply a concept to physical objects at the same time both are discovered; ....the former must be presupposed as prerequisite.

But that's not the question. The question is, are the brute physical facts there whether we recognize them or not, or are they "constructions of the mind?" And the answer is, brute physical facts, like dimensionality and conservation laws, exist whether some sort of intelligence recognizes them or not.


You are conflating objective reality with conceptualizations of it.

There is an Objective Reality (independent of mind, yes), which is the source of physical facts (as observed by mind).

Then there are conceptualizations of those observed facts. These are not 'things unto themselves', but relations between things,... questions asked about the facts.

Conservation laws do NOT exist "[without] some sort of intelligence [to] recognize[] them",... the observed facts which would lead them to, do.

Nov 07, 2014
If you're not saying that math is some physical presence, ....
I have no idea; I don't understand what "math is some physical presence" means.


That "math has some 'disembodied' existence of it's own", to which you answered yes above. If it is not a mental construct, as you appear to be saying it isn't, then it must have some independent 'physical presence',...

....the other option would be that we learn math through our experience of reality. Is this it? If so, when? I'm proposing, it was during the evolution of our minds,... hard-wired so to speak.

If it was hard-wired, it was hard-wired by the universe's behavior, as encoded in our instincts, .....


Correct, ....and if those instincts are a-priori to experience, and thus a prerequisite for experience to be possible at all,... then it is a forgone conclusion that the a-priori judgments which are the elements of math, are enormously useful to the natural sciences, which is after all inductive.

Nov 07, 2014
You first need to 'get out of your own way',.... in order to see the distinction between 'Application of mathematics' and 'ontological existence of mathematics'.

Ontological existence of mathematics is a prerequisite for life. Without conservation laws there is no certainty of the structure of the universe or anything in it from one moment to the next;


There is no certainty wrt our Knowledge of it. The universe does not need to be Known to exist.

Nov 07, 2014
Yes, It's a basic characteristic of the universe as KNOWN BY A MIND.

Amoebas have no minds, but the difference between one and two is for them life or death. (At least in the scenario I have mooted.) There is no "knowledge;" either there is enough food or there isn't.
Who quantified the food to one or two?
The amoeba does, by living or dying.

Are you suggesting that a failed philo renders every philo thought invalid? Does a failed hypothesis in physics do so?

This particular "failed hypothesis" has been adopted by the majority of philosophers, and that makes me generally reject philosophy.

A majority of philosophers? Can you substantiate that claim?
Yes. Look up the Sokal Affair.

Nov 07, 2014
I contend that counting is not a model from the human mind, but a basic feature of the universe.
Yes, a basic feature of the universe AS KNOWN,... by an observer
An amoeba is not an "observer" except in the most rigorous sense; it's certainly not capable of "knowing" anything.

that does not counting.
I couldn't figure out what this is supposed to mean.

The universe does not care about relations between 'parts' of itself,... it just is. It does not need to perform mathematical analysis in order for it to exist.
The amoeba doesn't "care" either; it can't. It just lives if it gets enough to eat, and dies if it doesn't. No analysis is needed.

Nov 07, 2014
Yes, exactly, it's a "description", that is "designed" to "represent", given it's "development",... thus it is not in fact 'concrete' nor has any 'disembodied' existence apart from being a mental construct to represent the universe as perceived.
The amoeba doesn't know any math, but math affects its survival; and the same is true for everything that eats and lives. Whether it's *possible* to use it to describe the universe is immaterial to whether it is a natural feature of the universe or not. Actually, it is possible; but that's because it emerges from dimensionality.

Nov 07, 2014
We can't apply a concept to physical objects at the same time both are discovered; ....the former must be presupposed as prerequisite.

But that's not the question. The question is, are the brute physical facts there whether we recognize them or not, or are they "constructions of the mind?" And the answer is, brute physical facts, like dimensionality and conservation laws, exist whether some sort of intelligence recognizes them or not.
You are conflating objective reality with conceptualizations of it.
No, I'm saying reality's characteristics determine that math works, not the human mind. I'm saying that the most basic parts of number theory are embedded in the universe, and any mind that investigates it will discover math, and it will be the same math we use. Math is a feature of reality.

contd

Nov 07, 2014
that's why there can be no mathematics as we recognize the term in a universe without conservation laws


Mathematics was developed in ancient times when very little was known about the universe, much less conservation laws.

Further, the question of a foundational basis for mathematics is far from being settled,.... so to propose that it has an ontological existence independent of mind, is unsubstantiated.

Also, you have it backwards, ....there can be no conservation laws without an intelligence asking about the rate of change of one degree of freedom with respect to another, and the Application of the concept of symmetry.

Nov 07, 2014
I contend that counting is not a model from the human mind, but a basic feature of the universe.


Yes, a basic feature of the universe AS KNOWN,... by an observer that does [the] counting. The universe does not care about relations between 'parts' of itself,... it just is. It does not need to perform mathematical analysis in order for it to exist.


The universe does not care about relations between 'parts' of itself,... it just is. It does not need to perform mathematical analysis in order for it to exist.


The amoeba doesn't "care" either; it can't. It just lives if it gets enough to eat, and dies if it doesn't. No analysis is needed.


Correct, no analysis,... until an intelligence comes along to understand why it died, and in doing so Quantifies amounts of food so that he could then say 'this much, or that much'...

math affects its survival


Math is not physical, so it can't, ..... math is a language to help understand reality.

Nov 07, 2014
There is an Objective Reality (independent of mind, yes), which is the source of physical facts (as observed by mind).
Math is part of objective reality.

Then there are conceptualizations of those observed facts. These are not 'things unto themselves', but relations between things,... questions asked about the facts.
An amoeba cannot "conceptualize," yet its existence is ruled by math.

Conservation laws do NOT exist "[without] some sort of intelligence [to] recognize[] them",... the observed facts which would lead them to, do.
Conservation laws are the direct result of the structure of the universe, specifically its dimensionality (note: not its contents). Are you seriously claiming that dimensionality isn't a feature of reality? Or that the fact that the amoeba lives or dies isn't?

Nov 07, 2014
Correct, ....and if those instincts are a-priori to experience, and thus a prerequisite for experience to be possible at all,... then it is a forgone conclusion that the a-priori judgments which are the elements of math, are enormously useful to the natural sciences, which is after all inductive.
I don't see how instincts can be a priori to anything. And you left out the amoeba.

There is no certainty wrt our Knowledge of it. The universe does not need to be Known to exist.
Math doesn't either.

Nov 07, 2014
that's why there can be no mathematics as we recognize the term in a universe without conservation laws
Mathematics was developed in ancient times when very little was known about the universe, much less conservation laws.
No, math was *discovered* in ancient times. I misspoke above; math was not developed. It's a feature of reality. It was discovered. Its intimate connection with reality is what makes it so effective.

Further, the question of a http://en.wikiped..._program for mathematics is far from being settled,.... so to propose that it has an ontological existence independent of mind, is unsubstantiated.
Non sequitur.

Also, you have it backwards, ....there can be no conservation laws without an intelligence asking about the rate of change of one degree of freedom with respect to another, and the Application of the concept of symmetry.
So the monkey doesn't bite you? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

contd

Nov 07, 2014
You are conflating objective reality with conceptualizations of it.

No, I'm saying reality's characteristics determine that math works, not the human mind. I'm saying that the most basic parts of number theory are embedded in the universe, and any mind that investigates it will discover math, and it will be the same math we use. Math is a feature of reality.


We will just have to respectfully disagree on this. I think you have it backwards, particularly when investigations of mathematics preceded inductive investigations of reality in history.

The most basic parts of number theory are embedded in the mind as a-priori judgments, ....so that investigations of the universe will necessarily be modeled in these terms.


Nov 07, 2014
Conservation laws determine that physical objects are allowed to move in some ways, but not in others. Conservation laws determine that if there is a certain amount of something one moment, there will be the same amount later.

And you've forgotten Noether's Theorem; conservation laws are the result of dimension.

Correct, no analysis,... until an intelligence comes along to understand why it died, and in doing so Quantifies amounts of food so that he could then say 'this much, or that much'...
Whether the amoeba is alive or dead is a brute physical fact. No analysis can change it.

Math is not physical, so it can't, ..... math is a language to help understand reality.
Math is physical. It's based on the existence of distinguishable features of reality which remain in existence. Thus, conservation laws.

You've ignored the fact that things don't pop into and out of existence in our universe.

Nov 07, 2014
Then there are conceptualizations of those observed facts. These are not 'things unto themselves', but relations between things,... questions asked about the facts.

An amoeba cannot "conceptualize," yet its existence is ruled by math.


Unless math is a 'physical thing' it can't possibly effect the amoeba. The amoeba does not eat 'the number two', ....it eats physical stuff.

Only later when one wants to understand why the amoeba died, does math come into play, in quantifying, answering questions, and speaking of it.

Nov 07, 2014
You are conflating objective reality with conceptualizations of it.

No, I'm saying reality's characteristics determine that math works, not the human mind. I'm saying that the most basic parts of number theory are embedded in the universe, and any mind that investigates it will discover math, and it will be the same math we use. Math is a feature of reality.
We will just have to respectfully disagree on this.
Do you contend that there is some other sort of math that's just as effective at describing the universe as the math we've discovered? Please at least try to explain how that would work. I'm not being nasty; I'm serious. If you have such a concept I'd like to try to understand it.

I think you have it backwards, particularly when investigations of mathematics preceded inductive investigations of reality in history.
Math doesn't depend on being discovered to work. The amoeba lives or dies.

contd

Nov 07, 2014
Then there are conceptualizations of those observed facts. These are not 'things unto themselves', but relations between things,... questions asked about the facts.
An amoeba cannot "conceptualize," yet its existence is ruled by math.
Unless math is a 'physical thing' it can't possibly effect the amoeba.
It affects the amoeba by determining whether it lives or dies, and no human analysis is required for it to do so. It's a brute physical fact.

The amoeba does not eat 'the number two', ....it eats physical stuff.
Yes, and the amount- note that carefully, it has to be possible to count to have an "amount-" determines if it lives or dies. It's a brute physical fact.

Only later when one wants to understand why the amoeba died, does math come into play, in quantifying, answering questions, and speaking of it.
But none of that changes whether the amoeba is alive or dead.

Nov 07, 2014
Math is physical. It's based on the existence of distinguishable features of reality which remain in existence.


'Based on', or 'is'? You keep making conflicting statements. 'Based on' implies a model,... while 'IS' (a la Tegmark) implies physical objective existence.

This is what I mean when I say that you're conflating conceptualizations of reality (models), with reality itself.

Are you then saying that a mathematical model of some observed feature of the universe, is a physical reproduction of the universe? If one was successful in developing a T.O.E., would this then mean that he created our universe?

You've ignored the fact that things don't pop into and out of existence in our universe.


Tell that to the vacuum state representation in QM.

Nov 07, 2014
No, "based on" indicates that it's a feature of the universe, that emerges from other brute physical features of the universe, specifically dimensionality.

Nov 07, 2014
Are you then saying that a mathematical model of some observed feature of the universe, is a physical reproduction of the universe? If one was successful in developing a T.O.E., would this then mean that he created our universe?
Math is a feature of the universe, not the universe itself, any more than a dimension is the universe itself.

You've ignored the fact that things don't pop into and out of existence in our universe.


Tell that to the vacuum state representation in QM.
This is not a violation of the conservation laws; the uncertainty of the particles allows them to exist briefly without violating it. They must, of course, disappear back into the vacuum in order to avoid doing so.

In any case, you're changing the subject.

Nov 07, 2014
5s from me. This is an interesting conversation.

Nov 07, 2014
Do you contend that there is some other sort of math that's just as effective at describing the universe as the math we've discovered?


I don't agree that math was 'discovered', so that is a loaded question.

So no I don't contend that ,.. only that the elements of math are embedded in the mind as a-priori judgments, ....so that investigations of the universe will necessarily be modeled in these terms, and reality will necessarily be experienced in these terms, ....so that the 'unreasonable effectiveness' of mathematics gives some the wrong impression that mathematics has a some Platonic existence, or that it is a mystery. This is an illusion, and like all such illusions in history of physics, stems from an inability to get out of our own intellectual way.

Nov 07, 2014
No, "based on" indicates that it's a feature of the universe, that emerges from other brute physical features of the universe, specifically dimensionality.


I don't agree that dimensionality is a brute physical fact of the universe, which is to say an observable entity of itself. Derived if useful, yes.

In GR there is no absolute dimensionality of space, nor an absolute dimensionality of time,... both are dependent on the observer's reference frame, even when these intuitions of space and time are defined as being physical systems.

Also, in QM either the mathematics of probability is wrong, or spatial dimensionality fails to account for the observed facts of quantum non-locality, and temporal dimensionality fails to account for quantum indeterminacy.




Nov 07, 2014
If Archimedes was a string theorist he would have said,.... grant me enough degrees of freedom [dimensionality], and a parallel world in which to stand [10^100 solutions], and I could explain everything that exists and even more that does not.

This is the thing with math generally, ...the mathematical structures applicable in modeling the universe, are a limited subspace of all mathematical structures derivable from it's foundational elements.

Nov 07, 2014
[Edit: ".... no absolute [parameterization of the] dimensionality of space, nor an absolute [parameterization of the] dimensionality of time"]

Nov 07, 2014
Do you contend that there is some other sort of math that's just as effective at describing the universe as the math we've discovered?


I don't agree that math was 'discovered', so that is a loaded question.
It's a simple question: is there more than one "sort" of math that's accurate?

If you claim so, show us this "sort" of math.

If you claim not, then how can it be anything but a feature of the universe?

Nov 07, 2014
No, "based on" indicates that it's a feature of the universe, that emerges from other brute physical features of the universe, specifically dimensionality.


I don't agree that dimensionality is a brute physical fact of the universe, which is to say an observable entity of itself. Derived if useful, yes.
I don't even know what to say. It's like arguing the Earth isn't round.

Nov 07, 2014
In GR there is no absolute dimensionality of space, nor an absolute dimensionality of time,...
"Spacetime forms a 4-dimensional continuum." It's one of the Postulates. Right along with the Principle of Relativity, the Existence of Globally Inertial Frames, and the Constancy of the Speed of Light for all observers.

Nov 07, 2014
Also, in QM either the mathematics of probability is wrong, or spatial dimensionality fails to account for the observed facts of quantum non-locality, and temporal dimensionality fails to account for quantum indeterminacy.
But it's not necessarily non-locality; it might be contrafactual definiteness. Either is a solution to Bell's Inequality.

And quantum indeterminacy is another brute fact. See the Scully Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

Nov 07, 2014
If Archimedes was a string theorist he would have said,.... grant me enough degrees of freedom [dimensionality], and a parallel world in which to stand [10^100 solutions], and I could explain everything that exists and even more that does not.
So what limits it to 10¹⁰⁰? Why not infinity?

This is the thing with math generally, ...the mathematical structures applicable in modeling the universe, are a limited subspace of all mathematical structures derivable from it's foundational elements.
But they *work*. You might as well deny refrigerators, or deny the Moon landings.

Nov 07, 2014
In GR there is no absolute dimensionality of space, nor an absolute dimensionality of time,...
"Spacetime forms a 4-dimensional continuum." It's one of the Postulates. Right along with the Principle of Relativity, the Existence of Globally Inertial Frames, and the Constancy of the Speed of Light for all observers.


The constancy of c implies there is no absolute frame of reference for either space or time in GR,... no absolute space nor absolute time. They're dependent upon the observers reference frame. [I corrected my "absolute dimensionality" wording above]

Nov 07, 2014
No, "based on" indicates that it's a feature of the universe, that emerges from other brute physical features of the universe, specifically dimensionality.


I don't agree that dimensionality is a brute physical fact of the universe, which is to say an observable entity of itself. Derived if useful, yes.
I don't even know what to say. It's like arguing the Earth isn't round.


Why? In QM to described n particles requires 3n position dimensions. Dimensions are not a substance, they are a useful construct,... they are just 'degrees of freedom'. For example, in equipartition theory of heat,... molecules have the regular 3 translation and 3 rotational degrees of freedom associated with kinetic energy and temperature, but then also 'internal' degrees of freedom given the molecule itself,..... to distribute the energy,... i.e. in latent heat.

[I did not mean to 1-rate you above though]

Nov 07, 2014
Do you contend that there is some other sort of math that's just as effective at describing the universe as the math we've discovered?


I don't agree that math was 'discovered', so that is a loaded question.
It's a simple question: is there more than one "sort" of math that's accurate?

If you claim so, show us this "sort" of math.

If you claim not, then how can it be anything but a feature of the universe?


I already said that I didn't propose that,.... and implied I can't possible know what that would even mean if anything.

What is successfully described by math in science, which only means a model that links observables in a way that allows for predictions,... is a feature of the observable universe as known and so not independently of an intelligent being. This is the disagreement. That math somehow exists apart and independently from conscious mathematicians.

Nov 07, 2014
Also, in QM either the mathematics of probability is wrong, or spatial dimensionality fails to account for the observed facts of quantum non-locality,
But it's not necessarily non-locality; it might be contrafactual definiteness. Either is a solution to Bell's Inequality.


Not quite, the inequalities prove either non-locality, or Failure of counterfactual definitiveness.

.....and temporal dimensionality fails to account for quantum indeterminacy.

And quantum indeterminacy is another brute fact.

Yes, that is what I'm saying,.... there is no way to predict when (temporal) say a particular atom decays or say emits a photon.

I should add also wrt GR that it's not nearly as 'nice' as SR,... a space-time reference frame is only valid at a point, in 'tangent space'.

Nov 07, 2014
If Archimedes was a string theorist he would have said,.... grant me enough degrees of freedom [dimensionality], and a parallel world in which to stand [10^100 solutions], and I could explain everything that exists and even more that does not.
So what limits it to 10¹⁰⁰? Why not infinity?


It has to do with the string theory landscape. Reread my Archimedes bit in that context.


Nov 07, 2014
This is the thing with math generally, ...the mathematical structures applicable in modeling the universe, are a limited subspace of all mathematical structures derivable from it's foundational elements.
But they *work*. You might as well deny refrigerators, or deny the Moon landings.


Why do you suggest I deny it's successful application? I have never done this.

My denying that mathematics exists independent of conscious mathematicians is not to deny physics nor predictive knowledge.

If mathematics exists as a feature of the universe independently of intelligence, then what of the vast majority of mathematics that do not find application in our universe? Tegmark invokes another infinity of worlds in his extension of MWI. Do you think this is rational. If not then how do you answer the question?

Nov 08, 2014
@ Noumenon
Intensity defined in terms of photons, is proportional to the number of photons,.... so if in the experiment a single photon at a time is used,... the Intensity must be unity
This intensity is irrelevant when it comes to the diffraction of a SINGLE coherent EM-wave: A single photon is a SINGLE coherent EM-wave which must have a volume, and within this volume its intensity is given by its EM-field: When integrating this intensity one obtains hf=m*c^2, no matter what the volume of the wave is at that instant in time: Since when is h*f "unity"?

There IS no more intensity at one location of the screen as compared to another, so your "at positions where its diffracted wavefront has a higher intensity" does not work.
Obviously there must be such a wave-intensity just before the diffracted wave is absorbed by an atomically-sized absorber to leave a spot. Even the Copenhagen Voodoo claims that there must be such a "probability-wave": LOL

Nov 08, 2014
@ Noumenon

Not electric field,.... electron field,.. then for QCD, quark fields, etc.
Are you saying that in QFT they are assuming that thre is no electric-field around a solitary electron? Can you give a reference please?

I don't see how it makes sense to associate difference flavours of energy. Energy is just energy and has generalized units. As I said, purely mechanical energy could also create massive particles.
You contradict yourself: You say "energy is just energy" and then immediately choose a special "flavour of energy" which you cal "purely mechanical energy".

It follows from Maxwell's equations through the Special Theory of Relativity (WHICH IS A DIRECT RESULT OF MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS) that mass-energy is EM-energy. And that even kinetic-energy is mass-energy and thus EM-energy. So what do you mean by "purely mechanical energy". What is its different "flavour"? LOL!!

Nov 08, 2014
@ Noumenon

No, I thought you were arguing that electrons are EM-waves,
Correct! that is what I am arguing since its total energy is m(k)*c^2+m(0)*c^2, as demanded by Maxwell's equations which determine the Special Theory of Relativity.

Thus the energy of an electron is EM-energy and no other "flavour of energy". Furthermore, when using the Lorentz tranformation to transform the diameter of a stationary electron into another inertial refrence frame so that the electron moves with a speed v along this diameter, the electron becomes longer along this diameter and has a phase time that, like any phase-time.along a coherent wave, changes with position. When calculating the wavelength from this phase-time one gets the de Broglie wavelength. Thus, the electron itself is a coherent wave as determined by Maxwell's equations.

if so then why would the Maxwell equations require the ρ term or j term?
Why not? Solutions with a disributed charge density are possible.


Nov 08, 2014
There IS no more intensity at one location of the screen as compared to another, so your "at positions where its diffracted wavefront has a higher intensity" does not work.

Obviously there must be such a wave-intensity just before the diffracted wave is absorbed by an atomically-sized absorber to leave a spot. Even the Copenhagen Voodoo claims that there must be such a "probability-wave"


Yes, a probability-wave, but not a physical wave. If all forms of energy are quantized to hv, then it follows that with only hv present (one photon) there can not be varying degrees of intensity.

You appear to disagree that energy (EM) is quantized in itself, but only upon emission and absorption. Is this correct?


Nov 08, 2014
What about the equipartition theorem I mentioned above, ....the distribution of energy in matter, and the quantum effect in latent heat, where degree's of freedom (kinetic energy) 'freeze out' at cold temperature due to the quantum size of the degree-of-freedom so that the theory breaks down?

Not electric field,.... electron field,.. then for QCD, quark fields, etc.

Are you saying that in QFT they are assuming that thre is no electric-field around a solitary electron?

No, there is still the EM field (photon), but also an electron field.

And that even kinetic-energy is mass-energy and thus EM-energy. So what do you mean by "purely mechanical energy". What is its different "flavour"?


I used that just as an example. In GR energy is even more generalized, gravitational energy, pressure is even energy,.....

Nov 08, 2014
if so then why would the Maxwell equations require the ρ term or j term?

Why not? Solutions with a disributed charge density are possible.


Yes, by Adding the charge term. If you are maintaining that electrons are EM-waves, you must show how it is possible to generate a charged particle with mass, out of the charge-neutral and massless electromagnetic field.

Nov 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 08, 2014
@ Noumenon
Yes, by Adding the charge term. If you are maintaining that electrons are EM-waves, you must show how it is possible to generate a charged particle with mass, out of the charge-neutral and massless electromagnetic field.
I am busy doing it. The manuscript should be ready within a year. An EM field need not be neutral, since Maxwell's equations allow solutions for charged EM waves. Furthermore an EM wave is NOT massless since its total energy is always m*c^2. Or are you arguing that Einstein's conclusion that E=m*c^2 is wrong?

Goodbye for now. It is late here in South Africa and I am watching the rugby.


Nov 08, 2014
In GR there is no absolute dimensionality of space, nor an absolute dimensionality of time,...
"Spacetime forms a 4-dimensional continuum." It's one of the Postulates. Right along with the Principle of Relativity, the Existence of Globally Inertial Frames, and the Constancy of the Speed of Light for all observers.


The constancy of c implies there is no absolute frame of reference for either space or time in GR,... no absolute space nor absolute time. They're dependent upon the observers reference frame. [I corrected my "absolute dimensionality" wording above]
OK, but "absolute dimensionality" is still incorrect; neither GR nor SR says there is no absolute dimensionality, merely that there is no absolute frame of reference.

In fact, GR says that *acceleration* is absolute. You can always find if you're in an accelerated frame with a gravity experiment.

Nov 08, 2014
No, "based on" indicates that it's a feature of the universe, that emerges from other brute physical features of the universe, specifically dimensionality.
I don't agree that dimensionality is a brute physical fact of the universe, which is to say an observable entity of itself. Derived if useful, yes.
I don't even know what to say. It's like arguing the Earth isn't round.
Why? In QM to described n particles requires 3n position dimensions.
That's not the same as physical dimensions. The "dimensions" spoken of there are abstract dimensions in a Hilbert space that truly is an abstract concept of the human mind. It is a calculational aid, not a statement about reality. And it's entirely possible to do QM calculations without using these abstract Hilbert space representations; for example, using Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.

I don't argue that all of math is concrete; just that its basis is.

Nov 08, 2014
[I did not mean to 1-rate you above though]


:D

It's OK, thanks for saying so.

It's a simple question: is there more than one "sort" of math that's accurate?

If you claim so, show us this "sort" of math.

If you claim not, then how can it be anything but a feature of the universe?
I already said that I didn't propose that,.... and implied I can't possible know what that would even mean if anything.
Math is based on a small number of simple postulates. The existence of zero, the existence of one and its identification as the successor of zero, the identification of two and the rest of the natural numbers as successors of successors of zero, the associative, commutative, and distributive laws, and the existence of operators for addition and subtraction.

contd

Nov 08, 2014
In fact, for the simplest mathematical operation, counting, the only properties required are the existence of one and its successors. This is why they're called the "natural numbers."

What is successfully described by math in science, which only means a model that links observables in a way that allows for predictions,... is a feature of the observable universe as known and so not independently of an intelligent being. This is the disagreement. That math somehow exists apart and independently from conscious mathematicians.
I argue that the most foundational portions of math require no mathematicians, nor any consciousness. And I've been using my amoeba gedankenexperiment to prove it. The simplest axioms of math are brute physical facts that even an unconscious entity incapable of thought, much less analysis, must adapt to. These are features of the universe, not of conscious thought.

Nov 08, 2014
Also, in QM either the mathematics of probability is wrong, or spatial dimensionality fails to account for the observed facts of quantum non-locality,
But it's not necessarily non-locality; it might be contrafactual definiteness. Either is a solution to Bell's Inequality.
Not quite, the inequalities prove either non-locality, or Failure of counterfactual definitiveness.
I figured calling it "contrafactual" obviated the need for "failure."

Basically, what I'm saying is that particles in superposition have no actual value, until they are measured and present one. If they did have such values despite the superposition, then Bell's Inequality would fail, if there was no non-locality. Thus, either there is non-locality, or there is contrafactual definiteness (i.e., particles in superposition have no value for the superposed variable).

The language here is very difficult, so it's understandable that this would lead to confusion.

Nov 08, 2014
If Archimedes was a string theorist he would have said,.... grant me enough degrees of freedom [dimensionality], and a parallel world in which to stand [10^100 solutions], and I could explain everything that exists and even more that does not.
So what limits it to 10¹⁰⁰? Why not infinity?


It has to do with the http://en.wikiped...ndscape. Reread my Archimedes bit in that context.

I'm well aware of the string physics landscape. Assuming that it's not so is the grossest form of chauvinism, based on imagining that our universe is the only one possible. In fact, if string physics can derive our physics, this is unreasonable. And the first attempts to do so are on record. Read this article: http://phys.org/n...l#ajTabs

Nov 08, 2014
.....and temporal dimensionality fails to account for quantum indeterminacy.

And quantum indeterminacy is another brute fact.

Yes, that is what I'm saying,.... there is no way to predict when (temporal) say a particular atom decays or say emits a photon.
That information is unavailable due to Heisenberg uncertainty; but a probability for it decaying or emitting is available. This is all we can know.

I should add also wrt GR that it's not nearly as 'nice' as SR,... a space-time reference frame is only valid at a point, in 'tangent space'.
No, you've denied the Postulate of the Existence of Globally Inertial Frames. GR does not deny this postulate; in fact, it incorporates it, along with the rest of SR.

Nov 08, 2014
This is the thing with math generally, ...the mathematical structures applicable in modeling the universe, are a limited subspace of all mathematical structures derivable from it's foundational elements.
But they *work*. You might as well deny refrigerators, or deny the Moon landings.
Why do you suggest I deny it's successful application? I have never done this.
Then why do you deny math is an essential feature of the universe?

My denying that mathematics exists independent of conscious mathematicians is not to deny physics nor predictive knowledge.
I predict that if you have one orange, and someone gives you another, you will have two oranges, and that this is a basic fact of existence separate from analysis. And I present my monkey and amoeba gedankenexperiments as proof.

contd

Nov 08, 2014
If mathematics exists as a feature of the universe independently of intelligence, then what of the vast majority of mathematics that do not find application in our universe?
You are claiming that because *some* of math can be seen as abstract, *all* of it is. You've ignored number theory, and are wrong as a result.

Tegmark invokes another infinity of worlds in his extension of MWI. Do you think this is rational. If not then how do you answer the question?
I cannot comment not having read Tegmark's book.

Nov 08, 2014
What a stimulating discussion!

Nov 08, 2014
Yes, that is what I'm saying,.... there is no way to predict when (temporal) say a particular atom decays or say emits a photon
You mean 'at present' there is no way. This is where your mysticism of ultimate limits breaks down.
not having read Tegmark's book
"Halfway into his new book, "Our Mathematical Universe," the M.I.T. physicist Max Tegmark describes his "Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde Strategy": During the day he would do respectable work on mainstream topics in cosmology, but at night he would "transform into the evil Mr. Hyde" and indulge in writing "wacky" papers on "the ultimate nature of reality."

"There is nothing wrong with contemplating speculative ideas, but the problem is that while pretending to stay in the realm of science, the "Mr. Hyde" part of the book crosses over to what I must consider science fiction and MYSTICISM."

Nov 08, 2014
In QM to described n particles requires 3n position dimensions.

That's not the same as physical dimensions. The "dimensions" spoken of there are abstract dimensions in a Hilbert space that truly is an abstract concept of the human mind.

What could possibly be the difference? How do you define or rather discover "physical dimensions"?

And it's entirely possible to do QM calculations without using these abstract Hilbert space representations;... using Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.


The Hilbert space formulation came later, used by the great von Neumann to find a common mathematical underlying structure, and indeed unifies both Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's approaches. Given this fact, it should be Hilbert space, that a mathematical Realist would regard as existing independent of intelligence.

Existence of Globally Inertial Frames. GR does not deny this postulate


Of course it does. There is no global inertial frames. It's the entire point

Nov 08, 2014
Math is based on a small number of simple postulates. The existence of zero, the existence of one and its identification as the successor of zero, the identification of two and the rest of the natural numbers [...]In fact, for the simplest mathematical operation, counting, the only properties required are the existence of one and its successors...... I don't argue that all of math is concrete; just that its basis is.


Perhaps our views are not as different as it appears then. I also, regard the 'elements of math', to be concrete in the sense of being a-priori judgments.

If they are 'concrete' in this sense then they are not 'made up' by conscious minds, but rather are conditions for thought and experience to be even possible,... an evolved mechanism for ordering and grouping objects for conscious awareness, ...i.e. as in the basis of set theory.