Talk:Physics/Essays/Derenek/Nonstandard physics/Vortex Science

Discuss here

Rules:Obviously this is not a common theory. I invite everyone to add in constructive criticisms and suggestions, explanations where I am wrong under the discussion heading.

This is how a hypothesis and sets of equations becomes real science. With the help of wiki users, the math will keep getting cleaned up and streamlined until we can begin physical experiments. Those will also be posted here for the benefit of the public.

Debates with a brilliant scholar, Eric Anson MS Physics

Erik Anson: You're welcome! Glad it was useful.

I'm curious, though, what does this have to do with the Pauli Exclusion Principle?
Jung Hoon Lee: with with normal matter occupying our universe, two objects can't be in the same place at the same time. This s the core reason why Newton's third law of motion is always in effect for normal matter. However, the third law also states that all forces are the result of two bodies interacting kinetically. So how do two objects that don't interact kinetically in our universe impart gravitational impulse to each other?
Erik Anson: The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that two *identical* particles (specifically, two *identical fermions*) can't be in the exact same quantum state at the same time (where that state includes things like spin). It is not the reason that solid objects in our every-day life bounce off of each other rather than overlapping (that has more to do with electromagnetic forces). It's really only an issue for particles that are bound (like electrons in an atom) or extremely densely packed (like neutron stars).

I know of no connection between Pauli and the 3rd Law. For example, even forces that act at a distance must follow the 3rd Law.

I'm not sure what you mean by "interacting kinetically." However, the fact that dark matter doesn't interact electromagnetically has no bearing on whether or not it interacts gravitationally.

People don't tend to mention it, because it's not usually relevant, but neutrinos are technically dark matter. It's just that neutrinos make up only a tiny fraction of the dark matter, and most of the rest of it needs to have very different properties from neutrinos, so it's not usually a useful statement. But, if you think there's something categorically strange or impossible about how dark matter is described, just look at neutrinos. :)

Jung Hoon Lee The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: FA = −FB.

The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies, and thus that there is no such thing as a unidirectional force or a  force that acts on only one body. The first law can be stated  mathematically as

Consequently,

   An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it.
   An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it.

As for the Pauli exclusionary Principle It has been shown that the Pauli exclusion principle is responsible for the fact that ordinary bulk matter is stable and occupies volume. This suggestion was first made in 1931 by Paul Ehrenfest, who pointed out that the electrons of each atom cannot all fall into the lowest-energy orbital and must occupy successively larger shells. Atoms therefore occupy a volume and cannot be squeezed too closely together.

The consequence of the Pauli principle here is that electrons of the same spin are kept apart by a repulsive exchange interaction, which is a short-range effect, acting simultaneously with the long-range electrostatic or Coulombic force. This effect is partly responsible for the everyday observation in the macroscopic world that two solid objects cannot be in the same place at the same time.

The result of this behavior is that atoms when they collide impart kinetic energy to each other and repel, or transfer kinetic energy. I try not to forget that even electromagnetic interactions are still kinetic interactions.

I agree with you that Neutrinos and other WIMPS are types of dark matter. However, Neutrinos possess a much higher level of kinetic interactivity than the dark matter which composes the dark matter halo in our galaxy.
Erik Anson What do unidirectional forces have to do with anything? Nothing is unidirectional. Dark matter and "regular" matter both pull on each other gravitationally. Dark matter isn't mystical fairy dust... it's matter, just like any other matter, and therefore has mass, and exerts gravitational forces. The difference is that it doesn't interact electromagnetically or via the strong nuclear force, so it's harder to detect.

It's true that the PEP has a hugely important impact on chemistry; without it, elements farther down the periodic table would be smaller, instead of bigger, and so there is an impact on the volumes of solids. However, none of this prevents one block of matter from passing through another; momentum is a part of the quantum state, and so two blocks with sufficiently different momenta could overlap without violating PEP. Solid objects are solid because of electromagnetic forces, not Pauli.

"Neutrinos and other WIMPS..."

Neutrinos are not WIMPs. Neutrinos are the lightest particles known (among particles that have mass), while WIMPs would be the heaviest (stable) particles known, if they are in fact detected. As of now, we don't even know if WIMPs exist! But yes, if they do, they will be a type of dark matter. "However, Neutrinos possess a much higher level of kinetic interactivity..."

What do you base this on? This may or may not be true. Even if it is, it has no bearing on whether or not something has mass (and therefore exerts gravitational forces).

Jung Hoon Lee A unidirectional force refers to a pulling force actually. I pulled that straight out of the encyclopedia, it's not my wording. Newtonian laws of motion are based on the inherent assumption that two physical objects have to touch to transfer energy.

As for the Pauli principle, I'll copy paste Freeman Dyson's findings. A more rigorous proof was provided in 1967 by Freeman Dyson and Andrew Lenard, who considered the balance of attractive (electron–nuclear) and repulsive (electron–electron and nuclear–nuclear) forces and showed that ordinary matter would collapse and occupy a much smaller volume without the Pauli principle.[12][13]

I categorize Neutrinos as WIMPs because of what the acronym actually stands for. Weakly interacting matter particle. A neutrino is not like a standard baryon at all. It is the result of the decay of a Meson, or by gravitational and EM interactions inside of igh densiy phenomena like stars and black holes.

I say that Neutrinos are more kinetically interactive because of the means we use to detect them. We place large slabs of germanium deep under ground and subjec it to a voltage gradient. The density of germanium is high enough that it can occasionally block a neutrino and we can get a readng. That reading is based entirely on a kinetic interaction of the neutrino striking the germanium. However, no standard dark matter has ever been detected by this method, so I am making the conclusion that neutrinos are on a higher scale of interactivity than standard daek matter

Erik Anson I wasn't challenging your definition of "unidirectional force", I was just wondering how such forces would be relevant. Dark matter is not theorized to exert such forces.

"Newtonian laws of motion are based on the inherent assumption that two physical objects have to touch to transfer energy."

Not really. What about gravity?

I never denied that the PEP has a significant impact on the bulk volumes of objects. None of that will stop two things from passing through each other, it just stops things from sitting stationary inside each other. I already explained this in my previous comment.

WIMP [Weakly Interacting Massive Particle] is a term that already exists, and is not open to redefinition based on what the name sounds like to any particular person. The name is just a shorthand, like many terms in physics. For example, "baryon" literally means "heavy particle," but that is not its definition; baryons are defined by being made of three quarks. So, even though the Higgs Boson is far heavier than a proton (and thus is definitely a "heavy particle"), it is not a baryon. In the case of WIMPs, the "M" stands for "Massive," as in having a lot of mass, not just "having non-zero mass". In fact, WIMPs are expected to be something like a hundred times the mass of a proton, and if they're much lighter than that, they can't make up most of the dark matter. In short, the term WIMP is a shorthand for a specific type of theorized particle, and is not something that you can redefine at will to include neutrinos.

Also, neutrinos can come from a wide variety of processes. For example, Beta decay.

There are various ways of detecting neutrinos. See: Neutrino detector. I'm still not sure what you mean by "kinetic interaction". All interactions are capable of transferring energy and momentum, including gravitational interactions. For neutrinos, the dominant interaction in the detectors is via the Weak Nuclear Force, which has nothing at all to do with how ordinary objects collide with each other.

Your analysis suggesting that neutrinos must intrinsically interact more than dark matter particles has a rather massive implicit assumption: that the rate at which dark matter particles are passing through our detectors, and the energies of those particles, are comparable to the corresponding numbers for neutrinos. This is not expected to be the case. You can't compare the explosions of a ton of TNT and a few grams of C4 and conclude that TNT is the stronger explosive, and that's the same reasoning you're using here. Neutrinos are already extremely difficult to detect; the fact that we haven't had a direct detection of dark matter yet is in no way surprising.
Jung Hoon Lee The whole reason I am trying to create a Unified field theory is because gravity acts so differently than the other kown forces. We know that in three dimensional space, objects with mass seem to pull on each other. Hwever, why is that? What is the source of the energy that accelerates those bits of matter? I know the standard explanation is the curvature of space along with the Cosmo Const, however, I am able to wave my hands thru the air and walk around empty space with no problem whatsoever. I find it hard to believe that empty space's curvature alone generates gravity since I can on an everyday basis defy it on a limited scale. So instead of having empty space generate an acceleration on massive and highly energetic particles, I am thinking of different means to transfer direct kinetic energy to those particles to generate interaction.

As for calling neutrinos WIMPs, honestly for an as of yet undetected particle, whoever comes up with the first testable explanation will get the honor of stratifying that classification. Since I have doubts as to the WIMP actually being larger than an atom, (I will concede it is larger than a standard quark) So I convert massive to matter, and I can keep the fun acronym until someone actually proves me wrong.

Neutrinos can be generated by Beta decay, Just as they can with Meson decay, however outside of thermonuclear fission events and suchlike, in nature the predominant source is stellar bodies.

The only actual working Neutrino detector I know of that has produced findings used the system i described. There's tons of proposed methods, but i only know of one that has standardizable test results. The actual test does result in the dislodging of a neutron, however, that dislodging event is the result of direct kinetic interaction. The temporary state of matching spin states between the neutrino and neutron activates the pauli principle, which results in neutron generated emissions (As are all events, I agree with you that gravity is an interactive foce, however I still think the jury is still out as to the root cause of gravitational acceleration)

Neutrinos in umber and volume exist in far smaller numbers than dark matter. Only 3% of the universe is visible matter. Neutrinos don't account for anywhere near as much actual "stuff" if both particles are weakly interacting, then there is no reason to assume regular dark matter doesn't pass through normal matter on a regular basis. So to use your analogy, dark matter should be the C4 and neutrinos the firecracker. However, that isn't what we detect. By induction I conclude that dark matter is less interactive than a neutrino.

Erik Anson How is gravity any more mysterious than, say, electromagnetism?

You are misunderstanding what "curved space" means in the context of General Relativity. It doesn't force you along a certain path, it just effectively changes what "straight line" means. Put another way: it changes the path that a particle would take if it was only being carried along by inertia. However, if you apply a force in Newtonian mechanics, you no longer travel along an "inertial" path, and the same is true in GR.

WIMPs may very well be point-particles; if they exist, they are more massive than (most) atoms, but I have claimed nothing about their physical size.

You can't redefine acronyms like that. If WIMPs don't exist, then WIMPs don't exist, but the definition of WIMP will not change. If you have an alternative theory, that's fine, but you have to call it something else, and that includes not using the same acronym. It can be similar (although that would be very confusing if they weren't related somehow conceptually), but it has to be immediately recognizable as different.

I'm curious... what are these "doubts" that you have about the sizes of WIMPs, and what is the basis for those doubts?

Yes, stellar bodies produce lots and lots of neutrinos. Most measured neutrinos are either from the Sun or from nuclear reactors (but you specified "in nature", so reactors don't count). Not sure why this is relevant though.

"The only actual working Neutrino detector I know of that has produced findings used the system i described."

What detector was that? Can you link me to a source? The best-known neutrino detector in the world is Super-Kamiokande (so well-known that I actually know about it, despite it having nothing to do with my research), and it doesn't work that way.

"The temporary state of matching spin states between the neutrino and neutron activates the pauli principle..."

This is nonsense, for at least two reasons off the top of my head. 1. Neutrons and neutrinos are not identical to each other, and therefore the PEP does not apply. 2. The neutrino would have a vastly different momentum from the neutron, and therefore the PEP does not apply.

You really need to stop asserting things with such certainty when you don't actually have the relevant factual knowledge!

If we were setting up our detector at a random location in the universe, then yes, that would be true. However, we didn't; we set it up on Earth, which is decently close to the Sun, an extremely "bright" source of neutrinos. Yes, lots of dark matter particles should be passing through the detector every second, but nowhere near as many as the number of neutrinos. Besides that, the neutrinos are coming in at relativistic velocities, while the WIMPs (if they exist) are not. My argument from my previous comment stands.

Jung Hoon Lee Gravity is mysterious because there is no physical object conferring kinetic energy from abject A to object B. I understand, the reasoning behind the argument for using the curvature of spacetime to change the direction of an object and to cause general acceleration towards a center of mass. However, it isnt a misunderstanding, but more just a general disbelief that any force violates the third law of motion. So my assumption is that the curvature of spacetime is a result of the events that cause gravity and not the cause. Just like Maxwell's field equations were before we discovered the existence of electrons. We can observe and calculate what the fields strengths are and how they will behave like, but just like with electromagnetism, the fields are not the cause of EM interaction, but the result of electron interaction. So we both make assumptions about where Newtonian laws do and don't apply. In the standard model, the assumption is made that with gravity, the third law can be modified to allow for a unidirectional force. However I don't feel that can be accurate due to a philosophical paradigm of realism. Physical objects must interact with physical objects directly to generate forces.

When it comes to detecting the behavior of WIMPS and Dark Matter, what matters is that their behavior be internally coherent within the cosmological framework I am building and that the framework also be able to predict and describe all known phenomena. So the description of neutrinos within Vortex science has a good portion of their inertia redirected along a nonstandard vector. (I am using the word vector to refer to a cardinal direction in a predetermined vector space.) So while the actual mass of the neutrino is similar to a quark, its range of possible interaction is slightly larger and more weakly interactive than normal Hadrons due to the shift in inertia out of the visible universe.

As for WIMP cosmology, internally the description is very similar. Individually they have about equivalent mass/energy to a quark, but they have more of their inertia displaced out of our universe thus enlarging their possible field of gravitational interaction, while simultaneously decreasing the likelihood on physical/kinetic/electromagnetic interaction. This gives WIMPs the predicted physical characteristics as the standard model, but also gives an explanation as to why an object with such a large gravitational area of effect does not simultaneously have a high kinetic interaction state. So the term WIMP would still apply. Since the core reason for neutrinos and dark matter being weakly interactive is caused by the same principle, I think I can be safe classifying those two together.

The standard model uses he Higgs Boson to generate the property of mass. However I do away with the Higgs altogether and claim mass is the result of the force of expanding spacetime interacting with the cosmological constant. Which compresses that spacetime into a sphere. I also assume that the source of that expanding spacetime is the same all around, so the mass of any single vortex would be on average the same as all other vortexes. So Quarks, Neutrinos, Dark Matter particles, WIMPs with only one quarklike object all should have equivalent "real mass" which is modified by the percentage of inertia inside the visible universe.

The experiment I refer to is below:

The reason I clarified "in nature" is because humans don't generate enough neutrinos to make up for the vast difference in total sum of neutrinos vs dark matter. A similar detector design, with a much lower detection threshold of 0.233 MeV, uses a gallium → germanium transformation which is sensitive to lower energy neutrinos. A neutrino is able to react with an atom of gallium-71, converting it into an atom of the unstable isotope germanium-71. The germanium was then chemically extracted and concentrated. Neutrinos were thus detected by measuring the radioactive decay of germanium. This latter method is nicknamed the "Alsace-Lorraine" technique because of the reaction sequence (gallium-germanium-gallium) involved. These radiochemical detection methods are useful only for counting neutrinos; no neutrino direction or energy information is available. The SAGE experiment in Russia used about 50 tons, and the GALLEX/GNO experiments in Italy about 30 tons, of gallium as reaction mass. This experiment is difficult to scale up due to the prohibitive cost of gallium. Larger experiments have therefore turned to a cheaper reaction mass.

My knowledge is factual. Because of PEP the only way for those objects to have enough physical interaction to generate those readings is for that neutrino to match the spin states of one of the quarks within one of the germanium neutrons. Otherwise, as you pointed out, no interaction could occur.

Dark matter, due to the nature of my theory on its properties is also generated by the sun in vast quantities. With most of its inertia shifted out of our universe, it becomes gravitationally larger, but its mass would be decreased to nearly nothing. As observed with electrons, massless particles travel at relativistic speeds. The evidence I use to verify the creation of dark matter in the sun is the size of the Oort cloud. It extends out nearly 2 light years. The strength of gravity according to relativity shouldn't be nearly strong enough to maintain stable orbits out to that range. By substituting dark matter interaction for spatial curvature, I can extend the gravitational influence of the sun out much further, thus explaining the size of the Oort cloud.

So the problem between our arguments is that the standard model ties mass directly to gravity. While my theory determines mass as a relation between opposing cosmological constants. With gravity being caused by kinetic energy transfer along a nonstandard dimension. So the further out of the visible universe you go, the larger your gravitational strength, and the lower your apparent mass.

Erik Anson "However, it isnt a misunderstanding, but more just a general disbelief that any force violates the third law of motion... In the standard model, the assumption is made that with gravity, the third law can be modified to allow for a unidirectional force." Gravity doesn't violate the Third Law. All gravitational effects are mutual. In GR, gravity isn't really a "force" at all (so the 3rd Law doesn't apply), but even if you consider that a semantic quibble, gravity is still mutual in GR. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that gravity results in unidirectional forces.

"Just like Maxwell's field equations were before we discovered the existence of electrons."

Maxwell's equations were already in terms of electrical charges; the discovery of electrons did nothing to change that. EM interactions can be written purely in terms of particle interaction, or they can be written in terms of particle-field interactions, or they can be written in terms of field-field interactions. They are all mathematically equivalent, and so none is "better", except insofar as they are more convenient or more aesthetically pleasing to a given individual.

"Physical objects must interact with physical objects directly to generate forces."

Any "weirdness" with gravity is also present in E&M. The analog of "discovering the electron" would be "discovering particles that have mass," which is... almost all of them.

"...a good portion of their inertia redirected..."

What would that even mean? How can inertia be "redirected"? I think terminology issues are seriously hampering your ability to communicate your ideas.

"(I am using the word vector to refer to a cardinal direction in a predetermined vector space.)"

Then you are using the word "vector" incorrectly. As with "WIMP", "vector" already means something, and the two meanings are not compatible. The word you're looking for may be "axis" or "dimension", depending on the details of your theory.

"Since the core reason for neutrinos and dark matter being weakly interactive is caused by the same principle, I think I can be safe classifying those two together."

No. Electrons and muons have many similar properties, but they are not the same (mostly in terms of mass), and so they have different names. WIMPs and neutrinos have hugely different masses (if WIMPs exist). Neutrinos are not WIMPs. If there winds up being a deep theoretical connection between neutrinos and WIMPs, great. You can invent a name for a category that includes both (like "lepton" includes both electrons and muons). But they are not the same thing, and so calling a neutrino a type of WIMP is a matter of factual inaccuracy, not theory or opinion.

The experimental description that you posted is completely different from your initial claim. You claimed that there was a plate of Germanium that got "hit by" neutrinos, and the kinetic impact was registered. However, in the description you posted, the detector was neither solid nor made of Germanium; Germanium was a product of the interaction. Also, instead of the signal being energy/momentum transfer from a "kinetic impact", the signal was the presence of Germanium in the detector. In short, this experiment bears little or no resemblance to your earlier description, and it never mentions the Pauli Exclusion Principle at all.

"My knowledge is factual."

Unless you add "ly incorrect" to the end of that, no, it's not.

"Because of PEP the only way for those objects to have enough physical interaction..."

PEP in no way prevents physical interactions.

"...neutrino to match the spin states of one of the quarks..."

Neutrinos and quarks are not identical particles, and so PEP does not apply.

"Otherwise, as you pointed out, no interaction could occur."

Sure it could, via the Weak Nuclear Force, which is what actually happens in that experiment.

"Dark matter, due to the nature of my theory on its properties is also generated by the sun in vast quantities."

Then the lack of direct DM detection so far is an experimental blow against your theory, but not a blow against the standard theory, which does not predict this. You are not helping your case.

"So the problem between our arguments..."

Ah, I see. So, you are contradicting my statements (which are based on established and tested scientific theories) based on your ideas about how physics might work instead (for which you have no evidence). You can't express the results of such speculative theories as fact without providing context.

" So the further out of the visible universe you go, the larger your gravitational strength, and the lower your apparent mass."

This would result in a negative correlation between gravitational strength and mass, which is the exact opposite of what we observe experimentally. The scaling of gravitational strength with mass has, in some cases, been tested to a precision of one part in a trillion.

You can't pass off an experimentally-falsified "theory" as factually correct. It's your right as a human being to believe things that are wrong if you want to, but to spread such ideas is unethical.

Jung Hoon Lee Before anyone starts getting emotional, once again I do very much appreciate your critique of my analysis and reasoning. It helps a lot to have an expert who is actively doing research to tear apart my reasons. This is he core of science and I think it's great...

Gravity while it does involve two interactig objects is still a unidirectional force. Newtonian principles are based on the principle of equal and opposing forces. In gravity, there is no opposing force to generate acceleration, which involves both a change in direction and velocity. As no physical interaction occurs in the standard model, it becomes a monopolar or unidirectional force by definition. When two objects interact and bounce away from each other, the net result is the cancellaion of all forces to reaquire equilibrium. Gowever with gravity, the objects are moving towards each other and accelerating. So there is no cancellation of forces. Just as a thought experiment, imagine yourself falling to earth from a mile up. hen you hit the ground, you won't touch the ground with zero energy, you'll hit with massive force. So there is an overall increase in energy as you move towards the center of mass. This violates not only the third law of motion, but also the law of conservation of energy. There is a force, but there isn't any of the opposition force that the laws of motion require.

Your illustration of maxwell's equations is exactly what I am trying to describe. You can describe the actions of the field perfectly, mathematically.... However, that mathematical representation isn't the cause ofthose fields. It i the electron itself. It's like describing the ocean, without knowing it's made of water. The analog to finding the electron isn't finding that particles have mass (we can determine that and have been for centuries), but how that mass is directly linked to gravitation and why.

Redirection of inertia. I guess we should start with the definitions of vectors, dimensions, and axes. (In mathematics, the dimension of a vector space V is the cardinality (i.e. the number of vectors, in this case 2) of a basis of V over its base field.[4]It is sometimes called Hamel dimension or algebraic dimension to distinguish it from other types of dimension.For every vector space there exists a basis,if one assumes the axiom of choice and all bases of a vector space have equal cardinality;see dimension theorem for vector spaces, as a result, the dimension of a vector space is uniquely defined.) This is the classic definition taught to schoolchildren the world over. I add in these additional qualifiers (Three connected perpendicular dimensions create a Prime Axis. A prime axis also has the property of possessing no vectors in common with another Prime axis. This then creates a condition in which each prime axis becomes an semi-independant three dimensional vector space.)

So a vector refers to a cardinal direction along one dimension in a predeermined vector space.

A dimension is two directly opposed cardinal vectors.

An axis refers to a dimension interchangeably.

A Prime Axis is a set of three causally linked perpendicular dimensions.

I'm using the math terms because, it covers the entirety of my theory and not just WIMPs alone.

So redirection of inertia is simply acceleration or change inthe vector of travel onto another dimension. While changing your direction inside of our universe (which I place into Vector space P1) it just requires the addition of energy to overcome inertia.

To change direction onto a vector/dimension/axis which is not native to P1, not only does there need to be energy added to change inertia, there needs to be enough energy added to defeat the force of the cosmological constant (energy barrier) which prevents us from traveling onto that vector in everyday life. In a star, that energy is provided by Gravity, heat, concussive force from fusion, and kinetic impacts of nearby particles. In addition, gravity forces particles so closely together and at such high pressure, that it becomes more difficult to change direction and maintain internal energy equilibrium along any dimension native to P1. So to maintain equilibrium, once( [ G+p+t]/P1)>ΛP2 a particle can then redirect some of its inertia out of our universe. (gravity plus pressure plus temperature along P1 is greater than cosmo const along P2)

I am using WIMP as a broad category to describe not only neutrinos, but also whatever types of particles the dark matter shell is composed of. (Weakly Interactive Matter Particle) Since the standard model and I diverge completely on the nature of those particles, I really don't think nomenclature will be a problem. If I am right, the old descriptions will go out the window, if not vice versa.

Lets talk about the experiment. How I understand the reactions that occur there are as follows: In the Standard Model of particle physics, the weak interaction is caused by the emission or absorption of W and Z bosons. All known fermions interact through the weak interaction. Fermions are particles that have half-integer spin (one of the fundamental properties of particles). A fermion can be an elementary particle, such as the electron, or it can be a composite particle, such as the proton. The masses of W+, W−, and Z bosons are each far greater than that of protons or neutrons, consistent with the short range of the weak force. The force is termed weak because its field strength over a given distance is typically several orders of magnitude less than that of the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force.(This occurs due to the shift of inertia off of a P1 vector onto P2) The weak interaction affects all the fermions of the Standard Model, as well as the Higgs boson; **neutrinos interact through gravity and the weak interaction only,** Which coincides with my earlier claims) and neutrinos were the original reason for the name weak force.[8] The weak interaction does not produce bound states (nor does it involve binding energy) – something that gravity does on an astronomical scale, that the electromagnetic force does at the atomic level, and that the strong nuclear force does inside nuclei.(This is where PEP comes in. The Neutrino matches the spin state of one of the quarks inside the neutron, thus allowing for the exchange of W bosons. A boson from a particle without a matching spin state would not have the effect that is described next) [10] Its most noticeable effect is due to its first unique feature: flavor changing. A neutron, for example, is heavier than a proton (its sister nucleon), but it cannot decay into a proton without changing the flavor (type) of one of its two down quarks to up. Neither the strong interaction nor electromagnetism permit flavour changing, so this must proceed by weak decay; without weak decay, quark properties such as strangeness and charm (associated with the quarks of the same name) would also be conserved across all interactions. All mesons are unstable because of weak decay.[11] In the process known as beta decay, a down quark in the neutron can change into an up quark by emitting a virtual W− boson which is then converted into an electron and an electron antineutrino.[12] This shift of the neutron's quarks into an unstable triplet configuration knocks one neutron loose causing decay. This doesn't happen often, as usually Neutrinos are in a noninteractive region of space.

Dark matter is shifted even further away from P1 than neutrinos. So it will have even less electromagnetic, strong, or weak interactivity. However it will still possess gravitational influence. So take the neutrino which only has weak+grav interactivity, and subtract the weak. As it is generated in the sun it should result in a a dark matter halo, a hypothetical component of a solar system that envelops the whole system and extends well beyond the edge of expected gravity. The halo's mass dominates the total mass. Since they consist of dark matter, halos cannot be observed directly, but their existence is inferred through their effects on the motions of comets and asteroids in regions separated from large bodies of matter. Similarly, the galactic black hole generates a galaxy sized version, the existence of which is inferred through stellar orbits and the shape of the galaxy. Rotation curves as evidence of a dark matter halo The presence of dark matter in the halo is inferred from its gravitational effect on a spiral galaxy's rotation curve. Without large amounts of mass throughout the (roughly spherical) halo, the rotational velocity of the galaxy would decrease at large distances from the galactic center, just as the orbital speeds of the outer planets decrease with distance from the Sun. However, observations of spiral galaxies, particularly radio observations of line emission from neutral atomic hydrogen (known, in astronomical parlance, as HI), show that the rotation curve of most spiral galaxies flattens out, meaning that rotational velocities do not decrease with distance from the galactic center. The absence of any visible matter to account for these observations implies either that unobserved ("dark") matter exists or that the theory of motion under gravity (General Relativity) is incorrect. The Navarro-Frenk-White profile:[4] is often used to model the distribution of mass in dark matter halos. Theoretical dark matter halos produced in computer simulations are best described by the Einasto profile:[5]

Now lets talk about the inverse relation between mass and gravity. All matter in our universe is traveling along all spatial vectors simultaneously. However, distance of travel before reaching the P2,3 cosmological constant barrier is far less than along P1. So to the macroscopic observer, it seems as though only travel in our universe was occurring. So what I am implying is that in a standard case you are completely correct. If you collect up a ton of matter into one location, the aggregate sum of all of that matter's gravity would be additive. However, what I am claiming is, by shifting inertia onto P2 the overall gravity would be the same, but the range of that gravitational force would be increased. As the range increases, the mass of those objects will seem to decrease. However, mass is simply a measure of inertia in our universe. Decrease that inertia, m decreases, while E/a (energy over area) experiences an increase in a. This maintains mathematical equilibrium and also describes observational data. (The data is pulled straight out of the encyclopedia, so its not in question) The existence of dark matter halo's is pretty well accepted.

So, without changing any of the core claims of the theory, that should explain your objections.

Erik Anson "Before anyone starts getting emotional..."

I'm all for exchanging ideas, but when people confidently present factual errors as truth, and refuse to be corrected, I become frustrated (and, I think, justifiably so). You state on your profile that you "know" the standard theories, but you have displayed so many fundamental misconceptions about them that I don't think that's quite true. You may have heard those theories described, but you do not know them, and it is a catastrophic error to confuse those two things.

"Gravity while it does involve two interactig objects is still a unidirectional force. [etc.]"

Everything you have said about gravity in that paragraph also applies to every other type of force, with the exception that none of them are unidirectional, including gravity. If two ice skaters, initially at rest, push off from each other, they both move away from each other (with nonzero kinetic energy) despite having started at rest. This is not a violation of the conservation of energy; it is a conversion of one type of energy into another. The same is true for gravity (Gravitational Potential Energy).

The Third Law does not prohibit motion, it just prohibits changes in total momentum for closed systems. If the Earth pulls me downwards via gravity, and I pull the Earth upwards via gravity with equal force, then the total momentum of the system has not changed. The "opposition force" does not oppose the motion of any object; if A pushes on B, the "equal and opposite force" guaranteed by the Third Law acts on A, not B. The upward gravitational force on the Earth from me is that "opposition force".

"The analog to finding the electron isn't finding that particles have mass (we can determine that and have been for centuries), but how that mass is directly linked to gravitation and why."

I strongly disagree. That would be equivalent to asking the question, "why do electrons repel each other?" which is just as mysterious as "why do masses attract each other?" in every way. It is taken as an observed fact of nature, and it's a fact which we can then model with tremendous accuracy using Quantum Field Theory.

I have read your description, and I see pure speculation, without any justification for why you believe this to be true. Also, I think you are using "cosmological constant" in a non-standard way, which is only made worse by the fact that you're using the standard symbol Λ to denote it. If you were intending to use it in the standard way, then I think you misunderstand what it is. If not, then my objections to your commandeering of the term "WIMP" also apply here.

You can't call two competing theories (to be rather generous) the same thing. It would be like calling a bullhorn a "telephone": yes, the name makes sense, in that it allows sound to be heard far away, and yes, they have some overlapping uses, but the word is taken. Might I suggest "WCMP" ("Weakly Coupled Matter Particle")? It's just as applicable, and does not cause unnecessary ambiguity. To call it a WIMP would be the intellectual equivalent of trademark infringement.

[Quick note: If you copy a large block of text from Wikipedia, or any other source, you should cite it. Also, I already knew all of that information, so it would be much faster to say "according to [link to wiki page], [claim you're trying to make]." That way I have less text to wade through.]

"**neutrinos interact through gravity and the weak interaction only,**"

Yes... and? This is well-established. I never contradicted it. Why is it important that this "coincides with your earlier claims"?

"(This is where PEP comes in. The Neutrino matches the spin state of one of the quarks inside the neutron, thus allowing for the exchange of W bosons. A boson from a particle without a matching spin state would not have the effect that is described next)"

You are still ignoring what the PEP actually says. Quarks and neutrinos are not identical, and so PEP does not apply. W bosons are not only not identical to quarks and neutrinos, they're also not fermions, so PEP doubly doesn't apply to any interaction involving them. Any restrictions on spin in the process you're describing, if they exist, are required by the conservation of angular momentum, not the PEP. I recommend that you stop invoking the PEP until you understand what it means. If you have questions regarding that, I am happy to help; if you continue to invoke it incorrectly while ignoring my attempted help, it will just make me frustrated with you.

"As it is generated in the sun it should result in a a dark matter halo, a hypothetical component of a solar system that envelops the whole system and extends well beyond the edge of expected gravity. The halo's mass dominates the total mass."

How does the Sun "generate" dark matter? Also, if the Sun were mostly dark matter, we would have noticed (there would be a massive disparity between the mass we calculate from its luminosity and the mass we calculate from its gravitational field).

"...the overall gravity would be the same, but the range of that gravitational force would be increased. As the range increases, the mass of those objects will seem to decreae."

None of that makes any sense to me. What do you mean by "overall gravity"? What do you mean by "range"? Why would increasing range look like decreasing mass? You don't motivate any of these claims.

"The existence of dark matter halo's is pretty well accepted."

Around galaxies, and galaxy clusters (as well as some other cases) yes. Around the Sun, not that I'm aware of, although feel free to prove me wrong. As far as I'm aware at the moment, the dark matter present in our solar system is from the Milky Way halo, with no independent halo for the Sun. It's likely that the Sun would have trapped some dark matter in its gravity well while moving around the Milky Way, but the halo would not likely be "dominant" as you suggest; generally, the halo forms first, and then the visible matter follows, not the other way around.

"So, without changing any of the core claims of the theory, that should explain your objections."

Not at all. The parts that weren't verifiably false were untestably vague. You need to make your claims quantitative, or at least give sufficient guidelines such that someone else could make it quantitative, or it's just a story, not a theory. At the very least, you would have to present some sort of theoretical motivation for why your model would be a better description of reality than existing theory. So far, you're just saying "the Sun makes dark matter" without any explanation of how it would or why you think it might, and ascribing properties to particles that either have no basis in actual measurements or else are already disproven.

The hallmark of a good scientific theory is that you make a relatively small number of assumptions, motivated by the data, then calibrate any "free parameters" using only part of the data, and then the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of other experiments.

If you have N data points, and your theory requires anywhere near N parameters to describe that data, then the model is basically useless, and "agreement with the data" provides little (if any) evidence that your theory is correct. Give me any N data points, and N free parameters to work with, and I can write down a polynomial that perfectly reproduces that data... whether the underlying function was a polynomial or not!

Your theory, at the moment, has approximately the same level of descriptiveness, theoretical motivation, and experimental support as Gravity Is Just Fairies Pushing Things Theory, in which closer objects are attracted more "because the fairies pushing the two objects are excited to see each other" and larger objects attract each other more "because there's more room for fairies". In response to the objection that gravity scales with mass, not size, the proponent of Fairy Gravitation explains that really dense objects push out into dimensions that fairies can see but we can't, and that the fairies can also push on those parts of the object. In response to the objection that gravitational force also scales with the mass of the other object, the Fairy Theorist again invokes fairy excitement, which depends on how many fairies they see.

Would you take Fairy Theory seriously? If not, can you explain how your theory is at all better?

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • Just now

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee I can understand your frustration, but as you know, I'm taking advantage of your expertise and deep understanding to get a better grasp on things. I wouldn't be much of a theorist or philosopher if I didn't try and explore the different ways I could answer your concerns. I've never been super precise in speaking or writing, and that's definitely not the best way to try and explain things.

In fact the little details and the subtleties you are trying to explain to me to break apart my hypothesis have actually made me look deeper into the research and from a different angle than I would have taken on my own. So while defending my own theory, I've gained some more valuable insight into the standard model. I do thank you for that. I'm not trying to be confrontational.

In your example of two skaters pushing off one another and moving, that is the classical example of equal and opposite forces resulting in equilibrium. To overcome inertia, energy was imparted to the system (the system being the skates). Once the skaters stopped pushing, equilibrium was reached and they move with a standard velocity which is the result of Force minus inertia. However in gravity, there is no initial physical contact to initiate acceleration, and unlike the skaters, who move in a standard velocity, with gravity acceleration continues. In EM interactions, the negative polarity of the electrons allows direct kinetic interaction which results in repulsion, but after the physical contact acceleration does not occur.

I like your example of gravitational potential energy. However, I am left with the question, what is the third party energy source that grants them this potential energy in relation to each other? I understand it is a function of mass and distance from each other, but it still doesn't describe the energy source for the acceleration.

The key word that I am having trouble accepting is "pull". How does an object that has no physical contact with you pull? Whether the system is open or closed, the basic tenet of real objects transferring kinetic energy to each other via physical contact and repulsion is still violated. If the earth's mass pushed on you rather than pulled, I would accept it without doubts, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the standard model.

I don't feel asking the root question as to why objects seem to attract each other gravitaionally is foolish. I also make an attempt to explain why electrons repel each other in my model. I'm not satisfied with the explanation of, "they just do. That's what we observe." That only leaves me with the results and not the cause, and that's very unsatisfying.

The definiion I use for the cosmological constant (I'm pulling from the encyclopedia)

The cosmological constant Λ appears in Einstein's field equation in the form of where R and g describe the structure of spacetime, T pertains to matter and energy affecting that structure, and G and c are conversion factors that arise from using traditional units of measurement. When Λ is zero, this reduces to the original field equation of general relativity. When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum). The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure). In this context, it is commonly moved onto the right-hand side of the equation, and defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8πρvac, where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear, i.e. The cosmological constant Λ appears in Einstein's field equation in the form of where R and g describe the structure of spacetime, T pertains to matter and energy affecting that structure, and G and c are conversion factors that arise from using traditional units of measurement. When Λ is zero, this reduces to the original field equation of general relativity. When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum). The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure). In this context, it is commonly moved onto the right-hand side of the equation, and defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8πρvac, where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear, i.e. Λ = 8π (G/c2)ρvac = κ ρvac, where κ is Einstein's constant). It is common to quote values of energy density directly, though still using the name "cosmological constant", with convention 8π G = 1. A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the universe, as observed.

I should probably also add a subscript to denote that this universe has it's own value for Λ . While other universes have a different value. It is mainly the associated pressure that reacts to energy density and spacetime expansionthat I am concentrating on as the key factor. For making my assumption.

I'll bow to your wisdom on the naming conventions. Instead of calling them WIMPs, a more accurate designation according to my hypothesis would be Phase Shifted Matter. (PSM)

I did become overly focused on expounding the virtues of PEP and its many associated effects. The key point I was trying to make is that while Neutrinos are normally non-interactive, occasionally when blocked by dense enough matter they reemerge into a state of interactivity. However, the strength of that interactivity is pretty weak. I also shouldn't have used Bosons in my descrition, since my hypothesis doesn't interpret the energy ransfer being facilitated by actual matter particles as carriers. The short range and physical contact between interacting particles allows me to just use the physical transfer of compressed spacetime between objects as the cause of the force imbalance and transfer.

I do still think quarks and neutrinos are functionally equivalent. It is part of the basis for my cosmology. That spacetime is being pushed into our universe steadily and constantly from another universe through the center of what we perceive as quarks. (Fairy #1) .

Ok, Another wiki paste: Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND)[50][51] suggests that at their distances from the Sun, the objects comprising the Oort cloud should experience accelerations of the order of 10−10 m/s2, and thus should be within the realms at which deviations from Newtonian predictions come into effect. According to this hypothesis, which was proposed to account for the discrepancies in the galaxy rotation curve, which are more commonly attributed to dark matter, acceleration ceases to be linearly proportional to force at very low accelerations.[50] If correct, this would have significant implications regarding the formation and structure of the Oort cloud.

I used the math from the MOND guys, but instead of attributing it to nonstandard newtonin mechanics, I just attributed the discrepencies in orbit size and velocity to dark matter.

So how do I explain how the sun generates dark matter. First I take Fairy #1, which is the assumption that spacetime emerges from matter itself into our universe and subjected it to the intense heat, pressure, and gravity of a star. To believe in the first assumption, I have to start with the mathematical presumption that the force of the pressure associated with the cosmological constant is less than the force that is pushing the spacetime into our universe to begin with. Since the speed of spacetime expansion isn't infinite. (I used hubble's equation to derive that), there is a finite gap between the relative pressures of lamda between the universes. If that gap can be overcome, then it is possible for spacetime to expand, not into our universe, but along a parallel dimension. So I made he equation

GP1>ΛP2 or P3

This doesn't occur with all matter inside a star, but it is conceivable that my inequality could in fact happen. This is also a testable phenomenon. Take a super high powered laser and fireit at some enriched hydrogen. As temperatures and pressures rise, not only will there be neutron emisssion, heat, and fused helium, but also after enough hydrogen is hit with the laser, Neutrinos will also form. Some will initially be Mesons, while others will destabilize immediately into PSMs.

Most of the energy and matter being converted and fused in the reactor results in the formation of standard matter.

So here is fairy #2. The set of physical constants in this universe causes matter to become unstable unless it is a triplet set. Another place where I should not use the standard nomenclature, but refer to quarks as "matter vortices" instead. This is an easier fairy to believe in, since any stable matter in this universe does consit of three quarks. Single vortex, or double vortex systems are inherently unstable. They'll either destabilize into PSM objects or form up into a stable triplet set creating a proton or neutron. This is actually an observable and testable phenomenon. This assumption/prediction of my theory can be tested right now with any particle collider. Smash some protons together and observe the results.

Fairy #3: non-interactivity of PSM's is due to a decrease in the ability for PSM's to interact with normal matter. I'm sure we both agree that here is some form of gravitationally interactive, but otherwise non-observable matter in this universe. The gravitational lensing evidence, rotational inertia of our galaxy and a whole host of other evidence points in that direction.

So, that leads straight back to Fairy 1. If matter is formed of concentrated spacetime, and that spacetime comes from another universe. Then the opposite can also occur. Just by accepting the first fairy, an easy explanation for Dark matter is there.

Everything revolves around that single assumption.

So why believe in my assumptions, or fairies as you call them?

1. They follow Newton's laws to the letter. By accepting the first assumption, then all matter and energy interactions, includng gravity can be seen as the result of physical collisions between solid bodies.

2. It decreases the number of assumptions necessary to calculate behaviors for matter and energy. As everything in the universe boils down to a single constituent ingredient, and is caused by direct physical interactions, it simplifies the current model immensely.

3. It makes some very specific predictions. a. Particles that consist of a number other than three Vortexes are inherently unstable and will destabilize into PSM's or restabilize into a Proton or Neutron. b. That travel along a nonstandard dimension is semi-independant of linear travel in our visible universe. This particles which are physically linked at some point will be able to transfer information in the form of spin states instantaneously over vast distances. c. That electrons are not vortices, and also possess inherent phase instability. This can be tested by a number of methods.

   I predict as linear distance increases along an electron's path of travel, its direct ability to affect other matter in our universe will decrease.
  I also predict that there will be a partial destabilization out of P1, which will increase its range of possible interaction spots. This can be mathematically be described as an ever enlarging partial sphere, I also predict that even though the zone of interaction is a field, any actualinteraction between an electron and matter will not be as a dispersed field, but as a single particle interaction.
  I predict that occasionally during part of a photon;s travel, it will pahase shift so much it can pass through solid matter.
 I also predict that as an electron phase shifts, occasionally it will encounter other matter in a state of partial phase shift and be able to affect multiple particles simultaneously as though it split into multple particles.
   

So to test if my model is a poor framework or not it can be physically tested. It relies entirely on causality rather than probability. So as a basis for a cosmological framework, it has a leg up over certain other mainstream theories.

 Share • Report • Just now

View Comment Change Log

Eric Anson now Ph.D in physics, continues his debate.

1. Forces are about exchanges of momentum, not energy. Forces don't have to exchange energy at all, e.g., in uniform circular motion. 2. The number of particles isn't what makes forces stop working. There are astrophysics simulations involving literally billions of particles in which all behavior is calculated using forces.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee 1. momentum is defined as stored inertia, which is energy yes? When it comes to uniform circular motion, if it is not about rotation, but an actual circle in space, I'm still on the side that believes there's something more going on than meets the eye. Continuous acceleration requires energy...

2. Never claimed forces stopped working. Just made a statement about the ease of using field equations to represent a vast number of particles over doing the individual calculations for each. Both are of course possible, but wow... What a nightmare.

Erik Anson Erik Anson >> momentum is defined as stored inertia, which is energy yes?

No. Those are in no way the same thing.

>> I'm still on the side that believes there's something more going on than meets the eye.

I'm unaware of any such "side". You might be the only one. All observations of circular motion are in agreement with existing theory.

>> Continuous acceleration requires energy...

Not true. The Earth is continuously accelerating towards the Sun, but no energy needs to be expended to produce that acceleration (on average; the Earth's orbit isn't perfectly circular, so energy is exchanged back and forth between kinetic and gravitational potential energy).

2. As I said, giant astrophysical simulations of gravitational interactions among billions of particles tend not to use field configurations. The issue is not the number of particles.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee

This momentum calculation seems suspiciously like something used to define energy in this instance. mass times velocity. I usually use the word energy as a synonym to motion. Maybe you are using a different definition?

When it comes to gravitational acceleration, I DEFINITELY think there's more to that action than meets the eye.

2. So when doyou choose to use field equations rather than individual particles or vice versa? I normally do it when messing with lab equipment settings or designing machines that work on a macroscopic scale. As a matter of convenience I bust out the old text on Maxwell. I don't have the equipment or the patience to do such calculations on a per/particle basis. I've seen astronomers do gravitational calculations for the sizes of nebulae and other such things, they tend to use field based equations also, after estimating size, density, etc...

Erik Anson Erik Anson >> This momentum calculation seems suspiciously like something used to define energy in this instance.

How so?

In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy is related to momentum by

K=p22m.

They are hardly the same thing.

>> I usually use the word energy as a synonym to motion. Maybe you are using a different definition?

That's not how "energy" is defined in physics, so yes, I'm using a different definition: the standard one.

>> When it comes to gravitational acceleration, I DEFINITELY think there's more to that action than meets the eye.

Great. You're welcome to think whatever you like. Anything to back that up, in terms of actual evidence?

>> So when doyou choose to use field equations rather than individual particles or vice versa?

You can read my answer to this question.

>> I normally do it when messing with lab equipment settings or designing machines that work on a macroscopic scale.

This is highly vague...

>> As a matter of convenience I bust out the old text on Maxwell. I don't have the equipment or the patience to do such calculations on a per/particle basis.

Maxwell deals with (possibly time-dependent) charge distributions. The equations output forces. Potentials can be very handy in E&M, don't get me wrong, but Maxwell is in no way abandoning forces.

>> I've seen astronomers do gravitational calculations for the sizes of nebulae and other such things, they tend to use field based equations also, after estimating size, density, etc...

Gravitational potential is certainly a powerful tool in various branches of physics. However, it's not universally better in every situation where there are lots of particles, e.g., my example with the many-body simulations.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee Hmmm, quibbling about the word energy... Kinda pointless. IF there is a force, there is something being exchanged. IF the exchange isn't matter, then all that remains is energy. In one of its many forms, Ke, PE, impulse, momentum, acceleration, etc...etc...

>> When it comes to gravitational acceleration, I DEFINITELY think there's more to that action than meets the eye.

--Great. You're welcome to think whatever you like. Anything to back that up, in terms of actual evidence?

That's actually what I've been working on for months now. So, yeah, working on it. I'm not just going to claim it and not attempt to do some verification. However science as an individual is slower and smaller than someone working in the prestigious perimenter institute. I'll get there eventually, either proved or disproved.

I'm really not sure where you got the idea I'm abandonging forces. You already know i'm unreasonably newtonian in my outlook. But for ease of use often I'll go fast and easy rather than minute and complex. If I had the resources, I'd go for the full on individual measurement and analysis as well.

Erik Anson Erik Anson >> Hmmm, quibbling about the word energy... Kinda pointless.

No, energy and momentum are very different concepts. For example, if you have a nuclear bomb that's floating stationary in space, and set it off, the total momentum of the resulting spray of light and matter would be zero, but the total energy would, of course, not be zero.

If you're going to use physical terminology, you need to use it correctly. Otherwise you're just redefining words without telling anyone, and that's highly confusing.

>> IF there is a force, there is something being exchanged. IF the exchange isn't matter, then all that remains is energy.

No. Force is an exchange of momentum.

>> In one of its many forms, Ke, PE, impulse, momentum, acceleration, etc...etc...

KE and PE are both types of energy, and thus are both scalars. Impulse, momentum, and acceleration are all not types of energy, and are all vectors (impulse is change in momentum, i.e., force integrated over duration of the interaction).

Calling all of these things "energy" is simply sloppy; they're quite different things, and are in no way interchangeable. Heck, those 5 quantities have 3 different sets of units!

>> That's actually what I've been working on for months now. So, yeah, working on it. I'm not just going to claim it and not attempt to do some verification. However science as an individual is slower and smaller than someone working in the prestigious perimenter institute. I'll get there eventually, either proved or disproved.

Perimeter Institute? Do you have me confused with someone else? Anyway, my point was, there doesn't have to be any energy exchange involved in uniform circular motion. Why? Because the energy of the circulating body isn't changing!

>> I'm really not sure where you got the idea I'm abandonging forces.

You were suggesting that, with large numbers of particles, it was no longer practical to use forces. That may sometimes be true in some contexts, but it is not true all the time.

Debate with Americo Perez Ph.D Physics

Americo Perez Just an FYI. The rate of expansion of the Universe is slow compared to "c". About 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec - give or take 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. Expansion occurs in the areas of space that are outside of gravitational influence. In other words, the vast distances between galaxies where galaxy gravitational influence is insignificant.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee That is the rate galaxies are moving away from us. That isn't the rate of the universe expanding. I would posit that the galaxies acceleration is an indicator of additional spacetime being added into the visible universe causing acceleration, and not that the velocity of those galaxies was indicative to the true rate of spatial expansion.

The range over which gravity overcomes the force related to "dark energy" is pretty vast. So, it would indicate that dark energy is an additive repulsive factor with very low localized energy value. This means that despite gravitational attenuation over long ranges, the actual force causing the acceleration is quite weak. Only after such large ranges and gravity is almost entirely attenuated does dark energy start showing observable impact.

Americo Perez Americo Perez I think gravity causes the direction and velocity of an object to change. Which is different from the concept of space expansion. Look at this this way. If everything is expanding at the same rate then nothing changes its relative location due to the expansion. Living in a universe where everything is expanding (dimensionally) at the same rate would be undetectable except as a change in stress energy tensor. To me something is off in your comments. I can't put my finger on it.  :-)

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee My statements violate conservation of energy inside a closed system. That may be why you have a weird feeling. I just don't believe the visible universe is a closed system.

I also don't believe that space can just stretch to occupy more space without obvious and observable effects like attenuation of energies and fluctuation in vacuum pressure. So I work off a model in which space acts as a super low viscosity superfluid. More space keeps getting pumped in, this addition of spacetime results in an additive pressure which then overcomes inertia and gravity at a certain range.

Space isn't being added isotropically either. I claim the it is being emitted fom matter itself. This is why the galaxies are accelerating. wo sources emitting energy when interacting will have an additive effect or acceleration.

Thngs are definitely not moving evenly across the board. Just looking into the night sky will show that conclusively. Those regions affected by gravity are drawn into massive superstructures. Outside of those regions, where the only force of any appreciable magnitude is inertia, expansion of spacetime by just changing the metric tensor of available spacetime wouldn't resut in acceleration it would follow inertia,

Americo Perez Americo Perez Saying that the reason massless particles or EM waves have extreme velocity is due to expansion is interesting, out of the box, but still incorrect. My reason is that I assume the expansion would be omnidirectional, so it would not cause linear acceleration in the local area (ie inside the solar system). Which is what the original question wanted to know.

But I agree with you on the concept of diferential pressure, which is another way of saying space warping. I also agree on the analogy of describing space as a compressible superfluid, which is another way of saying elastic and fluidic. I don't agree with the idea of space expansion due to "emitted from matter". My reason is that it would cancel out gravity, so there would be no gravity. Also, the greater the mass in an area, the greater the expansion. See the conflict? Doesn't match what we see.

I don't want to discourage you. That is not my intention. On the contrary. If you would like to continue this very important subject, please let me know. I hope I can help.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee 1 vote by Americo Perez While the expansion of spacetime would be omnidirectional from the emitting source, individual quanta have their own individual velocity and vector based inertia. SO they become emitted alongside the rest of the ambient spacetime as a distinct high energy peak. Then they stay discrete because of relativity based temporal stasis dueto the relative velocity of motion.

As for cancelling out gravity, I definitely don't buy that matter is primarily moved, accelerated, pushed, or in a large way impacted by the curvature of spacetime. I tend to believe gravity has another source, and that the curvature of spacetime is a response to the actual force exchanging mechanism.

As spacetime is emitted at c, increased overall addition of spacetime from matter would have no noticeable effect in the local group. However we do see a side effect of the emission of larger sums of spacetime from planets than from empty space, just by the vast quantity of EM and gravitational energy surrounding matter as opposed to diffuse spacetime which we can observe in the vacuum.

As spacetime has a very low energy value as a dispersed object, the observable effects of additonal spacetime would only be visible over great distances after all other forces have attenuated to next to nothing.

Since spacetime expansion is the addition of additional spacetime instead of a change in the actual geometry of space, this addition can happen with the result of continuous application of universe wide vacuum pressure. This is an effect that is observed.

I'm always happy to debate knowledgeable people, it's the only way to really learn or gain deeper understanding. Or to fill in holes to my hypothesis that need shoring up.

Americo Perez Americo Perez I really do understand what you are saying. But it ends up illogical.

We cannot say that space is emitted from matter (being pumped into an area) but only expands after it leaves the presence of matter, then it activates when it is far away.

The increase in spatial dimension has to happen at the local area first. And if that happens, the logical conclusion is that the greater the amount of matter in a given area, the greater the production of space, which in turn would dissipate the matter until we end up with a perfectly uniform universe.

That is all I can say my friend.

Oh I forgot to add, if we don't end up with a perfectly uniform universe then we end up with galaxies shrinking due to the expanding pressure of outer space.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee 1 vote by Americo Perez This is directly related to the forces generating the spacetime and the forces resisting initial expansion.

Take for example a high explosive charge. When observing the physical makeup of an explosion, you'll see some interesting things. There is a region close to the main explosive where a region of ultra high pressure exists, then it suddenly drops off intoa region of low density, then another shell of high density, then it falls off into emptiness.

Spacetime is normally very diffuse and nebulous. Only a propelling force of sufficiently high magnitude would, 1. Launch that spacetime from its origin point into our universe, and 2 allow for the continuous addition of spacetime. (I've inferred that it is likely one or two ultramassive black holes residing in a neighboring universe.) The spacetime is not squeezed out en masse, instead it is squeezed through weak points in the underlying matrix of the system. This causes a high energy stream to be generated. This stream then stabilizes along three spatial dimensions due to omnidirectional resisting forces that are applied to any vector not in the visible universe and also in a weaker form from the geometric sector of our universe which to an outside observer would correspond to the future.

These forces which are not isotropic along all vectors will cause spherical rotation at incredible velocities. These factors lead to the generation of what appear to be solid objects. The conditions in our universe are just right to allow these spinning vortexes of spacetime to then stabilize into a larger system within a triplet set. This generates the larger explosive phenomena such as protons and neutrons.

The physical structure of protons and neutrons also closely mirrors the example I gave earlier about the high explosive. There is a high energy core, which is then surrounded by a low density zone, then an additional high energy shell. The more complex the atom becomes, the greater the number of additional shells of accumulated spacetime accrue.

Another parallel to this system is a star. High energy pushing out, omnidirectional force resisting inwards. Forms layers of convections shells.

Americo Perez Americo Perez Again, you have many great points.

I agree with spherical rotation "capturing" condensed energy into what we call matter particles. Slowing that spherical rotation releases the contracted space into quickly expanding space (mass to energy conversion).

I just don't buy the idea that massless particles are accelerated due to space jets. We end up with all sorts of strange consequences. Would these jets be perfectly linear like a light beam? Aggregating jets would cause a high energy stream destroying everything in its path. Earth would have a spiny nature that would slash us to smithereens?. Heavy rocks would shine like a light bulb?

I think at this moment you have a mix of very cutting edge concepts with a few bad ones.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee In actuality, all matter des emit a constant stream of particles. We see them as infra-red. and remember, since we too are also composed of spacetime, in its most energetic and compressed form, any radiation of ambient spacetime would be equivalent to zero for us. Or close to zero anyways. You are correct in assuming that the individual geometry at any given point in time would be a spiky ball. The very reason that photons travels in a distinctly linear path is due to the reason you gave. Their initial emission must be as a point along a straight line and not dispersed because of how the matter and energy is being generated.

So, with this in mind, it changes what an electron is. Regular matter consists of erupting spacetime vortexes, while a quanta is just a region of the emitted spacetime shell with a high energy region which we designate as a photon. It is spacetime at a high energy state compared to the ambient emissions, but lower energy than the core matter particles themselves. So the photon will have the same mass as the spacetime around it, but a higher energy content. It will also travel out at the same velocity as the rest of the emissions.

If you could freeze time to look at the geometric shape of the particle, it should look like a cross between a ball of twine and a bag of needles.

Now speed things up again and the rotational velocity of each particle becomes so great it appears to be a solid omnidirectional wave coming out from the particle. Of course, we are usually only able to see the highest energy portion of that wave of emitted spacetime as a photon. Now stick 12x10^16 particles together. Their individual spikeness cancels out and you get a steady smooth emission from the macroscopic object.

Instability does cause excess energy emission, so you'll see extremely heavy, dense, or unstable elements radiate a lot more energy than lighter ones, as both electromagnetic emission and beta decay. Why when you take a cannister full of air, then shrink it down, the temperature and motion of everything goes up. It is one of the root causes of entropy.

Extremely massive objects like stars will do this as well. They will start fusion reactions, and generate what is known as a heliosphere. A vast swath of EM energy that surrounds the whole solar system.

Americo Perez Americo Perez "Their initial emission must be as a point along a straight line and not dispersed because of how the matter and energy is being generated."

Again, you have many good points mixed with bad ones.

An antenna can be radiating a radio signal for years and not lose any mass. In essence it grabs it from the surrounding space around the antenna. The antenna converts electric voltage (pressure) into radiated energy. A photon is akin to kinetic energy more than anything else.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee Don't forget that the big bang isn't over. There won't be any lost mass since spacetime is still being shot into this universe from elsewhere.

I'm just trying to connect all the pieces. A photon goes from being massless to having a mass when it enters into another system as an electron.

All energy is motion. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion.The reason that E=mc^2 is because of the relationship of spacetime to photons to solid matter.

One can convert all terms into the other because in reality, all can also convert one into the other.

An EM field captures or radiates energy based on the laws of thermodynamics at their core. High energy zones or objects will diffuse into lower energy ones until equilibrium is reached. Upon being captured, a free photon then stops moving at c and collapses its energy into the collecting atom. This happens until an excited state is reached and that atom emits a quanta.

So if a photon is the leading edge of emitted spacetime that makes spatial expansion equal to c.

As velocity reaches c Time approaches zero. This is because the interaction zones of the observer and observed. The higher the velocity, the closer that frame of reference is to the second frame of reference's forward expanding region of spacetime. Motion is not just directional, it is also temporal. Forces are applied from the past into the present and extend into the future. Relativistic interaction then places the faster party closer to the forward edge of the second party's zone of causality or shared temporal experience.

Accelerating to c within your own frame of reference would then bring you closer to the edge of the bubble of reality that you are emitting, the closer you get the stronger the force required to overcome equal and opposite resisting pressure from spacetime itself. As acceleration approaches c time approaches zero. and energy approaches infinity.

It's a handy way of combining all the forces into one force framework.

Americo Perez Americo Perez I recommend that you revisit your understanding of a photon or EM wave. It does not expand space. It has momentum. Which is a pushing force. When its momentum is absorbed by a material it increases the temperature of the material. As temperature rises the material expands its volume. The whole process is reversible (cooling). Compare the material before the heating and after the cooling. I believe that the net gain in spatial dimensions, zero. Net mass gain, zero. If EM was the reason for the expansion of the universe then the areas between galaxies, which by definition has less EM radiation (less temperature), would not be expanding. Anyway, review this conversation and adjust the framework. Many people in Quora has helped me and pointed out my mistakes. The goal is not to promote an idea, the goal is to present the ideas, get input, adjust as needed. The quicker you adjust, the quicker you get to building a better framework.

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee The background spacetime is not EM emission. Only the packet labeled a photon is. The remainder of emissions is just plain old fashioned empty spacetime. Everything is made of spacetime at its final state, but the different phases define how it behaves.

As a high energy point that can react with normal matter, a quanta. As the primary generator of reality it is matter, in its most diffuse state it is vacuum.

Just picture a ball, and every moment it sends out a glass shell. That shell is transparent except for a little dot painted on the side.

The glass ball expands and diffuses into the environment as it expands, but the little photon is in temporal stasis. So it remains a discrete point until reaching its destination. Then that high energy spot is transferred as kinetic energy to the target. The remainder of the spacetime shell, having essentially the same energy as empty space is completely ignored.

We do know some things by observation and experiment. Spacetime has an associated pressure and energy. We also know that over time the energy and pressure remains constant. (cosmological constant). We also know that galaxies are being pushed away from us.

So logically, if spacetime enters the system and doesn't change overall pressure, that force must then be applied elsewhere. That force can be seen through accelerating galaxies.

Discussion with Science Journal editor David Chidakel

David Chidakel This seems to be a "make it up as I go along" cosmology. As a matter of fact, I like it. It's fun. Unfortunately it is unburdened by evidence and inconsistent with what is known.

Don't let that deter you. Just make sure your readers know it's less fact then fiction.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee It's pretty obviously not standard model. There's plenty of evidence though. I'm just trying to open up discussion on new stuff. It's been a hundred years since QM, and they're sill talkig about the same things...

 Share • Report • 7 Nov

David Chidakel David Chidakel That's really not fair. There has been a great deal of progress. The ideas have changed and adjusted over time. The fact that the basic notion of expansion has endured for a hundred years tells us it hasn't been shown to be false.

Newton's ideas have been around even longer, after all. Like the Big Bang, they've yielded to new thinking but haven't gone away.

Some early Greeks suggested atomic theory. That's a very long time for a theory.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee Ok, here's my problem with the state of science. You have a field in which the core claim is inherently unkowable, and professes to occur without the need for aa mechanism. All our propulsion technology is based on science which makes it prohibitively expensive to engage in interplanetary flight, and impossible to do anythng Interstellar. You have a force (Gravity) which remains essentially at the same levl of understanding as when Einstein came up with relativity (another force with no known mechanism).

There's been so much esoteric refinement of the century old theories, it is incomprehensible to most, and unlikely to be true anyways. Something is wrong when math stops being used to model physical events and starts being used as an equivalent or even a causative agent.

So what I did was take all the old paradoxes. Each of the einstein bell debates. Then all of the proofs for QM, and designed a framework where things weren't subjective or probabilistic. Applied he theory and voila, had the same experimental results, but didn't claim the universe is unknowable.

While, some of my details are definitely off. The core premise of matter being equivalent to spacetime, and spacetime not expanding as a whole, but being added to our universe pans out.

So if even a part time garage hobbyist in his spare ime can come up with a few possible hypothesis and get prmising test results, these supposed "Geniuses" should be able to do more. Only, they're still busy preaching that reason doesn't apply in QM.

Since newton, at least a couple times in every generation was a major leap foward. Maxwell, tesla, Bohr, Einstein, Bell

Nowadays... nothing. You got people stil talking about Einstein's entanglement quandary or the black hole singularity...

 Share • Report • 7 Nov

David Chidakel David Chidakel You have a field in which the core claim is inherently unknowable, and professes to occur without the need for a mechanism.

You're referring to the Big Bang? I can understand why you say so but it's really not true.

All our propulsion technology is based on science which makes it prohibitively expensive to engage in interplanetary flight, and impossible to do anythng Interstellar.

Boy oh boy! Talk about blaming the messenger! You're mad at scientists because of the limitations that are imposed by nature?

You have a force (Gravity) which remains essentially at the same levl of understanding as when Einstein came up with relativity (another force with no known mechanism).

Relativity isn't a force with no known mechanism and gravity isn't a force - that's what Einstein discovered. Besides what, exactly, are scientists supposed to do about this supposed dilemma? A lot of work is going on in areas like Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory and at the collider (LHC).

There's been so much esoteric refinement of the century old theories, it is incomprehensible to most, and unlikely to be true anyways. Something is wrong when math stops being used to model physical events and starts being used as an equivalent or even a causative agent.

I will interpret this to mean that some branches of physics have become impenetrable for the ordinary person. That's true. It's very disturbing to me too. It's unfortunate but not exactly a reason to beat up on scientists.

So what I did was take all the old paradoxes. Each of the einstein bell debates. Then all of the proofs for QM, and designed a framework where things weren't subjective or probabilistic. Applied he theory and voila, had the same experimental results, but didn't claim the universe is unknowable.

Uh huh.. It would be nice if you would submit to a peer review journal instead of boasting about it here.

While, some of my details are definitely off. The core premise of matter being equivalent to spacetime, and spacetime not expanding as a whole, but being added to our universe pans out.

It does? How did you ascertain this panning out?

So if even a part time garage hobbyist in his spare time can come up with a few possible hypothesis and get promising test results, these supposed "Geniuses" should be able to do more. Only, they're still busy preaching that reason doesn't apply in QM.

Oh COME on, my part time garage hobbyist.l You have some fun ideas but you're too quick to congratulate yourself on their validity. Nobody's denying that you've got a big brain or that you don't write well but your assertions need to get linked up with evidence and praised by someone beside the author, his self.

Since newton, at least a couple times in every generation was a major leap foward. Maxwell, tesla, Bohr, Einstein, Bell

Nowadays... nothing. You got people stil talking about Einstein's entanglement quandary or the black hole singularity...

The fact that you're not up on the literature is a hell of reason to make such a bald faced assertion.

You're a fun contributor.

I'm not just saying that . You are.

But some of your arrows are getting stuck in the wrong penguins. Science is the best thing we have. It's an amazing enterprise and isn't nearly the mess you claim it is.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee --You're referring to the Big Bang? I can understand why you say so but it's really not true.

Well, the big bang I have trouble with due my disbelief in the concept of siguarity, but more han that, The idea of matter popping out of existence into a "probability state" then popping back into existence with a position and velocity value that is determined nt by a mechanism, but by a subjective probability? It's not science. It's magic.

--Boy oh boy! Talk about blaming the messenger! You're mad at scientists because of the limitations that are imposed by nature?

This is my point. I seriously don't believe that the limitations on our technology are based on fundamentally impenetrable barriers. They're from lack of innovation. During the 60's freeman dyson designed and built the orion system. Incredible potential. It's been 50 years and none of these guyshave even matched what we built with ww2 technology.

--Relativity isn't a force with no known mechanism and gravity isn't a force - that's what Einstein discovered. Besides what, exactly, are scientists supposed to do about this supposed dilemma? A lot of work is going on in aras like Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory and at the collider.

I wasn't Einstein who declared gravity isn't a force. It was a mathemetician after his death. Another instance of someone claiming math as reality instead of using math as a model for reality. Einstein was a serious rationalist who worked til his dying day to find out how the gravitational force was transmitted to complete a unified field theory.

--I will interpret this to mean that some branches of physics have become impenetrable for the ordinary person. That's true. It's very disturbing to me too. It's unfortunate but not exactly a reason to beat up on scientists.

Science isn't what it used to be. The truth of the matter is, if you can't explain something in 15 minutes to an uniformed layman and create understanding, you don't understand it yourself. The problem is now, that you need layer upon layer of additionally refining equations to explain something which is only complex because you are starting at an incorrect assumption. Look at the euations of Newton, maxwell, and Einstein. Science that to this day is unassailable. The unniverse breaks down into clearly understandable and elegant design. 200 pages of esoteric calculation to arrive at a figure that can be up to three orders of magnitude off?!? That's just trying to pull over people's eyes.

--Uh huh.. It would be nice if you would submit to a peer review journal instead of boast about it here.

I am... Just collecting up data. :-)

--It does? How did you ascertain this panning out?

Experiment...

--oh COME on, my part time garage hobbyist.l You have some fun ideas but you're too quick to congratulate yourself on their validity. Nobody's denying that you've got a big brain or that you don't write well but your assertions need to get linked up with evidence and praised besides someone beside the author.

I didn't say i was right, I'm saying I'm giving it a go. Starting at the premise that a thing is unknowable is what is halting progress.

--The fact that you're not up on the literature is a hell of reason to make such a bald faced assertion.

I love science. Just very upset with the direction a lot of it has taken, it feels more like a priesthood these days than an honest act of reason and discovery.

 Share • Report • 7 Nov

David Chidakel David Chidakel I appreciate your spirit but differ with some of your conclusions. One thing I want to focus on is the singularity. Few modern physicists think the Big Bang began at a singularity. The idea is pretty much obsolete.

Most are coming to see space as discretized - having an extremely small but minimum size (Planck Length). The expansion of the universe wouldn't have started with anything smaller. A singularity would be inconsistent with known laws of physics. The standard explanation for the universe now is that the expansion began a very small fraction of a second later than the putative Bang.

If the expansion didn't start at "zero", then there's nothing special or magic about that instant when it did start. There would likely have been prior events and this opens up the idea of a "time before ".

Much work is aimed at this. It isn't as impossible as it might seem that evidence will show up to rule some things out and other things in but don't press me on this as it is substantially beyond my own competence.

Your resistance to virtual particles deserves to be addressed by a specialist. I can tell you that virtual particles come close to the stuff you complain about. They aren't "real" (hence virtual) and are only a mathematical fiction to account for physical behavior at the quantum scale.

The phenomenon is real enough. Nothing imaginary there. The notion of virtual particles has to be defended by someone other than me, an out of his depth engineer.

No scientists think mathematics can be substituted for evidence and none - no sane ones - believe in magic.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee You'd be surprised by the number who are dogmatic about singularity. I've been sounding the trumpet everywhere for over a decade about this. The number has gone down, but not by a lot. Every physics symposium, or seminar. Research queu, there's always more who not only believe it, but teach it in college... I'm glad to see you're a reasonable fellow and understand paradox can't work.

Yeah, spacetime is starting to see work. I get so frustrated when I keep hearing formulas for metric tensors and orthogonal positioning of possible vectors. I just want to scream. you are not trying to understand what is happening! You're just charting the motion mathematically! However actual research into spacetime energy and superfluid dynamics is very exciting. It's always ratifyin when I see people open up avenues of research. For many years I was widely regarded as a loon for saying spacetime had a substance. It had energy and interaction values. Slowly but surely, the evidence is bearing me out.... lol..

Exactly, stopping with the entire, this is all there is argument for the big bang is definitely a great first step. Understanding that spacetime cant spring from nothing brings back causality. When causality returns, so does reason.

lol, even the insane ones like myself don't believe in magic. It's just the belief that a physical occurrence can take place without a reason... That is the toughest thing to stamp out. Once a search for a mechanism begins again in earnest, we'll finally move away from the particle zoo and back towards more fundamental understandings of reality.

 Share • Report • 7 Nov

David Chidakel David Chidakel I wish you success in every endeavour but this one. If you manage to stamp out the idea that things can happen without a reason, you will obliterate the idea of emergent phenomena.

Our world is causal but if you insist on causality all the way back, you require a Garden of Eden which is, I'm sure, way too magic for you.

The ultimate causal chain has an emergent start of some kind.

That is how our universe began. You'll see.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee emergent phenomena have a reason. There is a direct causal chain between the attributing factors and the emergent phenomena.

Take a step outside of linear temporal motion. The motion of time is determined by the universe in which it is attributed. Another universe will have time, but the beginning and end of that set of temporal coordinates is causally unlinked to the first universe. Time is a value measured internally within each universe, and does not directly affect the entirety of the aggregate mass. Get enough universes floating around, and you'll have a scenario where the end of one universe is the beginning of ours, and the end of ours is the beginning of a universe that will give rise to another universe that gives rise to the universe from which ours was born. It generates an enormous moebius loop. Our universe is complex as well, more than likely there is a combination of incoming spacetime and energy from more than one other universe.

 Share • Report • 7 Nov

David Chidakel David Chidakel emergent phenomena have a reason.

Let me choose my works carefully.

Emergent systems aren't acausal - not in the sense that there aren't steps, one leading to another. The thing that distinguishes them is that behaviors emerge from the interactions of large systems of simple things that, themselves, have no hint of the eventual behavior.

Take a step outside of linear temporal motion. The motion of time is determined by the universe in which it is attributed.

I'm only familiar with one universe, myself. Time's "motion" is metaphoric at best.

Another universe will have time, but the beginning and end of that set of temporal coordinates is causally unlinked to the first universe. Time is a value measured internally within each universe, and does not directly affect the entirety of the aggregate mass.

What time might mean in universes without observers and with vastly different laws, I have no idea.

Get enough universes floating around, and you'll have a scenario where the end of one universe is the beginning of ours, and the end of ours is the beginning of a universe that will give rise to another universe that gives rise to the universe from which ours was born. It generates an enormous moebius loop. Our universe is complex as well, more than likely there is a combination of incoming spacetime and energy from more than one other universe.

Multiverse theories are pure speculation at this point. Proceeding to the specifics of those universes - time and the interactions among them - is even more speculative.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee I usually refer to time as a property assigned to objects moving through space. This links space and time.

If you have another region of space which is not linked to this one. It will also have time. Which is a property of matter moving through space.

Between the two there is no requirement for a 1:1 ratio. One could happen before or after he other, it is meaningless because both regions of spacetime lie outside of each other.

So inside of each region there is an arrow of time. You can ostensibly stack such regions atop each other in any direction, given the axiom of choice. this results in a stacked set of spacetime regions which are not temporally linked, but each with its own experience of time.

First to prove the external source idea is to get a measurement of spacetime from the inside of matter.

I am designing a sensor, which hopefully will account for extraneous factors and let me measure the repulsive pressure of expanding spacetime from a physical object.

when it comes to emergent phenomena, they are usually caused by very complex interations. I doubt that they can not be deterministically predicted given enough knowledge, but these systems are constntly in motion, so you'll always be one step behind. And every emergent property has its own mechnism for occurring. Most we'll never figure out, but Being a determinist, i end to believe that there is always an explanation and mechnism.

 Share • Report • 7 Nov

David Chidakel David Chidakel If you have another region of space which is not linked to this one. It will also have time. Which is a property of matter moving through space.

This is a little too hand wavy for my taste. I've read entire books on "What is time".

If you have another region of space which is not linked to this one. It will also have time. Which is a property of matter moving through space.

Whatever time is, it isn't a "property of matter."

A region of space that isn't linked to this one? You're referring to another universe?

Between the two there is no requirement for a 1:1 ratio. One could happen before or after he other, it is meaningless because both regions of spacetime lie outside of each other.

Ratio? Between what? Regions of spacetime that lie outside of each other?

You can ostensibly stack such regions atop each other in any direction, given the axiom of choice. this results in a stacked set of spacetime regions which are not temporally linked, but each with its own experience of time.

Whoa! This lacks operational meaning as far as I can tell.

I am designing a sensor, which hopefully will account for extraneous factors and let me measure the repulsive pressure of expanding spacetime from a physical object.

A sensor? That measures the repulsive pressure of space time? That's "dark energy". I don't believe that a single sensor could measure it - it operates on a cosmic scale.

Dark energy, if it exists, is thought to be a quantum effect. It's not credible that you have a dark energy sensor. There are many others already working on measuring this phenomenon.

when it comes to emergent phenomena, they are usually caused by very complex interations. I doubt that they can not be deterministically predicted given enough knowledge, but these systems are constntly in motion, so you'll always be one step behind. And every emergent property has its own mechnism for occurring. Most we'll never figure out, but Being a determinist, i end to believe that there is always an explanation and mechnism.

This is a big misunderstanding mixed in with some other indecipherable stuff. Emergent systems are, by definition simple system. They're nature's equivalent of 100 monkey at 100 typewriters but far simpler.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee 1 vote by David Chidakel Emergent properties like intelligence are far from simple.

Ok, as far as I am willing to state. Time is the name of the value we give to describe motion through space. Normally it is matter that is moving. If there is no space, then time itself is without any useful meaning. Generally when people ask, what came before the universe the answer is, that doesn't mean anything. That is because time is a feature that exists within the universe.

Take this universe I just described and imagine it is in the shape of a square with an arrow pointing up to indicate the direction of time. (Not for reality sake, just to illustrate)

Now let's imagine a brand new universe. Same rules same structure. Make an arrow pointing up.

Stack each universe on top of the other. Now rotate the top one until the arrow points in the opposite direction from the first.

Now you have two universes. In each one there is time. In each one time moves forward. However in relation to each other, time is reversed. If spacetime matter and energy enter at the beginning and leave at the end. You just made a cycle.

Dark energy does have an energy value and it isn't inconsiderable. To detect spacetime pressure will require a vacuum chamber, and some sort of ionic metallic dust. Using a modified magnetic bottle I can lift the dust into vacuum. Then, I will use a high rpm perendev device to generate a reaction. By calculating out the magnetic output from the device, the relative motion of the charged dust should give me a decent reading. I am using a bunch of charged hear to purposely set vacuum pressure higher. This way even negative fluctuations can be read.

 Share • Report • 7 Nov

David Chidakel David Chidakel Yung:

I enjoy your madcap approach to life and to science but I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that you might possibly suffer from delusions of grandeur. You seem to see yourself as a mad scientist (you may literally be), working independent of all the rest, wading into the deepest mysteries of physics with only bits and pieces (sorry, not a good liar here) of what others are doing and saying, and coming up with quirky and unrealistic solutions.

I'm not saying these things to be hurtful. It actually hurts me to put this on paper. It makes me feel like a real jerk. I am however concerned that you're not very realistic in your endeavors. I hope it's all harmless but I worry.

It would be strange indeed if you took anything a stranger on Quora said seriously enough to reassess things that you care passionately about. However I do hope that there are others around you that you discuss things with who can suggest and guide.

You seem like a good soul. I only wish you the best. Please, however, be careful with all that energy and all those ideas. Stay tethered to this Earth, best you can, okay?

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee lol, I've already built a device that floats without thrust using some of the principles.

It's why I seem so confident. I've already used my hypothesis to build working technology. Of course being a little insane also helps.

I've worked for DoD and DARPA most of my life doing low end research in boring stuff. Now that I'm retired I can finally get down to being like doc brown and build a flux capacitor. I've always had to work alone or in secret and have my work filed away so nobody can see.

Now I'm a civilian and can go off on any tangent. Sometimes stuff works other times it doesn't.

But no matter what happens, it'll make for a good book for alternative science and construct theory buffs.

I've gone to a number of other physicists and they are usually quick with the "it's impossible" routine. It's why I have so much frustration with the standard model crowd. Don't be afraid to be wrong. It's better than not trying at all.

I can appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not coming out of left field. I've done some similar stuff for the military in the past. I just had to shut down due to funding cuts.

 Share • Report • 7 Nov

David Chidakel David Chidakel Everyone says I'm creative. I'm an engineer. I've come up with tons of dumb things and occasional good things.I can't think of anything I've ever come up with that wasn't initially dismissed as either 1) already been done or 2) can't be done.

Confidence is good.

So is a humble attitude and (at least some) sanity.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 7 Nov

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee Well, obviously that's good advice. I suppose it's just a matter how much lift I can generate.

Right now it's just the device that flies. But I am hoping additional energy and more powerful magnets will give me what I'm looking for.

Maybe build a more powerful tesla coil.

Very Heated Debate With Dr.Anson

Here is a very interesting debate. Note how disagreement with the accepted paradigm results in the insult "you don't know anything about physics" Obviously this isn't the case considering the level of the debate that is occurring. Just another example of the orthodoxy of science. Disagreement is violently shouted down instead of being subject to scientific analysis. Erik Anson Erik Anson How is the Uncertainty Principle "still a matter for debate"?

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 27 Oct

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee Explain the mechanism by which a particle of real matter becomes a probabilistic state.

Then explain the mechanism by which that probabilistic state then becomes real matter once again.

If this mechanism is not understood, then how can absolute statements made about information tied to observing that particle be outside the scope of debate?

 Share • Report • 27 Oct

Erik Anson Erik Anson There is no such real/probabilistic divide. Reality is probabilistic. If we narrow down the probability space for one property, it gets wider for another property; it's never well-defined in all ways.

Also, the Uncertainty Principle isn't just a matter of measurement, so I'm not sure what you mean by "tied to observing".

You're making a lot of claims about QM, but I think you have more to learn first...

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 28 Oct

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee What you are claiming is a philosophical paradigm. That is a far cry from absolute truth.

Just because I don't buy into what you're selling doesn't mean I don't understand the paradigm you ascribe to. I just think it is logically inconsistent.

The universe is deterministic

The universe is probabilistic

That is the debate. Your belief in one side or the other doesn't make that paradigm true.

I personally think you have been so indoctrinated that you ignore the universe around you and the obvious objective reality of matter and energy, because you want to believe things are probabilistic.

But drop a rock on your foot a million times, it will be real every time and you'll have a sore foot.

Scientific rationalism, realism, the very basis of science itself is based on determinism.

The uncertainty principle states the more you know about velocity the less you know about its location and vice versa.

Now how are those values determined?

Measurement.

 Share • Report • 28 Oct

Erik Anson Erik Anson >> Just because I don't buy into what you're selling doesn't mean I don't understand the paradigm you ascribe to.

No, but making inaccurate statements about quantum theory and the Uncertainty Principle does.

>> That is the debate. Your belief in one side or the other doesn't make that paradigm true.

No, but the fact that there's a whole lot of evidence in favor of a probabilistic Universe, and no evidence in favor of a deterministic Universe, certainly counts for something.

>> I personally think you have been so indoctrinated that you ignore the universe around you and the obvious objective reality of matter and energy, because you want to believe things are probabilistic.

You just got done telling me that I'm not allowed to claim absolute truth, because it's a philosophical debate, and then you go ahead and do the same thing... except in the opposite direction, which goes against all of the evidence we have. Also, "indoctrination"? Please.

>> But drop a rock on your foot a million times, it will be real every time and you'll have a sore foot.

QM doesn't say otherwise. I have no idea what point you were trying to make here.

>> Scientific rationalism, realism, the very basis of science itself is based on determinism.

No, it's not, as evidenced by the fact that Quantum Electrodynamics is one of the most precisely tested and most spectacularly successful theories in the history of science.

Reality doesn't care that you find non-determinism distasteful.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 28 Oct

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee >> Just because I don't buy into what you're selling doesn't mean I don't understand the paradigm you ascribe to.

&&No, but making inaccurate statements about quantum theory and the Uncertainty Principle does.

Your conceptual understanding of your own paradigm is the problem, not the conceptual accuracy of my statements.

>> That is the debate. Your belief in one side or the other doesn't make that paradigm true.

&&No, but the fact that there's a whole lot of evidence in favor of a probabilistic Universe, and no evidence in favor of a deterministic Universe, certainly counts for something.

Your statement is blatantly untrue. Every experiment done in science outside the relatively small field of QM has deterministic results. All human experience over thousands of years both by scientists And non-scientists supports determinism. Only experiments done in QM would support probabilistic reality, and even then, I guarantee the results can have more than one interpretation. It is stupendous arrogance to claim zero evidence for determinism when every piece of technology on the planet is operated by deterministic principles.

>> I personally think you have been so indoctrinated that you ignore the universe around you and the obvious objective reality of matter and energy, because you want to believe things are probabilistic.

&&You just got done telling me that I'm not allowed to claim absolute truth, because it's a philosophical debate, and then you go ahead and do the same thing... except in the opposite direction, which goes against all of the evidence we have. Also, "indoctrination"? Please.

Once again, the vast preponderance of evidence is in my side. Show me one single example of a real object suddenly changing from one thing to another. If indeed the universe is probabilistic there is no reason why such an occurrence wouldn't happen. I can guarantee you nobody on earth has ever observed such an occurrence. If indeed you claim there is a reason for this narrowing of probabilities to one instead of any and all, there must be a mechanism. What is the mechanism that drives the shift from probability to reality and what part of that mechanism makes the wave function collapse into the state it always does? In order to logically narrow an infinite number of possible end states to one discrete one, there has to be a reason. What is it? Determinism doesn't need such a mechanism because objects are real and follow predictable rules of behavior. >> But drop a rock on your foot a million times, it will be real every time and you'll have a sore foot.

&&QM doesn't say otherwise. I have no idea what point you were trying to make here.

This is the core of what I am saying. You don't understand the difference between probability as a mathematical construct used to determine relative values for an set of objective properties and the implications of probability BEING the PRIME property of a thing.

>> Scientific rationalism, realism, the very basis of science itself is based on determinism.

&&No, it's not, as evidenced by the fact that Quantum Electrodynamics is one of the most precisely tested and most spectacularly successful theories in the history of science.

You are once again making a quasi religious claim that there can be only one interpretation derived from a complex set of observed values in experiments. You have neither a mechanism not any positive evidence of your position.

&&Reality doesn't care that you find non-determinism distasteful.

Very true, it will continue on being reality objectively irregardless of belief or desired results.

 Share • Report • 28 Oct

Erik Anson Erik Anson >> Your conceptual understanding of your own paradigm is the problem, not the conceptual accuracy of my statements.

On what basis do you claim that I don't understand my own statements? I have multiple degrees in physics and do physics for a living. Why are you so sure that you're right and I'm wrong?

>> Your statement is blatantly untrue. Every experiment done in science outside the relatively small field of QM has deterministic results.

QM is not "relatively small". The Standard Model of Particle Physics, the closest thing we currently have to a theory of everything, is quantum mechanical. Literally the only thing that isn't observationally confirmed to be quantum mechanical in nature is gravity, and that's quite reasonable considering how incredibly weak gravity is compared to the other forces.

Before calling my statements "blatantly untrue", consider learning more about what you're talking about.

>> All human experience over thousands of years both by scientists And non-scientists supports determinism.

For thousands of years, all human experience supported the idea that the Earth was flat and the Sun went around it. That did not make it true. We know better now.

>> Only experiments done in QM would support probabilistic reality, and even then, I guarantee the results can have more than one interpretation.

Even one example of nondeterminism means that the Universe is not deterministic. As for other interpretations, local realism is dead. You have to either throw out locality (in which case you have to explain how Relativity seems to work so well) or you have to throw out physical realism (i.e., that all particles have definite values for all their physical properties at all times). If you want to invoke superdeterminism, that more or less implies the existence of an all-powerful being playing practical jokes on us, which would make all of science impossible.

In short, the "alternative interpretations" are extremely unattractive and difficult to square with other known science.

>> It is stupendous arrogance to claim zero evidence for determinism when every piece of technology on the planet is operated by deterministic principles.

No, stupendous arrogance is making sweeping (and insulting) claims about a subject you have only surface-level knowledge of. See: Dunning–Kruger effect.

Determinism requires that everything be deterministic. Note that quantum mechanics already implies very-nearly-deterministic results for, say, the trajectory of a projectile; it's not predicted to be exactly deterministic, but the probability distribution is so narrow that we can't tell the difference. So, a lack of measured departure from determinism in such a context is not evidence in either direction.

On the other hand, we have Bell's theorem, and the associated Bell test experiments, which provide strong evidence against deterministic "hidden variable" models of quantum behavior.

Also, we most certainly have technology that relies on quantum behavior. Computer chips, for example, rely on quantum mechanics (although not directly on non-determinism). But do you know what does? Quantum computing. So no, your statement is just false.

>> Once again, the vast preponderance of evidence is in my side.

No, as I explained above.

>> Show me one single example of a real object suddenly changing from one thing to another.

That is not how nondeterminism works.

>> If indeed the universe is probabilistic there is no reason why such an occurrence wouldn't happen.

You can do the calculation for the probability of a macroscopic object suddenly and spontaneously moving from one place to another in a way that you would notice. It's so low that it's highly unlikely to happen within the lifetime of the Sun. So, the fact that you haven't seen objects teleporting themselves is irrelevant, because no theory predicts that you would.

>> If indeed you claim there is a reason for this narrowing of probabilities to one instead of any and all, there must be a mechanism.

Nothing "changes". There is no "mechanism". The probability distribution is just extremely narrow for certain things. If you go through the calculations, it just pops right out.

>> What is the mechanism that drives the shift from probability to reality and what part of that mechanism makes the wave function collapse into the state it always does?

The notion of "wavefunction collapse" depends on your interpretation of QM. Not all interpretations include such a thing. And, under that interpretation, it doesn't always collapse to the same (predictable) state; that's the whole point.

>> In order to logically narrow an infinite number of possible end states to one discrete one, there has to be a reason. What is it? Determinism doesn't need such a mechanism because objects are real and follow predictable rules of behavior.

Determinism would indeed be convenient if it were true. But science deals with Nature, not what would be convenient. Nature, it would appear, doesn't care whether we would prefer determinism or not.

As for a "mechanism", different interpretations of QM handle it in different ways. That's fine. All the science agrees, the differences are at the level of philosophy.

>> You don't understand the difference between probability as a mathematical construct used to determine relative values for an set of objective properties and the implications of probability BEING the PRIME property of a thing.

Actually, I understand the distinction quite well. The standard metaphor (due to Bohr, I think, although don't quote me on that) is that "There's a difference, between a blurry photograph, and a sharp photograph of a fog bank." In QM, we're dealing with the latter, not the former, as confirmed by the Bell Tests.

>> You are once again making a quasi religious claim that there can be only one interpretation derived from a complex set of observed values in experiments. You have neither a mechanism not any positive evidence of your position.

The Bell Tests are most definitely positive evidence, and there is no deterministic mechanism that explains quantum behavior either, so I don't see how you can argue that that's a point in your favor.

>> Very true, it will continue on being reality objectively irregardless of belief or desired results.

Few, if any, physicists desire non-determinism. It makes our lives harder. But, that's the only model that fits all of our observations, and we defer to Nature.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 28 Oct

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee \\On what basis do you claim that I don't understand my own statements? I have multiple degrees in physics and do physics for a living. Why are you so sure that you're right and I'm wrong?

Seriously? You're going to pull the I have degrees card? Fine, I have a doctorate in physics, multiple engineering degrees and work taking abstract physics theories and turning them into real technologies.

\\QM is not "relatively small". The Standard Model of Particle Physics, the closest thing we currently have to a theory of everything, is quantum mechanical. Literally the only thing that isn't observationally confirmed to be quantum mechanical in nature is gravity, and that's quite reasonable considering how incredibly weak gravity is compared to the other forces.

Even amongst physicists so called "experts" in QM are not in any great numbers. In the sciences of biology, astronomy, chemistry, engineering, paleontology, geology, etc etc etc... there are so many. The way you are portraying things is as though other scientists say " yup, its real important to note that the wavefunction on this rock collapsed into granite right now. Good thing I kept uncertainty in my mind....As I determine the relative strength of this rock compared to this drill bit" The field is a group of guys patting themselves on the back and telling the other sciences "on the quantum scales things don't really make sense..."

All the while, engineers look on, nod their heads and say, "well that's nice...' and go back to their work using newton's laws and classic thermodynamics to build the ships, planes, rockets, and tools that actually are used and produced in the real world. At no time do we ever think that at any time will determinism stop working. Strangey enough, everything that we build and design works... There's a lot of technology out there. This is probably due to more than just coincidence.

//Before calling my statements "blatantly untrue", consider learning more about what you're talking about.

Being skeptical is not the same as being close minded. It's as though you are assuming lack of knowledge when it's simply just the ability to see outside orthodoxy.

>> All human experience over thousands of years both by scientists And non-scientists supports determinism.

//For thousands of years, all human experience supported the idea that the Earth was flat and the Sun went around it. That did not make it true. We know better now.

Yes, and for thousands of years we've known fire will burn us. Jumping off a cliff is deadly. A sword made of metal is better than a sword made of glass. When it comes to observations, humans have been right more often than they have been wrong. It just shows more of the hubris attached to your worldview that you'll discount thousands of years of accumulated observations and empirical data because all of it disagrees with you.

//Even one example of nondeterminism means that the Universe is not deterministic. As for other interpretations, local realism is dead. You have to either throw out locality (in which case you have to explain how Relativity seems to work so well) or you have to throw out physical realism (i.e., that all particles have definite values for all their physical properties at all times). If you want to invoke superdeterminism, that more or less implies the existence of an all-powerful being playing practical jokes on us, which would make all of science impossible.

The Bell inequality assumes three spatial dimensions. Sure, if there's only three dimensions in which energy can be transmitted, then sure there's no other way the results can be reached that he achieved. Einstein fiercely believed in only three spatial dimensions, so he gave in to Bell. I however am not so tied to the idea, because there is evidence there are more than three spatial dimensions.

He also set up an arbitrary boundary setting of hidden variables. As though human knowledge were complete enough to assume that there couldn't be anything going on that they didnt already know about.

Any scientist who is honest understands there is probably an infitite amount of information we don't now. To assume there can be no other variables, since we don't have a machine to measure it, is non-rational.

//In short, the "alternative interpretations" are extremely unattractive and difficult to square with other known science.

Much of this is due to the politicization of science and the persecution of heterodoxy by so called "experts". (not that you'd ever be guilty of such a close minded policy) QM has had over a century to come up with a mechanism to explain the reason behind the collapse of the wavefunction. Instead of wasting everyone's time by saying it just can't be comprehended or that everyone else is wrong. Maybe come up with a rational mechanism.

//No, stupendous arrogance is making sweeping (and insulting) claims about a subject you have only surface-level knowledge of. See: Dunning–Kruger effect.

The very fact that you feel personally insulted by arguments against QM, shows that it is not a fact, but just a deeply held belief. You're still assuming that your experimental results can only have one interpretation, and that it belongs solely to your theo-scientific hierarchy. It is a religious, not a scientific viewpoint.

A scientific viewpoint allows for both skepticism and additional variables that may not have been accounted for.

//Determinism requires that everything be deterministic. Note that quantum mechanics already implies very-nearly-deterministic results for, say, the trajectory of a projectile; it's not predicted to be exactly deterministic, but the probability distribution is so narrow that we can't tell the difference. So, a lack of measured departure from determinism in such a context is not evidence in either direction.

On the other hand, we have Bell's theorem, and the associated Bell test experiments, which provide strong evidence against deterministic "hidden variable" models of quantum behavior.

Also, we most certainly have technology that relies on quantum behavior. Computer chips, for example, rely on quantum mechanics (although not directly on non-determinism). But do you know what does? Quantum computing. So no, your statement is just false.

//That is true, determinism does mean everything is deterministic.

QM orthodoxy has the doctrine of very near determinism, but without a mechanism to explain why it would be this way, it is just a proclamation made to smooth over the fact that your test results tend to be deterministic with a few anomolies.

Those anomolies don't discount determinism. There is just as likely a case to be made that you just don't know everything.

Your argument that just because everything seems deterministic when the evidence is examined. and that this sum of observation can not be used as evidence for determinism is just a pseudoscientific way of saying, "using this evidence is blasphemy"

Obviously, evidence for determinism is evidence for determinism. To say it isn't is just trying to stack the deck in your favor, and is not an exercise in reason.

Once again, if the "hidden variable" of bell's experiment was not bound to three dimensional linear travel, his false boundary becomes meaningless.

Having built a fair number of computer chips, I can tell you they are based on very deterministic variables. A circuit is either on or off. A charge goes through a transistor or it doesn't.

Quantum computers are an interesting technology. The military is very interested in that technology, so I was encouraged to read quite a bit about the subject. Which I have. However, there are other interpretations and possible explanations for their operation other than quantum states existing in a state of non-existence or a probabalistic state.

>> Show me one single example of a real object suddenly changing from one thing to another.

//That is not how nondeterminism works.

Only because you are saying it doesn't. As you have no mechanism, you don't know either. However I do know that even within QM there is dispute, why do you think there is a multiverse interpretation? Even they understand, if you have no reason for collapse into one discrete state, it likely would collapse into all states.

For someone claiming that matter is always real and never enters an imaginary state, an explanaion from you of "it just collapses in this state because it does" is far from scientific, or even rational.

//You can do the calculation for the probability of a macroscopic object suddenly and spontaneously moving from one place to another in a way that you would notice. It's so low that it's highly unlikely to happen within the lifetime of the Sun. So, the fact that you haven't seen objects teleporting themselves is irrelevant, because no theory predicts that you would.

You are setting random boundaries for the probability of events. You have no mechanism by which to set the likelihood of even quantum events, much less for a macroscopic item which consists of many particles.

If I arbitrarily set the probability of a particle suddenly teleporting to 1% and have an obect consisting of 5x10^45 particles of course it will calculate to near impossibility. However you have no mechanism, so you have no scientific reason to assign such a probability. Just a fiat declaration of this is how likely it is.

However since my claim is determinism and an object won't suddenly turn from a rock into a unicorn, it's not because it's improbable, but because it can't. A rock isnt a unicorn.

//Nothing "changes". There is no "mechanism". The probability distribution is just extremely narrow for certain things. If you go through the calculations, it just pops right out.

If there is no mechanism, then there is no reason why the distribution should be low. In fact, there wouldn't be a reason for anything to occur as it does when it comes to mater and energy. Your logic is weak.

//The notion of "wavefunction collapse" depends on your interpretation of QM. Not all interpretations include such a thing. And, under that interpretation, it doesn't always collapse to the same (predictable) state; that's the whole point.

Yes there are a number of theories regarding the collapse of the wavefunction. How and when it happens. However there are two main ones accepted by Standard model guys. Copenhagen and multiverse.

If you are using bell's inequality as evidence, you're part of the copenhagen camp. If you're not, then why use bell's inequality at all? The copenhagen camp definitely has no mechanism, of course you know that. That's your claim here.

Determinism doesn't mean that I will know the end state of any given phenomena. It only means that the end result happens for a reason. I may not have the technology to determine or measure that reason with much accuracy yet, but it ends up the way it does, because that is how it must turn out.

>> In order to logically narrow an infinite number of possible end states to one discrete one, there has to be a reason. What is it? Determinism doesn't need such a mechanism because objects are real and follow predictable rules of behavior.

//Determinism would indeed be convenient if it were true. But science deals with Nature, not what would be convenient. Nature, it would appear, doesn't care whether we would prefer determinism or not. As for a "mechanism", different interpretations of QM handle it in different ways. That's fine. All the science agrees, the differences are at the level of philosophy.

This is the case in point. I assume determinism because it's what makes science work. Cause leads to effect. Certain causes in conjuction with certain variables will lead to a certain effect. In all the sciences other than QM this ALWAYS occurs. If you were actually concerned about dealing with nature, this vast amount of evidence from every engineer and scientist on the planet would be a serious factor in swaying your opinion. However it is very clear that your belief is faith based, not observation based.

>> You don't understand the difference between probability as a mathematical construct used to determine relative values for an set of objective properties and the implications of probability BEING the PRIME property of a thing.

//Actually, I understand the distinction quite well. The standard metaphor (due to Bohr, I think, although don't quote me on that) is that "There's a difference, between a blurry photograph, and a sharp photograph of a fog bank." In QM, we're dealing with the latter, not the former, as confirmed by the Bell Tests.

Even a fog bank's actions can be mechanistically determined. This is someting an engineer is very well acquainted with. Complexity is not the same thing as probability.

A more accurate metaphor is comparing a blurry picture to a blank picture that suddenly transforms from a piece of paper into twelve dancing clowns.

//The Bell Tests are most definitely positive evidence, and there is no deterministic mechanism that explains quantum behavior either, so I don't see how you can argue that that's a point in your favor.

The Bell tests give false boundaries, assumes complete knowledge about known and unknown conditions.

Being part of a camp that claims there is no mechanism, you clearly havent attempted to find one. So of course you don't know of a mechanism to explain quantum behavior. Look at how much time you're spending trying to convince an empiricist and rationalist, that things can occur without a reason. Maybe if you took that same type of effort to find one, you'd have at least a few ideas as to how there could be one. I have a number of possible explanations and I don't even specialize in the field. Be a scientist, stop being a priest.

//Few, if any, physicists desire non-determinism. It makes our lives harder. But, that's the only model that fits all of our observations, and we defer to Nature.

A paradign that has a baseline of "stuff happens because it CAN happen" will, of course fit all circumstances. However, that is a non-rational and therefore unscientific paradigm. Because there is no reason why things that don't happen don't happen. Nor does it explain why everything that the rest of science accomplishes does so with deterministic accuracy. Why? Because IT CAN'T. There is no mechanism or reason with which to explain things.

 Share • Report • 28 Oct

Erik Anson Erik Anson >> Seriously? You're going to pull the I have degrees card? Fine, I have a doctorate in physics, multiple engineering degrees and work taking abstract physics theories and turning them into real technologies.

It's not a "card". You're claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about, with no evidence to support that assertion. I was offering evidence that, yes, I actually do know about physics.

You have repeatedly made basic conceptual errors that nobody with a bachelor's degree in Physics should be making, let alone a doctorate. I'm happy to provide proof that my degrees are real. Are you?

>> Even amongst physicists so called "experts" in QM are not in any great numbers. In the sciences of biology, astronomy, chemistry, engineering, paleontology, geology, etc etc etc... there are so many. The way you are portraying things is as though other scientists say " yup, its real important to note that the wavefunction on this rock collapsed into granite right now. Good thing I kept uncertainty in my mind....As I determine the relative strength of this rock compared to this drill bit" The field is a group of guys patting themselves on the back and telling the other sciences "on the quantum scales things don't really make sense..."

You are missing the point entirely. Whether or not QM is relevant to a given application has no bearing on whether or not it's accurate. NASA didn't use General Relativity when they went to the Moon; Newtonian gravity was good enough for the job, and much easier to work with, so they went with that. But, when we build GPS satellite networks, we do have to account for General Relativity (specifically, time dilation), in order for GPS to work properly.

The fact that GR isn't always necessary in no way means that it isn't sometimes necessary, and indeed, is in no way evidence against its always being accurate. Similarly for QM and your silly granite example.

>> At no time do we ever think that at any time will determinism stop working. Strangey enough, everything that we build and design works... There's a lot of technology out there. This is probably due to more than just coincidence.

There are two parts to the answer to this.

1. There are technologies that rely on quantum mechanics. Computer chips! MRI machines! Electron microscopes! Countless things.

2. As for the many things that do already work in a way consistent with classical (and, thus, deterministic) physics, no, it's not a coincidence... it's exactly what QM says will happen at those scales. Once again, your arguments don't actually show anything.

>> Being skeptical is not the same as being close minded. It's as though you are assuming lack of knowledge when it's simply just the ability to see outside orthodoxy.

No, I determine a lack of knowledge from the many many things you say that display a lack of relevant knowledge. Many of your arguments involve factually incorrect claims about what QM says should happen, which anyone who had studied QM to any non-trivial degree would know were incorrect.

So, either you're blatantly trolling me, and saying things that you know to be incorrect, or you don't know that they're incorrect. When I claim that you don't know about X, Y, or Z, that's me giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that your statements are sincere.

>> Yes, and for thousands of years we've known fire will burn us. Jumping off a cliff is deadly. A sword made of metal is better than a sword made of glass. When it comes to observations, humans have been right more often than they have been wrong. It just shows more of the hubris attached to your worldview that you'll discount thousands of years of accumulated observations and empirical data because all of it disagrees with you.

That's just it. There is no evidence that disagrees with quantum mechanics, and much evidence that we can't explain without QM. Previous evidence is great. People did get a lot of things right, but they also got many things wrong, and the goal is to be able to tell the difference. We do that by continuing to do research, and get more evidence. We have more evidence now, and that evidence contradicts the previous deterministic worldview.

I have no idea why you think that I'm the one stubbornly refusing to see the empirical data. All of the data agree with QM.

>> The Bell inequality assumes three spatial dimensions.

Oh? Where?

>> ...there is evidence there are more than three spatial dimensions.

Oh? Where?

>> He also set up an arbitrary boundary setting of hidden variables. As though human knowledge were complete enough to assume that there couldn't be anything going on that they didnt already know about.

You are entirely misunderstanding what's going on. The entire point of hidden variables is that we don't know what's going on. This is one of the many statements on your part that lead to my suggestions that you learn more about the subject matter.

>> Any scientist who is honest understands there is probably an infitite amount of information we don't now. To assume there can be no other variables, since we don't have a machine to measure it, is non-rational.

That would indeed be non-rational. Good thing that nobody's assuming that. Infinite amount of information we don't know? Fine! Bell's Theorem still works. You can have an infinite number of hidden variables, that's totally fine.

>> Much of this is due to the politicization of science and the persecution of heterodoxy by so called "experts". (not that you'd ever be guilty of such a close minded policy) QM has had over a century to come up with a mechanism to explain the reason behind the collapse of the wavefunction. Instead of wasting everyone's time by saying it just can't be comprehended or that everyone else is wrong. Maybe come up with a rational mechanism.

You are repeating yourself. I have already addressed this point.

>> The very fact that you feel personally insulted by arguments against QM, shows that it is not a fact, but just a deeply held belief.

No, I was insulted when you called me "indoctrinated", "arrogant", and implied that I was closed-minded, dogmatic, and refusing to see evidence simply because it contradicted my belief system. All of this while you were making simple factual errors about the topic at hand.

>> You're still assuming that your experimental results can only have one interpretation, and that it belongs solely to your theo-scientific hierarchy. It is a religious, not a scientific viewpoint.

Theo-scientific? Don't make me laugh.

>> A scientific viewpoint allows for both skepticism and additional variables that may not have been accounted for.

Yes, but it also requires knowledge. For example, knowledge that additional unknown variables have been accounted for, that's the entire point of Bell's Theorem.

>> QM orthodoxy has the doctrine of very near determinism, but without a mechanism to explain why it would be this way, it is just a proclamation made to smooth over the fact that your test results tend to be deterministic with a few anomolies.

I'm sorry, but this yet again shows that you don't actually know QM. It's not a "doctrine". It pops straight out of the math. If you apply QM to something the mass of a football (say), the output allows for so little variation in trajectory that it's effectively deterministic.

>> Those anomolies don't discount determinism. There is just as likely a case to be made that you just don't know everything.

This is the whole point of Bell's Theorem: yes, it does discount determinism, at least in the context of local realism, which is what we would "want" to be true.

>> Your argument that just because everything seems deterministic when the evidence is examined. and that this sum of observation can not be used as evidence for determinism is just a pseudoscientific way of saying, "using this evidence is blasphemy"

Not at all. If I tell you that there is a cat under one bed, and you look under a different bed and don't find a cat, that is not evidence for or against my claim. That's exactly what you're doing here. QM and classical physics make the same predictions for the measurements you're referencing, and so those measurements are not a basis for comparing those theories.

>> Obviously, evidence for determinism is evidence for determinism. To say it isn't is just trying to stack the deck in your favor, and is not an exercise in reason.

Yes, except that it's not evidence of determinism, as I have tried to explain. Consider Bayes' theorem as a model for what it means for something to be "evidence". What you're describing does not pass that test.

>> Once again, if the "hidden variable" of bell's experiment was not bound to three dimensional linear travel, his false boundary becomes meaningless.

Ummmmm... no? Why would that be?

>> Having built a fair number of computer chips, I can tell you they are based on very deterministic variables. A circuit is either on or off. A charge goes through a transistor or it doesn't.

I have already said that (non "quantum") computers have (effectively) deterministic function. My claim was that we needed QM to understand how they work. QM is required to understand how transistors work. In classical physics, semiconductor-based transistors shouldn't even exist!

>> Quantum computers are an interesting technology. The military is very interested in that technology, so I was encouraged to read quite a bit about the subject. Which I have. However, there are other interpretations and possible explanations for their operation other than quantum states existing in a state of non-existence or a probabalistic state.

Really? And those are?

>>>> That is not how nondeterminism works.

>> Only because you are saying it doesn't. As you have no mechanism, you don't know either.

No, it's not because I say so, it's because that's not what QM claims happens. You don't get to argue against QM by attributing claims to it that it doesn't even make. That's the straw-est of strawmen.

>> However I do know that even within QM there is dispute, why do you think there is a multiverse interpretation? Even they understand, if you have no reason for collapse into one discrete state, it likely would collapse into all states.

There are many philosophical interpretations of QM, but they all agree on what we observe, and Bell's Theorem applies to all of them.

>> For someone claiming that matter is always real and never enters an imaginary state, an explanaion from you of "it just collapses in this state because it does" is far from scientific, or even rational.

You are repeating yourself. I have already addressed this point.

>> You are setting random boundaries for the probability of events. You have no mechanism by which to set the likelihood of even quantum events, much less for a macroscopic item which consists of many particles.

Yes, actually, I do. It's called Quantum Mechanics. If you don't even know that, then I take back what I said before about surface knowledge; clearly you don't understand what QM is at all.

>> If I arbitrarily set the probability of a particle suddenly teleporting to 1% and have an obect consisting of 5x10^45 particles of course it will calculate to near impossibility. However you have no mechanism, so you have no scientific reason to assign such a probability. Just a fiat declaration of this is how likely it is.

This is simply false. QM is a quantitative theory, and would have no problem making such a calculation. QM makes countless quantitative predictions that differ from what classical physics says should happen, and they have been experimentally verified. Want it in "technology" form? How about the Scanning tunneling microscope, in which we use quantitative predictions about Quantum tunnelling to map material surfaces at an atomic level.

>> However since my claim is determinism and an object won't suddenly turn from a rock into a unicorn, it's not because it's improbable, but because it can't. A rock isnt a unicorn.

QM doesn't claim that rocks can turn into unicorns. That would violate a variety of conservation laws.

>> If there is no mechanism, then there is no reason why the distribution should be low. In fact, there wouldn't be a reason for anything to occur as it does when it comes to mater and energy. Your logic is weak.

Did you not read the rest of my paragraph? There doesn't need to be some special mechanism to "make" the probability distribution narrow, because it naturally is that way if you do out the math. It doesn't "become" narrow, it's narrow the whole time. It can be proven that QM agrees with classical physics in those cases; the difference is that in other cases QM makes a multitude of (correct) predictions about experiments which classical physics gets wrong.

>> Yes there are a number of theories regarding the collapse of the wavefunction. How and when it happens. However there are two main ones accepted by Standard model guys. Copenhagen and multiverse.

Did you read what I said? Not all interpretations require collapse. It's not just a matter of explaining "how it happens".

>> If you are using bell's inequality as evidence, you're part of the copenhagen camp.

No. This does not in any way follow.

>> If you're not, then why use bell's inequality at all? The copenhagen camp definitely has no mechanism, of course you know that. That's your claim here.

While it's true that the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't provide a mechanism, that was in no way my claim.

>> Determinism doesn't mean that I will know the end state of any given phenomena. It only means that the end result happens for a reason. I may not have the technology to determine or measure that reason with much accuracy yet, but it ends up the way it does, because that is how it must turn out.

Yes, I'm quite aware of what determinism means. The whole point of the Bell Tests is that it's not just a matter of our ignorance.

>> This is the case in point. I assume determinism because it's what makes science work. Cause leads to effect. Certain causes in conjuction with certain variables will lead to a certain effect.

It is not what makes science work. The evidence says it's not true. But, that still doesn't take away from the notion of cause and effect. The "effects" take the form of (sometimes huge) changes to probability distributions.

>> In all the sciences other than QM this ALWAYS occurs.

QM is not a separate science. It, along with Relativity, are the two things underpinning all of modern physics. In every case where QM has been found to contradict classical physics, QM has turned out to be right.

>> If you were actually concerned about dealing with nature, this vast amount of evidence from every engineer and scientist on the planet would be a serious factor in swaying your opinion.

I have already explained why the "evidence" you cite isn't evidence at all (also, "every engineer and scientist on the planet" must not include electrical engineers designing smaller transistors or high-energy physicists predicting particle interactions, because both of those things require quantum mechanics). As for the many areas of science and engineering in which we don't see non-deterministic behavior... that does not contradict QM. QM predicts that such situations would be predictable to such high accuracy that we would be unable to measure the discrepancy.

Your argument is like saying that Special Relativity is wrong because Newtonian Mechanics works fine for most things, despite the fact that there are a multitude of cases where SR gets it right and Newton gets it wrong. It's nonsense.

>> However it is very clear that your belief is faith based, not observation based.

Not so much, no. Quantum physics is on extremely solid observational footing. You, on the other hand, haven't offered any evidence at all, and simply make claims. So, I think you may have our roles backwards.

>> Even a fog bank's actions can be mechanistically determined. This is someting an engineer is very well acquainted with. Complexity is not the same thing as probability.

It was a metaphor. Come on!

>> A more accurate metaphor is comparing a blurry picture to a blank picture that suddenly transforms from a piece of paper into twelve dancing clowns.

That is not at all accurate. There is no "blank picture". Please stop criticizing QM until you at least learn what it is.

>> The Bell tests give false boundaries, assumes complete knowledge about known and unknown conditions.

No. This is simply false.

>> Being part of a camp that claims there is no mechanism, you clearly havent attempted to find one. So of course you don't know of a mechanism to explain quantum behavior. Look at how much time you're spending trying to convince an empiricist and rationalist, that things can occur without a reason.

That's not what I'm doing.

>> Maybe if you took that same type of effort to find one, you'd have at least a few ideas as to how there could be one. I have a number of possible explanations and I don't even specialize in the field. Be a scientist, stop being a priest.

Yes, we've discussed your "possible explanations" before. The problem? None of them were actually possible. They were all either contradicted by existing knowledge, or replaced one unknown mechanism with an equally mysterious new set of unknown mechanisms. I seem to remember not being able to convince you that they were wrong, because you didn't have the necessary background knowledge to understand my arguments (you kept misstating the relevant physical laws and misrepresenting my claims, much as you're doing here).

>> A paradign that has a baseline of "stuff happens because it CAN happen" will, of course fit all circumstances. However, that is a non-rational and therefore unscientific paradigm.

That is not the extent of quantum mechanics. You need to learn before you criticize. Quantum physics is on extremely firm scientific ground. It makes quantitative predictions ahead of time which allow us to engineer new technology. Please stop making claims which so clearly contradict reality.

>> Nor does it explain why everything that the rest of science accomplishes does so with deterministic accuracy.

Yes, yes it does. Stop claiming to have knowledge of QM when you don't even know the most basic things, especially if you're going to be insulting of others in the process. It's just rude, and intellectually dishonest.

 Upvote • Downvote • Share • Report • 28 Oct

Jung Hoon Lee Jung Hoon Lee >> QM orthodoxy has the doctrine of very near determinism, but without a mechanism to explain why it would be this way, it is just a proclamation made to smooth over the fact that your test results tend to be deterministic with a few anomolies.

//I'm sorry, but this yet again shows that you don't actually know QM. It's not a "doctrine". It pops straight out of the math. If you apply QM to something the mass of a football (say), the output allows for so little variation in trajectory that it's effectively deterministic.

This is not how science works. Normally you have this scenario.

Starting conditions+influencing factors

mechanism

end result

When determining the end result, calculations and reason are applied in accordance with rules governing the mechanism.

The rules governing the mechanism determine the effects of any additional variables which then lead inexorably to the end state.

Limits to the expected end state are based entirely upon the mechanism and the additional factors.

I called your paradigm a doctrine and not a theory or a science because it doesn't do this. Popping straight out of the math? From what mechanism is math derived?

Instead you have equations derived from end states and starting states. Of course, I can already see your response "you don't understand how QM workd"

Obviously not. How a thing works, in science, is known as a mechanism. You already claimed there isn't one.

That results in this scenario:

Starting conditions+influencing factors

nothing

end result.

So, when you say the calculations end up producing a near deterministic result. From what factors do you derive the math?

because of stage three of "who knows" we'll limit outcomes to "some variable"?

What factors determine the end result?

Why does x occur and not y? In a normal scientific theory there are known and experimentally verifiable processes within the mechanism that explain why x and not y.

If there is no mechanism any result is possible. I just can't see how you can be so obtuse as to not understand this very basic concept. To claim that results would be narrow because thats what the math predicts is because YOU ARBITRARILY SET THE TERMS OF YOUR EQUATIONS to fit the results. How can I say this? Because you have no mechanism upon which to use your math to describe.

This is why you get a probabalistic set of values and not a deterministic one.

I'd be less sure that you were indoctrinated if your paradigm was.

Starting conditions

Something, we're not sure yet

End result

All of your math would be exactly the same. Your results would be the same. Your probabalistic results would still occur.

It is incredibly intellectually dishonest to pretend not to understand the difference between

We don't know

and

There isn't one

Bell's experiments. Hidden variables being accounted for is exactly how I described. There are rules set in place to define the boundaries of the experiment. Ensuring that results are in a sense double clind. One result can not influence another. therefore, no information is being transferred between items so if: result A Bell, result B Einstein.

If energy can travel along a vector that is not accounted for. All of bell's safeguards to account for the hidden variable effect are for naught.

So he could get his result, and the system is still deterministic.

Classical mechanics suffers the same problems as bell's safeguards. They assume three spatial dimensions. So when you get a result in QM that is correct (within a certain degree of accuracy) and classical mechanics predicts something else. That does not mean that there is no mechanism.

It means you don't know.

You're making an absolute statement that is inherently non-rational when you say reality itself is probabalistic.

Saying everything matches with the equations of quantum mechanics? You have a set of equations that predicts a range of results with no governing principle whose terms are determined by quantitative analysis of previous attempts. Of course you'll have matching figures.

Let's say you have a roulette wheel and you live in the year 1878. For some reason every time you play roulette it hits 4, 5, or 6. EVERY TIME without fail.

Then you decide to write an equaion describing the game of roulette. You know the beginning state and after a thousand games of roulette you know that you will always get 4, 5, or 6.

Guess what, you'll have an equation that perfectly describes that roulette wheel.

Then if someone asks you, so why is it that your roulette wheel always hits 4,5, or 6?

Then you tell them, "there is no reason"

Then they tell you, theyve played a lot of casino games, and roulette also in other places. There's gotta be something going on. Everywhere else, that's not how roulette wheels behave.

Then you respond by telling them, they don't know anythng about roulette or casino games. Youve played thousands of games on this wheel. Not only that, you had a friend come in and he verified that there wasn't something weird about your wheel. Eh even did all the safeguards he could think of when he checked. and you continue So obviously there is no reason, and tell the guy he is only showing his ignorance by insisting there is something going on. Anyone who "actually" knew ANYTHING about roulette would agree with you and your friend. Not only that you show him your nice equations, and strangely enough your equations always came out 4,5, or 6. That's just like the wheel! That's so obviously proof that you are totally right.

The only problem is that the wheel had a radio redeiver on it that triggered whenever you played and would always cause it to hit the expected numbers.

Your equations were right. The wheel will always get your range of results. However there was a cause, you just didnt have a radio receiver to check with to detect the system.

This is exactly what you are doing with your claim of there being no mechanism.