Quantum Physics interpretation ideas

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by HawkI, May 9, 2017.

  1. HawkI Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    I put my hands up, I got it wrong. For some reason I was under the impression that the Higgs field expands at the rate the universe expands. I was excited that it could be a sort of constant, when I made this thread I thought people would share their ideas and interpretations but I guess for that they would just make their own threads.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    Some might, but all that Higgs stuff is beyond me. I'm just, or rather was once, a chemist. So 3D and QM are enough for me to interpret why substances behave and interact as they do.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    You do understand that you are in the pseudoscience forum discussing actual science as if it were pseudoscience, right?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    No, I think I am discussing science as if it were science and putting my hand up when we reach topics on which I cannot usefully comment.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    The Higgs boson is science, and it makes sense.

    What doesn't make sense is to suppose that QFT and QCD and the Standard Model have all of the answers particle physics will ever need, or even that N0ether's Theorem is all the math you will ever need to make sense of the physical world. No one ever believes Gödel; they just go on doing their math, believing through some miracle that it will tell them everything they will ever wish to know, all of it internally self-consistent and 100% complete. Idiots.

    All of these quantum theories posit particles with zero volume. They do this so that they don't need to explain what forces are in play that keep electrons perfectly round, and binds other fundamental particles like quarks together in atomic structure.

    It's a fact: Noether's theorem and gauge theory have found a large number of symmetry and conservation laws, all of them useful, but did you know, it ALSO found many similar relations in the math that have no corresponding physical interpretation or binding to reality that we know anything at all about? These are ignored simply because the mathematicians who found them have no clue about what they mean, and physical reality is less interesting to them than the mathematical toys that seem to pop out of nowhere into their heads. The truth is, these things are really no different than any other delusion. Physics demands that the math have bindings to physical reality, and there are no math shortcuts to understanding the universe from first mathematical principles. Symbolic languages like math have the same limitations as any other; it is a toolkit for a finite mind to make sense of something larger in piecemeal fashion. It is not a gift to us from G-d him or herself. This tool was created by us, just like any other language, from a mind crafted, like science itself, from evolution.

    While it may be true that it would break at least a dozen conservation laws in order to create something like a neutrino out of photons, there is still that annoying 1905 era physics insistence that E=mc^2, and this derived from Newtonian center of mass considerations using a massless photon emitted and then completely absorbed at opposite ends of a long spacecraft adrift in inertialess space. A neutrino, if it has mass, has to be made of the same stuff everything else in the universe is; a composite of bound and unbound energy, in linear or quantum spin modes of propagation.

    It is literally a miracle that the Lorentz transformations make any sense at all despite the fact that the roadbed on which they plant the origin of the coordinate system at rest in a roadbed that itself has inertia only in a limited sense. It may be in relative, even relativistic motion with respect to everything else in the universe. It does work to decode things like time dilation, but ask any mathematician from which end of a physical object Lorentz contraction occurs, and all you will get from them is a mathematical convention that it occurs symmetrically about their centers. If they didn't say that, then you would too soon discover that Minkowski rotation was a fairy story, you see? Time really is independent of space, and there is nothing in Galilean or Einstein's relativity or Euclid's solid geometry that proves otherwise. Time is not proportional to c, or to any other velocity, because an instant of time is not. That only forces the requisite proportional math to divide by zero before discoverying that entanglement is FTL. Entanglement, not motion, is what is holding fundamental particles together. Strictly speaking, it is not a force; only a change of direction; an acceleration with NO coresponding magnitude. F=ma will not capture this relation, you see?

    Finally, as a chemist, you should appreciate what I mean when I tell you there is a deeper sort of Periodic Table not related to chemical elements. There is a table that tells you the details of composite quantum spin that make up fundamental particles from nothing more exotic than that energy from Einstein's relation, mixed in with whatever laws apply to quantum entanglement in order to maintain that bound energy. If it were not so, then there would not be the symmetry there manifestly is between matter and antimatter, fundamental particles and their corresponding anti-particles.

    We are in pseudoscience here by request of moderators who believe early 21st century science is advanced enough or has reached a stage that the structure will not need to be completely torn down and rebuilt again from scratch. They are wrong. When this process is finished, even the Periodic Table of the Elements may be subject to revision. Pauli's exclusion principle will mean something much deeper. You read it here first. It's a fact: real science did not even begin until the discovery of the Higgs boson in the early 21st century.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2017
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    Your paranoia is getting the better of you again, Dan.

    So far as I can make out, the thread is in Pseudo because that is where Hawki, modestly, decided to start it. Nothing to do with moderator action that I can see.

    And you have jumped to a paranoid conclusion in thinking that my remarks about the Higgs field were to disparage the science behind it. Far from it. It is simply that I am not, and never have been, an expert on particle physics or QFT. I concern myself mainly with those very large portions of science that do not require that knowledge. Just as I know little about rock music or ballet, excellent though I have no doubt they are to the initiated, I have to accept some limits to my curiosity.

    As for your personal obsessions with bloody entanglement and "bound energy", I have no wish to discuss them.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Yet you are discussing things in a thread "Quantum Physics Interpretation Ideas" right here.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    Yet?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Are you feeling okay, exchemist? You seem to be a bit disoriented. This is the pseudoscience forum (crank central here at sciforums). What is your quantum physics interpretation idea? It is the question posed by the thread, which I have just answered in my only post on that topic to this thread.

    You have told me you don't care for mine, without a reason, and that is fine. I accept this. No need to be rude.

    Thanks for your opinion. I won't be posting any "Farewell" thread. Fare well.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2017
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    Eh? I was responding to someone called Hawki - until you turned up and started getting offended that I did not want to engage in half-arsed speculations about the Higgs field.

    I am under no obligation to put forward crank ideas of my own, nor to express interest in yours

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    or anyone else's.
     
    danshawen and origin like this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I saw what Hawki wrote. I was attempting to undo the damage you did by discouraging a particular direction of the thread, as valid as any other. It would even be valid in an actual science thread.

    Anyone who doesn't have an atom smasher of their very own to play with is going to have a steep learning curve on the topic of this thread. Kind of puts a damper on "half-arsed" speculation about what quantum physics or the Higgs boson means.

    After your comment to Hawki, I wasn't really expecting you to speculate about it. I don't care any more.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2017
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    That makes two of us.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    Have checked out Max Tegmark's work? He claims that the universe functions by a natural form of mathematical processing of values and equations.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    In the interests of full disclosure, this guy "Tegmark" 's real name is Shapiro and he thought by many to be talking out of his arse: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    Thanks for the bio. It seems that the critique is focused on his hypothesis of a multiverse only and not specifically on his Universe that function in accordance to certain regularities which can be expressed in mathematical language.
    There are some, especially those involved in AI, who see value in his work.

    MIT doesn't think he is a joke, so in the interest of FULL disclosure, let's expand on his bio and qualifications..
    http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/tegmark_max.html
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    Oh, I don't deny any of that.

    Doesn't stop him being a self-promoting twat, though.

    We do get those in the academic world, just as in other walks of life.
     
    DrKrettin likes this.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    I have no objection to that, but then the same can be said of Sagan or deGrasse- Tyson.

    As layman I appreciate their ability to explain science to non-academics. But don't forget, they also do most of their work in an academic setting and in accordance with scientific methods.
    It's just that not all scientists are able to provide easily understandable narratives. Those who can, become famous.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    I agree about DeGrasse Tyson, who seems to have made some idiotically superficial remarks about philosophy being a waste of time, when it is in fact essential to understanding what science is.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    No one is perfect. Einstein made mistakes also.

    It must be a personal thing, but I always look for merits in people rather than their flaws.
     

Share This Page