Zvonko

Although I am keeping an open mind, one problem I have with QM is not scientific. I am ok witht QM being able to explain every known experiment but isn't that just because it has given up on deduction proper, and instead implying averaging things out is close enough? It just seems to me that statistics permeates the whole QM model too strongly i.e. Me thinkest thou protesteth too much! To me, this approach may have its merits in being able to encompass more laws of physics toward a sought after GUT, but it is zooming further away from what is actually going on in order to do this. If I'm explicitly wrong, please let me know why. Until then, I can't help but feel that there was a competition between the statistics (telescopic) and analytical (microscopic) methods, and stats are behind QM. BTW, don't get me started on why there seems to be so much alignment between QM and what religions have been saying for a long time.. How about this? Maybe a paradigm was developed early to mid last century based on the level of technology and if we redid some of those today with modern equipment, a breakthrough could be made that the paradigm of the past could not measure.

I have a question regarding how many different ways the slit experiment was conducted. Were a range of frequencies used? If so, did they take a snapshot of each and compare to see if there was any difference. My idea was consider if the refractive index made any noticeable difference. In the main, I'm trying to find ways to understand the duality paradox more by process of elimination. Appreciate your assistance here.

Thought experiment: If we imagine a photon as a 3-D sphere traveling at c, we can also imagine that it can rotate in each of the 3 dimensions. Let's assume that it does rotate in all 3 axis simultaneously for this experiment. While this photon is traveling in a particular direction, would we expect length contraction in that direction at its' maximum value - that is that its' length would be zero? If so, what does that mean in terms of the impacts to the 3 different axial rotations? I imagine a sphere where 2 of the 3 axial rotations are contracted due to the direction of motion, leaving the image of a flat, 2-D disc spinning through space (no longer a sphere). The remaining (3rd) rotation is the only unaffected circular motion, and resembles a field around the photon. Hope I have drawn a clear description here. My question is: What can be drawn from this thought experiment? Is it an accurate depiction(if not, why not)? And are the 2 axis of rotation that have been lost due to length contraction a). Lost or immeasurable, b). measurable if we change our relative speed to it, c). represented as a binary manifestation because of contraction, or d). incorporated somehow into what is known as 'spin'. I keep toying with the main variables that we do measure with light (frequency, wavelength, and speed, as well as polarization, em properties (and I wonder if there are others), wondering if this 3-D representation of light spinning in all 3 (or more?) axis can shed any new light specifically due to the length contraction. Anyone?

I definitely don't have the repeated experience with Lorenz transformation that many here do, but I do want to say that this type of thought experiment should be acknowledged as a good tool (or platform) to ask questions from. It actually extends Einstein's thought experiment process and asks what would reality (and all the fundamental building blocks) look like from the perspective of traveling at c. Given that c is (apparently) the only constant according to relativity, no matter what is being proposed here, surely there's no doubting the intrinsic fascination with the proposed perspective. For me it's a mind bender, maybe one that leads nowhere in the end, but isn't science about trying as many things as needed until we come across that one idea that can't be disputed (or better still explains things better that to date). Even if it comes to naught, seems to me that the mental challenge required hasn't been wasted as the mind has done the equivalent exercise of marathon - if done right. BTW, I'm new here but am interested in different ways of looking at things. If this is in the wrong folder, can somebody please point me in the right direction ( although atm the term direction seems rather illusive to me ?

Following this analogy, could we then propose that like magnetic field lines merge as they near the north (or south) pole on a 3 dimensional (spacial) object such as a sphere, that gravity may be doing the same thing in the 4th spacial dimension (or on time maybe) such as a hypersphere? I'm simply extrapolating the logic in your analogy and it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. I'm cognizant that analogies are only representations and may only have a limited relevance, however I'm also open minded enough to believe that analogies are historically excellent starting points. If I'm off the mark, can you explain in what way? On a hunch, it feels like the math would support it.

Your comment resonates with and idea I have been playing with for a while, and I'm wondering if we're considering the same idea. We talk about the expansion of space from the big bang, and have found mathematical correlations/causations to give some level of confidence. But instead of the universe expanding, consider if it has a limited circumference (just for the sake of expressing my final idea), and that the scale is changing i.e. we (and everything) due to gravity are continually shrinking, or falling into a gravity well at a rate that gives us the perception that the universe is expanding. Don't know if I'm being clear here but what I have so far come out with with this thought experiment is that whether everything in the universe is getting further away from us could potentially be explained mathematically if it was not the universe moving away from us but us falling (accelerating as that's what gravity does) further inward....or shrinking into the gravity well. I know, pure conjecture, but I would love to have this idea challenged to expose why they must be wrong. In these thought experiments, it seems that mathematical integrity is maintained, albeit as an inverse function. I think I have inadvertantly led myself down the 'opposites' philosophy perspective, but there seems to be a mathematical consistency here that indicates that it is a matter of perspective. But looking at it this way does expose gravity in a new light. Opinions/thoughts?