Mordred

I don't think you understand my meaning. There is already 100's of papers involving electromagnetism and atmospheric influence.. They all include the mathematical details typically described under vector field treatments with such aspects such as the Poynting vector. Any physicist already knows how to use Matlab and such tools. That isn't what they want. What they will want is how you put all the equations together to generate the simulation. They will want a complete list of every equation you used. They will also want references involving said equations.

Ok well the first question I have to ask is how did you generate these simulations under the math which would be required to program them ? These details would be a required part to validate any physics based model. Any physicist would want to see the mathematical details and the simulations as secondary.

exactly. It doesn't matter what theory under physics your studying they all involve graphs.

bingo

Good those lectures will give you the needed mathematics to understand them. A little hint always think in terms of graphs to understand the mathematics. Vector calculus of graphs is a primary tool to understand how physics describes relations. Ie a straiht line on a graph is a linear relation that can be described by y=mx+b Terms like states, manifold, fields are all graphical representations. They will comprise of scalar and vector functions at each graph coordinate. When you compare two graphs, you can apply transformation equations between two graphs. These are your translations such as rotation, time and spacial translations. All interactions will correspond to a graphical plot or several seperate plots with graphical plots to describe the translations. This will help with all the fancy terminology.

nicely put

Well said,

If you math is up to par roughly a month per volume to properly understand them.

Has nothing to do with orbits. It is an internal degree of freedom of the electron involved in a wavefunction involving vectors. In QM particles don't orbit the nucleus Swansont mentioned this before in one of your other threads. Throw away any ball like image of the atom you may have.

Your going about self teaching QM in the wrong manner. You would be far better off picking up an Intoductory textbook and studying it. The Feyman lectures would be a good start point. Work through all three books in order the vol 3 is QM you need the preliminaries of the prior 2. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu In order to properly understand QM you must work with the scalar, vectors and spinor relations otherwise you will make mistakes

Yes but its defined by its Compton/Debroglie wavelength for point-like. It isn't some little solid ball.

Do not confuse this with the angular momentum of a spinning ball. It is the angular momentum of a wavefuction. Specifically linear vs angular symmetry/antisymmetric equations with regards to vectors and spinors specifically an internal degree of freedom not a spatial degree of freedom to describe the state of a particle.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://massey.dur.ac.uk/resources/mlharris/Chapter2.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiVt4vUw_HXAhUQyWMKHQ91DtMQFggkMAE&usg=AOvVaw1DHUh-BTAMS7yr-2lNfTFf Here is the article its fairly low key on the mathematics which is why I chose it.

In QM states are generally described as wavefunctions. In the Bose condensate state these wavefunctions don't merge but become identical. You cannot distinquish different particle species from one another. Nor can you distinquish individual quantum numbers (that is the loss of information) as all quantum numbers are also wavefunctions. (spin) being one example. In essence every particle will have identical De-Broglie wavelengths that are all identical to one another. The paper I linked in that thread has these details.

Thought you may find it so as it is a philosophy I live by. Any model, theory, descriptive whether philosophical or otherwise always provides insights. Provided they are employed correctly. Cross examinations are always a valuable tool. Once you close the book on a methodology or topic you hamper your ability to learn a topic. Lol anyone that knows me recognizes I never stop studying. Drives my wife nuts

Well as stated I have never been one for metaphysical arguments. That is a topic best left for philosophy. I assisted in understanding the physics of non locality in regards to Bells experiment. However I will drop the following argument. The universe doesn't care how we measure nor interpret our observations. All interpretations regardless of physics, mathematics (probablistic or otherwise) and philosophy are simply tools that increase our understanding. All have their place provided properly used and employed within their range of applicability in increasing our understanding.

Agreed and by all means take your time.

Indeed it gives everyone a common reference so others may follow as well

Fair enough I do have a copy of the Maudlin paper I believe you are using. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1826&ved=2ahUKEwi_lvWSiZDYAhUG4WMKHdjrALAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3zCOsG2IwNleXyPMwyVgZo By the way your approach in the this thread has thus far been much improved so I have awarded some reputation points.

Ok so in the above I mentioned the following Locality: It is possible to separate physical systems so that they do not influence each other as they cannot transmit information with v>c (space-like separation). (remember this is 4D with time). What this means is that we have a dependency on the speed of c for all information exchange from detectors A to B. This limit is limitted by C. So by extending the distance between the two detectors we remove the possibility under this premise of detector or particle A from influencing the results of detector or particle B. Now here is where we get tricky. At the time when the act of entangling a particle pair we had a past interaction between the two particles. This in turn affects the statistical range of the correlation function itself. (non local to either detectors via 4d spacetime) Consider this when you entangle two particles you develop a polarity pair one positive while the other negative. You have no idea which is which, hence the superposition Probability, not actual state . Once you measure one state, you automatically know the other. So this is an example of a Strong and positive Correlation. So from the above the spooky action at a distance is a misnomer. The distance is the past interaction when the particles become entangled. No hidden variable is required to account for this as it is a past causality event. No communication exchange between the detectors nor the particles in the present is required either. Indeed the only practical application in regards to communication isnt FTL but development of encryption keys. (any attemot to measure said encryption destroys the probability correlation function.) Now unfortunately the argument between Bell, QM and EPR breaks down to the mathematical examinations and types of detectors used. So this itself will be extremely tricky without using math. For example Bell (CSHS) only examined the first order commuting operators. He did not examine the non commuting operators. (see what I mean?)

Well I give you points for being honest, I would ask that you accept that a correlation function itself is a statistical math tool to test the strength of a correlation as a methodology of testing if two or more detectors have a correlation between their datasets. Secondly to accept that this by itself does not imply a cause. If you can agree to that we can move on to the term locality under EPR. Then cover how a past non local to the detectors will affect the present local correlation with regards to entangled particles.

Interested you really must be careful where you apply fluctuations and excitations. There are numerous phenomena described by physics where these terms are not applicable. For example in this thread the Chandreskar limit or the Black holes rotation isn't an excitation or fluctuation so it is incorrect to state everything is. The problem is you tend to take those terms out of context when examining different theories and models. They apply well to QM and QFT but one of the main reasons is these are schotastic treatments that include probability in their examination. Though not in every instance. You need to be careful to understand when those terms can be appropriately applied. If your describing something that has no wavefunctions those terms are not applicable. Now dark energy, if I examine a quantum space example DE under phase space which is extremely localized this is appropriate but if I examine a global space where these fluctuations are essentially washed out via a different examination ie the FRW metric itself and the difference in size scale under examination where DE is constant these terms are not appropriate. Even under QFT and QM certain mathematical terms has no wavefunction example a manifold. It may be comprised of excitations but the manifold itself doesn't have a wavefunction. Its questionable whether or not some of those phase transitions are reversible under compression as opposed to expansion. A large part of the reason being availability of the correct particle species during the transition stages. The process of nucleosynthesis coupled with inflation isn't nearly the same as compression. So the sequence of nucleosynthesis may not be reversible as you won't have the supercooling then reheating phase transitions via compression. That in and of itself will alter the applicable phase transitions

So thats how you do it thanks

Ok lets take this in stages. The first stage is to understand one of the simplest Correlation functions. (related to the x and y graphs) Pearson Correlation function. Key points. Causation is not involved. Secondly this function only works with roughly linear trends between two statistical graphs, charts etc. Take two tables of variable change, lets use x and y. - The two variables may or may not have similar trends which is what the correlation function Tests for. Rather than post the math I will provide a reference with some graphs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_correlation_coefficient Here is a calculator to play around with this. http://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/pearson/default2.aspx. I am going to save a considerable time on this by presenting the following arxiv paper which includes Bells correlation equation 2 and EPR correlation and the quantum mechanical correlation equation 5 https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0407041&ved=2ahUKEwidjJvgg4_YAhVPzGMKHfMJDlsQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw27e5Ba6qvsEH9eTBADtrT9 (working from phone). I will let you absorb this first before we define Einstein locality under EPR. Locality: It is possible to separate physical systems so that they do not influence each other as they cannot transmit information with v>c (space-like separation). (remember this is 4D with time) (considering this is often misunderstood even anong physicists let alone laymen) lol

No problem this is an important topic and I would like some time to properly put it together with a worked example of testing how stongly correlated two datasets are. So let me work up a decent writeup I need to familiarize this under three specific treatments with regards to Bell type experiments. In particular the nature of the debate in the references above.