Mordred

Post the model then. Professionally peer reviewed please. Yes I posted it. I found it excellent. Based on hard science not philosophy. The amusing part is back in the late 80's early 90's I once strongly supported the corpuscular view. When I started studying particle physics and Cosmology I realized that view simply couldn't address all the questions that QFT could. The funny part was my reason was literally stupid. I always hated statistical mathematics ROFLMAO The more I study action under QFT treatment the more impressed I become. There is literally no interaction that cannot be described under action. For example the coupling constant for each force and the effective distance of each force. Details I posted on a thread I'm still working on. Still have to give an example solution for the last equation. I plan on this weekend adding to the thread. edit: At Rob I would like the detailed mathematics of the model you mentioned above. I am more than familiar with longitudinal vs transversal wave "heuristics analogies" PS all your arguments have been based upon metaphysical arguments. You simply based your defense by ignoring a larger body of other evidence. After all descriptives of reality is a metaphysical topic unto itself. We can only describe reality not define it. A fundamental concept to understand in physics is that all possibilities are considered as valid until proven otherwise. However that being said physics is literally an art of making predictions. That requires all the statistical mathematics that many rail against. The greatest lesson I ever learned in physics is never approach any view/interpretation with a closed door. Aproach every possibility with an open mind ( provided its a feasible possibility). Making the determination of feasible is oft based on familiarity. Greater study leads to greater insights and understandings. ( provided properly presented). I can accurately state the above true to my thinking even with a masters in Philosphies of Cosmology. Yet I am yet a mere opinion

Sorry your arguments are fruitless, can you explain the Pauli exclusion principle under Corpuscular theory as to why an infinite number of photons can occupy the same space under described by the Bose-Einsten distribution or that only 1 fermion can occupy the same space under the Fermi-Dirac distribution. Or even describe the spin statistics of a particle as to why they are not symmetric under different spin numbers to reach the same quantum state? Arguments that ignore other bodies of evidence on what a particle exhibits isn't science. I have never come across any corpuscular view model that can address those two questions they always ignore it. This is the problem with describing reality via philosophical arguments. You pick and choose your arguments but ignore other bodies of evidence.

Nailed it I knew you were arguing the strictly particle pointlike view while arguing the waveform characteristics. I'm sorry but you really should come up with a better reference than a 1979 Scientific America article. Particularly Science has gotten a lot farther since then LMAO. That aside either one of us can find tons of recognized peer reviewed articles on what amounts to as Corpuscular theory and your right. High presicion equipment does favor waveparticle duality over corpuscular. For good reason. It is measurable support that the math describes. Physics doesn't define reality, we leave that in the hands of Philosophers. We mathematically describe all observable phenomena and relations of such. Arguing whether or not that describes reality. It can be measured therefore it does. It is a measurable set of relations. Hence the duality itself. We measure characteristics that support BOTH wavelike and corpuscular characteristics. Physics therefore correctly chose NOT to ignore either. Simply put A physicist would define reality as "If its measurable it describes an aspect of reality" So lets not ignore data for a moment. Answer me this question. Under spin statistics which includes the magnetic moment of an electron Why does it take a 720 degree angular momentum (Spin) to reach the original quantum state while under a spin 1 particle only 360 degrees under the corpuscular view?

Math that accurately models reality. When you consider a wave with arrival times to the advanced detectors... After all you want to measure All The spatial and time components on your arrival times How else are you to model a field excitation (particle). Your argument of low sensitivity detectors will naturally give incomplete data. The HUP is fundamental not just some math. When you consider field excitations with constructive/destructive interference from a field or multifield interactions The HUP also makes sense. A Nobel prize was given out by showing that the HUP can be greatly reduced by weak field interactions. The pop media articles described this wrong as well. Math is the lanquage of physics. You are not doing physics without it. By the way welcome to the Forum but please note we have a separate section for personal and non concordance models. ie what you learn in textbooks or taught in schools. We make exceptions to an extent for professionally peer reviewed models. A vixra article doesn't count as peer reviewed. For models that do not fall into the above we have a speculation forum to examine and discuss such models as per the rules under Speculation. Under QM the particle waveform is a probability. Hence statistical nature. Though thats not the only reason. Under Physics you literally want to predict all possible outcomes and the probability of occurring. QM fields excel at this. The other nature you already noted directly relates to the De-Broglie wavelength nature that partly describes wave-particle duality. The part everyone tends to ignore is the required energy to perform observable action. This is what you are referring to as the biggest mistake in physics. The article you mentioned in no way counters this as the papers argument of low sensitivity detectors literally filters out the dataset that a high sensitivity detector would pick up. How is that good Physics, ignore data as I don't agree with the results and implications?

lol though you would find yourself on a different geodesic though not in your favor. 😲

I looked over the discussion on the other forum as well as the vixra paper ir referenced. Although the vixra is fairly decently detailed I wouldn't place it in the conclusive category. A large part of the problem is that the entanglement spooky action at a distance isn't really all that mysterious. In part it follows from the conservation laws themselves when the particles are first created in pairs. This establishes the correlation function itself. Assuming you have zero interference the correlation function will stay intact. Superposition being a statistical probability function is natural until uou examine the particle state. Naturally you then collapse the wavefunction at this point. As the conservation laws are involved then naturally the state of the other particle is now known. The misnomer is thinking there is action in the first place. The only action that occurs by the physics definition of action is on the examination of the first particle. No action is required for the other particle. (the correlation function itself provides the state of the other particle). Here is a MIT course note on the quantum correlation function which unfortunately far too many people do not understand. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemistry/5-74-introductory-quantum-mechanics-ii-spring-2009/lecture-notes/MIT5_74s09_lec05.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjUoKzkqf_TAhUK3mMKHbIUBasQFggrMAI&usg=AFQjCNFyQ9vtLRFiAkweDJI1U7jrJAUc_A&sig2=ATQ7hIYkeceapDpp6By0VA

Excellent and accurate shot. +1.

cross post but thanks for the catch the missing word is taught and its corrected above. I will continue the above tomorrow as its getting late. The next set will getr into the Euler-Langrange in more detail to the action principle. I need time to format my thoughts on that. As the last equation takes 5 steps to solve I have to work out an example to use.

I am developing a list of fundamental formulas in QFT with a brief description of each to provide some stepping stones to a generalized understanding of QFT treatments and terminology. I invite others to assist in this project. This is an assist not a course. (please describe any new symbols and terms) QFT can be described as a coupling of SR and QM in the non relativistic regime. 1) Field :A field is a collection of values assigned to geometric coordinates. Those values can be of any nature and does not count as a substance or medium. 2) As we are dealing with QM we need the simple quantum harmonic oscillator 3) Particle: A field excitation Simple Harmonic Oscillator [math]\hat{H}=\hbar w(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}+\frac{1}{2})[/math] the [math]\hat{a}^\dagger[/math] is the creation operator with [math]\hat{a}[/math] being the destruction operator. [math]\hat{H}[/math] is the Hamiltonian operator. The hat accent over each symbol identifies an operator. This formula is of key note as it is applicable to particle creation and annihilation. [math]\hbar[/math] is the Planck constant (also referred to as a quanta of action) more detail later. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle [math]\Delta\hat{x}\Delta\hat{p}\ge\frac{\hbar}{2}[/math] [math]\hat{x}[/math] is the position operator, [math]\hat{p}[/math] is the momentum operator. Their is also uncertainty between energy and time given by [math]\Delta E\Delta t\ge\frac{\hbar}{2}[/math] please note in the non relativistic regime time is a parameter not an operator. Physical observable's are operators. in order to be a physical observable you require a minima of a quanta of action defined by [math] E=\hbar w[/math] Another key detail from QM is the commutation relations [math][\hat{x}\hat{p}]=\hat{x}\hat{p}-\hat{p}\hat{x}=i\hbar[/math] Now in QM we are taught that the symbols [math]\varphi,\psi[/math] are wave-functions however in QFT we use these symbols to denote fields. Fields can create and destroy particles. As such we effectively upgrade these fields to the status of operators. Which must satisfy the commutation relations [math][\hat{x}\hat{p}]\rightarrow[\hat{\psi}(x,t),\hat{\pi}(y,t)]=i\hbar\delta(x-y)[/math] [math]\hat{\pi}(y,t)[/math] is another type of field that plays the role of momentum where x and y are two points in space. The above introduces the notion of causality. If two fields are spatially separated they cannot affect one another. Now with fields promoted to operators one wiill wonder what happen to the normal operators of QM. In QM position [math]\hat{x}[/math] is an operator with time as a parameter. However in QFT we demote position to a parameter. Momentum remains an operator. In QFT we often use lessons from classical mechanics to deal with fields in particular the Langrangian [math]L=T-V[/math] The Langrangian is important as it leaves the symmetries such as rotation invariant (same for all observers). The classical path taken by a particle is one that minimizes the action [math]S=\int Ldt[/math] the range of a force is dictated by the mass of the guage boson (force mediator) [math]\Delta E=mc^2[/math] along with the uncertainty principle to determine how long the particle can exist [math]\Delta t=\frac{\hbar}{\Delta E}=\frac{\hbar}{m_oc^2}[/math] please note we are using the rest mass (invariant mass) with c being the speed limit [math] velocity=\frac{distance}{time}\Rightarrow\Delta{x}=c\Delta t=\frac{c\hbar}{mc^2}=\frac{\hbar}{mc^2}[/math] from this relation one can see that if the invariant mass (rest mass) m=0 the range of the particle is infinite. Prime example gauge photons for the electromagnetic force. Lets return to [math]L=T-V[/math] where T is the kinetic energy of the particle moving though a potential V using just one dimension x. In the Euler-Langrange we get the following [math]\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=0[/math] the dot is differentiating time. Consider a particle of mass m with kinetic energy [math]T=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2[/math] traveling in one dimension x through potential [math]V(x)[/math] Step 1) Begin by writing down the Langrangian [math]L=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2-V{x}[/math] next is a derivative of L with respect to [math]\dot{x}[/math] we treat this as an independent variable for example [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{x}}(\dot{x})^2=2\dot{x}[/math] and [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{x}}V{x}=0[/math] applying this we get step 2) [math]\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{x}}[\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2]=m\dot{x}[/math] which is just mass times velocity. (momentum term) step 3) derive the time derivative of this momentum term. [math]\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}}=\frac{d}{dt}m\dot{x}=\dot{m}\dot{x}+m\ddot{x}=m\ddot{x}[/math] we have mass times acceleration Step 4) Now differentiate L with respect to x [math]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}[\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2]-V(x)=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}[/math] Step 5) write the equation to describe the dynamical behavior of our system. [math]\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=0[/math][math]\Rightarrow\frac{d}{dt}[/math][math](\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{x}})[/math][math]=\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}\Rightarrow m\ddot{x}=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}[/math] recall from classical physics [math]F=-\nabla V[/math] in 1 dimension this becomes [math]F=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}[/math] therefore [math]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}=F[/math] we have [math]m\ddot{x}-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}=F[/math]

I agree with that but in the two slit superposition isn't entanglement. Its constructive interferance which isn't quite the same as entanglement. Or rather as far as the superposition term is used for the two slit. However the experiment has also been done with entangled particles. In the effort to gain a greater understanding. I always liked this gif.

Here is the fundamental problem with seeking heuristic simplified explanations. They tend to be based on analogies, in the attempt to explain complex subjects in terms readily understood. However they are just analogies. As such any heuristic explanation should only be treated as an analogy.

The QFT treatment of observable action, opened my eyes to a question I am still working on developing an answer for. To be 100% clear I am not stating the following is occurring though I do have to consider the possibility. Especially considering that this isn't uniquely my idea and has been considered. I mentioned before numerous times that it takes a quanta of energy to cause observable action. In point of detail the Planck constant is often called a quanta of action. (little side note). Now under QFT all particles are field excitations. In essence field vibrations/waves. Good so far everything I mentioned above is standard concordance under QFT treatment. Now consider that waves generate constructive and destructive interference. This is extremely well known. Waves of identical frequencies will combine to form a resultant waveform whose value is a sum of the two previous waveforms. This follows from the Principle of superposition. The common classical descriptive being. "When two waves interfere, the resulting displacement of the medium at any location is the algebraic sum of the displacements of the individual waves at that same location" Now there is a double slit experiment in Classical called the Young's Double slit experiment. This is a precurser to QM done back in 1801. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Wiki mentions this. Now consider further that the particle like characteristics is defined and cobstrained by a quanta of action confined by the Compton wavelength. So here is my query, Is Young in essence correct even under QFT treatment? The second question is how many photons (quanta) are produced as a direct result of constructive interference after the two beams pass both slits? Now consider the above but add spin statistics. See where I am going? Instead of restricting ourselves to the Quantum mechanical spin statistics explanation or the Young's classical explanation perhaps we should ask if its a conbination of both. However there is a few problems with this. The experiment has been performed with 1 photon (quanta) at a time, under the wave it should have divided its energy between the two slits then recombine after. However this didn't occur. Ain't science fun lol PS if you take a single quanta and split the energy between two slits how can you observe it unless the two waves recombine after?

They improved immensely that wiki article. Far better detail with a minimal complexity. Far better than it was a few years ago

Well I'm extremely glad you didn't waste any money on this patent. Patent offices do not care if the device works or not lol.

My point exactly if you dig deeper its also often applied in free energy patents etc. If we had such a device lol. Recall Newtons third law on your patent equal plus opposite reaction. If time allows this weekend (I'm a little busy) I'll run through and post the 3 charge triangle mathematics.

Can you name such a device? A negative vortex generator must apply negative mass. Do you know any way without some undiscovered exotic material to generate negative mass? This is the problem with the Alcubierre drive

Doesn't make any difference. This is a fairly easy problem set. Assign each charge then calculate the vector sum of each charge using Coulombs law. This is actually a standard practice problem taught in many textbooks. There are plenty of 3 charge examples on the net in a triangle. Don't stop at q1 also do q2 and q3. Your a rigid body so you have to calculate the sum of force on all 3. Also doesn't change the invalid coordinates on your stress tensor.... Though we don't even need to deal with the stress tensor to prove this won't work simply apply Coulombs law and Newtons 3 laws of inertia. If you do it right you will find the sum of forces is zero at the centre of your triangle and the sum of force will be a function of radius from that centre point regardless of the charge values.

Not that I believe this will work, but the math you have on the first link is incredibly difficult to follow. Can you post the math here as the site gives me garbage characters. speaking of math why do you have only [latex]T_\mu[/latex] Did you forget the full tensor form? Ok there is too many obvious mistakes that it is obvious you don't know how the stress tensor works. [latex]T^{xx}, T^{yy},T^{zz}[/latex] is not part of the stress tensor coordinates. Secondly you specify polar coordinates but your ds^2 line element is in cartesian coordinates.( Though you did note they are Cartesian) however we need to see how your fields effect the Polar coordinates for curvature. I can't even begin to read your Poisson notation. Where is your Div and curl elements. Where is the corresponding Maxwell equations? What did you do slap formulas together without deriving them to make it sound like you did the calculations ? The (I would guess Japanese characters on the formulas) Means literally nothing to me. Please post the formulas here to avoid the confusing notations on your site. edit Found some of the Maxwell equations and I can only hazard a guess your japanese characters are to denote a matrix. Please confirm. Looking over this it won't work, from what I can see the polarity differences of the electromagnetic field on your three point on image 6 is still of positive density. I would suggest you calculate the effective action. The charge directions are not uni directional between magnetic poles but bidirectional. Ie positive to negative and negative to positive simultaneously. In essence positive charge in one direction with negative charge in the opposite direction. Yet both charges are still positive energy density. Just a side note assuming you could generate enough power to generate thrust your magnetic polarity alignment will literally tear your craft apart as the plates will try to seperate. Ever try to stick two magnets together in the same polarity alignments? There is a very easy experiment to prove I'm correct take a v shaped ferrous material and apply an two + and 1 negative charge at either end in your arrangement. Remove from the area any possible electromagnetic attractors. Place said experiment on a sheet of ice. Guaranteed you Will have no forward thrust as you effectively have a single magnetic.

Scientists use the universal lanquage of mathematics to understand reality

Fair enough. Programming itself isn't too difficult to learn most program languages you really only need 20 to 30 commands and instructions. The trick comes from applying those few instructions in application. Learning how to break complex problems into managable smaller problems is always a handy skill. I myself have learned over 20 different program languages. Once you learn one language and the techniques. Picking up new languages becomes as easy as learning the new instruction set. flow charts and truth tables are applicable in all lanquages (helps reduce those complex problems). I would focus on one language to start. Master the techniques. Then new lanquages are as easy as having a copy of the appropriate instruction set. (just a side note, I found the techniques used in programming incredibly handy to understand incredibly complex physics related topics). Complex problems reduced to their individual simple problems. So any field of study can gain from learning programming and flow charts. Whether or not it is recognized for career advancement aside. The skills learned is never wasted.

I would also review the course curriculum to get a better handle on the required skill sets. https://genetics.natsci.msu.edu/curriculum/ One from the specific university where the course is offered ideally but you can get a picture of what is required to understand prior to taking the course itself from the curriculum. I did this prior to going to university for my field and was able to prestudy before taking the course.

While not knowing the required skills for those two fields. I would think that the ability to program models, spreadsheets, databases etc is handy in any field involving these activities. Modelling all complex systems gain from the computer age. I can't see why biological systems would be an exception.

Is gravity truly missing or can we simply not isolate gravity from all the contributors to spacetime? ie other forces, Higgs field etc. We have no problem isolating every other contributor to kinematic motion which via the stress tensor contributes to spacetime. So if all other contributors to spacetime can successfully account for all kinematic action. What does gravity itself contribute or is it simply the sum of all other contributors.? I'll leave that as food for thought. This is a tricky issue, finding a graviton to mediate the gravitational field would certainly answer the above. However we are far far far from ever producing the predicted energy levels to produce a graviton. Then the question remains does a graviton exist or does the spacetime geometry not require a mediator particle as with photons and the electromagnetic field? There is a quantum field of study that specifically deals with gravity. Quantum geometrodynamics. just and FYI now as far as the article is concerned I'm still going through it but it is definetely interesting. I was recently thinking of how to model spacetime under the Heisenburg uncertainty. So it is a nice coincidence seeing this paper. In a similar fashion via the HUP. The paper is also alluding to the cosmological constant as a sum of all contributors via the uncertainties inherent in all other fields. Thanks for posting it Strange.

The primary difference between Lorentz and Minkowskii is that the Minkowskii metric is a classical field treatment. The (at rest frame) shouldn't be construed as an absolute frame or a preferred frame.

The alcubierre drive will cause gamma problems even at lower than ftl. It is nature of the spacetime warping that causes the radiation. I will have to dig up the arxiv article detailing this (assuming I can relocate the paper)