Quantum321

"As there is a detailed mathematical theory that makes testable predictions which are confirmed by experiment, it is a perfect example of science in action." If you can't physically measure the micro world then it is not possible to confirm by experiment. "There are not two different states. And it is not a premise but a result of the theory." Wave-particle duality is not two states? Then what do you call it" "This appears to be back to front. The interpretation of the wave equation as probability came after the wave equation, not before." I think we agree on this. The Schrodinger equation is used to find the allowed energy levels of quantum mechanical systems (such as atoms, or transistors). The associated wave function gives the probability of finding the particle at a certain position.

I think we are on the verge of a revolution in QT. For years supporters have been telling us it's 'counter intuitive' Oh, really? I think it's counter science. I think the problem with wave-particle duality is the original premise that there are two different states of a particle. But that's fodder for another thread. I think science went off the rails when Schrodinger, frustrated by his lack of ability to measure where a particle is at any given time came up with the wave function formula. Science isn't about probabilities. I believe at this point in time we can not measure micro world! Why? Because to measure you must disturb the system you want to measure. This outside disturbance precludes an accurate determination of where any particle is at any given time. But Schrodinger's ego couldn't let him do that, he had to come up with a solution. Let me say that the wave function concept is correct when you disturb the original system. Schrodinger couldn't go beyond this because he did not have the tools to achieve his objective. This also applies to the double slit experiment. When you look at a particle or a photon (use a detector) you change the initial conditions and influence the outcome. How do I know? Every time you use a detector the particles always look like particles. The detector influences the system and precludes an accurate measurement.

Strange "When you stop posting your personal beliefs as if they were facts, I will." There you go again with your personal opinions. Until a mediator finds something wrong with my posts you will just have to live with it. Mordred, WOW Its going to take me some time to comprehend this. I found this post by Richard Muller How can the Higgs boson contain 130 times the mass of the proton but still be a constituent part of a proton? Richard Muller, Prof Physics, UC Berkeley, auth "Now -the Physics of Time"(2016) Written Jan 11 · Protons contain quarks, gluons, and many virtual particles. Virtual particles don't have the mass of real particles; they exist only for tiny times, and because of the uncertainty principle, they can have any mass. For example, the virtual photon, mediating the "force" between two electrons, typically has a mass. (The technical jargon is that the photon is "off the mass shell".) So many particles, in their virtual form, can and do exist inside the proton, including additional quarks, pions, and the Higgs. But it is a virtual Higgs -- with the same interactions as the real Higgs, as modified by the fact that it exists only for an instant, and does not have the mass of the real Higgs.

Strange..."This has nothing to do with "cherished beliefs" or "heresy". It is just that those models do not, currently, match the evidence as well as dark matter being matter." Give me a break. Quit picking apart everything I say and injecting your opinions. While they are certainly not wrong they don't really help. Creative writing holds the readers attention.

The whole idea that dark matter exists much more abundantly than baryonic matter (DM 27% BM 4.8%) is counter intuitive to the extreme. Some have challenge even the most cherished beliefs and suggested that various modifications of the standard laws of general relativity such as MOND, TeVes and conformal gravity would account for the observations without invoking additional matter (heresy I know) I think dark matter is actually out there. Some scientists even consider dark matter to be a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. Back to the neutrino. Its one of the most abundant particles in the universe and comes in three flavors—the electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrinos and can switch flavor through a process called oscillation. This surprising fact represents a revolution in physics—the first known particle interactions that indicate physics beyond the extremely successful Standard Model. ( http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutrinos-the-standard-model-misfits ) Whoa!! Beyond the standard model? This is getting scary.

That would be helpful..thanks

Recent studies indicate Higgs is more stable than previously thought. I don't believe the Universe is metastavle. . Its been around for 13.7 billion years. With the space between galaxies expanding at a rate of a 75 kilometers per second per megaparsec how could there be a cataclysmic collapse?

Sorry about that Mordred. I had no idea neutrinos could shape-change depending on the medium they travel through. You mentioned the best candidate is in the Kev range and their doesn't appear to be a suitable detector to measure that mass. Neutrinos mass is near zero. It would take a awful of them to equal the 27% of the universe that is dark matter.

Resident Expert, did you see this? http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/sterile-neutrinos-in-trouble “The sterile neutrino would’ve been a profound discovery,” says physicist Ben Jones of the University of Texas, Arlington, who worked on the IceCube analysis. “It would really have been the first particle discovered beyond the Standard Model of particle physics.” It’s surprising that such a result would come from IceCube. The detector, buried in about a square kilometer of Antarctic ice, was constructed to study very different neutrinos: high-energy ones propelled toward Earth by violent events in space. But by an accident of nature, IceCube happens to be in just the right position to study low-mass sterile neutrinos as well. There are three known types of neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos. Scientists have caught all three types, but they have never built a detector that could catch a sterile neutrino. Neutrinos are shape-shifters; as they travel, they change from one type to another. The likelihood that a neutrino has shifted to a new type at any given point depends on its mass and the distance it has traveled. It also depends on what the neutrino has traveled through. Neutrinos very rarely interact with other matter, so they can travel through the entire Earth without hitting any obstacles. But they are affected by all of the electrons in the Earth’s atoms along the way. “The Earth acts like an amplifier,” says physicist Carlos Argüelles of MIT, who worked on the IceCube analysis. Traveling through that density of electrons raises the likelihood that a neutrino will change into the predicted sterile neutrino quite significantly—to almost 100 percent, Argüelles says. At a specific energy, the scientists on IceCube should have noticed a mass disappearance of neutrinos as they shifted identities into particles they could not see. “The position of the dip [in the number of neutrinos found] depends on the mass of sterile neutrinos,” says theorist Joachim Kopp of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. “If they were heavier, the dip would move to a higher energy, a disadvantage for IceCube. At a lower mass, it would move to a lower energy, at which IceCube cannot see neutrinos anymore. IceCube happens to be in a sweet spot.” And yet, the scientists found no such dip. This doesn’t mean they can completely rule out the existence of low-mass sterile neutrinos, Jones says. “But it’s also true to say that the likelihood that a sterile neutrino exists is now the lowest it has ever been before.”

"One of the reasons that this doesn't work is that you would have to assume that that matter was there all the time from the beginning, and if you do that, nucleosynthesis during the early ages of the universe would have produced a much different universe than what we see." That is my original premise, that dark matter is part of all the particles produced by the BB. To assume otherwise begs the question is dark matter is from another universe? What does fit my original premise are brown dwarfs. In fact some think there may be brown dwarf's in our solar system.

My reasoning here is if 90% of the matter in our solar system wasn't detected until recently ie we could not see it, perhaps that's what's going on with dark matter. It may be the universe is full of the same matter and we just can't see it because it may be too small to detect.

I have no idea what dark matter is. Hopefully, through a meaningful exchange of ideas we can make some sense of this. It is estimated that approximately, 27% of the known universe is dark matter. Dark matter because it can't be observed and does not interact with electromagnetic energy. Its logical to assume that all of particles from the BB are still in our universe. Some visible and some are not visible. Therefore, I think dark matter has been part of the universe all along and is not some undiscovered particle outside the standard model. I understand the LHC has completed its two year retrofit and is now more powerful than before. Perhaps they can confirm or debunk supersymmetry and possible find that particle that is dark matter. Personally, since dark matter is 27% of the universe I would think we would have discovered it by now. So why am I posting about dark matter? I watched a very interesting science program and learned that 90% of the matter in our solar system lays outside of Pluto the dwarf planet. 90%?? Are you kidding. This is one reason I think dark matter is made of some of the particles from the BB.

Well guys I have laid out my opinion. You can buy into it or not. I am not here to change anyone point of view only to offer my own. I am going to open another thread on Dark matter. I hope in that thread there will be some meaningful discussion. I will answer any question as soon as anyone can prove time started at the BB and flows without man. For the doubters look up time and discover it is an abstract notion conceived by man.

Ordered events apply only to mans understanding of the events of the universe. We need them in order to comprehend and express those events for our own needs. The universe doesn't need them. Everything in the universe unfolds based on physics. Time is a scale man invented to understand those events. Time is an abstract concept man invented for his own purposes.

" In your view, if it weren't for the presence of human consciousness, there was no time. In which case, how did humans evolve to make time appear? (Evolution requires time, by the way.)" Humans evolved because of the evolution. Atoms and neurons arranged themselves bases on environment and other factors. What has that got to do with time? You must not think the abstract notion of time is in any way involved in the movement of mass in the universe. It is only man invention. " That's not what your claim implied, though. You said "there is no proof that time even exists outside the consciousness of man". So time-ordering of e.g. fossils should not have happened when man wan't around. How would that work, exactly? Once man came up with the concept of time, did sediments suddenly become ordered? How did radioactive decay work, before humans were on the scene? Earth revolving and rotating?" Fossils are the remains of life. Its and ordered event. Tissue decays based on the laws of physics, nothing more. Man comes along and want to order those events. The universe doesn't need to order anything. Everything unfolds based on the laws of physics nothing more.

"I thought you were claiming that time didn't exist. Now you are just saying it is only of interest to us. I won't argue with that (because it has nothing to do with science)." Time only exists in the consciousness of man. We need it to order events in our lives. Time does not exist outside the consciousness of man.

That information is only important to man. The universe isn't concerned with anything other than the basic laws of physic.

"It certainly seems to be, based on current theories. It has the same status as the abstract concept of distance." Correct. Distance is not a consideration for the universe. Only man. "So you are confusing the opinions of individuals for that status of science." Those individuals opinions are the current status of physics." "Other than the mounds of evidence that everything we observe has a certain age, and the evidence of time-ordering, you mean. Aside from all that, there is no evidence." Age is only important to man. What in the universe tracks the age of things? or the speed or the acceleration or any of the numerous things that interests man? The universe is actually very simple. It responds to the laws of physics and that is irrespective of time which is an abstract concept. Do you honestly think an abstract concept is an integral part of the universe?

" What evidence do you have for this? "Then you will need to provide evidence." Again I have a much evidence as science has for accepting time as an integral part of the universe. You are on a vendetta against me. I implore you to open your mind. Do you honestly think the abstract concept of time is an integral component of the universe? What evidence do you have that time exists? "Please provide some evidence that the scientific community assumes time began with the big bang, instead of just repeating your claim this it is true. There is no evidence...just the opinion of Steven Hawking and other famous physicists. I call it a straw man argument. And, because you have been told many times that it is not true, an increasingly dishonest one. Seriously what do you call the accepted premise that time exists?

This thread is about time. Time is special because its an abstract concept in a universe of basic laws of physics. If you don't agree with my proposal..well that's your prerogative.

This is science. I know its difficult to get your arms around this concept. But do you really think an abstract concept like time is really an integral part of the universe? Especially when there is no proof that time even exists outside the consciousness of man?

All of those things are important to man. However, the universe does not care about any of that. In short they are not needed by the universe. Events transpire based on the law of physics...however long or fast etc it takes. Rate of change in position, velocity. volume etc are all mans inventions. They reside in mans consciousness because we need to order things in order to comprehend and express the event. Time does not exist outside of mans consciousness.

"Your describing a change with a measurable rate. Yet saying this doesn't equal a measure of time." Lets use this analogy. I push a small car across the table. It goes from point A to point B. Where is time involved? Matter moves through space whether time exists or not. Now if man want to describe this event he must use time in some of his calculations to understand the event. The universe doesn't need time for matter to move.Only to describe it.

The amount of time I spend listening to small minded people is one Planck time which is 5.39 × 10-44 s At the BB particles did not move through time. They moved through space. Now for man to understand what happened we had to invoke the measure of time to allow us to understand the sequence of events as they transpired. Time did not exist and was not a requirement of the expansion of the BB. BTW I don't consider myself special in any way. You guys don't know me well enough to make any judgements. "Present some evidence that this is the consensus of the scientific community, if you are going to label it thus." I don't want to label time. The scientific community is assuming time began with the BB. I am not. I am saying its a baseless assertion. It has never been proven. I call it an assumption, what do you call it? Ah yes Branes not Brains.

"Just to be absolutely explicit (as you don't appear to know what the big bang model is about), the big bang model describes the (ongoing) evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about the universe being created. It says nothing about time starting (which is a pretty meaningless concept anyway)." Perhaps you need to learn some basic concepts before trying to come up with your own. That is an insulting attack. I am very versed on the BB. So you say time did not start at the BB? You are as wrong as you can be. Perhaps you care to argue with Stephen Hawking? "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang." http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html Resident Expert "But in point of detail the BB model only starts at 10^-43 seconds. It only speculates before that." I could not agree more. All the talk about two Brains colliding is also speculation. Hawking thinks time began at the BB. Do you agree ?