quiet

Does pure probability fulfill some principle of conservation or, equivalently, does it exhibit some symmetry that enables the application of Noether's theorem? Can pure probability be expressed vectorially or tensorially? In the experimental field, is it possible to build an instrument that measures pure probability? I am not thinking of a computerized system that calculates probability based on the data of a situation. I'm thinking of an independent instrument, that does not use computerized calculation, such as an ammeter or a voltmeter does not need a built-in microprocessor. Can probability be transmitted between two objects, how are heat transmitted, electric charge, amounts of linear and angular movement, etc. ? The above questions can be summarized in one. Does pure probability have physical existence? I know that question will elicit arguments of the following kind. Does the electrical charge have a physical existence? Or is the term electric charge referred to the result of a deliberately established procedure, with the intention of obtaining a specific type of numerical data? Foreseeing that such arguments could appear, in the first paragraphs I mentioned magnitudes that are conserved and transmitted, even if they are arbitrarily defined. My mind does not accept to call physical property a mathematical construct based on pure probability.

I would be reassured to hear that Max Born's proposal is simply a way of establishing useful algorithms for practical purposes. But nobody comes to me saying that. It happens that they present a thousand tautological arguments to deny that it is only an algorithmic procedure useful in practice and, collaterally, to situate the probabilistic interpretation in the context of fundamental physical principles.

Hello, Strange. Although many times I have read and heard the arguments that you have exposed, I will ask like the first time I heard that, when I was a student. What physical laws connect this abstract, non-dimensional and non-physical wave with the concrete, dimensional and physical events of the diffraction and the interference of the particle beams? And more, of the particles sent one by one, waiting between shipments times as large as desired.

As a student, I asked why, in some types of waves, the square of the amplitude and the density of energy are directly proportional. I got answers based on general laws of physics. Then I asked why, in the De Broglie - Schrödinger waves, the square of the amplitude is related to probability and not to energy density. I got a response referring to an idea proposed by Max Born, without mention of the general laws of physics. If possible, I would like to understand what is the relationship between that idea of Max Born and the general laws of physics.

Let us suppose that Mister B affirms that Mister A lies. What should be done and what should not be done to evaluate B's assertion? I guess the following procedures do not apply: 1. Find Mister A and ask him: do you lie? 2. Find friends of A and with them consult the veracity of A. 3. Consult people who work for A and / or receive money from A. That is, it is not appropriate to consult Mister A, or people linked to A for affection or for money. What should be done? This is the laborious part. The only way is to look for affirmations of A that have been documented, perhaps spanning many years, to contrast them with the facts that A produced linked to those assertions. Normally no person and no group, vocational or institutional, develops that laborious task to evaluate the veracity. Then A can always answer each accusation with an argument that suits him, because nobody will have collected enough evidence. In each activity there are a number of people who practice it and the rest of society does not. That rest sees only what practitioners put at the public disposal. The set of elements made available to the public constitutes what we can call the facade of the activity, by comparison with the facade of a building, which is publicly visible. There are people who do not trust the public facade of science. They assume that the science made available to the public is not the best version, nor is it the most far-reaching version, nor is it the most powerful version. Something analogous, in that aspect, to the public version of the satellite vision system (Google Earth). For military use and for other uses that are not public, there is a much more powerful version with much greater scope. According to the accusation of these people, the public facade of science would be the limited version, that is, the analogue to Google Earth. And there would be a version for private use, endowed with a much broader and much deeper knowledge, which gives those who possess it unimaginable possibilities for us. According to that accusation, instead of a Mister A, within the science there is a group A that possesses the complete knowledge and does not make it publicly available. The accusing group fulfills the same role fulfilled by Mister B in the initial example. With that example we learned that it is not appropriate to consult the accused party, or people linked by affection or for money with the accused party. To which persons, institutions or groups does it not correspond to consult, if we want to evaluate the argument of the two versions of science? And what would be the proper procedures to examine the subject in a truly objective way?

Thank you very much taeto !

If I say that the equation of my initial note is wrong, am I telling the truth?

[math] \lim_{\left(n \rightarrow \infty \right)} \sum_{i=1}^{i=n} i= - \dfrac{1}{12} [/math] I've seen it on the next page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_⋯

Hi, sci-man. You have brought an interesting and essential theme. In the situation that you pose there are variables that determine the possible events. For example, the spectrum of the light source located within the sphere, whose components are comprised between a minimum frequency (related to the size of the enclosure) and a maximum frequency (related to differences between the quantum levels responsible for providing quotas of energy used to accelerate electrons). The values taken by the variables in the source of EM radiation determine the sequence of events. A set of values can produce, as you said, a thermal equilibrium within the enclosure. Another set of values can produce standing waves that fill the whole volume without generating heat, that is, standing waves that oscillate monotonously without entropy variation. Another set of values can trigger the formation of particle and antiparticle pairs. The different possibilities are numerous. Can there be something on the Internet that works for you, maybe something like the following links? users.df.uba.ar/arbo/PhotonGasAJP.pdf www.physics.udel.edu/~glyde/PHYS813/Lectures/chapter_7.pdf physics.ucsc.edu/~drip/5D/photons/photons.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.09524 https://www.americanlaboratory.com/342125-Fast-Quantum-Memory-Stores-Photons-in-Gas-of-Rubidium-Atoms/

Yes sir. Very good idea.

Think a little Strange. You name an X thing and, for whatever reason, I want to deny the possibility that X exists. I want it, it's true. Does that authorize me to write the denial, without previously seeking news about it? If that conduct were legitimate, in the trials would decree sentences only by the sayings of people who invent statements only for the desire to condemn.

For evidence, a button is enough. Let's go to one of your objections, which seems powerful because it involves infinity, quantum, bosons and negative energy together, suggesting that all of that constitutes an incoherent combination of unrelated things. The reality is that the issue is not new and has been seriously investigated. I put some links, which I could find effortlessly and quickly. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9910207.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b080/23c6e509133f24705134e910bd6a0dfff4ac.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0101247v1.pdf Have you done the task of looking for them before writing an objection? Have you done the task with the other objections? On Friday I was in a kindergarten. The teacher distributed games of insertion. I was surprised by a girl who, instead of building, was dedicated to destroy what others built. When the teacher invited the girl to replace the destructive behavior by taking her game and beginning to build, the girl refused violently. The teacher tried to stimulate her to build and the girl started crying. I am still trying to understand that girl, because her behavior inevitably derives from a cause.

In the Solvay Congress of 1927 the use of the word probability as the name of a new mathematical procedure, typical of quantum theory, different from the procedures that the same word names in thermodynamics, has been accepted. I want to start confessing my perplexity and my disagreement in front of intruducing the postulate that proposes to express the square of the wave amplitude in terms of probability. That requires admitting that the square root of probability is something that has the physical ability to propagate. I find this idea as deficient as saying that the number concept of mathematics occupies space and is capable of traveling. If DannyTR feels the same, then in that I agree with him. In other details I do not agree and I will try to show why. First let's think about the natural numbers. And suppose there is no infinite. Then, in increasing sense, there is an insurmountable maximum [math]N_f[/math] in the set of natural numbers. You generate a recurring program, which adds 1 to the result obtained in the previous step. In the first step there is no previous step, then the previous result is zero. Sum 1 and the result is 1. The second step is to add 1 to the result of the previous step, that is 1 + 1 = 2. With this recurrent procedure, the program passes in increasing order by all natural numbers. In case there is no infinity in natural numbers, the program should stop when it reaches [math]N_f[/math] . The computer is enabled to continue, the adding procedure is enabled to advance without logical failure, there are no mathematical obstacles, but the program stops at [math]N_f[/math] . This is very weird. No multiplication, no potentiation, no operation with natural numbers could give a result greater than [math]N_f[/math] . The number of bosons in a physical system is natural. Physical laws explicitly state that there is no upper limit to the number of bosons that can coexist within a finite volume. Are the investigations that led to the formulation of those laws wrong? Note that the freedom to accumulate bosons unlimitedly is given for finite volume. That is, we can not present a critique based on the absurdity of infinite volume, because a finite volume is enough to accumulate bosons without limit. Numerical infinity within a finite volume. Obviously, an infinite number of bosons, within a finite volume, implies an infinite energy density of positive sign. Cosmology is beginning to admit that the net energy of the universe is equal to zero, because the energy of positive sign is compensated with energy of the opposite sign. Nothing prohibits that type of compensation can be established within a finite volume. If that volume contains two sets of symmetrical bosons, both with an infinite number of bosons but with opposite signs in energy, the energy density would be equal to zero within that volume. The numerical infinity linked to the zero of the net energy. Newton, Leibniz, Cauchy, Weierstrass, Bolzano, Cantor, each in his time, have studied infinity in mathematics. I translate a paragraph referring to the work of Bolzano, taken from a document in Spanish, available at the following address. https://www.palermo.edu/ingenieria/pdf2014/14/CyT_14_18.pdf --------- Translation: In the publication Paradoxes of the infinite of 1840 he claims the existence of the current infinite using the idea of set and recognizes that the difference between finite and infinite sets is the possibility of being in correspondence with a part of his own, as Galileo had already observed. End of translation --------- Everything known points against us when we try to underestimate infinity. That does not mean that we can attribute to infinity properties that do not possess, or invoke infinity in cases that do not admit it. That is why I wanted to give the example of two infinite symmetric energy densities, within a finite volume, that give a net density equal to zero, without forbidding the presence of an infinite number of bosons.

Agree. Be patient, because people of literature are never happy with what they write and remake the novel a dozen times before showing it.

First, sorry for the blue background and the big size. I don't know why this occurs on my cell phone. Hello Ghideon. I translated your post and I sent it to the woman. Good, if brief, twice good, she said. Ask if you give permission to place your post textually in the novel, like what Dr. Cortina says in an interview. In Spanish Cortina means Curtain. She believes that your text is ideal to show how corporations manipulate the public mentality.

The husband and I are surprised by what happened after the publication of Maxwell's treatise on electrodynamics. For the public domain the following happened. 1. Campaign of de-prestige against electric displacement in a vacuum, precisely the phenomenon that Maxwell was forced to take into account to achieve a complete, coherent and consistent theory. 2. Reformulation of the electrodynamics doing everything possible to do without the electric displacement in the vacuum. 3. Goodbye quaternions and with them, goodbye intuitivity, especially in regard to the spatio-temporal nature of the electromagnetic field. 4. Hello vectors in spatial coordinates, which hide the spatio-temporal nature. 5. When it became evident that it was impossible to treat spatial vectors and time separately, with spatial vectors and time in a separate compartment, instead of reappearing quaternions, the Lorentz transformation and quadrivectors appeared. Scheme coherent, but highly counterintuitive. 6. When it became evident that the quadrivectors are insufficient to analyze the blackbody radiation, instead of reviewing the electrodynamic versions without the essential field, which is the electric displacement in the vacuum, to look for a possible fault there, the Scientific work was directed out of electrodynamics, until Planck re-interpreted Boltzmann's statistical thermodynamics and introduced a hypothesis that, presented outside the electrodynamic context, appears highly counterintuitive. 7. With gravitation the same thing happened. Instead of developing the original electrodynamics of Maxwell, with the electric displacement in the vacuum, which virtually functions as a charge density wave, the effort turned out of the electrodynamics until ending up schema of space-time molded by the mass, it is say, General Relativity, another highly counterintuitive presentation. If the charge density wave had been thoroughly studied, the gravity would have been formulated intuitively, with the charge density wave functioning as a link between the bodies that gravitate. This gives a completely general gravitational formulation, capable of taking into account all the circumstances and all the effects, capable of explaining situations where gravity is repulsive and where it is equal to zero. 8. The list goes on, but what is indicated is enough to understand that, on repeated occasions, the husband and I have hated the year 1867 as the date of the beginning of a great counterintuitive version of physics.

The electromagnetic propagating in the vacuum includes the electric field wave, the magnetic field wave and other waves. Have you ever tried to formulate, in detail, the wave of the electric displacement? You can ask: electric displacement in a vacuum? Yes, it is formulable, it is coherent and the consequences are as broad as they are interesting. The wave does not carry charge. But the analysis shows that the phenomenon is virtually equivalent to a charge density wave traveling in the direction of propagation. The elementary charge of the vacuum polarization does not have the same value as the charge of the electron. It's about 3.3 times bigger. You can virtually formulate everything as if each half cycle of the photon contained an elementary charge of the corresponding sign and the mentioned value. To see a bit more, you can go to this thread:

May the author forgive me, but I liked your proposal very much. It has swing, dynamics and humor. Not with your style, but some of that I have proposed to the woman. Do you know what he said? He said this: What you and my husband talked about several times gave me inspiration to conceive the subject. I always believed that corporations paid a lot to the best minds to advance in the middle of an inextricable jungle of hyper-complicated theories. You two, who spend hours talking and writing math, have been surprised many times because you glimpsed the possibility of formulating, intuitively, subjects that are taught counterintuitively. And do not tell me you two think very highly of corporations. If you had never said that the counterintuitive parts of physics can be intuitively reformulated, I would never have been interested and nothing would have inspired me. It is very crazy, but very original, a novel based on my idea. There are too many books and too many movies that show corporations hiding advances that come from complicated theories. I want my novel not to be one more of that kind. Success or failure, but with originality.

Have you ever been in a situation of almost sure death, one that witnesses also describe as an event of sure death and miraculous salvation? People who have suffered this situation say that every moment of life, with all the richness of detail, from things of big size to very small things like skin pores one by one, scenes with all the information up to the microdetails, they are present in the mind. Come, hear, touch, smell everything, everything, everything, they perceive everything up to the microdetail, from every instant of life, from birth or uterus, to the moment of the accident. That is too much information. And that incalculable cluster of information is normally stored in a record that is preserved. That is, in deep human memory, which is not frequently consulted. A microsecond of life contains information about the person and the environment, with an incalculable degree of detail. It would be amazing a digital memory capable of saving a single scene with that degree of detail. To save the whole life, there is no digital technology that can do it. The mystery of deep human memory has not been explained until today. Although it stores astonishing amounts of information, the function of memory is monotonous, because it is to store and, upon request, provide the data. The function of consciousness seems much more delicate and more complex than the function of memory. Do you think that an adequate theory of consciousness can be formulated before an adequate theory of human memory? Once I came across an idea about human memory that, taken seriously and well developed, could lead to an adequate theory. That idea corresponds to the harmonic memory, which is not digital in its essence. If you wanted to use digital systems, you would have to program them to process analog functions. But that story would be misplaced in this thread.

Sorry. The previous post has been writen with the cell phone and I do't know why appears big size and blue background.

That is the point. She intends to justify with a collection of strange facts, UFO, out of time objects, cicles and figures in the fields, strange clouds on Geneva (just over LHC), known human objects on Mars, etc. This is a collection of real notices without known explanations.

Argument (part that I should advise): After understanding the scope of physics, in 1867 corporations decide to take over that science, dominating the mechanisms of financing, education, publication and promotion. No one should notice that domain. In front of the society everything must have the appearance of a transparent and fair system. How can it be achieved that, in the public sphere, physics progresses very slowly and that, within the private sphere of corporations, it grows exponentially? At this point appears the decision to disrupt the public version of physics to present it in a counter-intuitive way, choosing as postulates propositions that in the intuitive version are high-level theorems. In logical and mathematical terms, the counterintuitive version is perfectly coherent and consistent. In terms of favoring development, it is a formidable obstacle, an almost perfect shield. To match what is achieved in 20 years with the intuitive version, the counterintuitive form takes too many centuries. That's what the novel proposes. Then it ends with the corporations and their entourage teleported to colonies outside of Earth, while the rest of humanity remains on the planet, poisoned and scourged by atrocious cataclysms. Is there any hope of diagramming that section of the argument with some degree of plausibility, so that the reader savors the story and does not tend to ridicule it?

Hello Markus. Your post has been beautifully didactic and has helped to refine my ideas. I thank you enthusiastically.

I want to thank the people who come to the thread. Has pointed out strange that it is not an easy problem. I hope that makes it interesting.

To describe the device more easily, the drawing shows the plates as if they were transparent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To avoid complications, let's suppose ideal conditions. - Insulating cylindrical tube. - Rigid plates of conductive metal, with negligible mass. To simplify, we will assume that the mass of each plate is equal to zero. - Equal and opposite charges in the plates. - The only thing that keeps the plates attached to the ends of the tube is the electric force of the capacitor. - Both ends of the tube are sealed by the plates. - An ideal gas has been injected into the tube, until it reaches the pressure that the plates can withstand. That pressure depends only on the electric force. - Except for the inside of the tube, where there is gas, the rest of the device is in a vacuum. - The device is at rest with respect to the reference system. - Subsequently, the charge of the positive plate is neutralized by a negative charge of the same absolute value. The charge of the negative plate is not affected and remains constant. - At the instant of neutralization, the electric force disappears in the neutralized plate. When does it disappear on the other plate? Does it happen strictly at the same instant or in a different one?