Mike Smith Cosmos

Yes I having listened to many of his lectures Ed Whitten , which are excellent .I don't know if he written a book ? Interesting comment. Need to think about that. Obviously Einstein had quite a reputation, but as you say in a particular field. However i am still looking for a " king of Quantum " if that is at all possible. ? Unless its Ed Whitten of course .

Yes there are names that bubble up to mind, like Frank Wilczec, Brian Greene, Roger Penrose, Frank Close and no doubt many names we hear about achieving major breakthroughs. I was really asking, is there anyone who excels , as indeed , Richard Feynman did, in being not only on top of the subject, he was also able to explain it, in a very down to earth manner, as in his Lectures. So maybe you have two or three names who approach his expertise and explicit style. As he was in America, maybe there are others currently in some of the American Universities ?

As there were scientists like Richard Feynman ( now dead ). Who today is considered to be the Top Authority on Quantum Theory ?

Says in so many words : That Planks Constant as a proportional ratio to frequency in the smallest possible ENERGY QUANTA and if it were not for this, there would be : No individual matter, No individual anything ( thus no maths to deal with number of things and all those mathematicians who came afterwards ) No atomic structure No atomic particles No Photons No electron orbitals No De Broglie Wave No Bhor orbits No ..etc etc No and on and on and on So there you have it :- -Bingo Bedrock - Or at least one or two layers up. Down two layers Who or what put in the original chunk to be split up or quantum- ised ? Who or what set the amount as a Quanta namely Planks Constant h . h = 6.62606957(29) x 10(to the minus 34) or h bar =1.054571726(47) x (10 to the -34) ? Good Question ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnote : Plank said : Energy = h x f ( where E is Energy in Joules , h is planks constant in joule.seconds , f= frequency cycles/sec) From which DeBroglie got wavelength from Einstein E=mc squared , and equation above . and so it went on to Bhor, Pauli, Schroeniger Dirac etc etc

As a previous comment by yourself , you spoke of a vibration or oscillation. Where a point such as an electron , vibrating or it could be described as oscillating about a mean point. If then for reasons of trying to represent this vibration one extended the displacement from the mean point , against time, one could represent this as a sine wave. Be it that this is merely a representation against time it looks more like we imagine a wave. However the electron at this stage would not be transmitting an electro magnetic wave or it would be expending its energy. This is not possible unless the electron is able to go to a different energy band. However if it is vibrating or oscillating as part of its nature, then it obviously has a wave like nature. ( An oscillation or vibration being part of the electrons nature). All that is needed is for this vibration or oscillation being in some way creating an actual angular momentum. If the electron is present at an orbital radius r then a circular force would be present as . . --mv(squared)/r as v in one direction is -v in the opposite direction ( 2 separate v's in opposite directions ), however v(squared) remains positive. (spin can be 2) then angular momentum is present, but no loss of energy, until a change of orbit. ?

This is all a bit sad. Obviously its good that a lot of scientists are carefully rounding out the current theories. But equally, space must be left for "blue sky" research, which includes the 'Dreamers'. After all it appears indemic in our nature as humans to dream, and as I understand it, at night our brain detaches itself from the more mundane logical day to day problems and issues involving the strong neural links , and explores some of the less used, neural pathways. This is no doubt why we dream sometimes crazy dreams! Sir Bernard Lovell of Godrel Bank Radio telescope fame, once said, "If we do not as a society continue to fund Blue Sky research we will bankrupt our future." So I am very much interested in seeing the peeling the skins or layers. Who knows that 2 layers down might lurk a big truth which can unlock some of today's problems or scientific queries. Stephen Hawkins once related how at a conference some Indian lady was supposed to have asked ...." yes Mr Hawkins, but in our culture, the earth and universe is riding on the back of a Turtle ! ". He said , "yes but what is the turtle riding on ? " The Indian lady replied " Well sir of course .. IT's turtles all the way down !" From the science perspective, I would still be interested in the ultimate BED ROCK ? or at least a layer or two There is a certain Professor of Physics, 'in your neck of the woods' whose quantum statements do suggest One Single , if not THE One single Quantum principle that all the rest of the Universe as we know it depends on .....for its existence ....And at face value its not deep maths.. ..........could this be nearing..... .................... .... BED ROCK. .

Does that necessarily have to be so. : for example if somebody in a stroke of genius said (and they just happened to be right say ) that the electron is not a fundamental particle, but is made up of two particles held together by some clever means or other But Only ever would slit apart if resonated exactly at 50 megahertz and accelerated against a similar particle Only at 2 Kiloelectron volts each , then the would pop apart for a microsecond and then recombine. Surely that could be tested very easily. If it came out as true surely a fundamental working would have been tested as correct. I am not for one moment suggesting this as a correct speculation ( unless I just had a moment of miraculous inspiration ) However I was trying to suggest underlying fundamentals should be continued to be sought , and not neglected. Like the Higgs for instance, who I understood Peter Higgs thought about it one day walking across the Moors ! ( I think !) Or have I got hold of, the wrong end of stick ? SORRY I wrote this post before I read QSA's last 3 comments, who is in fact saying similar things

If that is the case, that frightens me. That's really what I always want to know. That puts me at sea without a Paddle ! On the other hand, that would put the mathematical models, up a notch or two. Meaning the maths IS NOT the fundamental level but a very precise operational descriptor. In another way, its what you have been saying , I believe, on many occasions, That : the models and laws are just tools to predict the operation of " whatever" not the actual mechanism or happening itself. I still want to have some insight, however as to what is really going on , down there , up there or wherever. When string theory first became widespread in 1980's , I avidly read up on it, and thought this is the fundamental bedrock. ( In terms of Topological surface , dictating the vibration of ultra minute strings. But it all seems to have gone oblivion. As Regards the QSA Comment and reference sites I have not read it all yet but it sounds like a lot of it is all about 1000's of virtual photons all over the place doing a lot of " Coal Face " activity with a whole new set of laws, and whole new way of going on ?.

Now that is interesting!

EEk, You are coming at me again , That science is all Maths .( as Mr Tegmark has said a couple of times.) I need an Asprin and a good nights' sleep.

Thanks for links , But if Physics does " not explain so much what's really, fundamentally ,going on. " then who does ? QSA Great, ! do it here if you like as we are already in speculations. I perhaps should have asked the question in main threads. However I did think there might be some interesting ideas about. .

So going for the "Rock Face" principle. Here we have some source of Charge ( Say Positive + ) or Magnetic Pole (say North Pole N). We are sitting here in space Just ,off the Positive source or small distance off the North magnetic Pole. A) to a similar Charge or similar magnetic pole at a short distance away. B) to opposite Charge or opposite magnetic pole.at a short distance away What prompts any photons to be released? Do they have a quantum energy, frequency etc and what happens to them when they reach the similar or opposite (charge or pole) And What makes A) the devices to push apart or B) the devices to pull together. Do the photons push, pull or what ?

The following is slightly speculative , so needs to be read in that context : Surely this series of experiments ( Stern-Gerlach) has distinct looks of magnets orientating. In view of the magnetic moment caused by electric charge rotation or spin. Surely this is yet another example of a certain measure of actual spin being present in electrons. Be it that most atoms have an equal amount of magnetic moment. Some do not , which I understand are the magnetic materials. Perhaps the spin is only partial arc, not complete rotation. More a vibration. As has been voiced by your good self SamBridge. The vibration need only be an up and down, or as I am saying a partial Arc vibration. Extended against Time or distance such a vibration becomes a sinusoidal Wave. The reason for partial arc is because another electron is often present in the same orbital but in equal and opposite direction. ( hence the Tuning fork model ). repulsion Negative to negative . If necessary this paragraph PinK can be moved to speculation as a new Thread .( What causes Magnetism in Atoms )

A lot of the activity of fundamental particles relies on degrees of attraction or repulsion by such things as + & - ELECTRIC CHARGE or MAGNETIC attraction or repulsion. At the 'Rock Face' , what is actually going on to cause a going towards , or a going away pressure.? This can include other forces such as GRAVITY. Etc

In Three lines Simple, Words What is your end Goal

Thanks for your comments Swansont, Sambridge, Angel123 and Michael from Athens and any others.. I think we are left with lowering the canary in a cage down the mine ( in case of killer gases). That is .. Before we make positive assumptions about places in the universe dissimilar by too many degrees from our Known environments.

What about Quasars, Voids, and the initial Singularity or Big Bang

Its time to investigate The Angular Momentum of the electron, "spin" that Niels Bohr used to set up the early description of permissable orbits

I think that all that you say is correct, except the last sentence, as quoted above. I am probably in a silent science minority, as I have and hear this and similar statements said very often. I really wonder if most people are saying " the king has beautiful robes on " when he is naked , but because everybody else can see he has no clothes on but dare not disagree with the majority, they repeat " the king has beautiful clothes on ". This is not meant as personal criticism , as I hear this repeated over and over. I am just throwing this comment in here as I wonder if we are not trapping ourselves into a massive mathematical swamp, only to be occupied by mathematicians who are trying to calculate themselves out of the swamp. When what is really needed is an old Door and a Rope I know quantum physics is amazingly different from everyday life. Its taken about 50 Great Renouned Scientists to take it from 1890, if not before to the present day and they were not all mathematicians. All I ask is , give the Ideas, concepts, exploratory models , discussions, reasoning , thinking out of the box, plenty of headroom .

Ok I have sort of followed. Only just...! 1. Which seems to reconcile the notion of universal time "that relativistic physisists don't like" with local time by way of a gradient. That is sort of a dt/DT where t is local time and T is universal time ( or vice versa ) presumably . I like the sound of this 'gradient' idea of time ( is that your idea , and does it act as some form of measurement of entropy and its direction eg + ( plus ) if forward in time increase in entropy - (minus ) if decrease in entropy ' ? negative time ? '. 2. I sort of just about get this one but only just. You might need to go into a little more explanation as to how this fits with "mine" I presume you mean your thesis. Again this gradient of time, I like , as it has connotations of local perceptions of time ? may be.? 3. This one, you really are, going to have to , translate or explain more simply for me. Although I am a physics and maths trained individual, I will still need a bit of a guiding hand through No 3. However, I am getting a nice flavour, so if you would be so kind as to carry on , I would appreciate it. Thanks. Keep taking the Asprin

If you get a stone on the end of a piece of string/Rope say 2 -3 meters long and swing it around ( do not do this unless your nearest person is a long way from you say 20 meters ). as you go on you find the speed of angular movement increases quite dramatically. This is because the energy you input on the first rotation is added to the second rotation and onward ( apart from air friction ) would build up quite considerably. Such is the principle of a particle accelerator. The energy is put in each rotation by electric fields (synchronized) . The particles are steered by magnetic fields, and resistance is minimized by reducing the air. The particles can thus reach very fast approaching the speed of light. ( not quite) If they do another in the opposite direction and then let /switch them to collide. All that energy can go to make new particles. ( eg The Large Hadron Collider )

These scientist up through the early part of the last 130 years have done some amazing research and experimentation around your question of Probability and the Quantum. . Lets see if there are any gems which can inspire you. How about Prince De Broglie and his Wave, Associated with every thing, Neutrino, electron. the earth .

I think one thing is certain . Nearly all things we come across, particularly in the Galaxies move and often spin. Everything is moving. Not all but most celestial objects are spinning, even if they are synchronized with a parent body. So as things are captured they spin. The smaller the radius becomes the faster it spins. Then there are quantum restrictions. Most things in the universe are currently captured thus spinning. What this results in , like magnetic moments, fields etc deserves our closest scrutiny. Its not a casual phenomenon.

Yes I could see that, as its all very similar stuff. But what about the extremes, :- Black holes, quasars, neutron stars, inter galactic space, voids, Big bang etc

Yes, but to remove the spin totally out of spin would surely be a mistake, as I understand it , there still is actual angular momentum there somehow !