Macro or micro, where to begin?

[Butch]

I have considered ways to explain my methodology and goal in this topic... without success, so, I will just begin and I believe it will become evident. 

Space is composed of an infinite set of points.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Butch said:

Space is composed of an infinite set of points.

Is that a countable infinity or uncountable infinity (which is infinitely larger)?

[Butch]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Is that a countable infinity or uncountable infinity (which is infinitely larger)?

I am looking for a convergence of opinion here... My opinion is uncountable, what is your opinion?

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Butch said:

My opinion is uncountable, what is your opinion?

In other words, a continuum. That is certainly consistent with all the current evidence.

[Butch]

Every point in space has relative properties.

[Sensei]

Quote

Macro or micro, where to begin?

Going from macro, would be like learning programming without explanation of what is bit, bytes, how they're added/subtracted/multiplied/divided, without description of binary/hexadecimal/decimal numerical systems, how they are put in larger structures, how they are put in OOP objects..

Micro in IT is bit, slightly higher level of micro is byte.

ps. You didn't even mention in which area of science, you wanted to speculate..

 

[Butch]

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Going from macro, would be like learning programming without explanation of what is bit, bytes, how they're added/subtracted/multiplied/divided, without description of binary/hexadecimal/decimal numerical systems, how they are put in larger structures, how they are put in OOP objects..

Micro in IT is bit, slightly higher level of micro is byte.

ps. You didn't even mention in which area of science, you wanted to speculate..

 

Well said! 

Physics...

[studiot]

Hi Butch, here is a quote to get your teeth into

 

Quote

What is often poorly, if ever explained/defined is what constitutes a measurement. A measurement consists of the interaction of a quantum system with a macroscopic system which yields information. about the quantum system.

 

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Physics...

In quantum physics there are quantum particles. To distinguish one quantum particle from another there are set of quantum properties, quantum numbers. They're kinda like bits in IT... e.g. -1 or +1... -2/3... -1/3... 0... +1/3... + 2/3... (after multiplying them by 3 ("normalization"), we would not have to bother anymore about dividing and have e.g. -3.. -2... -1... 0... +1... +2... +3)

Some speculate that properties are not intrinsic, but change with regards to some thing (e.g. time?)... we had multiple such persons on this forum in the past (they have been unfortunately banned from this forum by moderators, as they could not provide any real evidence to support their theory, and they were pissed off because of nobody wanted to hear their revolutionary theory.. I was trying to teach them a bit of quantum physics, giving references)

Even Dirac (scientist who predicted antimatter), Nobel prize winner, speculated that antiparticle is kinda like normal particle traveling back in time.

(I am not saying, I am supporting this view, or not supporting this view)

 

If you place billions of billions of particles in one object.. it'll be macroscopic object.. you will have to sum the all their properties of this object together.. and receive macroscopic result.. e.g. 1 kg of e.g. water is sum of the all water molecules masses added together.

Sometimes macroscopic object reveals quantum properties, if they sum up, instead of canceling each other. e.g. quantity of electrons don't match quantity of protons.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Sensei

[koti]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

Space is composed of an infinite set of points.

We are not exactly sure whether space is quantized but implications of Relativity are that planck length is the smallest possible size beyond which a concept of a point becomes fuzzy. Untill we have an alternate model it would look like space is composed of a finite set of points - if space if finite that is. If space is dimentionally infinite it would seem that a statement of infinite amount of points contributing to creating an infinite space is a trivial one. I’d go with „We don’t know”

[Butch]

15 hours ago, studiot said:

Hi Butch, here is a quote to get your teeth into

 

 

Just about where we are, the property that first leaps to mind is position... A+B=C relative!

15 hours ago, Sensei said:

In quantum physics there are quantum particles. To distinguish one quantum particle from another there are set of quantum properties, quantum numbers. They're kinda like bits in IT... e.g. -1 or +1... -2/3... -1/3... 0... +1/3... + 2/3... (after multiplying them by 3 ("normalization"), we would not have to bother anymore about dividing and have e.g. -3.. -2... -1... 0... +1... +2... +3)

Some speculate that properties are not intrinsic, but change with regards to some thing (e.g. time?)... we had multiple such persons on this forum in the past (they have been unfortunately banned from this forum by moderators, as they could not provide any real evidence to support their theory, and they were pissed off because of nobody wanted to hear their revolutionary theory.. I was trying to teach them a bit of quantum physics, giving references)

Even Dirac (scientist who predicted antimatter), Nobel prize winner, speculated that antiparticle is kinda like normal particle traveling back in time.

(I am not saying, I am supporting this view, or not supporting this view)

 

If you place billions of billions of particles in one object.. it'll be macroscopic object.. you will have to sum the all their properties of this object together.. and receive macroscopic result.. e.g. 1 kg of e.g. water is sum of the all water molecules masses added together.

Sometimes macroscopic object reveals quantum properties, if they sum up, instead of canceling each other. e.g. quantity of electrons don't match quantity of protons.

We are not here yet, we have barely moved from infinitesimal to relative.

Classical physics and  certainly QM has been investigated from the direction of the macro to the micro... I think the little consensus that we have in this topic is that it is wise to proceed in the opposite direction, if we are able. I believe points in space is as micro as we need go for now. There is micro beyond that, however to reach that we should have to cross a threshold that takes us beyond the confines of this universe and could lead to circular reference.

14 hours ago, koti said:

We are not exactly sure whether space is quantized but implications of Relativity are that planck length is the smallest possible size beyond which a concept of a point becomes fuzzy. Untill we have an alternate model it would look like space is composed of a finite set of points - if space if finite that is. If space is dimentionally infinite it would seem that a statement of infinite amount of points contributing to creating an infinite space is a trivial one. I’d go with „We don’t know”

I would agree, "We don't know", however infinite or finite are only 2 possibilities... I suggest we start with the assumption of infinite... If it is wrong we can start again, at least we have a starting point that isn't in the middle of everything!

Is the direction of this discussion becoming apparent?

[Butch]

Moving on, 

Position is one property, a more interesting property is charge, does every point in space have a relative charge? I say yes, space is full of electric fields.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Butch said:

Moving on, 

Position is one property

Position isn't really a property. It is relative to what you measure from. Different coordinate systems and different frames of reference will not agree on position or even relative position.

Quote

, a more interesting property is charge, does every point in space have a relative charge? I say yes, space is full of electric fields.

What evidence do you have that every point in space has charge? (A field is not a charge.)

[Butch]

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

Position isn't really a property. It is relative to what you measure from. Different coordinate systems and different frames of reference will not agree on position or even relative position.

Our frame of reference is a single point, as we choose a single point in space, every other point becomes relative.

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

What evidence do you have that every point in space has charge? (A field is not a charge.)

Perhaps potential or "strength of influence" is a better term than charge, the strength of a field diminishes by the inverse square. A single point in a field would have a relative potential, not just in relation to the source charge but to every point in space. I may be getting a bit lost in terminology here, please feel free to correct me, I know you are a paragon of terminology.

If there were a single electric field, and we chose 2 points within that field the field strength at point (a) would have a magnitude equivalent to the square of the distance from the source charge, point (b) would have a magnitude likewise. Point (a) would have a field strength relative to point (b). Of course in reality the field strength would be the result of many interacting fields.

I suppose the correct terminology would be relative field density, even a point at the field source would not have charge, but only field density at maximum amplitude.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, Butch said:

Our frame of reference is a single point

A frame of reference is more than a point, it is a coordinate system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

So positions in space are relative to that, not properties of the space itself.

43 minutes ago, Butch said:

Perhaps potential or "strength of influence" is a better term than charge

I think the word you are looking for is "field"

You seem tone trying to re-invent some basic concepts, rather than learn about them first.

[Butch]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

A frame of reference is more than a point, it is a coordinate system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

So positions in space are relative to that, not properties of the space itself.

Got that, I am saying simply that every point in space has relationships to every other point, certainly they are defined by our frame of reference.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

You seem tone trying to re-invent some basic concepts, rpather than learn about them first.

I am trying to explore from the micro to the macro rather than macro to micro... It seems that in many ways we are left with our feet dangling. Is a single point the absolute base? No... We can get into alternate dimensions and multiverse and such. The properties of single points I think is the best place to start to explore the physics of our universe.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think the word you are looking for is "field"

Don't you think field density would be better?

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Butch said:

Don't you think field density would be better?

The usual term is field strength or intensity.

There is field flux density, which is a related concept.

You really ought to take a course, or something.

[Butch]

51 minutes ago, Strange said:

The usual term is field strength or intensity.

There is field flux density, which is a related concept.

You really ought to take a course, or something.

You are correct of course, and I have taken courses. My recent brain soaking in QM has been taxing, I have digested quite a lot in 2 or 3 months.

Re-stating:

Every point in space has a flux density relative to every other point in space.

New statement.

The flux density of any point is the resultant of an infinite(countable?) number of fields.

Strange, I know you are going to jump on the frame of reference, however that is only important to an observer making a measurement... We are not measuring yet. Please bear with me while I take baby steps.

 

Charge is simply the origin of a field.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Butch

[Butch]

As you stated in another topic Strange, perhaps the field is always there, as Swansont stated in the same topic the point charge could be the origin or the terminus of the field...

Eureka! 

A level field represents no charge, however when we tilt the field we get a hyperbolic perturbation... We could say that a positive charge broadcasts such a perturbation that travels to infinity radially. A negative charge having a perturbation that travels from infinity to the terminus at the point.

Follow me so far? I hope so because I see some rocks ahead.

Light speed, curved space etc.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Butch said:

A level field represents no charge, however when we tilt the field we get a hyperbolic perturbation...

Hyperbolic? Where did that come from?

[Butch]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Hyperbolic? Where did that come from?

Inverse square. With limits of infinity, a right angle.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Butch

[MigL]

Elaborating on what Strange said, there are different kinds of measurements. And these are reflected in the types of fields we have.

A 'gauge' measurement/field like electromagnetic potential is not 'absolute', I.E. it has no zero point.
If you are a bird sitting on a 1000 Volt line, and you measure the next line over at 1010 Volts, you will only measure 10 Volts and not get shocked if you touch it.