The single field theory

[Butch]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Whether time has a beginning or not black holes come and go.

So what was in 'our universe' before this black hole?

And no I'm not discussing any sort of universe, infinite or otherwise.

 

I was discussing the inescapable circularlity of the logic of your proposition.

Something you seem remarkably keen to avoid.

 

I can posit a pot of gold at the bottom of my garden, buried by the faries who live there.

But however hard I dig I just can't seem to find it.

It was always there. They all were. Every one of these particles is the result of black holes in an infinite number of other universes. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

No, I meant the mathematics that you alluded to. Please show in appropriate detail that this produces the expected interference effect.

That will take a bit... I will do so, I am glad you asked, rather than just dismissing the concept.

The math will be the slope of the curve at the given x and the slope of the vertical. Amplitude would be the relative velocity. I will do the math, but I'm guessing you nearly have it by now.

Thank you.

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, Butch said:

Essentially you are discussing an infinite universe as opposed to the big bang....

Who is? Why have you brought this up again? It isn't relevant and only detracts from your idea.

Quote

You know what makes my head spin? Time having a beginning

There is no evidence it does, so I wouldn't worry about it.

25 minutes ago, Butch said:

My opinion is that energy is pouring into our universe from a black hole in another universe producing a particle in this universe.

So every particle has a corresponding black hole? That's a lot of black holes. So there must be even more matter in that other universe. But then the particles in that universe must come from black holes in yet another universe, which must be even bigger. And so on ad infinitum.

Is that really what you mean.

26 minutes ago, Butch said:

The fabric of our universe would have to be expanding at an accelerating rate (else wise the CMB would cook us)..

Hang on ... that's the Big Bang model that you said you didn't accept 

27 minutes ago, Butch said:

I did not say the particle is a wave, I said it exhibits a wave nature as it interacts with the slit.

Another concept that you have borrowed from the results of an existing theory that you disagree with ...

[Butch]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Who is? Why have you brought this up again? It isn't relevant and only detracts from your idea.

There is no evidence it does, so I wouldn't worry about it.

So every particle has a corresponding black hole? That's a lot of black holes. So there must be even more matter in that other universe. But then the particles in that universe must come from black holes in yet another universe, which must be even bigger. And so on ad infinitum.

Is that really what you mean.

Hang on ... that's the Big Bang model that you said you didn't accept 

Another concept that you have borrowed from the results of an existing theory that you disagree with ...

Studiot insisted.

Not that other universe, those other universes.

All interconnected.

We are getting distracted, please people, let's accept some assumptions for now.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Butch

[Butch]

Two particles and the gravitational divot between them.

Look how weak gravity is!

Looking at it now, the function should be -1/x^2.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Butch said:

Do this for me, assume that the "spin" of the particle is x, plot 1\x^2. 

Draw a vertical line at x = 51.

Draw a vertical line at x = -34.

These are the sides of the slit.

Do your dot products for each x intersect.

What slit?

Dot product between what vectors?

7 minutes ago, Butch said:

Two particles and the gravitational divot between them.

Look how weak gravity is!

Looking at it now, the function should be -1/x^2.

What are you plotting here?

[Butch]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

What slit?

Dot product between what vectors?

What are you plotting here?

A slit in the double slit experiment, of course the values I proposed would be a slit smaller than an atom, however even at that distance the difference in spin is nearly imperceptible. I know you do not care for the concept of the spin diminishing by the inverse square, but can you see that it diminishes so rapidly that by our observation all of the spin would appear to be very near the origin(x=0).

The resultant of the slope at given x and the vertical, since both sides woul d have the same velocity, we can ignore amplitude and simply deal with theta.

This is a 2 dimensional plot of two of my particles in close proximity, it demonstrates the distortion of the field.

The function is 1/(x-4)^2 + 1/(x+4)^2

Edited June 7, 2018 by Butch

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, Butch said:

Spin is not angular momentum, it is analogous to angular momentum... Same relationship as acceleration and gravity.

Acceleration and gravity are not analogous. You can have accelerated frames in flat spacetime, just as you can have approximately flat local frames in curved spacetimes. In fact, the geodesic equation is exactly the statement that acceleration vanishes for free-fall test particles.

As for spin, it is a form of intrinsic angular momentum, but it is not a rotation in space (which would be meaningless in this context) we are talking about here, but rather a rotation in spacetime of the wavefunction itself. To be more explicit, spin arises from how the wavefunction that describes the particle must “look like”, in order to behave correctly under Lorentz transformations. For example, an electron is quantum mechanically described by the Dirac equation; the solutions of this equation are objects that transform like the (0,½)x(½,0) representation of the Lorentz group - in other words, they are bispinors, and hence describe particles with spin-½. A scalar field (=boson) on the other hand might arise from the (0,0) representation, giving it a spin-0. And so on. So spin essentially tells you what happens when you rotate a wavefunction in spacetime, which is determined by the type of object the wavefunction is, which is in turn given by Lorentz representation theory.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Acceleration and gravity are not analogous. 

But what about when you are accelerating upwards in a windowless lift at a rate equivalent to gravity... you can't tell the difference?

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Butch said:

A slit in the double slit experiment, of course the values I proposed would be a slit smaller than an atom, however even at that distance the difference in spin is nearly imperceptible. I know you do not care for the concept of the spin diminishing by the inverse square, but can you see that it diminishes so rapidly that by our observation all of the spin would appear to be very near the origin(x=0).

What does the double slit experiment have to do with your model?

It's not that I don't "care" for it, it's that it directly contradicts tons of experimental evidence. You need to present evidence that spin is not quantized and is instead a continuous variable. Good luck with that.

10 hours ago, Butch said:

The resultant of the slope at given x and the vertical, since both sides woul d have the same velocity, we can ignore amplitude and simply deal with theta.

Theta? velocity? Neither of those appear here.

10 hours ago, Butch said:

This is a 2 dimensional plot of two of my particles in close proximity, it demonstrates the distortion of the field.

The function is 1/(x-4)^2 + 1/(x+4)^2

How close? There are no distances on your graph. x is spin, remember?

[Butch]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Acceleration and gravity are not analogous. You can have accelerated frames in flat spacetime, just as you can have approximately flat local frames in curved spacetimes. In fact, the geodesic equation is exactly the statement that acceleration vanishes for free-fall test particles.

As for spin, it is a form of intrinsic angular momentum, but it is not a rotation in space (which would be meaningless in this context) we are talking about here, but rather a rotation in spacetime of the wavefunction itself. To be more explicit, spin arises from how the wavefunction that describes the particle must “look like”, in order to behave correctly under Lorentz transformations. For example, an electron is quantum mechanically described by the Dirac equation; the solutions of this equation are objects that transform like the (0,½)x(½,0) representation of the Lorentz group - in other words, they are bispinors, and hence describe particles with spin-½. A scalar field (=boson) on the other hand might arise from the (0,0) representation, giving it a spin-0. And so on. So spin essentially tells you what happens when you rotate a wavefunction in spacetime, which is determined by the type of object the wavefunction is, which is in turn given by Lorentz representation theory.

I am so delighted to have you taking part in this discussion! I have taken a peek at Lorentz, I admit it is a bit beyond me at present.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What does the double slit experiment have to do with your model?

It's not that I don't "care" for it, it's that it directly contradicts tons of experimental evidence. You need to present evidence that spin is not quantized and is instead a continuous variable. Good luck with that.

Theta? velocity? Neither of those appear here.

How close? There are no distances on your graph. x is spin, remember?

I must correct an error, x is distance. y is spin influence?

Thank you for your patience.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Butch said:

I must correct an error, x is distance. y is spin influence?

It is a bit worrying when even you don't know what the terms in your equation stand for!

What is "spin influence"? And how is it quantified?  

[Butch]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But what about when you are accelerating upwards in a windowless lift at a rate equivalent to gravity... you can't tell the difference?

I used the term analogous, I believe that was taken to mean "the same". Gravity and acceleration are not the same of course, they have like effects.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, Butch said:

I used the term analogous, I believe that was taken to mean "the same". Gravity and acceleration are not the same of course, they have like effects.

I think you are right. You used it correctly.  

Quote

comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of the things compared.

 

[Butch]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is a bit worrying when even you don't know what the terms in your equation stand for!

What is "spin influence"? And how is it quantified?  

I use the term influence to indicate the field is affected by the spin of the particle, I need to give some thought to the quantum manifestation of spin.

[Butch]

Hmm... Schrödinger's cat, the consequence of quanta is that until interaction there is nothing...

Truly metaphysical.

Comments?

Edited June 8, 2018 by Butch

[Silvestru]

46 minutes ago, Butch said:

Hmm... Schrödinger's cat, the consequence of quanta is that until interaction there is nothing...

Truly metaphysical.

Comments?

No comments. Just disappointment. You would sit at the table with Newton, Faraday, and Einstein and ask them which sandwich is their favourite and why.

There was a chance to turn this thread into something from which me or you could learn...

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

I use the term influence to indicate the field is affected by the spin of the particle, I need to give some thought to the quantum manifestation of spin.

How about some thought on how you get from your idea to something you can measure, even if it's only in principle?

 

[Butch]

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

No comments. Just disappointment. You would sit at the table with Newton, Faraday, and Einstein and ask them which sandwich is their favourite and why.

There was a chance to turn this thread into something from which me or you could learn...

 

I have read explanations of Schrödinger's cat many times... Just really never completely understood, now I get it.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How about some thought on how you get from your idea to something you can measure, even if it's only in principle?

 

The double slit should provide measurement. The change that occurs when the slits are spaced differently demonstrates the slope of the curve, that should provide a reference.

Let me correct that, changing the width of the slit should provide a reference.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Butch

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, Butch said:

 The double slit should provide measurement. The change that occurs when the slits are spaced differently demonstrates the slope of the curve, that should provide a reference.

Let me correct that, changing the width of the slit should provide a reference.

I'm asking about you predicting the results with your model. The results are independent of spin (i.e. we've done this with electrons, photons, neutrons and atoms)

[Butch]

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

I'm asking about you predicting the results with your model. The results are independent of spin (i.e. we've done this with electrons, photons, neutrons and atoms)

I will need to examine the double slit experiments, specifically change in wave nature with changes in width and spacing of the slits... Perhaps you can provide some references?

I do see a problem with obtaining accuracy, the slits would have to be very tiny, on the order of nano or pico meters...

Edited June 8, 2018 by Butch

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Butch said:

I will need to examine the double slit experiments, specifically change in wave nature with changes in width and spacing of the slits... Perhaps you can provide some references?

You'll never 'get it' until you start doing the maths. Verbalising will only get you up to a point. That's when I tell myself that's as far as I can go without doing it, otherwise my mind would be thinking and conceiving ideas that are way off the mark. Right now you are talking about intrinsically mathematical ideas without doing maths.

[Butch]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You'll never 'get it' until you start doing the maths. Verbalising will only get you up to a point. That's when I tell myself that's as far as I can go without doing it, otherwise my mind would be thinking and conceiving ideas that are way off the mark. Right now you are talking about intrinsically mathematical ideas without doing maths.

You are quite correct! My time is stretched. Currently I do not have with me all of the resources(mainly pad and pencil) to do the math... I will have some time perhaps this evening. 

How small can a slit be made for a double slit experiment with electrons?

Edited June 8, 2018 by Butch

[Markus Hanke]

21 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But what about when you are accelerating upwards in a windowless lift at a rate equivalent to gravity... you can't tell the difference?

Actually, you can, at least in principle. The equivalence principle tells us that uniform acceleration is locally equivalent to a uniform gravitational field - this is just the elevator example you brought. However, gravity due to sources of energy-momentum - such as planets, stars, etc etc - is not uniform, but tidal. Hence, if you are under the apparent influence of gravity, you can look for tidal effects to see whether this is gravity due to a source of energy-momentum, or just acceleration. 

Of course, if your reference frame is small enough, it will be difficult to detect the difference, so the equivalence principle always holds locally in a small enough patch of spacetime.

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Actually, you can, at least in principle. The equivalence principle tells us that uniform acceleration is locally equivalent to a uniform gravitational field - this is just the elevator example you brought. However, gravity due to sources of energy-momentum - such as planets, stars, etc etc - is not uniform, but tidal. Hence, if you are under the apparent influence of gravity, you can look for tidal effects to see whether this is gravity due to a source of energy-momentum, or just acceleration. 

Of course, if your reference frame is small enough, it will be difficult to detect the difference, so the equivalence principle always holds locally in a small enough patch of spacetime.

OK. Cheers.

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

if your reference frame is small enough

 

Small frames.

Interesting thought about frames - care to expand a bit?

 

How about elastic (as in stretchy) frames?

Edited June 9, 2018 by studiot