a model of quantum gravity

[Edgard Neuman]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Whoever claimed I invented the theory involving particle production ? Don't confuse someone describing mainstream physics as the inventor.

You really need to study mainstream physics would you like a few YouTube videos as the math isn't something you understand ?

If you prefer I can give you the formulas under QFT for particle number densities to energy density relations and give you the mean lifetime formula for particles.

Unlike you I can provide the math under mainstream physics for every statement I ever make in any post I ever do on any forum

 

No I mean you (people).. physicists, ok
And now condescending. I'm sorry, you didn't own a lot of my respect (Ok if you really own the maths, I could learn that in several years of intensive work. BUT WHY? you obvioulsy don't understand the full meaning of the equation you use).. 
Although you seem to doubt it, WHAT I SEE IS PERFECTLY CLEAR IN MY MIND, and I know the limits (and you don't bring contradiction).. so I don't even need to learn more. My model involve classical balls, and yet, i can see how to get the results of your physics (ok if I had to consider relativity, that would be trickyer, but would change the nature of it)

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

Oh really my job involves exercising testing and teaching those mathematics.

[MigL]

You are incorrect about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
It is a direct result of the wave nature of particles, and yes it can also apply to composite particles of any size, but increasing size makes the effect negligible.
Without this wave nature, as in the case you describe, there is no HUP.

And what about observational evidence of these real particles filling the void ?????

[Edgard Neuman]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Oh really my job involves exercising testing and teaching those mathematics.

and so ? My life involve thinking about these thing constantly without math and respect logic, because nobody seems to be able to seriously prove my wrong, eventhough I really understand and doubt about everything you say. 
Everybody has his specialities.

[Mordred]

So you preach to me that I don't understand the mathematics and neither does other physicists when you don't even know how the equations are derived ?

[MigL]

I think the rules you signed up for, require you to answer questions posed to you ( 4 times now, I believe ).
If you're not going to answer questions regarding your conjecture, the mods might as well shut it down.

[Mordred]

Considering one of those rules also include the proper rigor in terms of a predictive and testable model which requires the math under physics I concur.

There is a difference between metaphysics and physics. Metaphysics is how to interpret a model etc. It isn't a model methodology

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

You are incorrect about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
It is a direct result of the wave nature of particles, and yes it can also apply to composite particles of any size, but increasing size makes the effect negligible.

I don't think so. SORRY. Is this MATH or you opinion about why the uncertainty principle exist ? Can you prove it ? DEFINE YOU MODEL CLEARLY.
I can also be explain by the quantity of information you can get from a system. Eventhough, It could also be a simple statistical effect of THE NOISE created by the void particle in my model. THINK REALLY. >>REALLY<<. ABOUT IT.  I WANT A TRUE CONTRADICTION HERE. GO AHEAD, IT'S YOUR CHANCE ! 
 

Quote

Without this wave nature, as in the case you describe, there is no HUP.

So please consider a classical interaction (a snooker interaction if you will). AND PLEASE CONSIDER THE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED TO A BALL FROM AN OTHER. REALLY DO IT. PLEASE. USE MATH. I'M WAITING.

Quote

And what about observational evidence of these real particles filling the void ?????

I ALREADY answer to that NUmerous time : THEY ARE THE  EM FIELD (the force), the produce the noise (casimir and unruh)... how many time do I have to answer to THE SAME QUESTION ??? You don't even read my answers.. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think the rules you signed up for, require you to answer questions posed to you ( 4 times now, I believe ).
If you're not going to answer questions regarding your conjecture, the mods might as well shut it down.

You would then never know if I'm right, but that don't seem to bother you.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

Do a Fourier transform on a wavefunction then tell us the uncertainty doesn't exist.

[Edgard Neuman]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Do a Fourier transform on a wavefunction then tell us the uncertainty doesn't exist.

My model doesn't include waves and that's not what I ask. Can you or not derive the uncertainty principle from interactions. Because If you can, I don't need fourier transform prooves. (I've seen a video about your argument from 3blue1brown a while ago)
By the way. OF COURSE A WAVE HAVE NO DEFINED POSITION. Thanks for the info. (the opposite would be a punctual wave.. good luck with that)

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Art Man]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy. Hence it doesn't exist in our universe as the HUP applies via zero point energy. The Higgs field exists at 246 GeV/m^3. It is not applicable to describe an EM field nor a gravitational field.

Well then, how can Edgard's "void" be valid if it is packed densly with matter and anti-matter particles? If a "void" has something in it then it isn't a void anymore, it's a "space".

[Edgard Neuman]

2 minutes ago, Art Man said:

Well then, how can Edgard's "void" be valid if it is packed densly with matter and anti-matter particles? If a "void" has something in it then it isn't a void anymore, it's a "space".

If the void is filled with N electron and N positron its charge is "0". If the photons are isotropically distributed, their effect on charges are "0". 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

2 minutes ago, Art Man said:

Well then, how can Edgard's "void" be valid if it is packed densly with matter and anti-matter particles? If a "void" has something in it then it isn't a void anymore, it's a "space".

Correct but better to use the terms vacuum or field as space is simply volume ie the three spatial components of spacetime 4d with time as the fourth independent variable (dimension or degree of freedom)

Your incorrect definition of a void is just that Edgard.

[Edgard Neuman]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Correct but better to use the terms vacuum or field as space is simply volume ie the three spatial components of spacetime 4d with time as the fourth independent variable (dimension or degree of freedom)

I can use the term "vacuum".. if it's less confusing

[Mordred]

3 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

If the void is filled with N electron and N positron its charge is "0". If the photons are isotropically distributed, their effect on charges are "0". 

You can have field energy densities that has nothing to do with charge. For example temperature

Just now, Edgard Neuman said:

I can use the term "vacuum".. if it's less confusing

Please do it would save alot of headaches with other readers.

[MigL]

Since you don't use math...

A sine wave of wavelength L, implies that the momentum P=h/L is known exactly, but the sine wave is infinitely long, implying the particle could be anywhere.
A wave packet can localize the position, but needs to be built up of waves of varying wavelengths to produce the interference resulting in a packet.
So, localizing position makes momentum more indeterminate, while determining momentum makes position indeterminate.

In the case of a classical billiard ball it is trivial to measure both its position and speed to a great deal of accuracy. Remember, we put people on the moon. That would be extremely difficult to do if we couldn't verify their position and speed accurately.

And I didn't ask what the observational evidence could be due to.
I asked why there isn't any.

[Edgard Neuman]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You can have field energy densities that has nothing to do with charge. For example temperature

Temperature is carried by mass. (Temperature is the statistical measurement of small scale anisotropic kinetic energy of real particles. .. you seems to think a vaccuum can have a temperature.. nope)
Usually I restrain my model to "electron photon positron" (for simplicity)..
but of course the simple rest-mass is important also... the vacuum need to have no other effects that what we observe.. matter antimatter would need have no effect, or perfectly anitropics effects.. yep that deserve some thinking

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Since you don't use math...

A sine wave of wavelength L, implies that the momentum P=h/L is known exactly, but the sine wave is infinitely long, implying the particle could be anywhere.
A wave packet can localize the position, but needs to be built up of waves of varying wavelengths to produce the interference resulting in a packet.
So, localizing position makes momentum more indeterminate, while determining momentum makes position indeterminate.

In the case of a classical billiard ball it is trivial to measure both its position and speed to a great deal of accuracy. Remember, we put people on the moon. That would be extremely difficult to do if we couldn't verify their position and speed accurately.

And I didn't ask what the observational evidence could be due to.
I asked why there isn't any.

"In the case of a classical billiard ball it is trivial to measure both its position and speed to a great deal of accuracy. "
For a single classical particle. How do you do that? I'm interested ! 
Imagine a interaction of a single photon and a single electron and nothing else (you know the rules of conservation of momentum and kinetic energy). You get one on them in your detector (and how do you measure the position of this incoming one? I'm curious also)
If I put you blind folded, the hand linked behind your back in a empty room with a helium balloon, and you can only feel the energy of the impact. Can you tell where the balloon is at all time ? I'd be curious to know how ? Sixth sense ? 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[MigL]

You mean they gave Penzias and Wilson a Nobel prize for finding the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background ( 2.7 deg ) and it was undeserved ?

[Mordred]

What about a field of particles that has no charge ? Every particle contributes to temperature even charge neutral particles such as neutrinos 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[MigL]

Yes, you can measure the position where it struck you, and the momentum it transferred to you.
No problem.

You can't do that with a quantum particle.

I suggest you do a quick look-up of the HUP on Wiki as you seem a little confused.

Edited August 28, 2019 by MigL

[Mordred]

Actually I can post an Arxiv article detailing the nature of Fourier transforms and the HUP but it's heavily math intensive.

Good reply earlier Migl +1

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

You mean they gave Penzias and Wilson a Nobel prize for finding the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background ( 2.7 deg ) and it was undeserved ?

I see where you're going there. When you get the photon, you use a detector right ? The detector if made of something that have the right frequency to react with the photon.. when two atoms exchange a photon of light. What happen ? The energy carried by the photon (In my model, I suppose it's not it's frequency, but of course a value) is the right one to change the state of a atom. If it's not the right one, it goes through. It become real, when the new state is stable. (that's why energy is quantified) other wise the photon is not used and go on. Or it is indeed received by the electron but it stay on its same orbit and it's new momentum is transmitted to the core of the atoms also (via EM constant interactions with it) and so the whole atom has now acquired a little random speed (in other word, the photon has been converted into thermal  energy.. it's the invert of black body radiation). I think the photon are different because of the value of energy.. that also need more thinking. (indeed, you just need to replace the current feynman diagram and suppose the virtual photons are real).. 

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Actually I can post an Arxiv article detailing the nature of Fourier transforms and the HUP but it's heavily math intensive.

Good reply earlier Migl +1

The 3blue1brown video is perfectly clear for my poor brain... but as I said, I don't believe in this explanation.. You can prove something imply something, but that don't work the other way around. If you prove that wave function imply uncertainty, you did not prove uncertainty imply wave function, nor something else doesn't also explain uncertainty.. (I insist think about the logic of what I say, instead of taking me for a fool)

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

Oh boy how to describe particle scatterings without waveforms or constructive destructive interference. In the the quantum regime lol don't think that's possible

10 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

 

The 3blu1brown video is perfectly clear for my poor brain... but as I said, I don't believe in this explanation.. You can prove something imply something, but that don't work the other way around. If you prove that wave function imply uncertainty, you did not prove uncertainty imply wave function, nor something else doesn't also explain uncertainty.. (I insist think about the logic of what I say, instead of taking me for a fool)

Here if you don't to believe me read

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3135&ved=2ahUKEwiDjveuxKTkAhWeJzQIHSkqCjIQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw05EY_qwsM-dbttcYZaZIPs

It's the Arxiv I mentioned.

10 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Oh boy how to describe particle scatterings without waveforms or constructive destructive interference. In the the quantum regime lol don't think that's possible

HUM That's actually easy I've  done it here.. several explanation of that.  (but at last you really honestly ask the question ?)
If you have both particle of opposite effect in your vacuum.. any particle you add would interact with any of them and all its charges (I call electric charge, momentum etc).. are actually scattered between all those particles. (It's very easy to simulate on a computer : i've done it, also I wasn't sure about the rules for interaction between photons)
Destructive interference.. As I said, once the charge are scattered, they propagate in all this via interactions : positron electron=> photons... photons => positron eletrons.. so yeah, there is a wave here. (If the void is a neutral medium, density of electron or positron acn statistically oscillate easily : and those density of both could interfere as any wave would) 

In fact, when light travel into air, for instance.. how can it go slower ? (you talk about permittivity of EM fields, but at this scale, you really have van der valls field of air molecules)..It go slower because the momentum spends a fraction of its time into electrons.. (I bet your equations didn't teach you that)... 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

Not under the quantum description of a particle you haven't.

Ever heard of the standing DeBroglie wavelength?

You did it thinking a particle is some corpuscular ball QM taught us otherwise google waveparticle duality.

Ever hear the expression a particle is a field excitation ?

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred