Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Mordred said: Not under the quantum description of a particle you haven't. Can you please make the intellectual effort OF PICTURING what I'm talking about ? That will save me so much time ! Aren't you able of picturing those particle evolving and their statistical properties in your mind ?? It's like you turn in round not understanding it. If the particle is scattered between all the others : can you tell where it is ? how would you describe where the blue ball you added is in a pool of thousand of blue balls absolutely identical ? It's like you talk about math, but you never understood statistics and the effect of interchangeability of particle. Now if a red ball is the opposite, can the probability oscillate ? Picture it in your mind. Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) Why should I when it's not a standard model you haven't a single formula that can be tested to ensure its validity ? I can quantantee you cannot get the results of the two slit experiments without the wave nature of a particle. Nor can you explain a Bose/Fermi condensate state without using DeBroglie wavelengths. Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 Just now, Mordred said: Why should I when it's not a standard model you haven't a single formula that can be tested to ensure its validity ? I can quantantee you cannot get the results of the two slit experiments without the wave nature of a particle. So why do you answer if you don't understand my answers ? That's scary ! Go do something else ! I never invited you.
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) You invited a discussion on a forum that includes all members. Keep that in mind. Can you explain the two slit experiment with a billiard balls view only ? Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Mordred said: I can quantantee you cannot get the results of the two slit experiments without the wave nature of a particle. But you can't prove it and you didn't really did. I can guarantee I can have the results of the two slit experiments without the wave. Take a giant snooker pool, fill it with a huge amount of balls. Now put some sort of ball that annihilate (the same huge amount) the precedente one into two neutral ones, that when they interact recreate the precedents... (put your slits and the screen) This giant mess is a constant rumble of interactions.. (the number of balls has to be enormous I agree, if the noise (similar to brownian noise) is visible at the planck scale) NOW Measure the average of momentum and charge of this pool when it's at equilibrium; You get zero (because the sum of all the vectors are zero, and the charge is zero).. with some local variation at small scale but they cancel out at bigger scale.. Now throw a unique new ball into this pool from the emitter point, and measure the average speed of everything as all incredible number of interaction cascade in the pool.. and still measure the average momentum of portions of space, as you could put a detector in it that would remove one ball.. WHAT DO YOU GET ? Are you SURE there are no wave ? Something, at least, that would somehow look like a sound wave but with charges and photons ? That's all I've been trying to explain : this image works.. Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) So how do you get two hits onto the detection screen when you send only one particle. This experiment has been done using electron microscope transmitters and narrowing the frequency down to remove fringes and reducing the quanta to a single photon. Why does the slit size change the interference patterns dependent on the beam frequency ? Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Mordred said: So how do you get two hits onto the detection screen when you send only one particle. You have ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PARTICLE EVERYWHERE IN THE POOL. Even in the real word, The screen is constantly shaked by a enormous amount of particles from air.. the screen is shaking because of thermic energy, electron of atom are repulsing each other, photon are flying everywhere (that only the real part of it)... all the sound from around the earth are shaking the lab.. Cosmic rays, neutrino from the sun are everywhere. You don't get a image because ON average, the whole laboratory is globally stable, and the whole thing is neutral, the photon have not the right energy to become lastly part of the screen. And all that is not even part of my image of pool yet. I think I know what you miss. The law of big numbers. Everything (not even in my model) is only stable because effects of local event stastically cancels each other in the long run. You feel the pressure of the air ? But you're skin is bombarded by air molecule, right ? Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 Ah yes this mysterious pool you agree particles contribute to temperature right ?
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Mordred said: Why does the slit size change the interference patterns dependent on the beam frequency ? As long as a wave propagate (A wave in classical particle distribution remember).. it behaves like any other wave.. (it fits your model of course) 6 minutes ago, Mordred said: Ah yes this mysterious pool you agree particles contribute to temperature right ? I think you didn't read my responses (I edit often sorry) ! Quote I can quantantee you cannot get the results of the two slit experiments without the wave nature of a particle. But you can't prove it and you didn't really did. I can guarantee I can have the results of the two slit experiments without the wave. Take a giant snooker pool, fill it with a huge amount of balls. Now put some sort of ball that annihilate (the same huge amount) the precedente one into two neutral ones, that when they interact recreate the precedents... (put your slits and the screen) This giant mess is a constant rumble of interactions.. (the number of balls has to be enormous I agree, if the noise (similar to brownian noise) is visible at the planck scale)NOW Measure the average of momentum and charge of this pool when it's at equilibrium; You get zero (because the sum of all the vectors are zero, and the charge is zero).. with some local variation at small scale but they cancel out at bigger scale.. Now throw a unique new ball into this pool from the emitter point, and measure the average speed of everything as all incredible number of interaction cascade in the pool.. and still measure the average momentum of portions of space, as you could put a detector in it that would remove one ball..WHAT DO YOU GET ? Are you SURE there are no wave ? Something, at least, that would somehow look like a sound wave but with charges and photons ? That's all I've been trying to explain : this image works.. 6 minutes ago, Mordred said: Ah yes this mysterious pool you agree particles contribute to temperature right ? In one comment, I explained what temperature is. Temperature is the measure of isotropic kinetic energy of matter (mass). You don't seem to know that. Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) Yes precisely the particles themself has a wavefunction the Compton wavelength and the DeBroglie wavelength. The former for bosons such as the photon the latter for fermions. This is part of wave particle duality. Your model specified never ever apply a frequency. You were very clear about that throughout your thread but in the same breath claim the mathematics is the same as the mainstream views. Which it cannot be because the mainstream view accepts waveparticle duality. This is a contradiction to your premise. By the way I did have a student try the experiment in a vacuum as opposed to open air. The results don't change under density change. The number density of particles contribute to the temperature so how does your vacuum not contribute to temperature ? 2 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said: In one comment, I explained what temperature is. Temperature is the measure of isotropic kinetic energy of matter (mass). You don't seem to know that. Oh trust me I know more about how particles contribute to temperature than you do. You can calculate the number density of each particle species of a blackbody temperature via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics.. I was asking you because I want you to explain how your model accounts for this factor. At 2.7 k the blackbody temperature correlates to roughly 5 protons per cubic metre. You can run the numbers for photons but the number density is quite low. Though significantly higher than protons. I still want to know how you distinquish your model vacuum from the SM model. Without changing the temperature. Before you state antiparticles those statistics account for those as well the degrees of freedom for photons is S=2 in terms of the Bose Einstein statistics as a result. Please note the difference in interference patterns if light consisted of particles vs if light consisted of waves. You still haven't answered why the slit size matters... http://cs-exhibitions.uni-klu.ac.at/index.php?id=254 Quote It was impossible to explain, how one single photon could interact with itself using the laws of classic physics and so the ‘Quantum Theory’ was born self interference has been tested well beyond the Young experiment. here is the two slit with the interference pattern mathematics via Hyugens Principle http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/interference.pdf it details interference and diffraction something that doesn't involve a corpuscular theory of light. you can read up on to different tests on this link where it shows that diffraction and interference are described by waves while the photoelectric effect by the particle view. It then details the Complementary Principle. https://web.phys.ksu.edu/fascination/Chapter17.pdf I am not aware of any classical explanation that can cover quantum tunnelling all explanations I have ever come across involve require the wave nature of a particle. Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mordred said: Yes precisely the particles themself has a wavefunction the Compton wavelength and the DeBroglie wavelength. The former for bosons such as the photon the latter for fermions. This is part of wave particle duality. Your model specified never ever apply a frequency. You were very clear about that throughout your thread but in the same breath claim the mathematics is the same as the mainstream views. Which it cannot be because the mainstream view accepts waveparticle duality. You said that I cannot create a double slit experiment without wavelenght. I explained to you a a wave behavior can emerge from a classical particle system where some particle cancel the other one. So I don't trust you on that. You will have to show me math Quote This is a contradiction to your premise. By the way I did have a student try the experiment in a vacuum as opposed to open air. The results don't change under density change. You did not understand that at some point I was talking about the fact that light travel slowly in air (that a difference I didn't invent. Have you heard about diffraction?). Just to make you realize than LIGHT interact with everything WHILE it travels. IT CHANGE STATE. The photon that HIT your screen IS ALREADY NOT the photon you emitted, your WAVE IS ALREADY a statistical result of a complex set of interactions. So interacting with the vacuum in my model is just a version of that. But you did not really read, as usual. Quote The number density of particles contribute to the temperature so how does your vacuum not contribute to temperature ? Oh trust me I know more about how particles contribute to temperature than you do. You can calculate the number density of each particle species of a blackbody temperature via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics.. I was asking you because I want you to explain how your model accounts for this factor. At 2.7 k the blackbody temperature correlates to roughly 5 protons per cubic metre. You can run the numbers for photons but the number density is quite low. Though significantly higher than protons. Now that's a good question. You need to realise that in my model, the density is so high that the noise is shown at planck scale (obviously if the noise replace quantum foam) So maybe, that's just at much higher energy. High enough that this particles don't move anything.. You measure real temperature caused by real particles. The particle of the vaccuum are just like the virtual particles in yours : their effect cancel out. In your model : how do you account for the effect of virtual particle from the vacuum ? That's your answer. Quote I still want to know how you distinquish your model vacuum from the SM model. Without changing the temperature. There is a measurable field : the density of the vacuum. Quote Before you state antiparticles those statistics account for those as well the degrees of freedom for photons is S=2 in terms of the Bose Einstein statistics as a result. Please note the difference in interference patterns if light consisted of particles vs if light consisted of waves. You still haven't answered why the slit size matters... http://cs-exhibitions.uni-klu.ac.at/index.php?id=254 If the is two kind of particle in this vacuum that cancels out each other : WAVEs can emerges from their classical behavior. PLEASE NOTE THAT and check it mathematically if you doubt. Wave interferes with the slit the same ways yours do. Quote self interference has been tested well beyond the Young experiment. I said FROM THE START, that my model should FIT the Slit experiments. THANKS FOR READING. Quote here is the two slit with the interference pattern mathematics via Hyugens Principle http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/interference.pdf it details interference and diffraction something that doesn't involve a corpuscular theory of light. you can read up on to different tests on this link where it shows that diffraction and interference are described by waves while the photoelectric effect by the particle view. It then details the Complementary Principle. https://web.phys.ksu.edu/fascination/Chapter17.pdf You fail to understand that waves can emerge from a classical set of object for some reasons. You know sound can be describe using regular newtonian mechanic of molecules, right ? ?(yes it's a totally different type of waves, and no I'm not saying that quantum wave are sound analogue in my model, read english please) Quote I am not aware of any classical explanation that can cover quantum tunnelling all explanations I have ever come across involve require the wave nature of a particle. I gave you one. The particle you get at on side is just not the SAME ONE that the one that disappear at the other end. It's one from the vacuum that was already there. The whole energy barrier between the two slightly "moves" with the vacuum. And because history and energies of real matter is defined relative to it, you don't measure it. I'm sorry your mind is not powerful enought to picture my first post and those sentences. It's pretty clear : the vacuum act as a network, the matter runs on it. The fact that you just come back with things we already discussed, you didn't understood my answers and didn't even take the time to check it, is annoying. Of course I know my model have to pass the double slit experiment. Read what I wrote MONDAY : Quote If you can't understand my idea, why do you answer ? I put this in "speculation" for a good reason. I'm not here to receive a lesson on the classical accepted theory. I'm here to propose an alternative. In my theory, particle are not wave. They are particle. The wave behavior emerge from the statistical properties of a void "full" of particles. As always, you people are not able to understand me.. and decide you don't even want to try. How should I react ? I'm just sorry. . The wave behavior emerge from the statistical properties of a void "full" of particles. . The wave behavior emerge from the statistical properties of a void "full" of particles. DID YOU READ THAT OR NOT ? And I'm going further now. Because the wavelength of particle in your model are statistical oscillation of average density of vacuum particle in mind, you can probably get the equation giving the frequency of particle (planck equations) from the density of the vacuum and the mass of the perturbation (the particle) (in that case, the planck constant would really be a variable of the density of the vacuum I talk about). And if you assume that the density of the vaccuum is in fact the cause of the local gravitational field, you can probably understand how energy of particle vary in a gravitational field, as the way wave propagate in a vaccuum where density locally varies.. Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman
studiot Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 7 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said: Can you or not derive the uncertainty principle from interactions. What do you mean by interactions? Would you accept the action of a single particle e.g. (spontaneous) emission I offer this because it is the easiest to wrok out. If you must have multiple particles have you looked at scattering?
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) The math is contained in those links I have provided the math showing you the interference patterns from the two slit. It is your turn to show the math to support your vaunted claim you can get your classical particles into the correct interference patterns with a central emitter and two slit on either side as per the first link. I have been the only poster providing math this thread it's your model it is your responsibility to provide the math to support your model not anyone else's. You claiming you can do it is not proving you can do so I know I can show the interference patterns under waveforms usage as the very formulas are in those links provided. Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 I've explained you HOW MY MODEL RESPECT THE SLIT EXPERIMENT, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW. So somebody requested a visual aid :
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, studiot said: 2 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said: Now that's a good question. You need to realise that in my model, the density is so high that the noise is shown at planck scale (obviously if the noise replace quantum foam) So maybe, that's just at much higher energy. High enough that this particles don't move anything.. You measure real temperature caused by real particles. The particle of the vaccuum are just like the virtual particles in yours : their effect cancel out. In your model : how do you account for the effect of virtual particle from the vacuum ? That's your answer. How high is this density that somehow magically avoids contributing to temperature ? I told you one can take a black body temperature and calculate the number density of particles. Yet your higher density is not detectable by the same means ? You give a picture of essentially Brownish motion and think that is providing the solution to the two slit experiment ? Do the flipping math. Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Mordred said: How high is this density that somehow magically avoids contributing to temperature ? I told you one can take a black body temperature and calculate the number density of particles. Yet your higher density is not detectable by the same means ? For the noise to appear and Planck scale, it is very HIGH. I've told you that, now understand what is the planck scale, and what density you need for brownian like noise to appear at that scale.
studiot Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Mordred said: Brownish Brownish?
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) Sorry phone spell check Brownian 8 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said: For the noise to appear and Planck scale, it is very HIGH. I've told you that, now understand what is the planck scale, and what density you need for brownian like noise to appear at that scale. Again you still need to still account for temperature to number density. Unless your particles are not standard model particles. The SM particles are all in Planck units so... they are all quantized via planck units. Edited August 28, 2019 by Mordred
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mordred said: Sorry phone spell check Brownian Again you still need to still account for temperature to number density. Unless your particles are not standard model particles Temperature is the measure of particle (real) agitation. if the scale of the brownian noise created by the vaccum is much smaller, it may not change agitation mass at atome or molecule scale. Because at larger scale than the noise, it statically flatten.
studiot Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, studiot said: What do you mean by interactions? Would you accept the action of a single particle e.g. (spontaneous) emission I offer this because it is the easiest to wrok out. If you must have multiple particles have you looked at scattering? @Edgard Neuman Are you proposing to address my questions?
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said: I've explained you HOW MY MODEL RESPECT THE SLIT EXPERIMENT, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW. So somebody requested a visual aid : Well now that's enough talk. If you can't understand that, and how it is SIMPLER IN EVERY WAY. How you can deduce your physics from as statistical result of vaccum interaction.. If you don't see how to explain scattering, wave behavior, and everything from my model, this is just hopeless. I've inform you, use your brain or not, I don't care. I've done my part. Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Edgard Neuman said: Temperature is the measure of particle (real) agitation. if the scale of the brownian noise created by the vaccum is much smaller, it may not change agitation mass at atome or molecule scale. Because at larger scale than the noise, it statically flatten. Do you want to try that one again ? As I am not buying it. At 2 7 K the mean average number density of photons would be roughly 400 /cm^3 that includes the antiparticle. 1 minute ago, Edgard Neuman said: Well now that's enough talk. If you can't understand that, and how it is SIMPLER IN EVER WAY. How you can deduce your physics from as statistical result of vaccum interaction.. this is just hopeless. I've inform you, I've done my part. You don't understand that thousands of physicists would have considered everyday particle number density in the two slit experiment. They would have considered such a mundane possibility Even Feymann considered a classical solution impossible and he is certainly well aware of Brownian distributions.
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Mordred said: Do you want to try that one again ? As I am not buying it. At 2 7 K the mean average number density of photons would be roughly 400 /cm^3 that includes the antiparticle. So you're talking about the temperature ASSOCIATED with a field of real photon using the black body formula. Is there a black body emiting those photons ? You know that real photon are photon with the right energy to interact. Black body interaction are real, but a body can be plonged into photon and only the right one interact. Do you understand that or not ? Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman
Mordred Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 You can also account for VP with the mean average lifetime You still haven't supplied a single equation that shows you can use classical scattering to account for the two slit distribution. Posting a picture isn't a solution.
Edgard Neuman Posted August 28, 2019 Author Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Mordred said: You can also account for VP with the mean average lifetime No you really can't. You can't say : their maybe a cat in my empty room, so it explain the mess. The cat poped out and it disappear, only because, according to probabilities "there may be a cat in my room" . You just can't use your stastical description of reality to explain existence of thing (that not a "classical" or "quantum principle" that's the DEFINITION OF WHAT PROBABILITIES ARE.). Sorry. "I'm hungry and poor. but according to probabilities the average money is 10000 $ per person in america. I'm in america : let's spend that money then !" .NO YOU CAN'T. Edited August 28, 2019 by Edgard Neuman
Recommended Posts