studiot Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 38 minutes ago, scuddyx said: I am working on time as an emergent QM property. But not replying to my comments on emergence. The least you could do would be to define the term as you see it. In connection with not replying, you totally ignored my main point about spectroscopy. If you did not know this you could have asked for more information. If you did already know this your statement it was set against is disingenuous since it refutes your statement completely. 42 minutes ago, scuddyx said: is developing a theory of space as an emergent QM property Has he succeeded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddyx Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 11 hours ago, studiot said: But not replying to my comments on emergence. The least you could do would be to define the term as you see it. In connection with not replying, you totally ignored my main point about spectroscopy. If you did not know this you could have asked for more information. If you did already know this your statement it was set against is disingenuous since it refutes your statement completely. Has he succeeded? Sean Carroll claims in his recent book (Sept. 2019) "Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime" to be making encouraging progress. His book deals with Space emerging from quantum entanglement and barely mentions Time. My team is believes Time emerges from quantum decoherence - which is coincidently the opposite of quantum entanglement. This forum is giving us some interesting and challenging questions which is sharpening our hypothesis. Your spectroscopy insight is one of these. I will report back to this forum soon with progress on this and the other questions. If, and when, we develop a theory (with maths) it should explain Time, reconcile GR with QM and may even explain mass and dark energy. It's a long shot but as physics appears to have stalled - why not explore an alternative approach. 11 hours ago, Strange said: Please show this to be true, in appropriate mathematical detail. They can be and, in fact, they are. It is almost like you don't know what you are talking about. Then show us the mathematical model. Please see my reply to studiot. Meanwhile, thanks for your encouragement 12 hours ago, Mordred said: The Klien Gordon equations are Lorentz invariant so does employ the four momentum. Thanks for these links. The first one no longer works. Do you have an update? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 13 hours ago, scuddyx said: Decoherence is the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. No time or space is experienced by particles as their wave function propagates – until the wave function is said to collapse. Consequently, two entangled particles described by a wave function, appear to communicate instantaneously even if they are light years apart. Not all particles are entangled, you can have superposition without entanglement, and not all particles are in a superposition. Quote Decoherence is the key to understanding time. You haven't made a connection between decoherence and time. Quote Other particles couple or interfere with the Higgs Field. The more they couple, the more decoherence happens, and more time is created for them. This slows them down from the speed of light. The particles that experience the most decoherence slow down the most. Slow down, as in their speed? No that's not true. I can make a proton move faster than an electron. It's not that difficult. Quote This appears has if they have more inertia. The ones with most inertia appear to us as having the greatest mass. This is how mass arises and varies between particles You also claimed that more mass means time passes more slowly, and have yet to address how this does not violate the equivalence principle. We have experimental evidence that atoms with different mass experience time the same way. And still, you haven't made a connection between decoherence and time. You've made an assertion. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and isn't a substitute for actual physics. 13 hours ago, Strange said: Also, we measure the effects of the double-slit experiment, entanglement, etc. in our frame of reference, not that of the photon. So invoking the (non-existent) photon frame of reference explains nothing. Plus the fact that the double-slit can be done with massive particles, so you can't invoke "zero time" as an explanation. 13 hours ago, scuddyx said: Photons can undergo red shifts and decay into other particles - but not during flight - they need to decohere first. What is the superposition they are in that would lead them to decohere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddyx Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 On 1/15/2020 at 3:06 PM, swansont said: Decoherence of what? Can we not discuss time using classical physics? You seem to be using decoherence as a magic wand. What is decohering, and how does decoherence manifest itself as time? What is your model of how particles that couple with the Higgs experience time in proportion to how strongly they couple, and thus is depends on mass? Does this mean time passes differently for an electron vs a proton? Or a hydrogen atom vs a cesium atom? That is in direct conflict with the equivalence principle, and has been experimentally excluded at a pretty high level of precision. For reference, I have randomly chosen a paper that shows confirmation of local position invariance https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6145 Our hypothesis deals with elementary particles not atoms. Fermions couple with the Higgs field in proportion to their individual coupling constants which ‘causes’ mass. Bosons don’t couple with the Higgs field and consequently don’t have any mass. The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, hasn’t been explained. We believe that particles that slow down the most ‘appear’ to have the most inertia and we say this is due to a property called mass. Mass is not a fundamental property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 23 minutes ago, scuddyx said: Our hypothesis deals with elementary particles not atoms. Fermions couple with the Higgs field in proportion to their individual coupling constants which ‘causes’ mass. Bosons don’t couple with the Higgs field and consequently don’t have any mass. The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, hasn’t been explained. We believe that particles that slow down the most ‘appear’ to have the most inertia and we say this is due to a property called mass. Mass is not a fundamental property. It still violates the equivalence principle to claim that something experiences time differently if it has more mass, and you haven't provided even a whiff of a mathematical model in support of your assertions. Plus your original post made wide-ranging claims, not limited to fundamental particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 22 minutes ago, scuddyx said: Bosons don’t couple with the Higgs field and consequently don’t have any mass. W and Z bosons have mass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddyx Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 13 hours ago, studiot said: Actually it does under the Uncertainty principle. The emission time of a photon can be related to the line width of the spectral line produced (or the other way round) This is very important in spectroscopy as it controls the resolution available. I would suggest that much of your difficulty arises from your attempts to introduce QM into Relativity. I do not know of any successful attempts in that direction. Introducing relativity into QM has been managed, for instance the relativistic Schrodinger equation was derived by Dirac in the 1930s. But marrying the two is still a long way off. Please can you explain how the emission time of a photon can be related to the line width of the spectral line produced. Thanks 8 minutes ago, Strange said: W and Z bosons have mass That's correct, the W and Z bosons couple with the Higgs field and consequently have a property we call inertia or gravitation mass. The photon and the gluon don't couple with the Higgs field and consequently don't have mass. Thanks for pointing this out. 16 minutes ago, swansont said: It still violates the equivalence principle to claim that something experiences time differently if it has more mass, and you haven't provided even a whiff of a mathematical model in support of your assertions. Plus your original post made wide-ranging claims, not limited to fundamental particles. It’s not that mass that creates time - it’s the apparent passing of time that creates the property called mass. Particles that interact with the Higgs field decohere depending on their coupling constant which slow them down from the speed of light differently. This appears to us as inertia, which we attribute to a parameter called mass. Particles that don’t interact with the Higgs field only decohere when they are reach their destination and their wavefunction collapses. Consequently, they appear to have no inertia or mass. There is no need to quantize mass as mass emerges out of QM – the more fundamental theory. We need to agree on the principles of the theory before describing the mathematical model. Which of the premises are you not comfortable with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 hours ago, scuddyx said: It’s not that mass that creates time - it’s the apparent passing of time that creates the property called mass. You still have the same problem of time passing differently for different particles, which violates the EEP. Specifically, local position invariance (location and speed affect time) Quote Particles that interact with the Higgs field decohere depending on their coupling constant which slow them down from the speed of light differently. Again, you are using decoherence as if it were magic. What coherence is present that allow for them to decohere? Please stop saying decohere (or any derivatives) without explaining this. You're trying to get to step 6, and you haven't explained all of the previous steps. Quote We need to agree on the principles of the theory before describing the mathematical model. 1) Of what theory? You don't have one. and 2) you don't have a theory without a mathematical model. The model comes before/during, not after. Quote Which of the premises are you not comfortable with? The premise that things have a coherence that you thus far refuse to disclose, for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddyx Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 The title of this posting is 'The Nature of Time'. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, scuddyx said: The title of this posting is 'The Nature of Time'. Any ideas? This is your thread for you to present your ideas. If you have none (as seems to be the case) maybe we should ask for this to be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddyx Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: This is your thread for you to present your ideas. If you have none (as seems to be the case) maybe we should ask for this to be closed. Closing this thread may be ScienceForums' Greatest Blunder 😉 Edited January 17, 2020 by scuddyx Despondency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, scuddyx said: The title of this posting is 'The Nature of Time'. Any ideas? Time is a dimension. How's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 24 minutes ago, scuddyx said: Closing this thread may be ScienceForums' Greatest Blunder 😉 Hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 hours ago, scuddyx said: The title of this posting is 'The Nature of Time'. Any ideas? ! Moderator Note I take it you will not be addressing the questions put to you. Not be keeping to the code, as it were. If your next response doesn't address this, we're done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, scuddyx said: Please can you explain how the emission time of a photon can be related to the line width of the spectral line produced. Thanks Elementary quantum teaching has a ladder of energy levels and asserts that only pohotons with an energy exactly equal to teh energy difference between two levels are allowed. Thus mononchromatic light or line spectra are predicted. In reality the lines are observed to have a non zero width. The radiation emitted or absorbed is only monochrmatic to the extent that the molecular energy levels themselves are sharply defined. If the energy gap has an uncertainty Δε then applying the Uncertainy Principle yields that the frequency of the photon has uncertainty approximately equal to Δε/h. Experimentally this appears as a line half width (Δν) at half the maximum intensity. The time associated with this uncertainty is (2πΔν)-1. Spectroscopists usually consider this as the time over which the emission or absorbtion takes place. What about my request for your definition of emergence? Edited January 17, 2020 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddyx Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, studiot said: Elementary quantum teaching has a ladder of energy levels and asserts that only pohotons with an energy exactly equal to teh energy difference between two levels are allowed. Thus mononchromatic light or line spectra are predicted. In reality the lines are observed to have a non zero width. The radiation emitted or absorbed is only monochrmatic to the extent that the molecular energy levels themselves are sharply defined. If the energy gap has an uncertainty Δε then applying the Uncertainy Principle yields that the frequency of the photon has uncertainty approximately equal to Δε/h. Experimentally this appears as a line half width (Δν) at half the maximum intensity. The time associated with this uncertainty is (2πΔν)-1. Spectroscopists usually consider this as the time over which the emission or absorbtion takes place. What about my request for your definition of emergence? Thanks Studiot. I will try to understand and get back to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, scuddyx said: Thanks Studiot. I will try to understand and get back to you. Read here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/parlif.html#c1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 ! Moderator Note OK, then. We’re done. Don’t bring this up again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts