New interpretations of physics that lead to experiments

[POVphysics]

All science is based on experimental evidence.  To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever thought to create a quantum entanglement field. 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

All science is based on experimental evidence

Nope 

2 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever thought to create a quantum entanglement field. 

How do you have knowledge of other peoples thoughts?

[POVphysics]

Are you all stumped?

All science is empirically based.  Even theoretical physics should be tethered to established physics.  If it's not, then how do you know you're not just practicing Astrology?  Numerology? 

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

All science is empirically based.

Merely repeating an invalid assertion doesn’t magically make it true. 

[POVphysics]

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

Merely repeating an invalid assertion doesn’t magically make it true.

Give me an example of a field of science that is not based on experimental data.

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

Are you all stumped?

All science is empirically based.  Even theoretical physics should be tethered to established physics.  If it's not, then how do you know you're not just practicing Astrology?  Numerology? 

 

I am genuinely surprised that someone, in a science forum, would give me a markdown for affirming the requirement that science be based on empirical evidence. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics

[iNow]

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

Give me an example of a field of science that is not based on experimental data.

String theory

[POVphysics]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

Give me an example of a field of science that is not based on experimental data.

String theory

How can string theory be reality if there is no experimental data to confirm it? 

[joigus]

6 hours ago, POVphysics said:

The equation for a quantum entanglement between two photons might be very complicated, but the wavefunction of a photon can be as simple as,

\[\varPsi\left(x,t\right)=Ae^{ik_{x}x-i\omega t}\]

You further assume that,

\[\omega=\omega\left(x\right)\]

This is incorrect and betrays a lot of ignorance on basics of physics. Let's leave aside the fact that single photons cannot be dealt with in terms of wave functions, that there is no momentum operator for photons of the form \( \frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \) --or for any other particle in quantum field theory, for that matter--, and other inconsistencies.

Photons travelling in the vacuum can be Fourier analised in terms of monochromatic components,

\[Ae^{i\frac{\omega}{c}x-i\omega t}\]

There is no \( x \) dependence on that Fourier component. There is just a phase velocity,

\[\frac{\omega}{k}=v_{f}\]

and a group velocity,

\[\frac{d\omega}{dk}=v_{g}\]

For photons both are constant and equal to \( c \).

Now, for massive particles, you have, from the Einstein relation,

\[E^{2}=p^{2}c^{2}+m^{2}c^{4}\]

the following relation for frequency and \( k \),

\[\omega=c\sqrt{k^{2}+\frac{m^{2}c^{2}}{\hbar^{2}}}\]

So that you get,

\[\frac{\omega}{k}=v_{f}=c\sqrt{1+\frac{m^{2}c^{2}}{k^{2}\hbar^{2}}}\]

and,

\[\frac{d\omega}{dk}=v_{g}=\frac{ck}{\sqrt{k^{2}+\frac{m^{2}c^{2}}{\hbar^{2}}}}\]

Satisfying the constraint,

\[v_{f}v_{g}=c^{2}\]

Naive application of relativistic waves gives you a superluminal phase velocity and a subluminal group velocity.

Those are some basics of wave dynamics for relativistic particles. I saw you were in sorry need of a quick tutorial.

[POVphysics]

Wait a minute.  Are you really proclaiming that the frequency of a photon can NEVER change along the x-axis? 

Maybe you never had a chance to learn about gravitational redshift or gravitational time dilation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

I mean, maybe nobody ever told you that the frequency of a photon can change as it travels along the radii as it falls into a black hole.  That would cause blueshift.  And if a photon was tryng to travel out of a gravity well of a black hole, along the radius, then it would redshift.

It's great to memorize equations, but if you don't know what they mean, then maybe you shouldn't be rude about.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, POVphysics said:

How can string theory be reality if there is no experimental data to confirm it? 

You were given an answer to your question. I have no plans on chasing your moving goalposts. 

[POVphysics]

Just now, iNow said:

You were given an answer to your question. I have no plans on chasing your moving goalposts. 

Are superstrings supposed to be the only thing that exists, that creates everything?

58 minutes ago, joigus said:

Let's leave aside the fact that single photons cannot be dealt with in terms of wave functions, that there is no momentum operator for photons of the form ℏi∂∂x --or for any other particle in quantum field theory, for that matter--, and other inconsistencies.

We're not dealing with single photons.  We're dealing with two photons that are quantum entangled.  Now can you please make the argument of why a quantum entanglement with two entangled photons cannot be described with a wave function?

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

Are superstrings supposed to be the only thing that exists, that creates everything?

Your neg rep given to me and continued moving of the goal posts suggests you missed my actual point. Disappointing, but unsurprising. 

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

Wait a minute.  Are you really proclaiming that the frequency of a photon can NEVER change along the x-axis?

FFS stop trying to be the smartest here, your not (the smartest here would never admit to that); listen to the answers, then maybe you'll be that much smarter.

Your limited understanding of physics, is obvious even to me and I have absolutely no idea what all those squiggles actually mean.

[POVphysics]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

FFS stop trying to be the smartest here, your not (the smartest here would never admit to that); listen to the answers, then maybe you'll be that much smarter.

Your limited understanding of physics, is obvious even to me and I have absolutely no idea what all those squiggles actually mean.

So your content to being told that we live in an infinite multiverse that is made of superstrings, no questions asked.  You don't want any empirical evidence, you just accept those things at face value?  Is that correct?

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

18 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

Are superstrings supposed to be the only thing that exists, that creates everything?

Your neg rep given to me and continued moving of the goal posts suggests you missed my actual point. Disappointing, but unsurprising. 

So your deflecting a simple question. 

Okay, where are the real physics conversations going on?  The ones with actual experiments?

Superstrings are a mathematical invention that the creators don't even believe describes our universe.  But when someone comes along with a simplification and an experiment, then suddenly everyone gets hostile 

Someone here even gave me a bad mark because I said that ALL science is based on empirical evidence.  When did you guys become a religion?  Who was your first saint?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

So your content to being told that we live in an infinite multiverse that is made of superstrings, no questions asked.  You don't want any empirical evidence, you just accept those things at face value?  Is that correct?

Of course, it makes absolutely no difference to me... 😉

What would you gain, if your wild arsed guess' prove to be correct??? 

[POVphysics]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

11 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

So your content to being told that we live in an infinite multiverse that is made of superstrings, no questions asked.  You don't want any empirical evidence, you just accept those things at face value?  Is that correct?

Of course, it makes absolutely no difference to me... 😉

What would you gain, if your wild arsed guess' prove to be correct??? 

It would lead to gravity field generators, which lead to things like tractor beams and propulsion.  It's actually really cool stuff.  Using a quantum entanglement field, you can store gravitational potential energy using equipment I haven't talked about yet. 

It still strikes me as weird that the physics community is adamant about not believing in Astrology, but you believe in superstrings.

[dimreepr]

Just now, POVphysics said:

It would lead to gravity field generators, which lead to things like tractor beams and propulsion. 

What if we run out of life before we get there?

[POVphysics]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

3 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

It would lead to gravity field generators, which lead to things like tractor beams and propulsion. 

What if we run out of life before we get there?

Make babies.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

It still strikes me as weird that the physics community is adamant about not believing in Astrology, but you believe in superstrings.

Because astrology is arbitrary and string theory has an internal consistency. 

[POVphysics]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Because astrology is arbitrary and string theory has an internal consistency. 

Wait, that's not true either.  The zodiac signs have descriptions.  The planetary positions have effects. 

What is string theory based on?  Vibrating spaghetti?

[dimreepr]

You shouldn't believe in either, absolutely.

[POVphysics]

I keep asking if superstrings are supposed to yield EVERYTHING in physics, everything that exists in nature.  But all I get is fluff!

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

You shouldn't believe in either, absolutely.

I don't know what that means. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

I don't know what that means. 

Listen to all the answer's, then reflect... 

 

[POVphysics]

The expanding graviton, as I characterize it, describes EVERYTHING in physics, time, spacetime, qm, gr, sr, standard model, physics constants, dark matter, dark energy, EVERYTHING!  And it comes with an experiment.

In contrast, the tens of thousands of physics geniuses claim that superstrings and quantum loop gravity are the correct theory, and if not that, than the Many World Interpretation, because if you have 10^10^10^42 universes, your wrong guesses are bound to be right in some other universe.

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

10 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

I don't know what that means. 

Listen to all the answer's, then reflect... 

You have all these popular physicists telling us what reality is supposed to be, and they can't come up with anything better than MWI and superspaghetti? 

I can do better than that!

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics

[joigus]

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

We're not dealing with single photons.  We're dealing with two photons that are quantum entangled.  Now can you please make the argument of why a quantum entanglement with two entangled photons cannot be described with a wave function?

Number of photons is not a conserved quantity. The point is not a single photon; the point is individual photons; namely, multi-photon states for which the number of photons can be counted.

38 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

I keep asking if superstrings are supposed to yield EVERYTHING in physics, everything that exists in nature.  But all I get is fluff!

They do indeed give you everything. The problem is they give you more than you bargained for. In particular, they give you dilatons, due to the conformal invariance of the theory (you can stretch it and squish it, and squash it, and the theory remains the same.)

They also give you ambient space-times that are difficult to deal with, called Calabi-Yau manifolds. They are complexified, and they are Ricci-flat, which is the next best thing after being flat.

Technical problems appear when trying to compactify the fields in 26 dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds, because there are astronomical numbers of ways to compactify. Compactifying means reducing most of those dimensions to little loops that cannot be seen from our perspective, in a cooling universe.

I've tried to be as helpful as possible, but you should really start reading what you're told and slowing down on the lecturing everybody else part of your present discourse.

Some of my points, and those from others, you've chosen to simply ignore. It's quite irritating.

Edit 1: Another problem with string theory is the difficult to get predictions that can be confirmed in the laboratory, as the main features show up at the Planckian scale.

Edit 2: I hope that answers some of your questions about superstrings. Now it would be nice to answer some of mine (and others').

Edited November 29, 2020 by joigus
Added link