QED: science meets science fiction

[nameta9]

IF QED (quantum electrodynamics) is not a hoax, then matter truly does not exist and all we have is logic-math. The electron according to QED is an infinite set of interacting virtual particles described and understood only in terms of their feynman diagrams which are nothing more than integrals and series. The center of the electron is a GEOMETRICAL point with no extension etc. Since there are an infinite number of diagrams according to an infinite number of possible interactions and decay modes (electron emits virtual photon that becomes virtual e+e- pair etc.) then matter is truly reduced to pure mathematics.

 

If we could control matter at their virtual particle level, we could create an infinite size computer inside an electron by associating and provoking interactions with corresponding feynman diagrams that map one to one with AND and OR circuits, and creating infinitely complex circuits. With an infinite computer we could then simulate any kind of universe governed by any kinds of laws as complex as you wish, since an infinite computer would be unlimited. Hence another simulated universe would be just as real as ours since the building blocks of our own universe is pure math-logic.

 

Of course this may not be the case and virtual particles could be made up of something else at the distance of 10^-100 or 10^-1000 . Actually the limits of the observable universe is not how large it can be but how small. What is there at the distance of 10^-100000 ? Alot of room to speculate.

 

QED may be a hoax if the sums where made in such a way as to force them to correspond to experimental observables, but I think it is true, you never know though...

[Locrian]

See my reply on physicsforums.

[swansont]

IF QED (quantum electrodynamics) is not a hoax' date=' then matter truly does not exist and all we have is logic-math. The electron according to QED is an infinite set of interacting virtual particles described and understood only in terms of their feynman diagrams which are nothing more than integrals and series. The center of the electron is a GEOMETRICAL point with no extension etc. Since there are an infinite number of diagrams according to an infinite number of possible interactions and decay modes (electron emits virtual photon that becomes virtual e+e- pair etc.) then matter is truly reduced to pure mathematics.

[/quote']

 

The descriptions are mathematical. That doesn't mean the phenomena described are nonexistant.

[Tom Mattson]

IF QED (quantum electrodynamics) is not a hoax' date=' then matter truly does not exist and all we have is logic-math. The electron according to QED is an infinite set of interacting virtual particles described and understood only in terms of their feynman diagrams which are nothing more than integrals and series.

[/quote']

 

If Newtonian dynamics is not a hoax, then matter truly does not exist and all we have is logic-math. The electron according to Newtonian dynamics is a mass that has a trajectory described and understood only in terms of a mathematical relationship which is nothing more than a second order differential equation.

 

My paragraph is just as misguided as yours. Why? Because a mathematical description of a physical law is just that: a description. The fact that it is mathematical does not in any way rob electrons of their physical reality.

 

The center of the electron is a GEOMETRICAL point with no extension etc.

 

That's true for Newton, too.

 

Since there are an infinite number of diagrams according to an infinite number of possible interactions and decay modes (electron emits virtual photon that becomes virtual e+e- pair etc.) then matter is truly reduced to pure mathematics.

 

I have no idea of how you get from A to B in this bit.

 

If we could control matter at their virtual particle level, we could create an infinite size computer inside an electron by associating and provoking interactions with corresponding feynman diagrams that map one to one with AND and OR circuits, and creating infinitely complex circuits. With an infinite computer we could then simulate any kind of universe governed by any kinds of laws as complex as you wish, since an infinite computer would be unlimited. Hence another simulated universe would be just as real as ours since the building blocks of our own universe is pure math-logic.

 

Same thing here. If you could build a QED computer like this, it wouldn't imply that matter is reducible to math. It would imply that matter can be used to execute mathematical operations.

 

Think about it, why wouldn't your argument also apply to more conventional computers?

[AL]

This reminds me of a documentary I once watched in which a commentator asserted, "Heisenberg tells us that particles are not 'things,' but rather, they are nothing more than probabilistic tendencies."

 

If there's one thing about Werner "Uncertainty" Heisenberg that I'm certain about, it's that he said no such thing.

[nameta9]

You can always say there is a phenomena in the case of the NSE (Navier-Stokes) equations for turbulance since a material substrate is always present in the form of a large ensemble of particles upon which the equations are operating. In the case of QED, there is no longer any material substrate, we are at the end of the line. The virtual particle and feynman diagrams are all that is left, a set of numbers (mass, impulse, energy etc.) related to another set through a series of mathematical operations. The description coincides exactly with the material, that is why QED is so precise. If you add the remaining corrective terms, there is no longer any difference between the measurement and the prediction, hence matter no longer exists, it has completely evaporated into equations.

 

Physicists ask why this particular set of equations and laws govern our universe. Well in fact any set of equations will do, the set we do have just happens to be an arbitrary starting point. Any other set would be the same. The "virtual particle electron size infinite computer" could then transform our starting point set of equations into any other conceivable set of equations by appropriately configuring it to let the feynman diagrams execute a given set of AND and OR circuits that transform one set of physics laws into another. From here we can have any universe governed by any set of equations, and it would be just as real as ours.

 

Bottom line, matter is mathematics, and I think some other physicists have come to a similar conclusion by saying everything is information "IT FROM BIT". The only doubt would be if virtual particles where composed of something else. But you would have to look at distances like 10^-100 to see any fine structure. An interesting thing happens talking about sizes since if you look at the solar system at its size reference the planets are just point like particles executing equations in their motion. But if you go down to the meter size you will see all kinds of complex structure like on earth. If you go smaller you end up again in a very simple world of particles (electrons, protons) executing equations. By continually going to smaller and smaller sizes you go constantly from simple to complex then simple again to complex etc. A bit like looking at traffic from far away, it is mostly a simple process, but if you look at the mm or micron range in the brains of people driving it is very complex. So if virtual particles follow this trend then they may be made of extremely complex fine structure. And then maybe there is no end to small sizes and the cycle of simple to complex to simple at 10^-1000 and then 10^-10000 etc goes on forever.

 

If matter is not mathematics, then mathematics is a subset of matter meaning matter-physics has metaphysical elements within it.

[oldtobor]

The descriptions are mathematical. That doesn't mean the phenomena described are nonexistant.

 

The description in the case of QED coincides with the object being described. What is a description ? The limits of a description of an object that describe that object will tend towards being identical to that object for the description that tends to maximum completeness.

 

In the theory of details from simple to complex etc. then maybe the metaphysical item of matter-physics is all the random, chaotic details you can see in anything. Look at any object close enough (a chair, a table a cloth) or even a street or tree and you will find alot of random, chaotic details. Well that is the metaphysical aspect of matter-physics. The beauty is in the details.

[nameta9]

In the theory of details from simple to complex etc. then maybe the metaphysical item of matter-physics is all the random, chaotic details you can see in anything. Look at any object close enough (a chair, a table a cloth) or even a street or tree and you will find alot of random, chaotic details. Well that is the metaphysical aspect of matter-physics. The beauty is in the details.

 

Interesting idea. So then the metaphysical aspect of matter is the results of complexity and random details (maybe related to entropy ?). So matter tends to escape the constraints of mathematical laws by complexity and detail but then on a smaller scale mathematical laws then dominate again and so on for infinity. So the universe is an infinite level of sizes where mathematical laws dominate alternated by an attempt of matter to escape the mathematical laws. This residual error between laws and non-laws creates MATTER-REALITY.

At 10^-10 mm simplicity, at 10^-100 mm complexity-random details, at 10^-1000 simplicity, etc for the limit of x that tends towards infinity of 10^-x mm.

 

Who said that a physical theory must be expressed mathematically ? This theory may be true and is expressed in NATURAL LANGUAGE which I think is more powerful than mathematics. Unless you think that matter is equal to mathematics. Maybe the future physical theories will all be expressed in NATURAL LANGUAGE (philosophy dominates again).

[oldtobor]

I think the difference is between technology understood as manipulation of matter and science understood as the "deep why questions". Science will evolve up to the point of it's practical "technological" usefullness. It doesn't matter what models or equations or theory there is in the end. If it predicts and allows us to manipulate matter up to the point that any conceivable PRACTICAL problem can be solved and allows us complete control, then that will be the "end of the line." Is matter=math ? who cares, the end result may be a supercomputer with a few trillion equations programs etc. that lets us enter any problem and get any result. What I mean is that we may never have the "equation of a bacteria", let alone the "equation of the brain", but we may have all the equations and solutions of any practical interest inside a supercomputer that allows us to manipulate a bacteria to let it do anything we want. Of course this topic is not easy but the distinction between science and technology should be made.

 

Very interesting is the idea that simplicity hides complexity. The solar system is mathematically simple but the planets upon closer observation are very complex. Are virtual particles made up of complex fine structures and laws ? we may never know and care if we can't get beyond 10^-20 mm, and then if it doesn't have any practical - technological consequence then we may never investigate this further.

[nameta9]

I think the difference is between technology understood as manipulation of matter and science understood as the "deep why questions". Science will evolve up to the point of it's practical "technological" usefullness. It doesn't matter what models or equations or theory there is in the end. If it predicts and allows us to manipulate matter up to the point that any conceivable PRACTICAL problem can be solved and allows us complete control' date=' then that will be the "end of the line." Is matter=math ? who cares, the end result may be a supercomputer with a few trillion equations programs etc. that lets us enter any problem and get any result. What I mean is that we may never have the "equation of a bacteria", let alone the "equation of the brain", but we may have all the equations and solutions of any practical interest inside a supercomputer that allows us to manipulate a bacteria to let it do anything we want. Of course this topic is not easy but the distinction between science and technology should be made.

[/quote']

 

So if science develops only according to what is useful, then many things will never be discovered or researched. In some cases it makes sense, like you wouldn't research a completely mechanical supercomputer, even though it would always be some form of science as an increase of knowledge. But economical-cultural constraints would rarely let a mechanical supercomputer develop. So the same in many other fields.

 

It is like if you reach a point of creating perfect virtual realities in computers that satisfy every need and desire conceivable, you would no longer "need" to research the real world any longer, since all your problems would be solved. So the limits of science would be bound by it's extreme technological success in a given area. No further research would be needed if we could manipulate our universe (real or virtual) completely.

The same example could apply if we reach technological excellence in manipulating genetics and our own mind.

[oldtobor]

Or you can have the case where one discovery may inhibit another discovery. If ICs weren't discovered maybe we would be much further in our expertise in mechanical computers and maybe there are discoveries in mechanical computer problems that we may never discover. Or if nuclear fission wasn't discovered maybe humanity would have more time available for investigating science before it destroys itself in Mutual Assured Destruction.

 

The actual path science follows may really be very arbitrary and there could be discoveries that block other discoveries and other kinds of discoveries that enable other discoveries. Well this is now pure "philosophy of science".

[Locrian]

As I posted on physicsforums, I'm totally stumped as to why oldtobor and nemata are having the exact same, cut-and-paste conversations on both forums. That combined with oldtobor's posting history makes me think something funny is going on here.

[elas]

The radii of atoms, atomic nuclei and the electron have all been measured by experiment. Surely it follows that their constituent parts must also have radii?

elas

[Locrian]

Heh, show me the experiment that measured the radius of an electron.

 

And blast us both for ressurecting this pathetic thread.

[elas]

The figure is published on Particle Data Group site which is considered to be the publication of reference.

As the only particle with a known radius, this figure becomes the key measurement in a paper on particle structure I submitted to a reputable journal. It has been under review for 14 weeks to date, so presumably the reviewers accept that the electron has the stated radius or it would have been rejected by now; rejections normally take a week, or less.

[Locrian]

What website do you mean? The only website I found in a cursory search for the Particle Data Group hadn't been updated since 2002.

 

Which reputable journal?

[timo]

The Particle Data Group (=PDG, see http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html) is possibly THE resource in high energy physics. Of, course, I don´t have a clue which website you visited (@Locrian) or which website elas meant.

Afaik, there actually has been experiments to determine the radius of an electron. Those experiments gave an upper limit so they don´t actually contradict the current theory of an electron without an internal structure.

The radii of atoms, atomic nuclei and the electron have all been measured by experiment. Surely it follows that their constituent parts must also have radii?

Letting aside the fact that the electron radius is assumed to be zero: How do you go from "nuclei have a radius" to "their constituents have a radius"? Do you even know what "the radius of a particle" means in respect to quantum mechanics?

 

Which reputable journal [has elas submitted his/her article to']?

Actually, I´d like to know the same thing because it certainly is a groundbreaking read if there´s anything to it. But "it has been under review for 14 weeks to date" strongly sounds like "it has been ignored for 14 weeks to date" so you´d better not hope on getting to read it.

 

And to say at least a bit on topic (even if it´s not too serious):

What is there at the distance of 10^-100000 ? Alot of room to speculate.

Yes, especially about you units .

[Locrian]

Yes, especially about you units .

 

Hah!

[alexross]

Hello Nameta9,

I am pleased to see my theories and fundamental concepts are gathering pace

in their support.

You do well to say that:

"Of course this may not be the case and virtual particles could be made up of

something else at the distance of 10^-100 or 10^-1000 . Actually the limits of

the observable universe is not how large it can be but how small. What is there

at the distance of 10^-100000 ? Alot of room to speculate.

"

 

The scientific difficulties experienced in 1998 stemmed from using a form of

mathematics which was deficient.

A bad workman may blame his tools but it is also necessary to get the right

tools to do a job. You cannot perform surgery with a spanner alone.

Try and imagine you have a God given priviledge to peer into a mathematics

lecture room in the fourth millenium.

By then we will have risen from the mathematical mud in which we are stuck

today.

I am reluctant to allow autocratic governments to have access to my works

but I am thankful for the publicity that people such as yourself provide me

with and it helps to stem the poor treatment dissenters receive.

This leaves challengers of present hypotheses such as Convential Quantum Mechanics

in something of a catch 22 situation that can be exploited against them even

against the welfare of the citizenry.

Please do not underestimate your contribution by willing to listen and press

for fair treatment.

Now please let me give you some basic idea of what is wrong with the mathematics being

used today.

Back in history Newton developed Calculus about the same time as complex

mathematics. As far as I can tell he did not have access to the theories

such as De Moivres that we know. The same was true for De Moivres with

Calculus. I mention this to point out there is a 'potential' and indeed true

area where our mathematics could be seriously flawed.

We trust so much in Newton's mathematics and they have proved so good that

it is easy to believe that they cannot be improved.

I will pass aside the fact that I have combined these two areas of

mathematical philosophy for now, if I may.

Let us just see that Newton's Calculus is being discussed in our 'lecture'.

The limitation of Newton's Calculus is that it derives from the basic

concept of the differential particle.

I press home this fact but at the risk of assuming personal pride to call my

new interpretation Ross' Calculus.

Newton said that "the smallest possible particle is the differential

particle".

Now this is very relevant to Particle Physics.

I say that "the smallest possible particle, IN REAL SPACE, is the differential

particle" and thus correct him. You can imagine that real space is also

undistorted real space but I want to avoid the nature and definition of

these distortions for now.

This opens a 'Pandora's box' except that it is not an evil box.

Now every time I extend peoples knowledge they will ask another question.

So you will have to acknowledge my human limitations. However just to

continue for now you may ask if I can really suggest that there is a

"particle which is smaller than the differential particle" or that

"the particle which is smaller than the differential particle is called the

complex particle".

The answer is yes to both.

If you want to envisage a complex particle you need to clear your head of

for a moment. Now consider a differential particle whizzing around in a

cyclotron at the speed of light. Good......

Now imagine the space/time around that particle beginning to deform as we

exceed light speed.

Since the differential particle is only detectable to us in real space we

start to lose part of it gradually has we let the speed increase.

So if the particle becomes smaller than the differential particle what is

it? I would say that you have called it a string or quark like particle.

This avoids for the present the need to consider complex mathematics and

we can just deal with relativistic distortions.

In fact space does not really have to be twisted. You could get a similar

effect of a train going down a tunnel if we just have a hole in the fabric

of space. However it is still desirable to map out the geometry of those

distortions!

You will notice that I do not need to prove the existence of a physical

particle which is smaller. I can simply translate that particle.

Please be sure to see the difference without eliminating any possibilities.

If you think this unlikely let me remind you of the limitations of string

theory and how string theorists cannot clearly measure their particles!

This as I have explained before it is like trying to look at a 3 dimensional

object through a 2 dimensional slit and measuring it.

With a string or complex particle you also have the added problem of the

object being rotated and spun. I leave aside the distortion of space which

seems to have passed string theorists by.

This in hindsight shows that by avoiding 'complications' theorists have

surrendered vital evidence.

So now you have it: a reason for our scientific impasse, a reinterpretation

of old values, and a way forward which (because it is successful) blazes a

trail way ahead of 1998.

Now I referred to a level playing field.

If current theories do not give as clear a picture and no more (and I would

say less) 'practical' evidence than mine why are they not accepted at least

as being as good as those presently advanced? I think it is more mature for

me to let others answer this last question.

Finally in response to your quote the differential particle is approximately

of the order 10^-40 and the complex particle is approximately of the order

10^-1600.

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF COMPLEX QUANTUM MECHANICS!

Letters rather than emails hugely appreciated.

Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.

7, Midland Street

Accrington

Lancashire

United Kingdom

BB5 2AX

Email: alexross53@hotmail.com