Theoretical Questions pertaining to the idea of a Vibrating Universe

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

Inspired by the YouTube video:
Why Is 1/137 One of the Greatest Unsolved Problems In Physics?
https://youtu.be/RCSSgxV9qNw?feature=shared

Is an electron a container or is it just a cloud of photons? If you are saying an electron emits photons, then are you also saying that an electron is something more than a cloud of photons? If it is a cloud of photons, then depending on how you measure the energy level of the "electron" wouldn't you be measuring the sum energies of the photons or are you saying electrons have more parts than photons? I have not studied these things.

Would it be wrong to think of atomic "particles" as containers? If photons move in waves, then what is the wave moving on? Some other energy must be between the waves. A wave is a phenomenon that takes place on something else. Is a photon a vibration? Are we talking about light being a vibration? 

If light photons are vibrations, then what is quantum physics? Are they the base energies? Not particles that begin and end, but a continuous thing. So are the clouds of photons actually an area of vibrating substances or energies, or the substance of energy? The quantum energy substances are in a little gravity well around the nucleus or proton. Is an electron a gravity well? Maybe not gravity but some resulting force that quantum energy substances pool up in or create and then result in photon waves?

I guess this is a Newtonian sort of view to form these questions about quantum physics.

Everything is vibrating. Is the number the reoccurrence of a longer-range vibration that encompasses a large region of space? A trained astrophysics expert has to prove or disprove that. That is beyond me.

This longer-range vibration affects everything within its range?

An "electron" is an idea that contains quantum energy substances that vibrate photons? All the energy is, is vibrations? Everything is vibrating at levels so small that the waves are too small to perceive. The waves are tiny movements. For this to be true, wouldn't there need to be an understanding that whatever the fabric of space is, the vibrations move on that fabric. The fabric is quantum. The shape of the fabric is determined by the energy formations. Things like the density of the energy. When the energy is dense enough it becomes matter or matter is everywhere and the energy shapes the matter.

Edited November 23, 2023 by DeckerdSmeckerd
Changed a sentence to a question and added "within its range". Removed Hand of God theory "Hand of God is the intelligence behind the energy formations." since vibrations remains to be proven or dismissed. Vibrations could be an absurd idea.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

Is an electron a container or is it just a cloud of photons?

Neither

9 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

If you are saying an electron emits photons, then are you also saying that an electron is something more than a cloud of photons? If it is a cloud of photons, then depending on how you measure the energy level of the "electron" wouldn't you be measuring the sum energies of the photons or are you saying electrons have more parts than photons? I have not studied these things.

Clearly. What is your model and evidence that makes you think an electron is a cloud of photons?

11 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

I guess this is a Newtonian sort of view to form these questions about quantum physics.

Quantum physics is incompatible with a Newtonian view, which is only accurate in describing larger-scale phenomena.

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Neither

Clearly. What is your model and evidence that makes you think an electron is a cloud of photons?

Quantum physics is incompatible with a Newtonian view, which is only accurate in describing larger-scale phenomena.

Check out that video. I got the idea from them.

A connection exists between quantum and larger scale events. The connection is a chain reaction of events.

Edited November 23, 2023 by DeckerdSmeckerd
Removed unnecessary words.

[studiot]

27 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

Everything is vibrating.

I suggest yoy look more closely into the nature of vibrations, oscillations, waves and other forms of motion.

We have many names beacause they are all different in the way they work.

Vibrations require what is called a 'restoring force', in addition to the original  'disturbing force'.
If no such force is present then free motion occurs which may be random and if impeded ( eg by collisions) may generate a variety of phenomena, one of which we call pressure, another we call heat, another we call pair production and so on.

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

I suggest yoy look more closely into the nature of vibrations, oscillations, waves and other forms of motion.

We have many names beacause they are all different in the way they work.

Vibrations require what is called a 'restoring force', in addition to the original  'disturbing force'.
If no such force is present then free motion occurs which may be random and if impeded ( eg by collisions) may generate a variety of phenomena, one of which we call pressure, another we call heat, another we call pair production and so on.

I will look into it.

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Vibrations require what is called a 'restoring force', in addition to the original 'disturbing force'.

From Google, if it is correct:

So to vibrate, an object has to have a force acting on it. This force always acts to push the object back towards its equilibrium position. This is called a restoring force.

(The highlighting of the second sentence of the quote was unintentional)

Is the idea that a force must act on an object pertaining to discreet objects like particles? If quantum were to be understood as a continuum of energies rather than particles, then the force could act from the ends of the continuum. 

Forces that act upon a continuum of quantum energies, the fabric of space, cause the vibrations from source to the limit of the range. The vibrations are quantum chain reactions.

Quantum physics exists simultaneously with Newtonian physics. It seems natural that things that happen on the larger scale also happen on the quantum level. If a star explodes, the quantum fabric is also changed.

Edited November 23, 2023 by DeckerdSmeckerd
added a note to the google quote. Added some thoughts.

[joigus]

An electron being made up of a bunch of photons (whether it be a bag or a cloud) would be inconsistent with the flux law for the electric field from Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell's equations have never been found to be at odds with observation.

Not for capacitors, nor for diodes, laser, inductances, magnets, firing neurons. Nothing. There would be no metals, or dielectrics...

The way we understand it is: No matter how many photons you "bunch together", they would  still have net charge equal to zero.

Another reason is that you cannot sum a bunch of -1's and 1's and get 1/2 as a result (the electron spin).

And there may be many more reasons. I'm just trying to point out what to me look like the most obvious ones.

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

An electron being made up of a bunch of photons (whether it be a bag or a cloud) would be inconsistent with the flux law for the electric field from Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell's equations have never been found to be at odds with observation.

Not for capacitors, nor for diodes, laser, inductances, magnets, firing neurons. Nothing. There would be no metals, or dielectrics...

The way we understand it is: No matter how many photons you "bunch together", they would  still have net charge equal to zero.

Another reason is that you cannot sum a bunch of -1's and 1's and get 1/2 as a result (the electron spin).

And there may be many more reasons. I'm just trying to point out what to me look like the most obvious ones.

It would not be as simple as a cloud of photons. It would be some quantum phenomenon. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by DeckerdSmeckerd
grammar. Removed "complicated" from the phrase "complicated quantum phenomenon" because that is unknown.

[studiot]

33 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

I will look into it.

From Google, if it is correct:

So to vibrate, an object has to have a force acting on it. This force always acts to push the object back towards its equilibrium position. This is called a restoring force.

(The highlighting of the second sentence of the quote was unintentional)

Is the idea that a force must act on an object pertaining to discreet objects like particles? If quantum were to be understood as a continuum of energies rather than particles, then the force could act from the ends of the continuum. 

Forces that act upon a continuum of quantum energies, the fabric of space, cause the vibrations from source to the limit of the range. The vibrations are quantum chain reactions.

Quantum physics exists simultaneously with Newtonian physics. It seems natural that things that happen on the larger scale also happen on the quantum level. If a star explodes, the quantum fabric is also changed.

Quantum theory doesn't in general involve forces and reference to  a 'fabric' is popsci.

I am suprised that you jumped to such conclusions when I suggested to find out about some basics.

I'm sorry but there is a lot of learning and work required between those basics and something as advanced as quantum theory.

And as yet, you don't seem to have the basics.

1 hour ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

If light photons are vibrations, then what is quantum physics?

Energy does not exist by itself. There is no such thing as pure energy.

Energy is, in fact, a property of things which do exist. One of its properties is that it may be transferred from one thing to another.

Quantum physics arose from the description given by Einstein to the discovery that energy can only be transferred in certain definite quantities.
This was only  a description and referred to only one sort of transfer originally.
It did not answer the questions of how or why this is so.

Einstein called these definite quantities quanta.

As joigus points out, it has later transpired that the restriction also applies to some other properties of things such as angular momentum.

Quantum Physics is the study of such phenomena and its implications.

 

Does this help ?

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Quantum theory doesn't in general involve forces and reference to  a 'fabric' is popsci.

I am suprised that you jumped to such conclusions when I suggested to find out about some basics.

I'm sorry but there is a lot of learning and work required between those basics and something as advanced as quantum theory.

And as yet, you don't seem to have the basics.

Energy does not exist by itself. There is no such thing as pure energy.

Energy is, in fact, a property of things which do exist. One of its properties is that it may be transferred from one thing to another.

Quantum physics arose from the description given by Einstein to the discovery that energy can only be transferred in certain definite quantities.
This was only  a description and referred to only one sort of transfer originally.
It did not answer the questions of how or why this is so.

Einstein called these definite quantities quanta.

As joigus points out, it has later transpired that the restriction also applies to some other properties of things such as angular momentum.

Quantum Physics is the study of such phenomena and its implications.

 

Does this help ?

In short, you don't believe that quantum physics should be thought of as the fabric of space. 

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

In short, you don't believe that quantum physics should be thought of as the fabric of space. 

Space has no fabric. It is not made of anything.

Space is a general term, best understood in context.

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Space has no fabric. It is not made of anything.

Space is a general term, best understood in context.

That space is not quantum fabric is the normal theory. Space as a quantum fabric of energies and/or substances is only an idea. I can't go so far as to say I have a real theory. I would just prefer to avoid thinking of this thread as a proposal of a Scientific Theory.

[joigus]

11 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

It would not be as simple as a cloud of photons. It would be some quantum phenomenon. 

The photon is a quantum phenomenon. Spin also is. Classically (in the view previous to quantum physics) electromagnetic waves were a continuous disturbance of the vacuum. 

Maxwell's equations, OTOH, have resisted even the quantum revolution. Ever heard of QED? (quantum electrodynamics). The field equations one quantises are... surprise, surprise... Maxwell's equations. So everything I said holds.

1 minute ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

I can't go so far as to say I have a real theory. I would just prefer to avoid thinking of this thread as a proposal of a Scientific Theory.

I appretiate your honesty. I just hope we're being helpful then.

But you do understand how hard it is to get to a proper theory from a bundle of loose intuitions, right? Almost nobody does. And when you think of something interesting (a little technical thing here or there) it's almost sure somebody's thought of it already.

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

That space is not quantum fabric is the normal theory. Space as a quantum fabric of energies and/or substances is only an idea. I can't go so far as to say I have a real theory. I would just prefer to avoid thinking of this thread as a proposal of a Scientific Theory.

When lots of clever people have worked hard to tie down specific meaning for many technical terms it makes sense to use those meanings and not try to start out with new ones.

Unfortunately too often in my opinion even scientists fall down in this respect so when they start talking about some new subject, other people think they know what is meant and arguments ensue when they find out that they do not.

Edited November 24, 2023 by studiot

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

The photon is a quantum phenomenon. Spin also is. Classically (in the view previous to quantum physics) electromagnetic waves were a continuous disturbance of the vacuum. 

Maxwell's equations, OTOH, have resisted even the quantum revolution. Ever heard of QED? (quantum electrodynamics). The field equations one quantises are... surprise, surprise... Maxwell's equations. So everything I said holds.

I think you can count on Maxwell's equations, but I don't know what they are. I have heard of him. Quantum physics doesn't conflict with proven math does it?

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

When lots of clever people have worked hard to tie down specific meaning for many technical terms it makes sense to use those meanings and not try to start out with new ones.

Unfortunately too often in my opinion even scientists fall down in this respect so when they start talking about some new subject, other people think they know what is meant and arguments ensue when they find out that they do not.

That's hard. I hope they will be ok.

[joigus]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

When lots of clever people have worked hard to tie down specific meaning for many technical terms it makes sense to use those meanings and not try to start out with new ones.

Unfortunately too often in my opinion even scientists fall down in this respect so when they start talking about some new subject, other people think they know what is meant and arguments ensue when they find out that they do not.

I couldn't agree more!

3 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

I think you can count on Maxwell's equations, but I don't know what they are. I have heard of him. Quantum physics doesn't conflict with proven math does it?

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean it has a 100% consistent axiomatic formulation. In particular, it could fail at very small distances, and it might be the case that quantum theory cannot do the job of explaining away what happens at these incredibly small scales. Who knows.

But so far it's done the job exceedingly well. There is a very famous quote by Feynman on the extraodinary predictive capabilities of quantum field theory.

 

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

I couldn't agree more!

Neither of you need to be worried. Neither of you are fooled by my level of expertise. Is the community less likely to understand that I am just having some fun. I don't mean it as an attack on science.

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

I couldn't agree more!

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean it has a 100% consistent axiomatic formulation. In particular, it could fail at very small distances, and it might be the case that quantum theory cannot do the job of explaining away what happens at these incredibly small scales. Who knows.

But so far it's done the job exceedingly well. There is a very famous quote by Feynman on the extraodinary predictive capabilities of quantum field theory.

 

What can be predicted? Will you give an example or two?

Edited November 24, 2023 by DeckerdSmeckerd
grammar

[studiot]

Maxwell was the kiddie. Sadly he died comparatively young. He would probably have had relativity if he had lived another 10 years to then average age.

20 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

Quantum physics doesn't conflict with proven math does it?

There are always suprises around the corner.

That is one of the strengths of Science.

It is malleable enough to absorb change and be better as a result.

The best reasoning in Science seems to often alternate between mathematical reasoning and physics reasoning, each one prompteing advances in the other.

The best derivations I have seen of the famous Schrodinger quantum equation work like this, as do mnay others.

It is now well past the witching hour here in England  so I will take my leave for now.

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Maxwell was the kiddie. Sadly he died comparatively young. He would probably have had relativity if he had lived another 10 years to then average age.

There are always suprises around the corner.

That is one of the strengths of Science.

It is malleable enough to absorb change and be better as a result.

The best reasoning in Science seems to often alternate between mathematical reasoning and physics reasoning, each one prompteing advances in the other.

The best derivations I have seen of the famous Schrodinger quantum equation work like this, as do mnay others.

People love science. It is very interesting. Science might not alternate between mathematical reasoning and physics reasoning. People do the reasoning.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

Check out that video

Check out our rules (specifically 2.7). You need to post material for discussion here. “check out that video” is tacit admission that you haven’t complied.

1 hour ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

If quantum were to be understood as a continuum of energies rather than particles

If it were a continuum of energies it wouldn’t be called quantum.

45 minutes ago, DeckerdSmeckerd said:

That space is not quantum fabric is the normal theory. Space as a quantum fabric of energies and/or substances is only an idea. I can't go so far as to say I have a real theory. I would just prefer to avoid thinking of this thread as a proposal of a Scientific Theory.

But to post here you have to have something of substance. This isn’t the WAG forum. 

[DeckerdSmeckerd]

Sorry I didn't wrap that in a link. Here it is. I admit I didn't read the rules. Thank you for pointing that out. Easy fix.

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

If it were a continuum of energies it wouldn’t be called quantum.

You are totally right. It wouldn't be called quantum. I can't understand quantum physics through a mathematical understanding. I can only understand a physical substance. This idea wouldn't even be in the scope of that theory, and I can't apply anything from quantum theory to this idea I mentioned even for fun. I don't understand the movement of quantum particles at all. I was speculating in a totally different way, but it only makes sense in quantum physics if quantum particles are what space is.

Edited November 24, 2023 by DeckerdSmeckerd