AreDiscontinuousQuantumMechanics & ContinuousFieldTheoryReallyMutuallyExclusive?

[KaiduOrkhon]

Before & After Field Physics:

 

A Brief History

 

Timeline of Electromagnetism

 

(Re: Google. 'History of electromagnetism')

 

Ancient times:

 

 

amber rubbed with fur attracts bits of dust and hairs

 

static electricity - spikes on cold, dry days, lightening

 

lode stone compass

1600: English scientist, William Gilbert, publishes "De Magnete"

 

 

1700: Lectures and demonstrations given by various scientists using electricity to attract and entertain audiences

 

 

 

1747: Ben Franklin (1706-1790)

 

two kinds of charges: positive and negative

Like charges repel, unlike charges attract

Conservation of Charge: An isolated system has constant total charge.

1785: Charles Austin de Coulomb (1736-1806)

 

Coulomb's Law F = k Q1 Q2 / r^2 ~~~~~~ k = 9 x 10^9 N-m^2/c^2

 

The force between two charges Q1 and Q2 is proportional to their product divided by the separation distance r squared. Inverse square law.

1780: Luigi Galvani (1737-1790) discovers electricity from two different metals causes frog legs to twitch

 

 

1790: Alessandro Volta (1745-1827) finds chemistry acting on two dissimilar metals generates electricity. He later invents the voltaic pile - the battery.

 

 

 

1820: Hans Christian Oersted (1777-1851) electric current affects compass needle

 

 

 

1820: Andre Marie Ampere (1775-1836) in Paris finds that wires carrying current produce forces on each other.

 

 

 

1820: Michael Faraday (1791-1867) at Royal Society in London develops idea of electric field and studies the effect of currents on magnets and magnets inducing electric currents.

 

1827 - Thomson, Tait, Riemann, Helmholtz (Refer via Google)

 

 

1860: James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), a Scottish physicist and mathematician, puts the theory of electromagnetism on mathematical basis

1873: Maxwell publishes "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" in which he summarizes and synthesizes the discoveries of Coloumb, Oersted, Ampere, Faraday, et. al. in four mathematical equations. Maxwell's Equations are used today as the basis of electromagnetic theory. Maxwell makes a prediction about the connections of magnetism and electricity leading directly to the prediction of electromagnetic waves.

 

 

1885: Heinrich Hertz shows Maxwell was correct and generates and detects electromagnetic waves.

1895: Guglielmo Marconi puts the discovery to practical use by sending messages over long distances by means of radio signals. i.e. the "Wireless".

 

 

Magnetic Fields : History of Electromagnetism

Until 1820, the only magnetism known was that of iron magnets and of "lodestones", natural magnets of iron-rich ore. It was believed that the inside of the Earth was magnetized in the same fashion, and scientists were greatly puzzled when they found that the direction of the compass needle at any place slowly shifted, decade by decade, suggesting a slow variation of the Earth's magnetic field.

 

Electric Generator or Dynamo

Michael Faraday of England and American Joseph Henry separately built the first laboratory models of electric generator in 1832. Frenchmen, Hippolyte Pixii, France built a hand-driven model of an electric generator in 1833. American, Nikola Tesla built the first alternating-current generator in 1892.

 

Electronics

The history of electronics began to evolve separately from the history of electricity late in the 19th century. The English physicist J.J. Thomson identified the electron by and the American physicist Robert A. Millikan measured its electric charge in 1909.

 

*****

 

1686 - Newton, understandably for his time, hypothesized the idea that everything including light is reducible to tiny, discontinuous, static 'particles' of 'solid matter'.

 

1752 Benjamin Franklin - famous stormy kite flight led him to develop many of the terms that we still use today when we talk about electricity: battery, conductor, condenser, charge, discharge, uncharged, negative, minus, plus, electric shock, and electrician. (Enter 'Benjamin Franklin electricity' google.)

 

1823 - Faraday discovers the principle of inductance, where a moving magnet generates a flow of electric current in a coil of wire. This experimental observation led to the realization that electricity and magnetism are unified - hence the formulation of the noun 'electromagnetism'. Faraday speculated that Newton's so called particles might actually be tiny charges of electricity; that the electric field ('charged particle') is static (non-expanding) and did not learn of its spatial structure.

 

1827 Thomson

 

1861 - Maxwell accurately formulates his renowned electromagnetic equations which predict and determine the field is expanding (generated by and emanating) from all (so called) particles at the same speed as light and gravity and generating the same familiar inverse square structure as gravity and light. Maxwell expires while attempting to confirm that his mathematically predicted 'space waves' are (in fact) the identity of light.

 

1886 - Hertz fulfills Maxwell's objective; experimentally confirming Maxwell's electromagnetic equations.

 

1895 - the discovery of X rays.

 

1896 - the discovery of radioactivity

 

1897 - J. J. Thompson discovers the electron, proving Faraday's hypothesis that Newton's particles actually are microcosmic charges of electromagnetic energy.

 

1898 - the discovery of radium.

 

1900 - discovery of black body - discontinuous 'quantized' radiation.

 

1905 - Brownian motion, photoelectric effect, The Special Theory - about uniform motion and light, thru

 

1916's General Principle, about non-uniform motion and gravity - Einstein states that 'the particle is a localized region of space where the field density is particularly high.'

 

1937 - G.P. Thompson experimentally proves and mathematically confirms that electrons, neutrons and protons are constantly expanding charges of electricity without discontinuous boundaries seperating them from surrounding space. (He looks up from his accurate equations and experimental proof, concludes that his experimental proof must be wrong, because, 'obviously, physical reality at large is not expanding'. (Refer, J.W.N. Sullivan, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE).

 

*******

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In physics, the Dirac equation is a relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation formulated by Paul Dirac in 1928 and provides a description of elementary spin-½ particles, such as electrons, consistent with both the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. The equation demands the existence of antiparticles and actually predated their experimental discovery, making the discovery of the positron, the antiparticle of the electron, one of the greatest triumphs of modern theoretical physics. ...the Dirac equation was originally invented to describe the electron... ***

 

Cogent excerpts follow; from a dialogue between (the Honorable) Sergey500 and Truly Yours, in his 'What IS space', Hypography Science Forums thread, November, December 2005:

 

That Rascal Puff (K. B. Robertson) to Sergey500:

 

You don't mention my quote that a positive charge omnidirectionally emits an outgoing electric force, and, a negative charge omnidirectionally absorbs an incoming electric force (paraphrased).

 

Indeed. Moreover. Sometimes opposites do attract, and sometimes they repel. Newton says gravity may be an impelling - or a repelling - force (What this record calls, 'The gravitational alternative'). Einstein says gravity is - at least sometimes - a repelling force; adding furthermore that gravity may be both a repelling and an impelling force.

 

Truly Yours tends to observe that gravity is usually a repelling force, on or near major gravitational masses, and an impelling (aquatic, terrestrial and atomospheric) tidal force (for example) at greater distances. Summarizing that, since Newton introduced what he fully acknowledged as a mysterious, occult force of gravitation, usually - but not militantly - to be thought of as an impelling force, this record sees no reason why Einstein is disallowed from introducing a repelling force acting parallel to Newton's impelling force... Summing up a tandem repelling and impelling force, with each man offering major contributions to understanding the universe; neither of which men - or forces - are mutually exclusive.

 

The dilemma of gravity WITH & WITHOUT PUNCTUATION: often reminds this record of:

 

The superfluously conflicting schools of thought (Circa 1900 thru 1930 and ever since) on Max Planck's - Helmholtz inspired, Rubens confirmed - Quantum Mechanics'.

 

The 1897 dated observation of black body radiation led Planck to attempt to observe an invariable increase in entropy, which resulted in null thought and laboratory experiments; leading to Planck's 1900 revision of Boltzmann's alternately continuous and discontinuous statistical interpretaton of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (later paralleled by Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy)

 

It is only obscurely known or recognized that, although there are indeed opposing - J.J. Thompson-electron-launched - arguments on this subject, Einstein and Planck were in the same camp, along with Schroedinger, regarding the much misunderstood 'problem' of microcosmic 'continuity' of wave-field theory, and 'discontinuity' of so called 'particles'.

 

Leading to an undrained, ever rising swamp of determinacy and indeterminacy, entanglement, water ripple and shotgun pellets rolling sideways and speeding linearly through vertical and horizontal slits, in the ever imposing shadow of assumptive continuous wave eclipsed by the non-prevailing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and the newly incumbent black body radiation - vocabularized in electrical theory and thermodynamics - introducing the circle of broken lines forming a sought-after curve but still leading to an apparently non discardable discontinuous 'quantum leap', because energy in discontinuous portions cannot be infinitely divided; establishing that radiant energy is not quantitatively infinite - in unequal units, Planck resolved that the frequency of the considered discontinuous wave is directly related to its duration, or more specifically, its length.

 

This was unexpected because it defined a seemingly antithetical, self contradicting equality in discontinuous and continuous energy packets - 'quantum', which, literally translated from Latin equals 'what quantity'. It came to pass that, depending on how these units are measured and otherwise evaluated, they alternately manifestat as 'waves', and, as 'particles' - continuity, and discontinuity.

 

From this arose a further quandary of defining the dynamics of what was projected, compared to the method or conditions of projection.

 

Quantum Mechanics (perhaps better understood as 'quantum dynamics') was not altogether contradictory to the - at that time, much established continuous wave theory - which was often confirmed in delicate laboratory observations as well as more pedestrian observations such as the often exemplified fact that a swinging pendulum loses its momentum in a continuous declination of kinetic energy. Quantum Mechanics contests this.

 

Black body radiation occurs in discontinuous packages of microcosmically indivisible energy units of erg seconds, where the individual, indivisible unit is designated as 'h', for the numerically expressed value of:

 

.0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6,6 x 1027

 

Establishing that ordinary sizes as perceived by human observers were not the end measure of what was occuring in the much smaller realms of physicality and dynamics.

 

Max Planck had not excluded the previous standards of observation and measurement, whereas, he certainly had established that the characteristics of the larger physical world were not aligned with those of the smaller physical world, and that the Latin statement, ut infra, ut supra and conversely ('as above, so below'), was a generalisation but not a law.

 

Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed - the evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger and a mess of others time and space does not allot for - as it was and is - in the format of this dissertation

 

(It may be correctly observed and stated that: 'Long posts' are discouraged in most every communications exchange on the net? In any event, the ongoing interaction between Sergey and Puff has been augmented and transferred from the Science Forum Hypography thread 'What IS space' to this location subjecting TOTAL FIELD THEORY)

 

You exlude such important considerations from your (disarmingly candid, if not naive?) guesses, Mr. Sergey500 (Is only 15 years old, but is the author of the subjected thread - 'What IS space, at Science Forums Hypography, which question has evoked an admirably inspired series of responses - diamonds in the rough, as it were...).

 

Likely because you concede to asking big questions, parallel to candidly admitting to having a short attention span. That is, it's likely you don't understand a lot of things because you, with admirable honesty, concede that you don't read much, and like so many others these days who want - and often get - instant everything, you don't like long posts, in response to your questions, either...

 

It's been said by this record before and may be called upon to be repeated any number of times:

 

There are two kinds of math. Metric, and, non-metric. The first is obliged to be responsive to and directly determined by measurably real conditions; with or without mathematical descriptions of them.

 

Non-metric math is, for example, not obliged to conform to any existentially (conditionally, physically, spatially, dynamically, phenomenologically) manifest state or process of observed, measurable reality. Been said before, here: an exemplary pair of non-metric mathematical formulas can be equally correct, while reciprocally and mutually disproving each other. Numbers only. Who needs reality to do non-metric mathematics? Has little or nothing to do with 'science'.

 

(Does that help any?)

[KaiduOrkhon]

ARE DISCONTINUOUS QUANTUM MECHANICS

and CONTINUOUS FIELD THEORY REALLY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?

REPRISE

 

The present time is 2.9.06, 0103 hrs, Thursday.

 

 

Just over 24 hours ago Truly Yours posted about a half dozen messages in as many Science Forums and Debate (SFN) locations, particularly in the - alleged - 'more tolerant' category of Psuedoscience and Metaphysics.

 

A number of prompt responses resulted, a few of which were quite reasonable if tentative; more of which were mostly in the category of generally groundless and unwarranted disclaimers and stay-away (off limits, police line emulating) flags hoisted by 'Insane Alien' and D'jona - unfounded, poorly grounded disagreements; met (by this record) with even toned reason and repeated observations that, for all of the dissention from the InsaneAlien and D'jona duo, none of the negative chaff from that sector was case-specific, apparently on accounta the unexplained refusal to research the work they were diminutively alluding to.

 

(Sorta like Mr. Fred H. doing an exhaustively contorted critique on Einstein's <Wrong!!!! Evil!!!!> Semite-contaminated work without comprehending a word, sentence or paragraph of it. <Ask Mr. Balusque - Mr. Fred - CPA/MBA - H's new Public Relations Manager; AKA: 'Sir'. Bravissimo Muchissimo.>)

 

Resulting in the absence of any qualified argument, beyond the repeated, superfluous clarification that posted information must meet certain standards, without specifically pointing out what - if any - given standards K. B. Robertson did not meet, or was not otherwise conforming to.

 

There were a number of wide-spectrum allegations that requirements were not being met; whereas, such allegations did not - and so far, do not - specify how, why, when and where Yours Truly did not qualify for any specific evaluation, or, pointing out any specific errors or other inappropriate or incorrect information that might be found in the title (let alone the contents) of 'Gravity Is The 4th Dimension', otherwise titled 'Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions: The non-mathematical Translation of the Special & General Theories of Relativity, and, the Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned (Steady State) Unified Field. The Big Bang Theory is Wrong. 'Entropic Heat Death' is a myth'.

 

The fact that the preceding post (above: Are Discontinuous Quantum Mechanics & Continuous Field Theory Really Mutually Exclusive? was not and so far has not been responded to, subjected, or otherwise brought under non-specific, unqualified, psuedoscientific or metaphysical condescension, calls attention to itself.

 

Perhaps on accounta the featured post reflects the authority of the information the cited downplayers aren't prepared to own up to...

 

(Not knowing what they so fervently purport to understand? <Conspicuous by omission?> )

 

Should there be a visitation here - or anywhere else I'm directed - to set me straight and/or otherwise level the playing field (disintegrate the vigorously implied though unltabled house of cards and/or orbiting roulette tables), day or night: we'll leave the lights on for you.

 

Thank you for reading this missive.

(Even though the usual Welcome Wagoneers

have somehow, cautiously rolled past it?)

 

 

Sincerely,

K. B. Robertson

(Etceteras.)