Off topic posts split from " Can someone help with this quantum question?"

[Graviphoton]

The main thing to know about when concerning measuerement (which is good for me to explain, since i thoroughly investigate psychophysics), is that the fundamental matter at the infinitesimal size of protino's and neutralino's, is that they ''act'' differently to larger matter. Some how, the matter at the fundamental size when not being observed takes the form of wavelike properties.

 

Macroscopic matter however, can somehow escape the laws of the smaller statistics they are made of... in other words, a car moving on the road doesn't seem to take all the paths it could do if it where a single particle moving through space.

 

Consider a photon hitting off a mirror at 90 degrees. That photon must take all possible routes. These routes are eignstates, and it isn't until an observer comes along and observes one of these states, does a single eigenstate becomes real.

 

The similarities between macroscopic observation and measurement is so very diffrent to that of microsopic, i dare say there is no correlation. If you also try and pin down a particle by observing it, you are unaware that you are in fact making both its path and position more defined, so the result of the Uncertainty Principle, mentioned above, is that its trajectory will become more and more unstable, so the more you might try and pin down an electron with a photon, the more that photon will move away from being observed.

 

Some things you might want to learn... such as the zeno-effect -- this is when a simple observation on an atom can suspend it from radiating any energies. Collapse of the wave function, is when a photon is observed and measured, so that its wavelike properties are reduced into a single value we ascribe as simply 1.

[Farsight]

Now that is mere hypothesis. At best.

[Zephir]

what are some similarities and differences between measuring an object in the quantum world and measuring an object in the macroscopic world? Any input is appreciated

None such difference exists, in fact. We already know about some macroscopic versions of quantum phenomena, like the double slit experiment.

 

 

In real world, everything is composed of smaller objects, so that every observation is influenced by quantum uncertainty undeniably. The denomination "quantum state" basically means "the state, where mass density is proportional to energy density". As an example of macroscopic object with quantum behavior can serve the foam, which gets more dense under shaking temporarily. This leads to the quantization of energy at the case, the wave will start to bounce from the internal walls of dense blob, which is created by such motion due the resonance condition. After then, the energy of every particle cannot fall bellow certain limit (so called the "ground state"), or the particle would dissolve into vacuum foam again - from this the quantization of energy follows.

[ydoaPs]

Keep the pseudoscience where it belongs.

[antimatter]

Keep the pseudoscience where it belongs.

 

owch.

[Zephir]

Any helpful input is appreciated.

If so, why did you erased my post from here? Or do you expect, if you'll delete the foreign posts obstinatelly, you can expect some cooperation?

[swansont]

If so, why did you erased my post from here? Or do you expect, if you'll delete the foreign posts obstinatelly, you can expect some cooperation?

 

Cooperation is expected a priori. Posts that detract from the discussion are fair game for relocation or deletion.

[Phi for All]

If so, why did you erased my post from here? Or do you expect, if you'll delete the foreign posts obstinatelly, you can expect some cooperation?

Your posts have been restored and split from the original thread. Please continue.

[Zephir]

... Posts that detract from the discussion are fair game for relocation or deletion...

The discussion of opened question is exactly, what the science is. But just because these questions are opened, you can call every answer as pseudoscience. From this approach we can deduce, the real purpose of science is to deal with pseudoscience.

 

Anyway, we can see, the obstinate endeavor can have an opposite result at times, if the scope is exaggerated. Well, where is the exact boundary between classical physics and the quantum one? We can analyze it by studying of dense particle system condensation, for example during isothermic compression of gas. We can model such situation by system of particles, where the density increases gradually toward the center due the gravitational pressure.

 

 

At it's very beginning, the behavior of particle fluctuations can be described as a Boltzmann gas and it fulfills the Fermi-Dirac statistics of colliding particles. We can see, the energy is spreading via longitudinal waves, therefore it fulfills Galileo transform (the speed of sound waves depends on the environment motion).

 

As the density of gas increases, the shape of the same fluctuations will become flat and the energy spreading through such foam will obtain a transversal wave character, where waves are fulfilling Bose-Einstein statistics (the waves can penetrate mutually). The spreading of such waves will fulfill a Lorentz transform - the speed of such waves doesn't depend on the motion of environment, which remains completely chaotic with respect of such waves.

 

The important aspect of foam behavior is, it creates a density fluctuation during spreading of waves because every foam gets more dense during shaking. Therefore every wave will spread as a less or more pronounced wave packet (dense blob) through such environment, so we can consider these blobs as a new generation of particles. We can even observe such phenomena experimentally during slow condensation of supercritical fluid.

 

 

On the above animation we can see, the newly created fluctuations will form a sort of metafluid, the particle of which are formed by fluctuations of original fluid (a sort of 2nd-order phase transition). So you can see, despite the lack of formal math, I'm not bullshitting you and the behavior of such system remains a realm of "classical physics", despite its complexity. But the behavior of resulting fluctuations is quite nontrivial by now. Every fluctuation here is formed by tiny undulating vortices here and the energy density will become similar to real quantum wave, being formed by undulations of undulations - even at the quite elevated temperature (the phase transition of liquid carbon dioxide sample presented above occurs at the human body temperature, i.e. some 310 K), so it can serve as an rudimental model of real particles in real vacuum.

 

By Aether theory the behavior of real vacuum differs just by degree of nested condensations, where it can be a virtually unlimited number (currently I've no meaningfull mechanism developed, how to limit such number - if you found/derive any, it will become a "2nd Aether theory revolution").

[Klaynos]

I am reminded of Farsight with all these meaningless pictures...

[Zephir]

..with all these meaningless pictures...

This is quite logical & meaningful stance, 'cause every complexity appears as a meaningless chaos from unconscious observer perspective...

 

Do you know about the unparticle physics, process physics or constructal theory? Did you hear about string net liquid concept of vacuum?

 

Do you think, some logical connection exists here? Or do you believe, all these concepts are totally meaningless and unrelated each other?

[Klaynos]

I think if they're serious physics they all have equations and maths that people would show along side the pictures.

[Zephir]

...I think if they're serious physics they all have equations and maths...

By my opinion, all the above concepts/theories are ad-hoced (i.e. less or more correctly guessed without understanding of their true nature), while just the Aether wave theory remains strictly physical from its very beginning.

 

What do you think about it?

[ajb]

By my opinion, all the above concepts/theories are ad-hoced (i.e. less or more correctly guessed without understanding of their true nature), while just the Aether wave theory remains strictly physical from its very beginning.

 

What do you think about it?

 

no comment

 

LOL

[Zephir]

no comment

As you can see, the superfluid nested condensation covers both the unparticle concept, both the fractal geometry concept, both process physics concept, both the string net liquid concept by simple Newton theory based concept. If some model of reality covers concepts of two or more other models at the same time, it's evident, which one is more fundamental and less ad-hoced one.

 

Try to think about it.

[Klaynos]

If it's physical from the ground up, it should be trivial to show us the mathematical derivation from first principles... GO!

[ajb]

As you can see, the superfluid nested condensation covers both the unparticle concept, both the fractal geometry concept, both process physics concept, both the string net liquid concept by simple Newton theory based concept. If some model of reality covers concepts of two or more other models at the same time, it's evident, which one is more fundamental and less ad-hoced one.

 

Try to think about it.

 

I have started a new thread on unparticles. To me they are an interested idea. The idea of conformal fields transforming with some fractional scaling dimension is not new (in 2d for sure), but was is novel about unparticles is that that couple to the standard model.

 

I am not sure if I would say that unparticles are a "physical concept". They are not particles and if they turn up at LHC then that would be a radical departure from what we believe about nature. They arose from studying 2-d conformal field theory, which may be useful in condensed matter physics. The difficult bit about unparticles is that most of what we know about conformal field theories is in 2-d.

 

As for string net liquid, I have no idea.

[Zephir]

I have started a new thread on unparticles. To me they are an interested idea. .

Why it should be? Without Aether concept of nested density fluctuations such idea has no justification - if it would have, we wouldn't hunt for unparticles already.

 

It's like the introduction of string concept - some the ad-hoced idea first, the experimental evidence sometimes later (if ever). Such guessing is not the optimal way, how the physics should develop for future. Especially if we have many much more logical concepts untested yet (the Aether and Heim theory as an examples).

 

My personal feeling is, the unparticle physics was Aether Wave Theory motivated on the background anyway. By the same way, like the string net liquid hypothesis and many other recent concepts, which were introduced ad-hoc suddenly. They're all just an attempts of mainstream physics proponents, how to hide their motivation and how to avoid the Aether concept in the eyes of publicity.

 

Einstein: "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources".. A pretty upright and pragmatic stance, to say it diplomatically...

[Farsight]

I am reminded of Farsight with all these meaningless pictures...

Print that out and frame those words. Then in a little while, you can eat them.

[zule]

I am reminded of Farsight with all these meaningless pictures...

 

I am reminded of the tv series "Doctor Who". Those drawings are very suitable to appear in that series.

[ydoaPs]

Print that out and frame those words. Then in a little while, you can eat them.

Why would he do that? You don't even defend your own crackpottery anymore. Got any maths yet?

[Sayonara]

Why would he do that? You don't even defend your own crackpottery anymore. Got any maths yet?

 

You know you missed him really.