quantim leaping of electons

[36grit]

Elecrons move from one orbit to another without traversing the distance inbetween. Is it possible that the distance inbetween lacks the property of momentum potential?

 

Perhaps momentum potential space exists as fields in the subatomic realm. Lately I've been thinking that momentum poteneial space might be the by product of vacuum energy anihalation. This might give a "real time" space for electromagnetic charge to exist within, seprerating the electromagnetic energy particles of the quark from electromagnetic energy particles of the vacuum energy. Otherwise what is the difference from the elecreomagnetic energy inside the quark and the electro magnetic energy out side the quark (vacuum energy)

 

 

[ajb]

Is it possible that the distance inbetween lacks the property of momentum potential?

 

Perhaps momentum potential space exists as fields in the subatomic realm.

 

 

A space-like component of so some 4-vector whose time-like component is potential energy?

[pantheory]

Electrons move from one orbit to another without traversing the distance in between. Is it possible that the distance in between lacks the property of momentum potential?

 

Perhaps momentum potential space exists as fields in the subatomic realm. Lately I've been thinking that momentum poteneial space might be the by product of vacuum energy anihalation. This might give a "real time" space for electromagnetic charge to exist within, seprerating the electromagnetic energy particles of the quark from electromagnetic energy particles of the vacuum energy. Otherwise what is the difference from the elecreomagnetic energy inside the quark and the electro magnetic energy out side the quark (vacuum energy)

"Electrons move from one orbit to another without traversing the distance in between." You also might consider that this is only present theory but may not be valid. Although there seems to be no evidence that electrons traverse the distance in between, Einstein and others believed that electrons like photons were particles in the classical sense in that they accordingly must "traverse the distance in between," whether this "traverse" can be detected or not.

.

Edited July 17, 2011 by pantheory

[Marqq]

Can this be related to the Double-Slit Experiment, the conclusion of which states that undetected electrons take all paths and no path simultaneously? Perhaps while they're skipping the space between orbits, they're also taking every possible path between them?

[36grit]

Why do we assume that all distance is capable of propagating a wave of energy or wave energy particles?

 

A space-like component of so some 4-vector whose time-like component is potential energy?

 

yes. something like that.

Outside the atom space time is almost seemless. Tears are mended by the same process that builds post atomic space, that is vacuum energy anihalations.

[ajb]

The only preprint I can find is [1]. I have not read the preprint carefully, but it does seem quite accessible. Though I am wondering of there is anything really in it. Maybe this is not what you have in mind anyway.

 

 

 

 

References

[1] David J. Raymond Potential Momentum, Gauge Theory, and Electromagnetism in Introductory Physics. arXiv:physics/9803023v1 [physics.ed-ph]

[36grit]

thanks, I'll check it out

[md65536]

Einstein and others believed that electrons like photons were particles in the classical sense in that they accordingly must "traverse the distance in between," whether this "traverse" can be detected or not..

If there is no possible detectable difference between particles "leaping" from one place to another, vs. traversing the distance in a classical sense, then either case would be equally valid in a model of reality. Unless some test can show that one or the other is invalid, there is nothing to say that one is right and the other is wrong. If there's no difference, the two should be interchangeable. But, I think it would be pointless to say that something exists in a location if there is no way to detect that it was ever there, so if there is no evidence that particles traverse distances, then leaping those distances would be a simpler explanation (ie. a model would have the particle existing in one detectable place, and then in another detectable place, and not specify any other locations for which there is no evidence of the particle existing).

 

I think it's important to consider that any "leaping" would have to obey the law of causality. If information is transfered over a distance (the leap), then it must do so at a speed <= c (but probably =c). So if energy disappears from one location and appears in a distant location, it would also need to appear at a later time than it disappeared.

 

 

 

[36grit]

They way I see it:

The atom nuclei is is a two dimensional disk. It is a mirror of the singularity. All four forces are within the nucleous.

Proton momentum traveling towards itself creates a velocity time dialation that breaks the two dimensional barrier,

as space expands into the four comprehendable dimensions. The gravitron is the particle of four dimensional distance.

The time dialation spins out of the center top and bottom until the momentum "cools" down to a velocity slower

than the speed of light. At this point the momentum cloud dispersis out the nuclei's edge. The repeated action of this causes the

nuclei to vibrate very fast. which causes rings and spikes of gravitron fields. The spikes declare logical relative position in space time. The electrons normally occupies the rings of momentum collapse as the nucli's border stretches and oscillates around the spike defined center. When this field spikes in the center the nuclei disk tumbles to meet it because it's negative charge is attracted to the postive charge whithin the gravitaional field.

The electron doesn't traverse the distance because there is no distance. The distance is only relative to the time field

but there is no distance in reality to traverse.

 

Hear in the time realm, we make holograms that are made up of strings of light. We can see these objects but we cannot touch them. We bathe an object in lazor light and then take a picture of that light by reflecting another lazor off of the light and having it hit the film and then later we shoot a lazor up through the film to recreate the three D image. If we think of the atom as the film and the gravitational spikes as the lazor that takes picture and the rings as the present moment cross section we now have a reality that can be felt. We can also see and send sgnals through this new realtiy because the distance is made up of collapsed energy which only need be reactivated as the surge goes by like air transmitting a sound wave.

 

If this is correct than quantum fields may give an illusion of a three dimensional field via nuclei tumble but in reality they are all two dimensional.

Time/space exists as particles being manufactured by interactions between the subspace positive and negative fields.

Edited July 19, 2011 by 36grit

[pantheory]

If there is no possible detectable difference between particles "leaping" from one place to another, vs. traversing the distance in a classical sense, then either case would be equally valid in a model of reality. Unless some test can show that one or the other is invalid, there is nothing to say that one is right and the other is wrong. If there's no difference, the two should be interchangeable. But, I think it would be pointless to say that something exists in a location if there is no way to detect that it was ever there, so if there is no evidence that particles traverse distances, then leaping those distances would be a simpler explanation (ie. a model would have the particle existing in one detectable place, and then in another detectable place, and not specify any other locations for which there is no evidence of the particle existing).

 

I think it's important to consider that any "leaping" would have to obey the law of causality. If information is transfered over a distance (the leap), then it must do so at a speed <= c (but probably =c). So if energy disappears from one location and appears in a distant location, it would also need to appear at a later time than it disappeared.

Because it has never been detected, of course, does not mean that it never could be detected, re: physically traversing the distance between electron orbits. I consider it a matter of logic. If an electron is in fact physical, then it would have to disappear, transform into something else and then back into a particle. I understand almost the entirety of Quantum Theory has such assertions which seem illogical. I do not think leaping is a simpler explanation than traversing simply because detection in transit has never been observed. In this way my thinking is more in line with Shroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie and others who believe(d) that particles always have existence in one location or another, not disappearing and reappearing, or multiple locations at one time.

Edited July 19, 2011 by pantheory

[md65536]

Because it has never been detected, of course, does not mean that it never could be detected, re: physically traversing the distance between electron orbits. I consider it a matter of logic. If an electron is in fact physical, then it would have to disappear, transform into something else and then back into a particle. I understand almost the entirety of Quantum Theory has such assertions which seem illogical. I do not think leaping is a simpler explanation than traversing simply because detection in transit has never been observed. In this way my thinking is more in line with Shroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie and others who believe(d) that particles always have existence in one location or another, not disappearing and reappearing, or multiple locations at one time.

"Never been detected" is not the same as "not detectable".

If something is theoretically undetectable (and not just that detection is currently unfeasible), then it can never be detected according to that theory.

If it is ever to be detected, the theory must be modified or replaced.

 

It doesn't matter who you are (Shroedinger, Einstein etc); if an idea is based on belief and not theory and observation, then including that idea in a model is an interpretation of the theory.

Particles traversing distance may be a simpler to conceive interpretation than leaping.

However, "simpler" is not just about what seems to make the most sense without having additional questions to ponder. Its about specifying the model as efficiently as possible to minimize the number of additional assumptions that aren't a consequence of the observable evidence. So, the idea of particles leaping may be abhorrent, but if all that it means is that the particle is in one location at one time and in another location at another time and you don't specify or care about what goes on between those 2 spacetime coordinates, then it is simpler.

 

I'm not sure what QM predicts is undetectable or unobservable, but I know that it does predict that some things are. For example the uncertainty principle says that some measurements are physically impossible to make, even with any yet-to-be-imagined measuring technology. To be able to measure things that the uncertainty principle says are unmeasurable, you wouldn't need just better instruments, you would need a new theory.

 

I'm not sure what the various theories say about the detectability of particle traversal vs. leaping.

[pantheory]

"Never been detected" is not the same as "not detectable." If something is theoretically undetectable (and not just that detection is currently unfeasible), then it can never be detected according to that theory. If it is ever to be detected, the theory must be modified or replaced.

I agree and believe Quantum Theory will be modified some day enabling logic to become part of the new model.

 

It doesn't matter who you are (Shroedinger, Einstein etc); if an idea is based on belief and not theory and observation, then including that idea in a model is an interpretation of the theory.

Their collective ideas involve alternative ideas that could be transformed into alternative theory, whereby the math would not change, only the explanations.

 

Particles traversing distance may be a simpler to conceive interpretation than leaping. However, "simpler" is not just about what seems to make the most sense without having additional questions to ponder. Its about specifying the model as efficiently as possible to minimize the number of additional assumptions that aren't a consequence of the observable evidence. So, the idea of particles leaping may be abhorrent, but if all that it means is that the particle is in one location at one time and in another location at another time and you don't specify or care about what goes on between those 2 spacetime coordinates, then it is simpler.

I agree, but in QM they state that the electron can never be in transit between two orbital states, it simply goes from one orbital position to another without transiting the distance in between. This link provides the normal QT explanation.

 

http://www.jimloy.co...ics/quantum.htm

 

I'm not sure what QM predicts is undetectable or unobservable, but I know that it does predict that some things are. For example the uncertainty principle says that some measurements are physically impossible to make, even with any yet-to-be-imagined measuring technology. To be able to measure things that the uncertainty principle says are unmeasurable, you wouldn't need just better instruments, you would need a new theory.

You might call it a new and different theory, but the math would probably remain the same for the most part.

 

I'm not sure what the various theories say about the detectability of particle traversal vs. leaping.

If transit actually takes place, why has it never been observed? I also cannot find such explanations but I could guess at least a couple of simple, logical possibilities and am sure there are many others: one possibility is when an electron changes orbits it either accordingly absorbs a photon or emits one. At this precise moment, how could its changing position be detected, using another simultaneous photon? So there would not seem to be any conceivable method of detecting/ observing its transit if it occurred. Another possible explanation is that the electron itself may not change positions at all but its orbital position could change by moving in or out based upon the changing position of the nucleus.

 

My opinion is that if explanations do not follow normal logic, like quantum leaping/ jumping, those explanations have a greater chance of being wrong.

.

Edited July 20, 2011 by pantheory

[md65536]

Their collective ideas involve alternative ideas that could be transformed into alternative theory, whereby the math would not change, only the explanations.

If the math doesn't change, the predictions don't change, and the theory doesn't change.

Different explanations for the same predictions are different interpretations of the same theory.

 

I agree, these ideas lead to new or modified interpretations of the existing theory. It happens all the time and it will keep happening, and progress will be made.

If one interpretation (ie. explanation) shows itself to be logically "right" vs another interpretation, it will probably only do so by improving or expanding the theory (and its math), or by suggesting a new way to test the different interpretations. Otherwise, even if an explanation is "completely logical", yet it makes the exact same predictions as another explanation, mathematically, with no test, then there is no way to show that the other explanation is wrong.

 

 

[pantheory]

If the math doesn't change, the predictions don't change, and the theory doesn't change.

Different explanations for the same predictions are different interpretations of the same theory.

There are two very distinct aspects of QM. One is the math called QM and the other called Quantum Theory which primarily consists of interpretations. See link this forum, below postings 9,10,&11

 

http://www.sciencefo...ions-have-legs/

 

I agree, these ideas lead to new or modified interpretations of the existing theory. It happens all the time and it will keep happening, and progress will be made. If one interpretation (ie. explanation) shows itself to be logically "right" vs another interpretation, it will probably only do so by improving or expanding the theory (and its math), or by suggesting a new way to test the different interpretations. Otherwise, even if an explanation is "completely logical", yet it makes the exact same predictions as another explanation, mathematically, with no test, then there is no way to show that the other explanation is wrong.

I agree but in time, I think logical interpretations and related theory will supersede all others which is why I believe most of Quantum Theory (QT) will be replaced

 

I can tell you what I think are the numerous mistakes of the model and what predictions could prove it wrong. This could be done on the other thread link posted above, since this thread concerns quantum jumping. The other thread concerns the troubles with today's theories, and is entitled Simple but Logical (theories).......

.

Edited July 20, 2011 by pantheory

[36grit]

Reality is elementry. Accerleration plane theory explains what an electron is. Reality is a gravitataional hologram.

The fluctuations of one or two, of the two serperate one dimensional planes (The positive and negative charges of vacuum energy), particlized and started an anihalation storm. This produced a two diminsional rays of momenum I call Glazor beams. ( A lazor of gravitons instead of photons) . The momutum extends outward defining the center of the event horizon. This causes more fluctuations, thus a chain reaction that slows abruptly down to the speed of light when the hole in the younger and slower negative charge field can no longer anihalate the particles in the faster positive charge plane. Over laping gravitational beams join together as the excess energy sprays out as the whole event creates a semi-three dimensional space with electrical and momentum potential. The cooled momentum now exists as a ball of twisted and distorted structres of inward force and rays extending out from center. Collpased rays reform the image of the singularity. The anihalation of the vacuum energy and gravitational expansion is now regulated by the much larger inward force left over by the origianl event. Back to the subject matter now.

 

The time dialation of the proton creates a spike of gractron energy. The same as the original gravitron beam. This spike punches a hole in the positive and negative acceleration planes. The negative energy produces a larger particle as it in a slower plane. To observe the positive energy of the proton you'd have to look through the negative acceleration plane. (and the time plane). Because we are litterally looking through different planes of acceleration. where the speed of light is constant. The positive energy gains an atmosphere of gravity as it passes through the negative field. The "space" that's inbetween the negative energy, that swirls out as the time dialation spike crashes is the electron. It is a the hole that was punched in the one dimensional electron plane. The very surface of now.

 

Reality is a hologram but instead of proton lazors it is made of self initiating gravitron lazors, in a field of momentum and electro magnetic potential and disposition. Gravitron spikes cause secondary time dialatrion spikes when they line up. If they are strong enough to capture an electron molecule will form. If not, a time dialation of gravitational energy will form and then be released to travel paths of least resistance. This released energy forms bodies of mass within their states. The continuos release of this energy can disrupt or unify the mass body. An apple will rot and sometimes wood will petrify through a crystallization process. During the crystallization process the algorythems of the released time dialations polarize the gravton spikes. The constant release of time dialation energy causes disatnce radiation as a path of least resistance. This causes the constant expansion of space and the algorythems that define the positions of the galaxies.

 

When you put two bar magnets together they will act as a single magnetic bar.. Gravitaioinal spikes act in a similar manner. Two outward forces pressing in on the center. This is why clouds of gas foating in space evetually move in towards each other instead of pushing each other away as one might expect two expanding forces to do.