Can principles in the MACRO level give insights into the Quantum level (split from spin)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Unless the experiment uses actual electrons in atomic orbitals, I don't see how this shows what you were claiming. We already know that macroscopic/classical physics does not behave like QM, so a classical experiment sheds no light on how QM systems behave.

 

Unless of course, you believe that principles present, and laid down in the very early cosmos, get reflected on and built on , and show up through the whole thing.

 

Say like symmetry or opposites or balanced systems or whatever works in paired systems ?

There is too much of [ + - ] [matter antimatter ] [ left handed righthanded ] [male female ] [ right brain left brain ] [ up down ] etc etc for it not to be fairly fundamental to the universe .I think to separate the microscopic from the macro too much , might be ' missing a trick' .

 

However as you will see I went on to build models more reflective of actual atom structure.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Split Infinity

 

Do you live next door to me or something split,

[SplitInfinity]

Do you live next door to me or something split,

 

Well...I have visited your area...both of them several times.

 

It's funny...one has great food and the other...quite possibly the worst cuisine in the world! LOL!

 

Now just guess which one is which?

 

Split Infinity

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Well...I have visited your area...both of them several times.

 

It's funny...one has great food and the other...quite possibly the worst cuisine in the world! LOL!

 

Now just guess which one is which?

 

Split Infinity

 

I thought you were a Rock and Roll star. How come you know so much Physics ?

[SplitInfinity]

I thought you were a Rock and Roll star. How come you know so much Physics ?

 

I thought I told you this but I will do so again. I come from a Military Family and although I am not Military I am..."CIVILIAN"...in the manner the quotes denote. I have always been lucky in that I am gifted musically as well as scored rediculously high on the one time mandatory IQ tests given in High School.

I started playing music professionally at 16 years old and despite my poor spelling skills and my total inability to remember where I keep leaving my expensive sunglasses...because of family and my high aptitude scores as well as a certain test given that shoed my ability to have a certain moral...flexibility....I was highly recruited out of High School.

I have three JOBS of which one is helping to run several now large family owned companies...working with members of the U.S. Military...and touring and recording in a band that was very big in the 80's.

I am older now and do not do long tours anymore but I still tour and record as well as some very specific people ask me for assistance on certain...problems that come up from time to time.

As far as Physics and Math....I just KNOW THINGS.

Split Infinity

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In Response to Swansont previous Comment , about microscopic and macro scale differences

 

 

Unless of course, you believe that principles present, and laid down in the very early cosmos, get reflected on and built on , and show up through the whole thing.

 

Say like symmetry or opposites or balanced systems or whatever works in paired systems ?

There is too much of [ + - ] [matter antimatter ] [ left handed righthanded ] [male female ] [ right brain left brain ] [ up down ] etc etc for it not to be fairly fundamental to the universe .I think to separate the microscopic from the macro too much , might be ' missing a trick' .

 

Enter the flower and the Dragon Fly as well as The dog and the Duck

 

 

 

 

 

The Dragon fly is attracted to the flower. The Dragon fly could be repelled from getting the nectar

 

The Dog is attracted to the Duck The duck repels the Dog by quacking and spitting

 

 

Surely you can not tell me this is not a thread coming right up through the eons of time and magnification from sub atomic time and scale to the phenomenon that I witnessed and recorded Yesterday .

 

 

Countless examples can be observed and brought up as evidence of this profound fundamental thread.

 

ATTRACTION and REPULSION

Edited May 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

!

Moderator Note

Posts split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52810-spin/

 

 

Unless of course, you believe that principles present, and laid down in the very early cosmos, get reflected on and built on , and show up through the whole thing.

 

Say like symmetry or opposites or balanced systems or whatever works in paired systems ?

There is too much of [ + - ] [matter antimatter ] [ left handed righthanded ] [male female ] [ right brain left brain ] [ up down ] etc etc for it not to be fairly fundamental to the universe .I think to separate the microscopic from the macro too much , might be ' missing a trick' .

 

However as you will see I went on to build models more reflective of actual atom structure.

 

Having an idea and then looking only for evidence that supports that idea is not science. So if you think that the world at the atomic scale and below (and occasionally above) works just the same as the macro world, you have to look at all of the behavior of the subatomic world.

 

Ducks and dogs? It's hard to believe that you want that to be taken seriously.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

!

Moderator Note

Posts split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52810-spin/

 

 

 

Having an idea and then looking only for evidence that supports that idea is not science. So if you think that the world at the atomic scale and below (and occasionally above) works just the same as the macro world, you have to look at all of the behavior of the subatomic world.

 

Ducks and dogs? It's hard to believe that you want that to be taken seriously.

Yes I do accept all that. but I am not stating both realms are the same in their behavior. What I am saying that it is no shock that something like Attraction and repulsion are so deep rooted , it is no shock that it surfaces a lot in both regions. That must Say something .

 

SO equally the idea of pairs of ( whatever ) working with or in balance, in opposition, in vibration, or countless other ways , MAY BE , COULD BE so fundamental in the universe (at large or small) and its operation that what happens at the macro COULD give us some insight to the Micro. Such an insight is dearly needed., particularly with spin. ( Which appears to have gone Spinning Off )

Edited May 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes I do accept all that. but I am not stating both realms are the same in their behavior. What I am saying that it is no shock that something like Attraction and repulsion are so deep rooted , it is no shock that it surfaces a lot in both regions. That must Say something .

 

SO equally the idea of pairs of ( whatever ) working with or in balance, in opposition, in vibration, or countless other ways , MAY BE , COULD BE so fundamental in the universe (at large or small) and its operation that what happens at the macro COULD give us some insight to the Micro. Such an insight is dearly needed., particularly with spin. ( Which appears to have gone Spinning Off )

 

In other words, all those physicists from >~90 years ago were idiots, because they did not discern this behavior from the macro to the micro, and were completely shocked when particles were found to behave this way.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In other words, all those physicists from >~90 years ago were idiots, because they did not discern this behavior from the macro to the micro, and were completely shocked when particles were found to behave this way.

 

I am not quite sure, what you are suggesting, I am inferring about past scientists.

I am not an arrogant man , so whatever you think I am inferring is probably not what I meant.

 

Today I have returned to the canal with the same dog and different ducks. Again the dog was attracted to the ducks ( different ducks ) but again the ducks squawk and repell the dog. There was a probabilistic aspect to our chance dog to duck meeting yet none the less the behaviour is predictable as a macro system .

 

 

 

The ducks are floating on 50 quad trillion of trillion atoms of water h2o totally held together by attraction and repulsion all predictable yet in a micro system.

 

The oxygen atoms were derived from hydrogen helium synthesis , which discussed elsewhere was based on probabilistic various chance combinations,ultimately of four helium nuclei .

 

We reached bedrock some time ago when I was probing with your good self the ATTRACTION REPULSION phenomenon at Micro level.

 

Surely it becomes obvious to me as a simple thinking individual that there are Threads so deep rooted in the structure of the universe, all be it that you seem to take exception to Dogs and Ducks as examples, that :- : There are phenomenon that cross across the MACRO MICRO boundary.

 

As we go up the scale from Dogs and Ducks we can look at the complex nervous systems present in these animals which make present i pads ear pads nose pads look utterly draconian in complexity by comparison. And as we move across whole eco systems , individual dogs and ducks , seem like the significance of atoms in the greater scheme of things.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes, there are phenomena that cross this boundary. The topic that spawned the discussion, though, was QM spin, specifically the proposal that electrons in atoms really do have trajectories — that is not one of those phenomena.

 

What I'm saying is this: Quantum Mechanics was a paradigm shift ca. the 1920's — it was not something that the best minds of the day, and of earlier days, had been able to anticipate and model, based on their investigations into macroscopic physics. So when you suggest that "what happens at the macro COULD give us some insight to the Micro", it could be read as (regardless of being unintentional) either dismissive of the ability of physicists in the days before QM, or being ignorant of the history of QM, or some combination of both. The implication is that you should be able to discern this knowledge, despite the fact than nobody did.

 

If you are going to critique the science, at least have the decency to be conversant in the science you are critiquing. If you are going to critique paths not take in the onvestigation of science, at least look into the history and make sure these paths were not already investigated. The answer, thus far, is a resounding NO to the question of whether QM behavior has an analogue in classical behavior.

 

It doesn't matter that you can calcuate a probability of outcome for a macroscopic event, such as a dog meeting up with a duck. Such events are stochastic and can be treated with probability. Quantum behavior delves past that. Dogs do not take multiple paths, all at the same time, to meet the ducks. There is no interference of these states that give rise to non-classical results. And that's what we're faced with in QM: results that are not classical. There is no macroscopic behavior — it doesn't exist — to lead you to the microscopic.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And that's what we're faced with in QM: results that are not classical. There is no macroscopic behavior — it doesn't exist — to lead you to the microscopic.

 

And yet the CMB ( Cosmic Microwave Background ) radiation that was at a Quantum Level ( Micro ) is now up at Astronomical Level surely Macro Level . Has not the footprint been taken across the micro-Macro boundary such that we can read both ways .

Edited May 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

The CMB is not a quantum effect. Radio wave detection is quite classical.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The CMB is not a quantum effect. Radio wave detection is quite classical.

 

As I understand it . The changing temperature image ( of 300,000 years) is the quantum fluctuations of the original concentrated "thing" whatever that was. A primevil Atom, a hyperdense condensed matter, that was then inflated. But maybe I have it wrong.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Cosmology is related to general relativity. (We don't have a quantum theory of gravity). Furthermore, the CMB is not a remnant of the big bang itself, making any misunderstanding of it moot for this topic, but of the recombination, which happened, as you say, at ~300k years afterwards.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Cosmology is related to general relativity. (We don't have a quantum theory of gravity). Furthermore, the CMB is not a remnant of the big bang itself, making any misunderstanding of it moot for this topic, but of the recombination, which happened, as you say, at ~300k years afterwards.

 

I thought Mr Smoot discoverer by COBI experiment said that the recombination event was " an Echo of the Big Bang"

[kristalris]

Yes, there are phenomena that cross this boundary. The topic that spawned the discussion, though, was QM spin, specifically the proposal that electrons in atoms really do have trajectories — that is not one of those phenomena.

 

What I'm saying is this: Quantum Mechanics was a paradigm shift ca. the 1920's — it was not something that the best minds of the day, and of earlier days, had been able to anticipate and model, based on their investigations into macroscopic physics. So when you suggest that "what happens at the macro COULD give us some insight to the Micro", it could be read as (regardless of being unintentional) either dismissive of the ability of physicists in the days before QM, or being ignorant of the history of QM, or some combination of both. The implication is that you should be able to discern this knowledge, despite the fact than nobody did.

 

If you are going to critique the science, at least have the decency to be conversant in the science you are critiquing. If you are going to critique paths not take in the onvestigation of science, at least look into the history and make sure these paths were not already investigated. The answer, thus far, is a resounding NO to the question of whether QM behavior has an analogue in classical behavior.

 

It doesn't matter that you can calcuate a probability of outcome for a macroscopic event, such as a dog meeting up with a duck. Such events are stochastic and can be treated with probability. Quantum behavior delves past that. Dogs do not take multiple paths, all at the same time, to meet the ducks. There is no interference of these states that give rise to non-classical results. And that's what we're faced with in QM: results that are not classical. There is no macroscopic behavior — it doesn't exist — to lead you to the microscopic.

Well you can take that route or assume the dog is running > c to meet the duck and thus create an illusion of being everywhere at the same time in observations assuming c = max. Either way you assume something. In the one you believe in magic and in the other in hidden variables. I.e. as long as you stay within the confines of where QM is known to work relative to GR you can state that QM isn't magic but observed science. If you broaden the question, such as: how to marry QM to GR? then QM becomes belief in magic, unless you accept speeds > c outside the areas where the workings of QM & GR can be observed. Logical evidence based dictate on what is probable, need of the latter is inherent because of inherent missing data to clench the issue.

[swansont]

I thought Mr Smoot discoverer by COBI experiment said that the recombination event was " an Echo of the Big Bang"

And an echo is not the event itself. Recombination happened because the universe was hot and then cooled below some threshold. What we detect is the radiation, which is indistinguishable from radiation from other events, i.e. if you detected a photon of similar wavelength, you could not tell the photons apart. The big bang led to the existence of everything we see, but that does not mean the tree outside my window is a quantum effect.

 

Also, the CMB was observed in the 1960's, which was well after QM was discovered.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

And an echo is not the event itself. Recombination happened because the universe was hot and then cooled below some threshold. What we detect is the radiation, which is indistinguishable from radiation from other events, i.e. if you detected a photon of similar wavelength, you could not tell the photons apart. The big bang led to the existence of everything we see, but that does not mean the tree outside my window is a quantum effect.

 

Also, the CMB was observed in the 1960's, which was well after QM was discovered.

Yes I do accept most of what you are saying about where the radiation . then apprx 6000 k now approx 3 k came from , but I am sure I have heard it stated as being the direct result ( snap shot Image )[ imprint] {image} of the quantum fluctuations of the original " whoosh " . No ?

 

By the way , as of today the experiment has moved on a pace to TWO DOGS attracted to TWO DUCKS and ONE NEW Dog , taking the issue a bit too serious !

 

 

 

The point being , with the extra dog. Getting two dogs to be at the same place at the same time as two ducks were present to be either attractive to the two dogs or repelled by two ducks both squaking at the same time as I had the camera ready was pushing the probability up stakes. Very similar to the problem of getting THREE not TWO helium to be ready to fuse for carbon production in a star. Of Sorts !

Edited May 4, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SplitInfinity]

Yes I do accept most of what you are saying about where the radiation . then apprx 6000 k now approx 3 k came from , but I am sure I have heard it stated as being the direct result ( snap shot Image )[ imprint] {image} of the quantum fluctuations of the original " whoosh " . No ?

 

By the way , as of today the experiment has moved on a pace to TWO DOGS attracted to TWO DUCKS and ONE NEW Dog , taking the issue a bit too serious !

 

DSCF3282.JPG DSCF3288.JPG

 

 

The point being , with the extra dog. Getting two dogs to be at the same place at the same time as two ducks were present to be either attractive to the two dogs or repelled by two ducks both squaking at the same time as I had the camera ready was pushing the probability up stakes. Very similar to the problem of getting THREE not TWO helium to be ready to fuse for carbon production in a star. Of Sorts !

 

Ohhh...Mike! Dogs, Ducks and H3! LOL!

 

There is a Theory I have it is called...QUANTUM EVOLUTION...it is the process by which Matter...and all Matter and Energy are made up of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms. Thus this is why it is so important for someone to figure out the UFT....Unified Field Theory because if we understood this....JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING would become possible for us. We could change at will Matter to Energy back to Matter if we wished as well as be able to form...with the aid of some very complex Quantum Computers...just about anything from Energy.

 

You want a bowl of soup...BAM! You want to replicate a product in the millions...as long as you have the energy...which if you understood UFT could be generated from any Matter you might have or just use generated energy and change it into this product again and again and again.

 

Want to Teleport equipment and materials into space, the moon, some where on Earth? Just break down such equipment into energy and beam it to the position desired then reconstruct it at that point. Or perhaps if you flew to MARS...you could just bring such equipment and use the Rock and Sand lying around...convert it to Energy and reform it into the equipment.

 

Human teleportation would be an issue as it is unknown if a person who is converted to energy then beamed to a location where reassembled...would have memory or consciousness of that person. Or such types of Teleportation where BALANCING THE EQUATION is necessary is when the Matter that makes up a person is read into a Quantum Computer and then using Energy or Raw Material at the receiving end...A DUPLICATE of that person is created and if such a Quantum Based System could account for what makes us...us...as in a specific person....the person being read at the point of send would most likely be destroyed.

 

This has massive moral implications as the person on the sending end would be deciding to be killed voluntarily as who would want a duplicate of themselves running around? Well...maybe some people...but if this is the only way to be teleported and you sign on all legal...well...there you go.

 

Anyways...QUANTUM EVOLUTION is the process by which Matter and Energy continually arrange themselves into more and more complex forms....using natural Universal Laws. As example...Fusion. Hydrogen being fused in Helium in the Stars is one form of Quantum Evolution. Supernova...the process by which Heavy Elements are created such as Gold, Uranium...etc...from the explosions of such Supernova. Chemical Reactions...the process by which Molecules are formed.

 

Eventually by using a wide variety of Natural Mechanisms...QUANTUM EVOLUTION....will construct Molecules of such complexity and length...and along with a variety of other conditions also Quantum Based...we get...GENESIS.

 

At this point...Biological Evolution would be the word used...but it is still along the same lines.

 

So Duck, Dog, Time, Space....it is all due to Quantum Mechanics and even the existence of the Macro Universe is due to the Quantum World....BUT THEY DO NOT BEHAVE THE SAME.

 

Split Infinity

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Ohhh...Mike! Dogs, Ducks and H3! LOL! .....................

 

................. the existence of the Macro Universe is due to the Quantum World....BUT THEY DO NOT BEHAVE THE SAME.

 

Split Infinity

 

I am not convinced that there are not humendous lots of fundamental threads emanating from the beginning , right through to today ( or yesterday with my dogs and ducks included) , that link back from MACRO to MICRO and even on downwards to Whatever is down there at the infinite Small. ( Small Time and Space )

 

 

Mike

Edited May 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I am not convinced that there are not humendous lots of fundamental threads emanating from the beginning , right through to today ( or yesterday with my dogs and ducks included) , that link back from MACRO to MICRO and even on downwards to Whatever is down there at the infinite Small. ( Small Time and Space )

 

Mike

 

OK, find them. This is science. When it comes time to say what we know, what's been modeled and experimentally confirmed, "gut" feelings don't count for anything.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

OK, find them. This is science. When it comes time to say what we know, what's been modeled and experimentally confirmed, "gut" feelings don't count for anything.

 

Well yes. I believe I have Found Them , at least some of them. And yes this is science, so it behooves me , as indeed you

 

. say. It comes time to experimentally confirm. what has indeed been modeled : -

Behold :-

 

. Watch This Space

 

,

 

JUST NEED TO WALK THE DOG a Moment

 

We have a couple of Ducks to SPOOK !

Edited May 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

OK, find them. This is science. When it comes time to say what we know, what's been modeled and experimentally confirmed, "gut" feelings don't count for anything.

 

OK, find them. O.K I have found One. One of an humendous number of ENERGY TRANSFER THREADS

 

The following Thread and illustration ,I would like to put forward as a region where one of the myriad of threads cross the Micro-Macro boundary. The boundary can be examined from either direction so as to possibly see models of behavior corresponding in some cases Either side of the boundary due to the link thread between MICRO and MACRO .

 

Its Joules in the Big Bang, Its joules in the Sun Its joules in the Atom , Its juoles in the Absorbed sun light. its Joules in the burned tree logs , its joules in the steam, its joules in the steam engine, Its joules as it Mechanically lifts the Hoist.

 

You cannot go any more micro to Macro than that. Energy is throughout the thread all be it changing state.

. ENERGY MAKES THINGS HAPPEN A Simple Model

 

 

 

 

If we examine the boundary ( which we need to in great detail,.Later ) For this is the boundary surely between micro and macro where we can have an interesting Change of State ( Electron to Photon )

 

If we examine the thread generally at any point we are likely to see the following ( symbolically represented )

We can notice staggered or alternating parts of the thread , working with tight deterministic, predictable parts , followed by highly probability based parts of the thread, again followed by formulated , parts.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

An example of the differing types is attached here to illustrate the two types of thread sections combined. This Diagram is of no particular activity , but purely a line flow diagram of the two sorts 1 ) Formulated / Predictable Red-Mauve 2)Random/Probability based Blue-green and how they might/ and do sometimes work :-

 

 

 

You notice the blues, fire off in all sorts of directions. Only one makes it to the Goal /mold ( the Green )

 

 

Without making heavy weather of this particular diagram , as it was not designed around anything in particular. It could ( for the Red line ) however be representative of an automated car garage door opening mechanism. Car interrupts Infra Red beam , Transistor switches on , Relay gets power Motor to open garage doors winds open. STOP Goal achieved. Highly deterministic.

 

For the green /blue it could be representing pollen in a flower going in many directions. Only one piece of pollen makes it to another similar pland ( say Tomatoes ) and Bingo the Goal/mold is reached Tomato plant is pollinated, Tomato grows and we have a TOMATO. Very Probability based. This paticular insect crawled to that particular flower

 

Edited May 8, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SplitInfinity]

Mike...Photons or Electrons...whatever...we are talking about Particle/Wave Forms.

 

Photons or Electrons at frequency shows us how such a Wave has such Quanta existing in Non-Linear Time as well as having two or more functions.

 

This shows us that calculation of Quanta...can only show Indeterterminate Value as well as Probability of effect into the infinite.

 

Split Infinity