ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

[Kramer]

ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

The experiments, the first continuous measurements of the trajectories of a quantum system between two points, are described in the cover article of the July 31 issue of Nature.

Murch lab

A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.

 

What is “A PATH OF DESIRE”.

“Desire of who” is the meaning?

Desire of experimenter?

Desire off quanta? --- Men! O men! Only lack of statement that quanta has sex!

If trajectories are not traced by “a particle”, under guide “of charges”, what are they and what guide them?

[Strange]

ARE HUMAN’S SIMULATIONS RELIABLE MIRRORS OF nature\s PHENOMENA.

 

It would appear so, as the experiment you reference confirms the predictions made by theory.

 

 

The experiments, the first continuous measurements of the trajectories of a quantum system between two points, are described in the cover article of the July 31 issue of Nature.

 

Too much effort to provide a link?

Here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7511/full/nature13559.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureMagazine

 

 

What is “A PATH OF DESIRE”.

 

It is an architectural term. It means the paths formed by people walking across lawns or open areas, rather than using the paved paths created for them.

 

It was used in an article as a metaphor (i.e. it has no real significance) for the fact that particles take the path of "least resistance" rather than a straight line.

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/27133.aspx

 

And why have you posted this interesting bit of science in "Speculations"? <sigh>

Edited August 27, 2014 by Strange

[Lucius E.E]

 

It would appear so, as the experiment you reference confirms the predictions made by theory.

 

 

Too much effort to provide a link?

Here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7511/full/nature13559.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureMagazine

 

 

It is an architectural term. It means the paths formed by people walking across lawns or open areas, rather than using the paved paths created for them.

 

It was used in an article as a metaphor (i.e. it has no real significance) for the fact that particles take the path of "least resistance" rather than a straight line.

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/27133.aspx

 

And why have you posted this interesting bit of science in "Speculations"? <sigh>

 

Upvoted, and I agree with you. This shouldn't be in the speculations section.

 

If trajectories are not traced by “a particle”, under guide “of charges”, what are they and what guide them?

 

Generally as far as the trajectory of a particle is concerned, it benefits to also have the velocity as they're always tangent.

 

See Here for more information for obtaining a particles trajectory. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration#Tangential_and_centripetal_acceleration

Edited August 27, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[swansont]

And why have you posted this interesting bit of science in "Speculations"? <sigh>

 

Likely because of this (or more specifically, this)

[Kramer]

 

Strange.

It would appear so, as the experiment you reference confirms the predictions made by theory.

Too much effort to provide a link?

Here: http://www.nature.co..._NatureMagazine

It is an architectural term. It means the paths formed by people walking across lawns or open areas, rather than using the paved paths created for them.

It was used in an article as a metaphor (i.e. it has no real significance) for the fact that particles take the path of "least resistance" rather than a straight line.

And why have you posted this interesting bit of science in "Speculations"? <sigh>
------- I must give an apology: This thread, is a return to the closed thread “What cause curve lined movement of quanta”. And with quanta I intend that chunk of energy, which moves in spherical curve-lined trajectories even being deprived from charge or mass. Short not an “electron particle” which has charge and mass but simple a “wave”.
I am sincerely confused and do not understand how a wave (photon) can change straight- line movement in circular trajectory.

And I wanted the help of specialist. This only for curiosity---to see how deep is my ignorance.

( If I am not wrong) only so-named “black holes” are the only things of nature that “deform space-time” and pave the trace of waves and everything that moves near them in circular trajectory.
I was unable to post the figure of trajectories of quanta, in above mentioned simulation of Murch lab. It looks like a deformed clew of thread. I think a very ugly sphere.

Why in speculation?

Here I display my lack of knowledge with less embarrassment.

Lucius E.E.

Generally as far as the trajectory of a particle is concerned, it benefits to also have the velocity as they're always tangent.

See Here for more information for obtaining a particles trajectory. - http://en.wikipedia....al_acceleration

---The problem is that I am unable to see semblance between particle and wave.

Swansont

Strange, on 27 Aug 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

And why have you posted this interesting bit of science in "Speculations"? <sigh>

Likely because of this (or more specifically, this)

----- I don’t understand what do you mean by “this”.
The truth is that I am interested in this simulation because it is in the same line with the simulation of “ math lab” about “spherical trajectories” of alleged sub-particles in the alleged structure of electron particle.
Has been my first thread in this forum .

It was ridiculed.

Even it was only a speculation.

But I am very satisfied with myself. ----At least it was beautiful sphere, not a clew. Joke.

[Strange]

I must give an apology: This thread, is a return to the closed thread “What cause curve lined movement of quanta”. And with quanta I intend that chunk of energy, which moves in spherical curve-lined trajectories even being deprived from charge or mass. Short not an “electron particle” which has charge and mass but simple a “wave”.

 

There isn't much detail in either the abstract or the article but it is fairly clear that they are not measuring the paths of photons. I guess they are electrons, but I really don't know.

 

 

I am sincerely confused and do not understand how a wave (photon) can change straight- line movement in circular trajectory.

 

Things move in a straight line if they are in free space and not acted upon by other forces. In this case, it sounds as if they are using electrons contained within a "quantum well" (which I guess is what the article means by "artificial atom"). Therefore they are not free to ravel in straight lines. Then they measured the paths as these particles moved from one energy state to another.

 

 

( If I am not wrong) only so-named “black holes” are the only things of nature that “deform space-time” and pave the trace of waves and everything that moves near them in circular trajectory.

 

All mass curves space time (that is why we stay on the surface of the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun). But that has nothing to do with this experiment.

 

 

The truth is that I am interested in this simulation

 

It was not a simulation, it was a measurement (well, a large number of measurements).

 

Just imagine, if you had posted this in the appropriate physics section, you might have someone who understands this stuff explaining it ... I imagine many of them avoid "Speculations".

[swansont]

I am sincerely confused and do not understand how a wave (photon) can change straight- line movement in circular trajectory.

 

You have yet to provide any context for what circular trajectories you are talking about. This is not the subject of the paper that you referenced (but did not provide a link to; someone else did that) "Circular" does not appear in the text.

 

 

----- I don’t understand what do you mean by “this”.

 

 

"this" appears in blue and is underlined — it's a hyperlink. You click on it and it goes to your closed thread.

[Strange]

Why in speculation?

Here I display my lack of knowledge with less embarrassment.

 

I don't there is anything to be embarrassed about, if you don't understand this. I certainly don't.

 

More reading on this confirms what I initially thought. The (roughly spherical) trajectories shown are not positions in space. They are a mapping of the values of the quantum state to a spherical coordinate system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

You have yet to provide any context for what circular trajectories you are talking about. This is not the subject of the paper that you referenced (but did not provide a link to; someone else did that???!) "Circular" does not appear in the text.

-------- Finding quantum lines of desire

Is the title of the article from which I have extracted the next quoted phrases:

{The experiments, the first continuous measurements of the trajectories of a quantum system between two points, are described in the cover article of the July 31 issue of Nature.

(Here is the figure of the “web of trajectories”, named by me ‘clew’. I was unable to post the figure)

Murch lab

A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.}

Now if you think that the white lines in the figure are not trajectories, but only fragments of linear trajectories, linked with each other as to give the idea of a circular trajectory, that complicate much more the problem, instead of solving something

"Circular" does not appear in the text.
----Circular are all the trajectories in the figure. Many circles. It is not clear if they are in plane or space, and where are the two points ( what they represent?) in space, around which dance in trajectories the quanta
Just for clarifying those miss concepts I opened this thread, bluntly attracted by title: “line of desire”

Strange

More reading on this confirms what I initially thought. The (roughly spherical) trajectories shown are not positions in space. They are a mapping of the values of the quantum state to a spherical coordinate system

I don’t understand what has to do the ‘mapping of the values of the quantum state’ with "the trajectories and the line of desire".
May be you think that there is a link between the “path and the gout”? applicable in “quantum physics?”

Why in a SPHERICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM?

[Strange]

I don’t understand what has to do the ‘mapping of the values of the quantum state’ with "the trajectories and the line of desire".

 

This mapping of the changing quantum state onto a sphere is what created the circular paths you are talking about.

 

 

May be you think that there is a link between the “path and the gout”? applicable in “quantum physics?”

 

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Gout? Acute inflammatory arthritis>

 

Why in a SPHERICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM?

 

 

It is a convenient way of representing the changing quantum state: http://comp.uark.edu/~jgeabana/blochapps/index.html

 

Spherical because the values of the quantum state can be represented as a pair of angles, which are therefore equivalent to polar coordinates.

 

 

--Circular are all the trajectories in the figure. Many circles. It is not clear if they are in plane or space, and where are the two points ( what they represent?) in space, around which dance in trajectories the quanta

 

They are NOT trajectories in space.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

Swansont

You have yet to provide any context for what circular trajectories you are talking about. This is not the subject of the paper that you referenced (but did not provide a link to; someone else did that???!) "Circular" does not appear in the text.

-------- Finding quantum lines of desire

Is the title of the article from which I have extracted the next quoted phrases:

{The experiments, the first continuous measurements of the trajectories of a quantum system between two points, are described in the cover article of the July 31 issue of Nature.

 

…

 

A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.}

 

You emphasized the wrong part. here, let me fix it:

A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space

 

 

 

I don’t understand what has to do the ‘mapping of the values of the quantum state’ with "the trajectories and the line of desire".

 

That's pretty obvious. But here's a radical idea: how about asking that question at the outset, instead of jumping to a conclusion and asking a question about the implications of that unsupported conclusion?

 

Why in a SPHERICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM?

 

You have a state represented by a vector of unit length, because the quantity it represents is fixed. But the orientation is not. Fixed length, and pointing in any direction in three dimensions — all of those points will land on a sphere. So that's the natural coordinate system to use.

[Kramer]

 

Strange

This mapping of the changing quantum state onto a sphere is what created the circular paths you are talking about.
1- About what sphere are you talking?

2-What are their dimensions?

3-Of what matter is filled?

4-What are it’s properties.

5-Why quantum state, between two points, must be a spherical?

6- And why circular paths, what move onto them, what cause (push) them to move?

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Gout? Acute inflammatory arthritis>

-- I am sorry --- for miss spelling-- instead for ” Goat”.

On the mountains the wild goats move in strict paths, called “goat paths”. They have traced them. They by “instinct” move on them as ”desired paths” because are less riskiest.

Now you explain me the link between the “goat instinct” and the “desire of quanta”, or at least what we may call scientifically the figuratively “desire”. Is it a force? How is it applied? From what -- to what?

 

It is a convenient way of representing the changing quantum state: http://comp.uark.edu...apps/index.html

What cause the change of quantum state?

Quantum state of what? Of space?

Spherical because the values of the quantum state can be represented as a pair of angles, which are therefore equivalent to polar coordinates.
---- What confuse me, is that angles, are linked with vectors or polar coordinate, vectors represents some=things, and have their characters. Can you be more specific when we apply math in physic?

They are NOT trajectories in space.
?? But what are “paths o desire” if not trajectories?

Swansont

You emphasized the wrong part. here, let me fix it:
A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.

---- I emphasized ‘path of desire’ and ‘trajectories’ because those are concepts of something more real and concrete, and not emphasized “in quantum state of space” because this part is more abstract to understand people of my category.
It seems to me that some terms in physics used as to camouflage exact that part of quantum physic, which is more weird and out of common sense. And it is exact the most questioned part that need answers, but are dodged with unimportant remarks.

That’s pretty obvious. But here’s a radical idea: how about asking that question at the outset, instead of jumping to a conclusion and asking a question about the implications of that unsupported conclusion?
--- It’s pretty obvious -- that I can’t understand this sophisticated and obscured rebut.
Please can’t you speak more simple and more openly with folk like me?

You have a state represented by a vector of unit length, because the quantity it represents is fixed. But the orientation is not. Fixed length, and pointing in any direction in three dimensions — all of those points will land on a sphere. So that's the natural coordinate system to use.

--- I know what is a unit vector, what is it’s length, and why may represent a fixed quantity. I know that when randomly oriented this vector, the tip of it move in the surface of a sphere. This is simple calculus.
But we have a physic concrete scheme that need explanation.

[swansont]

Strange

This mapping of the changing quantum state onto a sphere is what created the circular paths you are talking about.

1- About what sphere are you talking?

2-What are their dimensions?

3-Of what matter is filled?

4-What are it’s properties.

5-Why quantum state, between two points, must be a spherical?

6- And why circular paths, what move onto them, what cause (push) them to move?

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Gout? Acute inflammatory arthritis>

 

-- I am sorry --- for miss spelling-- instead for ” Goat”.

On the mountains the wild goats move in strict paths, called “goat paths”. They have traced them. They by “instinct” move on them as ”desired paths” because are less riskiest.

Now you explain me the link between the “goat instinct” and the “desire of quanta”, or at least what we may call scientifically the figuratively “desire”. Is it a force? How is it applied? From what -- to what?

 

It is a convenient way of representing the changing quantum state: http://comp.uark.edu...apps/index.html

What cause the change of quantum state?

Quantum state of what? Of space?

Spherical because the values of the quantum state can be represented as a pair of angles, which are therefore equivalent to polar coordinates.

---- What confuse me, is that angles, are linked with vectors or polar coordinate, vectors represents some=things, and have their characters. Can you be more specific when we apply math in physic?

They are NOT trajectories in space.

?? But what are “paths o desire” if not trajectories?

Swansont

You emphasized the wrong part. here, let me fix it:

A path of desire emerging from many trajectories between two points in quantum state space.

---- I emphasized ‘path of desire’ and ‘trajectories’ because those are concepts of something more real and concrete, and not emphasized “in quantum state of space” because this part is more abstract to understand people of my category.

But, as your earlier questions show, the paper is discussing an abstract concept: quantum state space. You're asking about what matter fills it and such, and the answer is that your questions make no sense. Quantum state space is an abstraction. It's a representation of the quantum state, as a function of some variable, but not of position. It's not a graph of physical space. The trajectories are in variables other than physical space.

 

Much like you could measure pressure, volume, temperature and perhaps other properties of a thermodynamic system and compare them to each other. The various ways one variable can change with respect to another could be called trajectories, and have nothing to do with motion in physical space.

 

It seems to me that some terms in physics used as to camouflage exact that part of quantum physic, which is more weird and out of common sense. And it is exact the most questioned part that need answers, but are dodged with unimportant remarks.

 

How can you judge whether one part is important or not?

 

As to camouflage, it;'s the same sort of way that people speaking a foreign language are using "camouflage" to hide what they say. In that they are doing no such thing and it only sounds like that because you don't speak the language.

 

That’s pretty obvious. But here’s a radical idea: how about asking that question at the outset, instead of jumping to a conclusion and asking a question about the implications of that unsupported conclusion?

--- It’s pretty obvious -- that I can’t understand this sophisticated and obscured rebut.

Please can’t you speak more simple and more openly with folk like me?

 

If you want to understand advanced physics, you have to be willing to learn some basic physics. If you aren't willing to do that, then no, I can't speak more simply. These are not simple concepts, and there are things I can't explain in terms you will understand until such time that you learn the relevant physics.

 

You have a state represented by a vector of unit length, because the quantity it represents is fixed. But the orientation is not. Fixed length, and pointing in any direction in three dimensions — all of those points will land on a sphere. So that's the natural coordinate system to use.

--- I know what is a unit vector, what is it’s length, and why may represent a fixed quantity. I know that when randomly oriented this vector, the tip of it move in the surface of a sphere. This is simple calculus.

But we have a physic concrete scheme that need explanation.

 

 

I don't know what you mean by that.

[Strange]

Strange

This mapping of the changing quantum state onto a sphere is what created the circular paths you are talking about.

1- About what sphere are you talking?

 

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere

 

2-What are their dimensions?

 

 

1

 

3-Of what matter is filled?

4-What are it’s properties.

 

It is not filled with anything, it is a mathematical abstraction.

 

5-Why quantum state, between two points, must be a spherical?

 

Because it is a convenient way of visualising the values.

 

6- And why circular paths, what move onto them, what cause (push) them to move?

If you unable to read and understand the paper, then I can't help you because I don't understand it either.

On the mountains the wild goats move in strict paths, called “goat paths”. They have traced them. They by “instinct” move on them as ”desired paths” because are less riskiest.

Now you explain me the link between the “goat instinct” and the “desire of quanta”, or at least what we may call scientifically the figuratively “desire”. Is it a force? How is it applied? From what -- to what?

 

"Paths of desire" was a METAPHOR in a news report. It has nothing to do with this experiment. IT HAS NO MEANING.

 

What cause the change of quantum state?

 

I assume a change in energy. But I don't really understand it.

 

Quantum state of what? Of space?

 

Of the system they are using: "The qubit consists of two aluminum paddles connected by a double-angle-evaporated aluminum SQUID deposited on double-side-polished silicon."

 

It's all in the paper.

 

?? But what are “paths o desire” if not trajectories?

 

"Paths of desire" was a METAPHOR in a news report. It has nothing to do with this experiment. IT HAS NO MEANING. They are trajectories in an abstract state space.

 

But we have a physic concrete scheme that need explanation.

 

Maybe you just need to accept that this is beyond you.

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

But, as your earlier questions show, the paper is discussing an abstract concept: quantum state space. You're asking about what matter fills it and such, and the answer is that your questions make no sense. Quantum state space is an abstraction. It's a representation of the quantum state, as a function of some variable, but not of position. It's not a graph of physical space. The trajectories are in variables other than physical space.

Much like you could measure pressure, volume, temperature and perhaps other properties of a thermodynamic system and compare them to each other. The various ways one variable can change with respect to another could be called trajectories, and have nothing to do with motion in physical space.

---- The authors of paper explicitly say that they have simulated a big model of hydrogen atom.
As I know the big conundrum of physics is the movement of electron as a mass particle around proton.

Now, quantum theory consider “electron particle” a “wave”, disregards it’s mass --- you self have reaffirmed that many times, in debates.

So I thought that the experiment was not a general study about quantum status of space, but a concrete example how quantum status of space work between two points (proton –electron ???) .
Short ---- an attempt to deny the particles concrete movement of electron particle in real spatial trajectories and replace it with the surrogate abstract quanta’s movement in the imaginary trajectories in the “ desire path” of quantum status of an imaginary quantum space sphere.
If the author speak about trajectories and paths in a figurative manner, and not about movement, which is an undeniable important physic’s phenomena, I think, is a moral duty of experts to explain what is their meaning.

Of course if they are not offended to illuminate an ignorant.

 

how can you judge whether one part is important or not?

Because one is concrete the other abstract, And to understand abstract concepts, must begin with concretes.

As to camouflage, it;'s the same sort of way that people speaking a foreign language are using "camouflage" to hide what they say. In that they are doing no such thing and it only sounds like that because you don't speak the language.
---- Even scientists say that know the language with what they communicate, but they quarrel always with each other. Because they don’t understand what they think that understand.

If you want to understand advanced physics, you have to be willing to learn some basic physics. If you aren't willing to do that, then no, I can't speak more simply. These are not simple concepts, and there are things I can't explain in terms you will understand until such time that you learn the relevant physics.
---- That true. But you may explain with “ Einstein peas” if you have clear understanding about ideas. If not --- no! let be no!.

I don't know what you mean by that.
---- Now it’s unimportant.

Strange

This one: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bloch_sphere

1

t is not filled with anything, it is a mathematical abstraction.

Because it is a convenient way of visualising the values.
----Thanks Strange for the link> I will see if it has anything to do with my “Spherical trajectories”

If you unable to read and understand the paper, then I can't help you because I don't understand it either.
---- I appreciate your sincerity.

"Paths of desire" was a METAPHOR in a news report. It has nothing to do with this experiment. IT HAS NO MEANING.

I assume a change in energy. But I don't really understand it.

Of the system they are using: "The qubit consists of two aluminum paddles connected by a double-angle-evaporated aluminum SQUID deposited on double-side-polished silicon."

"Paths of desire" was a METAPHOR in a news report. It has nothing to do with this experiment. IT HAS NO MEANING. They are trajectories in an abstract state space.

Maybe you just need to accept that this is beyond you.
----If I was able to understand the language of metaphors, of paths that are not paths, of trajectories that are not trajectories I had not open this thread.

[Strange]

---- The authors of paper explicitly say that they have simulated a big model of hydrogen atom.

I have searched the paper and the "paths of desire" news article about this and can't find any reference to a hydrogen atom.

 

As I know the big conundrum of physics is the movement of electron as a mass particle around proton.

 

I'm not aware of any particular conundrum around that.

 

Now, quantum theory consider “electron particle” a “wave”, disregards it’s mass --- you self have reaffirmed that many times, in debates.

 

It does not disregard the mass. The mass is crucial. For one thing, the mass defines the wavelenght. For another, the reason the electron is stable but the muon isn't is because of mass.

 

So I thought that the experiment was not a general study about quantum status of space, but a concrete example how quantum status of space work between two points (proton –electron ???) .

 

No. It is a concrete example of a change of state of a qubit.

 

If the author speak about trajectories and paths in a figurative manner, and not about movement, which is an undeniable important physic’s phenomena, I think, is a moral duty of experts to explain what is their meaning.

 

 

It was pretty clear to me from reading the article and the abstract of the paper that they were not talking about physical paths. And I have no expertise in this subject. (Of course, the concept of abstract state spaces is something I am very familiar with from my work as an engineer.)

[swansont]

---- The authors of paper explicitly say that they have simulated a big model of hydrogen atom.

As I know the big conundrum of physics is the movement of electron as a mass particle around proton.

Now, quantum theory consider “electron particle” a “wave”, disregards it’s mass --- you self have reaffirmed that many times, in debates.

So I thought that the experiment was not a general study about quantum status of space, but a concrete example how quantum status of space work between two points (proton –electron ???) .

Short ---- an attempt to deny the particles concrete movement of electron particle in real spatial trajectories and replace it with the surrogate abstract quanta’s movement in the imaginary trajectories in the “ desire path” of quantum status of an imaginary quantum space sphere.

If the author speak about trajectories and paths in a figurative manner, and not about movement, which is an undeniable important physic’s phenomena, I think, is a moral duty of experts to explain what is their meaning.

Of course if they are not offended to illuminate an ignorant.

 

They explained their meaning. The paper was written for other physicists. You've had a physicist and an engineer translate some of it for you, so people not even in that speciality were able to understand it at some level. It was not written as a pop-sci article for a lay audience.

 

I could not find any mention of Hydrogen in the article, either. I also reject your claim that I have said QM disregards an electron's mass. I suspect that's a misinterpretation on your part. Without any links to back up such a claim I can't say for sure what the specific misunderstanding it.

 

 

how can you judge whether one part is important or not?

Because one is concrete the other abstract, And to understand abstract concepts, must begin with concretes.

 

People who have spent four years in college, 5-8 (or more) years in grad school, a postdoc or two (or three) and then on to do research probably have a decent handle on the concrete, and tend to work in the abstract. Again, the paper was not written for an audience which lacks any training in physics.

[Kramer]

 

Strange

I have searched the paper and the "paths of desire" news article about this and can't find any reference to a hydrogen atom.

----- That really embarrassing. Have I seen in my dreams about “ big atom and its levels of energy”? I lost the track to re-read the source.

I'm not aware of any particular conundrum around that.
---- Again a fabrication of my fantasy? Are you sure that there is not any problem, and you have a clear concept about discrepancy in this issue, between classic and modern?

It does not disregard the mass. The mass is crucial. For one thing, the mass defines the wavelenght. For another, the reason the electron is stable but the muon isn't is because of mass.

---- But….but .. What about of “ Einsteinium complain: incomplete” ?
---- How mass define wavelength? Again --- am I wrong about the role of Compton radius?
---- About other reason. --- Isn’t “’muon antineutrinos’ dislikes to be associated with electron neutrino, the cause of his escape with most of muons energy stolen? ”

It was pretty clear to me from reading the article and the abstract of the paper that they were not talking about physical paths. And I have no expertise in this subject. (Of course, the concept of abstract state spaces is something I am very familiar with from my work as an engineer.
---- Engineers of contemporary time are without comparison much more qualified.

Swansont

They explained their meaning. The paper was written for other physicists. You've had a physicist and an engineer translate some of it for you, so people not even in that speciality were able to understand it at some level. It was not written as a pop-sci article for a lay audience.

---- This doesn’t mean that lay audience is deprived by the right to question, to ask, to make remark s, even stupid rebut or suggestions. Or was just this what you meant, that science is for scientists, for elite. For lay audience are enough socio- philosophic resumes?

I could not find any mention of Hydrogen in the article, either. I also reject your claim that I have said QM disregards an electron's mass. I suspect that's a misinterpretation on your part. Without any links to back up such a claim I can't say for sure what the specific misunderstanding it.
---- About “ HYDROGEN”, with which I, without intention to derail readers, I asked for excuse. My mistake has been caused by word ‘big atom’, and ‘two points of the sphere’ which gave me idea of H.

---- About electron mass ….?. A point electron with infinite density, an electron with V = C , an electron without radius but only wave-length ---- have been issue for debate in my threads.

People who have spent four years in college, 5-8 (or more) years in grad school, a postdoc or two (or three) and then on to do research probably have a decent handle on the concrete, and tend to work in the abstract. Again, the paper was not written for an audience which lacks any training in physics.
----- I appreciate your lost time and patience for both of interlocutors in this thread. And my many thanks for “ your trying”.
But, without offense, I continue to be very disappointed and confused about “moving of Quanta “ that disregard charge and/or gravity.

[Strange]

----- That really embarrassing. Have I seen in my dreams about “ big atom and its levels of energy”? I lost the track to re-read the source.

 

The phrase "artificial atom" appears in the news article (see links in post 2). This, again, is an analogy.

 

---- But….but .. What about of “ Einsteinium complain: incomplete” ?

 

I have no idea what that means.

"Einsteinium is a synthetic element with the symbol Es and atomic number 99. It is the seventh transuranic element, and an actinide." (Wikipedia)

 

---- How mass define wavelength?

 

In the same way energy defines the wavelength of a photon: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html

 

Again --- am I wrong about the role of Compton radius?

 

I have no idea. You haven't mentioned it before. But the Compton wavelength is related to mass, as well.

 

---- About other reason. --- Isn’t “’muon antineutrinos’ dislikes to be associated with electron neutrino, the cause of his escape with most of muons energy stolen?

 

Sorry. No idea what that means, either.

 

---- This doesn’t mean that lay audience is deprived by the right to question, to ask, to make remark s, even stupid rebut or suggestions. Or was just this what you meant, that science is for scientists, for elite. For lay audience are enough socio- philosophic resumes?

No, he just means that the paper was written for other scientists. That is what scientists do most of the time.

 

The "paths of desire" article was written for non-scientists. But, as it is trying to describe something very complex that cannot be understood without knowing the relevant science, it used simplifications, analogies and metaphors. This means you cannot tell what the science really is.

 

You seem to think there is some sort of deliberate effort to keep information away from "ordinary people". There isn't. It is just very, very complicated. There is no reason a plumber should be able to do brain surgery.

 

[Bignose]

---- This doesn’t mean that lay audience is deprived by the right to question, to ask, to make remark s, even stupid rebut or suggestions. Or was just this what you meant, that science is for scientists, for elite. For lay audience are enough socio- philosophic resumes?

But you must acknowledge that any specialized field with his its own terminology, concepts, and vocabulary.

 

If you wanted to know about chess, I would start with how the pieces move, the rules about being in check, and so on. If I started with the Yugoslav attack of the Dragon variation of Sicilian Opening, you have no hope.

 

If you wanted to know about baseball, I would start with the basic rules about pitching and batting. If I started talking about reducing the grip pressure and pulling down on the windowshade to go outside to set up the high heat, you have no hope.

 

If you want to know about American football, I would start with the basic rules about advancing the ball and the basics of tackling. If I started talking about lining up a Mike in 4-3 and shooting the B gap off of a stunt, you have no hope.

 

I could continue on, but I think the point is made. Everything has its own terms and specializations that if you want to talk about them at a high level have to be learned. A lay audience is not going to understand it.

 

A lay person CAN ask about things. But when you don't even have the basics down, the foundation for the advanced stuff isn't there. And I'm sorry, but if you don't even know what a spherical coordinate system is, or why it is used to graphically display a state space, then you aren't ready to truly understand this paper. There comes a point when you have to explain EVERYTHING to a lay person, and it isn't just explaining anymore. It is teaching basics.

 

The authors of this paper and the intended audience of this paper are assumed to have a certain foundation.

 

So really, you're at a crossroads here. You can make an effort yourself to learn these basics, and then be ready to understand the advanced cutting edge papers being written (as indicated above, this typically takes years), you can accept that you don't completely understand the paper and trust that the experts who do and wrote it have done their utmost to be as right as possible, or you can continue to grossly misunderstand and misinterpret what people are writing and hope against hope that you stumble on something correct.

 

I would say that it is highly unlikely that a lay person could seriously 'rebut' any paper published in a reputable journal these days. The chances are about the same as a 5 year old discovering a new 3rd move in a chess game opening that revolutionizes the game.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Bignose

[swansont]

They explained their meaning. The paper was written for other physicists. You've had a physicist and an engineer translate some of it for you, so people not even in that speciality were able to understand it at some level. It was not written as a pop-sci article for a lay audience.

---- This doesn’t mean that lay audience is deprived by the right to question, to ask, to make remark s, even stupid rebut or suggestions. Or was just this what you meant, that science is for scientists, for elite. For lay audience are enough socio- philosophic resumes?

By the same token, nature has no obligation to be understandable to you, and scientists have the right to ignore you, or anyone who acts as if explanations must be clear to them, regardless of whether they have achieved any fluency in the subject (much like the "ugly American" who expects people to speak English everywhere he goes). That's not something you are entitled to.

 

I really can't help it if you feel science is for the elite. You (and everyone else) have the ability to learn the material necessary to have a more productive discussion. If you'd prefer to complain that it's confusing, well, that's your choice.

 

 

I could not find any mention of Hydrogen in the article, either. I also reject your claim that I have said QM disregards an electron's mass. I suspect that's a misinterpretation on your part. Without any links to back up such a claim I can't say for sure what the specific misunderstanding it.

---- About “ HYDROGEN”, with which I, without intention to derail readers, I asked for excuse. My mistake has been caused by word ‘big atom’, and ‘two points of the sphere’ which gave me idea of H.

"Big atom" isn't in the article, either.

 

---- About electron mass ….?. A point electron with infinite density, an electron with V = C , an electron without radius but only wave-length ---- have been issue for debate in my threads.

People who have spent four years in college, 5-8 (or more) years in grad school, a postdoc or two (or three) and then on to do research probably have a decent handle on the concrete, and tend to work in the abstract. Again, the paper was not written for an audience which lacks any training in physics.

----- I appreciate your lost time and patience for both of interlocutors in this thread. And my many thanks for “ your trying”.

But, without offense, I continue to be very disappointed and confused about “moving of Quanta “ that disregard charge and/or gravity.

What disregard? I mean, you obviously have misunderstood the paper, so how do you pass judgement on what effects are important or not?

[Kramer]

Big nose
I would say that it is highly unlikely that a lay person could seriously 'rebut' any paper published in a reputable journal these days. The chances are about the same as a 5 year old discovering a new 3rd move in a chess game opening that revolutionizes the game.

----- As a lay man I don’t intend to rebut any paper. But as it has been “published” without any warning “only for scientists audience”, I, the lay man, has the right to know what is the “path of desire”, and what is the meaning of the figure of a clew that seems like a sphere .
And you as mathematician can give any explanation between math concepts of the paper and the link of them with physics reality. The general teaching and what the others must do, is futile.

Swansont

"Big atom" isn't in the article, either.

Artificial atom – big atom ---- isn’t it like to split the hair?

What disregard? I mean, you obviously have misunderstood the paper, so how do you pass judgement on what effects are important or not?

---- If there is absolute not about any kind of moving I admit that I misunderstood.

But -- If there is about “popping ups” things that authors have been able to measure before the things “collapse”, --- here I want an explanation. Because this has to do with movement, has to do with intervals of “time” and of ”space” --- short has to do with movements nevertheless of whatever kind.
So ser. Not I, have misunderstood, opponents have rushed in wrong valuation about importance of my thread.

And if there is something that moves, in whatever kind of movement, this thing needs a name. Mathematics name of what “collapse” is insufficient. This needs a name of real physics things – particle. It is it that experimenter measure, not abstract mathematic concept.

 

Strange

The phrase "artificial atom" appears in the news article (see links in post 2). This, again, is an analogy.
---- Thanks Strange. This mean a lot to me. I have not been in dream.

I have no idea what that means.
"Einsteinium is a synthetic element with the symbol Es and atomic number 99. It is the seventh transuranic element, and an actinide." (Wikipedia)

---- Again a miss spelling by me for “Einstein’s”. Meaning: Quantum mechanic disregard mass (gravity). Sorry for my grammar.

In the same way energy defines the wavelength of a photon: http://hyperphysics....um/debrog2.html

---- Do you mean De Broil wavelength?. Isn’t it the same as λ = ( (2*pi) / α) * Re) where Re classic radius of electron? Sorry --- I forget that in quantum mechanic Radius Re is “point = zero”. --- A joke about divergences between Quantum and classic..

I have no idea. You haven't mentioned it before. But the Compton wavelength is related to mass, as well.
---- That because the amount of energy of a particle, expressed in whatever physics law, is the same. And the radius is the only factor variable that determines the amount. It is a speculation? --- Yes.

Sorry. No idea what that means, either.
---- What is the result of disintegration of Muon? One electron, one anti- neutrino, one neutrino. This is the concrete base, to think about elementary common particles that are the only participant in the structure of muon. You may say: again a speculation? Yes.

No, he just means that the paper was written for other scientists. That is what scientists do most of the time.

The "paths of desire" article was written for non-scientists. But, as it is trying to describe something very complex that cannot be understood without knowing the relevant science, it used simplifications, analogies and metaphors. This means you cannot tell what the science really is.
----- That exact is what I want to dispute: how far away is going theoretic physic from real concepts of objective reality. And is this based in trust-worth data by nature or are they leaded by metaphysic, premeditated initials.

You seem to think there is some sort of deliberate effort to keep information away from "ordinary people". There isn't. It is just very, very complicated. There is no reason a plumber should be able to do brain surgery.
----- Right. I am a lay man, a plumber. But if somebody tells me that surgeon made surgery of brain to somebody with hocus focus, without opening the cranium, I have the right to know how this “miracle” happened. And Quantum physic has many “weird” issues for dispute.
------ Strange. I like to debate with you, in a friendly debate that close the eye about my grammar and my un-premeditated gaffes.

. As an engineer you have at least a foot on earth.
The link you gave about Felix Black sphere, show me that you may give me the help to understand how math is applied in physic. We can debate about “sphere” created by “formal path of desire, and trajectories, the link of it with Black “sphere”, and an alleged by me “sphere” created by spherical trajectories.

I will not be offended if you are not interested.

 

 

 

Swansont

"Big atom" isn't in the article, either.

Artificial atom – big atom ---- isn’t it like to split the hair?

What disregard? I mean, you obviously have misunderstood the paper, so how do you pass judgement on what effects are important or not?

---- If there is absolute not about any kind of moving I admit that I misunderstood.

But -- If there is about “popping ups” things that authors have been able to measure before the things “collapse”, --- here I want an explanation. Because this has to do with movement, has to do with intervals of “time” and of ”space” --- short has to do with movements nevertheless of whatever kind.
So ser. Not I have misunderstood, opponents have rushed in wrong valuation about importance of my thread.

And if there is something that moves, in whatever kind of movement, this thing needs a name. Mathematic name of what “collapse” is insufficient. This needs a name of real physics things – particle. It is it that experimenter measure, not abstract mathematic concept.

[Strange]

 

But as it has been “published” without any warning “only for scientists audience”, I, the lay man, has the right to know what is the “path of desire”, and what is the meaning of the figure of a clew that seems like a sphere .

 

You do have a right to know. But if you are not capable of understanding, I'm not sure what you expect us to do.

 

"Path of desire" is an analogy for what is colloquially called the "path of least resistance" or more accurately, the path of least action. This is the "natural" path for something to take. It can be the physical path (of walkers across a lawn or water down a hill) or, as in this case, a path through a virtual state space.

 

 

Again a miss spelling by me for “Einstein’s”. Meaning: Quantum mechanic disregard mass (gravity).

 

Quantum theory does not disregard mass. As noted, mass is critical. However it does disregard gravity for two reasons: the effect of gravity with masses of these scales is largely irrelevant; we don't (yet) have a theory that explains gravity at these scales.

 

 

What is the result of disintegration of Muon? One electron, one anti- neutrino, one neutrino. This is the concrete base, to think about elementary common particles that are the only participant in the structure of muon. You may say: again a speculation? Yes.

 

It is not just speculation, it is just plain wrong. The muon is a fundamental particle.

 

 

That exact is what I want to dispute: how far away is going theoretic physic from real concepts of objective reality. And is this based in trust-worth data by nature or are they leaded by metaphysic, premeditated initials.

 

It is an objective physical science based on experiment and measurement. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise. The article that started this thread is a great example of people using advanced experimental techniques to test the theory.

[Bignose]

----- As a lay man I don’t intend to rebut any paper. But as it has been “published” without any warning “only for scientists audience”,

I'm only going to reiterate what Strange wrote because I agree with it completely. If you are unwilling to build the foundation in order to properly understand this work, what do you expect anyone else to do for you?

[Sensei]

---- What is the result of disintegration of Muon? One electron, one anti- neutrino, one neutrino.

 

Not exactly.

It's muon's neutrino.

or muon's anti-neutrino.

Depending on charge.

 

There are three types of neutrinos discovered so far:

electron neutrino, or anti-neutrino.

muon neutrino, or anti-neutrino

and

tau neutrino, or anti-neutrino.

You won't detect muon's or tau's neutrino using neutrino detector designed for electron's neutrino. f.e. Chlorine-37 based neutrino detector will react only with electron's neutrinos with E >= 0.813 MeV.

If neutrino has less energy (f.e. produced in ordinary fusion of Hydrogen) neutrino's detector won't be triggered.