Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.electromag > #18454 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-23 19:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-01 16:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 75 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.electromag
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-23 19:21 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 11:31 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-25 19:30 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 11:50 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 12:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-25 21:02 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 12:26 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-25 19:25 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-25 20:58 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-27 17:52 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-29 16:59 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-30 13:08 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-30 13:15 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-30 15:37 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-02 11:38 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 13:26 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-06 12:14 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-02 13:39 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-02 18:23 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 02:33 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-03 09:04 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 14:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 20:39 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-05 08:40 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 08:59 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-04 08:55 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-01 23:27 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-02 18:20 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-06 12:39 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-07 18:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-07 18:50 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 15:55 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-11 12:11 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-11 21:22 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-11 15:02 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-12 11:29 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com - 2015-08-12 16:20 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-13 10:09 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 03:29 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-15 10:48 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 04:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-17 19:49 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:01 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-19 19:33 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 02:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-22 09:41 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 15:17 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-24 10:51 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 15:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-24 16:35 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-24 14:16 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-25 08:15 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-15 10:47 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-15 19:52 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:51 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-17 11:10 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:31 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-17 15:49 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-17 20:24 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:30 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:13 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-17 23:27 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:43 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-18 10:20 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-19 19:18 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 01:46 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-06 16:31 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-07 18:05 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-08 13:21 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-01 16:08 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 02:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cXDvx.38270$S35.33121@fx30.iad> |
| In reply to | #18545 |
On 08/02/2015 09:23 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:39:57 PM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet
> wrote:
>> On 8/2/2015 8:27 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> ...
>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf
>>
>> This author (Hrvoje Nikoli´c) seems to have some axe to grind.
>
> Axe or no axe, I think his point about wave-particle duality is
> sound.
>
> We don't have a "thing" that sometimes behaves like a wave, and
> sometimes behaves like a particle, depending on how you look at it.
> We have wavefunctions, which always behave like wavefunctions, and
> quanta, which always behave like quanta. Where is the duality?
>
> One might as well talk about the car-road duality in driving.
It seems rather superficial to reject Hrvoje's careful and detailed
arguments as merely he has "some axe to grind"!
On the other hand to say we "have" wavefunctions as if they were
something real and objective seems pretty much a myth. What exactly are
wavefunctions? How does one measure one directly. To say they give
probability of phenomena doesn't make them objectively real. This is
like saying classical statistical mechanics equations are some kind of
reality involved in the forces and mechanics of coin flipping! That is
silly talk. A "myth". Statistical mechanics can give you more
information about coin tosses that you might have had otherwise due to
complete ignorance of the mechanisms and forces involved, but to claim
that those calculations are somehow representative of something in
reality is just wrong. And also wrong would be the assumption that the
flipping of coins is a random process which does not obey causality.
But the "duality" thing of course is not "duality" at all. But as I
noted before a very special kind of phenomena where statistical events
assume results that can be smoothed into functions that approximate
solutions to a wave equation. But that doesn't make the waves that are
solutions of the proposed wave equation real. It is the statistical
events that are real and also not understood.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 09:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55bf128b$0$2881$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18545 |
On 8/3/2015 3:23 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:39:57 PM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 8/2/2015 8:27 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> ... >>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf >> >> This author (Hrvoje Nikoli´c) seems to have some axe to grind. > > Axe or no axe, I think his point about wave-particle duality is sound. Yes, most of his points are correctly addressing some annoying myths. But then he makes the strange claim that the main reason for the existence of myths is: (top of page 44) "QM does not give a clear answer to the question what, if anything, objective reality is." which would distinguish it, as he claims (admittedly adding "in my opinion", p. 43, l. -5) from classical physics. But what is the difference? Classical physics presents us with moving point particles and precisely defined E and B-field values at each point in space. QFT shows us a distribution of field values in each point of space described by an amplitude functional (correlating them with distributions in other points, but in a way that preserves causality). QFT is more complex (pun intended) but both approaches present us (only) with a mathematical description of some state. In both cases we could just accept the possibility that this *is* reality. Of course we still need to align it with *subjective* reality, which prevents us to see the whole reality. And in the QFT case this gives the interesting result of the *apparent* collapse of the wave function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 14:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Q0Ovx.66857$bp4.48198@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #18547 |
On 08/03/2015 03:04 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/3/2015 3:23 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:39:57 PM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2015 8:27 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf
>>>
>>> This author (Hrvoje Nikoli´c) seems to have some axe to grind.
>>
>> Axe or no axe, I think his point about wave-particle duality is sound.
>
> Yes, most of his points are correctly addressing some annoying
> myths. But then he makes the strange claim that the main reason
> for the existence of myths is: (top of page 44)
> "QM does not give a clear answer to the question what, if
> anything, objective reality is."
> which would distinguish it, as he claims (admittedly adding "in
> my opinion", p. 43, l. -5) from classical physics.
>
> But what is the difference?
> Classical physics presents us with moving point particles and
> precisely defined E and B-field values at each point in space.
> QFT shows us a distribution of field values in each point of
> space described by an amplitude functional (correlating them
> with distributions in other points, but in a way that preserves
> causality).
>
> QFT is more complex (pun intended) but both approaches present
> us (only) with a mathematical description of some state. In
> both cases we could just accept the possibility that this *is*
> reality.
>
> Of course we still need to align it with *subjective* reality,
> which prevents us to see the whole reality. And in the QFT case
> this gives the interesting result of the *apparent* collapse
> of the wave function:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
While I can admit the possibility that a mathematical description
(either classical or QFT might represent reality, the fact that
mathematics is created by fantasy in my opinion makes it rather unlikely
that mathematics is more real than reality as seems to be widely
accepted today.
Personally, I find QM rather epicyclic in that it has lots of
"explanations" going on, but what it really needs is a new point of view
that cuts through it all the way say putting the sun in the center of
the system created understanding of all the odd motions in the sky.
Unfortunately I don't have that new viewpoint, and so far I haven't seen
anyone else find it either, But I have confidence that there certainly
could be one. More confidence in fact than I have that math is more real
than reality.
Wave function "collapse"? Say Jos, as I recall the last time I used that
term you got all over my case about how it was an "old" description that
nobody uses anymore, I think we both know the most important rule of
life is that when it comes to software and physics jargon, it is VERY
important to always have the "latest version".
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 20:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpocd5$uca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18548 |
On 08/03/2015 08:02 PM, benj wrote: > > While I can admit the possibility that a mathematical description > (either classical or QFT might represent reality, the fact that > mathematics is created by fantasy in my opinion makes it rather unlikely > that mathematics is more real than reality as seems to be widely > accepted today. 1+1=2 is pure math fantasy, unrelated to reality. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples as prediction of "fruit evidencing math model" has strong relation to reality. But nobody reasonable says 2 apples as result of equations is more real than 2 apples as pieces of fruit. The similar applies, if math is used in physical models of reality. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55c1aff3$0$2829$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18548 |
On 8/3/2015 8:02 PM, benj wrote: > On 08/03/2015 03:04 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 8/3/2015 3:23 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:39:57 PM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 8/2/2015 8:27 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf >>>> >>> ... >> (top of page 44) >> "QM does not give a clear answer to the question what, if >> anything, objective reality is." >> which would distinguish it, as he claims (admittedly adding "in >> my opinion", p. 43, l. -5) from classical physics. >> >> But what is the difference? >> Classical physics presents us with moving point particles and >> precisely defined E and B-field values at each point in space. >> QFT shows us a distribution of field values in each point of >> space described by an amplitude functional (correlating them >> with distributions in other points, but in a way that preserves >> causality). >> >> QFT is more complex (pun intended) but both approaches present >> us (only) with a mathematical description of some state. In >> both cases we could just accept the possibility that this *is* >> reality. >> >> Of course we still need to align it with *subjective* reality, >> which prevents us to see the whole reality. And in the QFT case >> this gives the interesting result of the *apparent* collapse >> of the wave function: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse > > While I can admit the possibility that a mathematical description > (either classical or QFT might represent reality, the fact that > mathematics is created by fantasy in my opinion makes it rather unlikely > that mathematics is more real than reality In any case most theories are at some point shown to be just approximations, which are then superseded by better approximations. But the same could happen if the theories were presented not as mathematics but as a painting (like a map of the earth). So I don't see why mathematics is to be blamed. > as seems to be widely accepted today. The modern notion is that our quantum field theories of the standard model are merely effective field theories and that some underlying theory will some day be found, expanding the earlier list to 6 steps: 1 Classical physics (1700). 2 Adding mysterious quantization rules (1900). 3 Wave mechanics explains quantization (1925). 4 Quantum Field Theory unifies fields/particles (1950) 5 Accepting non-renormalizable QFTs like gravity (1990) 6 Finding the underlying theory of QFTs (~2050??) Of course we already have one candidate for step 6 (string theory) but hasn't yet any experimentally confirmation. > Personally, I find QM rather epicyclic in that it has lots > of "explanations" going on, Classical physics had that too: Why are the planets moving in an ellipse? Why do colliding billiard balls depart at 90 degrees? etc. Explaining things is the task of a theory. > but what it really needs is a new point of view that cuts through it > all the way say putting the sun in the center of the system Now some might say that is just what QM does (because it successfully applies to all of physics, they would say..) so perhaps you should make your complaint clearer. > ... > Wave function "collapse"? Say Jos, as I recall the last time I used that > term you got all over my case about how it was an "old" description that > nobody uses anymore, Correct. A sudden jump to zero would require such a complete change of the wave equation that it cannot be considered as a possibility any more. The cited wiki page clearly explains (line 5) that calculations show only an *apparent* collapse. > I think we both know the most important rule of life is > that when it comes to software and physics jargon, it is > VERY important to always have the "latest version". I don't think so. After version 6.2 MSDOS only got worse! The same probably holds for Windows 7 (but that isn't relevant because 640K ought to be enough for anybody!) -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 08:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpsc5r$619$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18553 |
Dne 05/08/2015 v 08:40 Jos Bergervoet napsal(a): > > I don't think so. After version 6.2 MSDOS only got worse! > The same probably holds for Windows 7 (but that isn't > relevant because 640K ought to be enough for anybody!) > Once I have thought similarly about 4G 32bit address space, evaluating if I can afford 64 MB RAM. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 08:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55c061c6$0$2897$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18545 |
On 8/3/2015 3:23 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:39:57 PM UTC+10, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 8/2/2015 8:27 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> ...
>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf
>>
>> This author (Hrvoje Nikoli´c) seems to have some axe to grind.
>
> Axe or no axe, I think his point about wave-particle duality is sound.
Yes, he also makes the point that objective reality should
not necessarily be given up in QM, but then he seems to think
that this would require resorting to some interpretation
(Bohm is his favorite, it seems).
So he falls for the biggest myth of all:
"QM cannot be true, it has to be changed drastically with
a lot of extra machinery included (and we'll call that
euphemistically an interpretation.)"
> We don't have a "thing" that sometimes behaves like a wave, and
> sometimes behaves like a particle, depending on how you look at it.
> We have wavefunctions, which always behave like wavefunctions, and
> quanta, which always behave like quanta.
Yes, the quanta are merely indexing the modes of the wave..
> Where is the duality?
I think what people mean is behavior like these examples:
1) Spherical wave-front description of a light pulse, leaving
just one isolated black pin-point on a photographic plate.
Did all the energy contract suddenly? (The spherical front
may have been lightyears across!)
2) Schroedinger's cat-like quantum states: describing two (or
more) possibilities with more or less equal ampllitude,
while the observer feels to experience only one of them.
Are there really those simulataneous realities? (Is something
preventing us from seeing more than one at a time, i.e. the
decoherence effect?)
Or are there only a few realities? (Closely together, giving
just a bit of spread on sub-atomic level?) That would require
some selection mechanism to prune of part of the state!
Existing QM or QFT gives no selection mechanism. Collapse of
the wavefunction is *not* what you get if you follow the
differential equation as is. Also a weaker form of reduction
of more distant realities for complicated macroscopic states
(e.g. as attempted by Penrose) did not solve the problem.
So then we might focus on the other possibility: it all
exists but it is decoupled by decoherence. This would require
at least a numerical simulation to see how one single dot on
the photographic plate can emerge. I haven't seen that yet.
Proponents of Quantum Computing are of course relying on the
reality of alternate possibilities in the quantum state, to
speed up their algorithms! So their work will perhaps make
things clearer (whether they fail or not..)
--
Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 23:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc54e4f7-e7d5-4a21-a503-7d7a5063138c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18538 |
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > > Maxwell is based upon continuous differentiable functions. Quantization > simply is not part of it. It is the polar opposite to it. > > So how can QM be Maxwellian? It can't. Ho hum. Quantisation doesn't mean that the wavefunction isn't continuous and differentiable. Try reading a book on QED. Where does it say that Maxwell fails? Instead, they use Maxwell as a foundation. > Note well that > they DO NOT turn into WAVES! Yes. There is no "wave-particle duality". We have a wavefunction, that is all wave and no particle. We have quantisation, which is all "particle" and no wave. Where is the duality? http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf Also, W. E. Lamb, "Anti-photon". > It's particle. An electron is a particle. No real problem to say that "photon is a particle" (though that carries concepts of classical particles that aren't appropriate). But to say that "light is a particle" is excessive. At minimum, a clear definition of "light" would be useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 18:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54b12e3e-c1eb-4e6b-8f23-68032b9138c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18538 |
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > > Yes, people have tried to force "quantization' by wrapping waves around > atoms in integer steps. Basically it is an exercise in eigenfutility. That's *not* quantisation. Quantisation is that our energy goes in and out of our fields in discrete chunks. I.e., we can count photons or electrons using whole numbers. Take a close look at spectral lines. Even in the absence of thermal or collisional broadening, spectral lines have non-infinitesimal width. The results we get from "wrapping waves around atoms" are compatible with quantisation. The energy difference between two energy levels is E=hbar.omega, where omega is the frequency of radiation emitted/absorbed when that transition occurs. Even more fun, the classical limit of the transition is that the charge oscillates between the two states at omega: http://www3.uji.es/~planelle/APUNTS/ESPECTROS/jce/JCEphoto.html A nice example of "futility" that works!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-06 12:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d2hgu8FmqfkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18544 |
On 8/2/2015 9:20 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:53:54 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> >> Yes, people have tried to force "quantization' by wrapping waves around >> atoms in integer steps. Basically it is an exercise in eigenfutility. > > That's *not* quantisation. Quantisation is that our energy goes in and out of our fields in discrete chunks. I.e., we can count photons or electrons using whole numbers. Take a close look at spectral lines. Even in the absence of thermal or collisional broadening, spectral lines have non-infinitesimal width. > > The results we get from "wrapping waves around atoms" are compatible with quantisation. The energy difference between two energy levels is E=hbar.omega, where omega is the frequency of radiation emitted/absorbed when that transition occurs. Even more fun, the classical limit of the transition is that the charge oscillates between the two states at omega: http://www3.uji.es/~planelle/APUNTS/ESPECTROS/jce/JCEphoto.html > > A nice example of "futility" that works! > Hello Timo... Sorry that I had to drop out for a while. 2 excuses... 1. I was engaging/challenging the SCP (Society for Classical Physics) group re your questions about prediction of spectra & your view that eq 3.8 (is that it?) was just plain wrong. Re spectra, the consensus was that simply applying the well known realationship between photon wavelength, eV & Planck's constant "spits out" the spectra. And that info is available in the GUTCP up to 20 electrons, but not done (or published ?) for heavier items. I'm not completely satisfied with that reply since it does not address spectral amplitude nor broadening. I have challenged the group on this matter. Results to come -- I hope. Re your critique of the math, Mills simply re-iterated that you were not understanding/applying Maxwell correctly. Since Mills'models yield a priori parameters that are correct in every measurable way, let me suggest QED. (Unlike the paper you referred us to earlier that is *full* of non-physical "tweaks" in order to get "correct" answers!) *But* I have "watched" you on this forum for quite a while, and know that you are neither scatterbrained nor capricious. So... If you will prepare a critique -- with appropriate equations - in Word format or similar, & email it to me so that the meanings don't get garbled, I will submit it to Dr. Mills, and *ask* him to reply. Email billkt4ye@yahoo.com remove my name to send. 2. Second excuse: I was terrorizing some High Country Trout. All the best
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-06 16:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b12cded-8d05-4c3b-9278-c36659d38695@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18556 |
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:39:37 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/2/2015 9:20 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > > > Hello Timo... Sorry that I had to drop out for a while. 2 excuses... > > 1. I was engaging/challenging the SCP (Society for Classical Physics) > group re your questions about prediction of spectra & your view that eq > 3.8 (is that it?) was just plain wrong. > > Re spectra, the consensus was that simply applying the well known > realationship between photon wavelength, eV & Planck's constant "spits > out" the spectra. And that info is available in the GUTCP up to 20 > electrons, but not done (or published ?) for heavier items. > I'm not completely satisfied with that reply since it does not address > spectral amplitude nor broadening. I have challenged the group on this > matter. Results to come -- I hope. I didn't see tables of energy levels for heavier elements. Is there one that I missed? All I saw were the tables of ionisation energies. Even energy levels alone, without line strengths and widths, would be an excellent start. > Re your critique of the math, Mills simply re-iterated that you were not > understanding/applying Maxwell correctly. Is Mills right, and Jackson, Stratton, Landau, etc. all wrong? > Since Mills'models yield a priori parameters that are correct in every > measurable way, let me suggest QED. (Unlike the paper you referred us to > earlier that is *full* of non-physical "tweaks" in order to get > "correct" answers!) The point of that paper was to show how easy it is to get fairly accurate ionisation energies with a few crude approximations. Which is why I'm not so impressed by Mills getting ionisation energies for 3 to 20 electron atoms to that same level of accuracy. Exact conventional theory dies on the computational difficulty of the n-body problem (just as classical mechanics dies similarly). But crude hacks produce OK results. Exact conventional theory also dies on energy levels for complex atoms, for the same reason. However, in this case, the crude hacks don't work. Which is why spectra (or energy levels) would be a much more impressive feat by Mills. > *But* I have "watched" you on this forum for quite a while, and know > that you are neither scatterbrained nor capricious. So... > If you will prepare a critique -- with appropriate equations - in Word > format or similar, & email it to me so that the meanings don't get > garbled, I will submit it to Dr. Mills, and *ask* him to reply. What's so say, if he insists that his fig 3.3 field for the pancake is right, despite simple numerical calculation showing that it's wrong? If he doesn't accept the stuff in widely-used EM textbooks (e.g., Jackson) as correct, but insists that he is right and they are wrong, what is the point? To have no field along the plane of the pancake requires the pancake to be an equipotential (along the plane of the pancake). We know the pancake shaped charge distribution that give an equipotential in that plane - it's the charge distribution on a conducting disc. E.g., the paper by McDonald cited earlier. Which is different from Mills' pancake - as expected, the charge is concentrated towards the rim, not the centre (compare charge distributions on squares, cubes, wires, and other shapes of conductors). Can Mills show clearly (show, not just declare that McDonald is wrong and he is right) where McDonald is wrong, and *show* that his own pancake is equipotential over its plane? Otherwise, similar thing for Jackson (1.5). Jackson (1.5) gives a result contrary to Mills fig 3.3 pancake field. If Mills is right, Jackson is wrong. Where?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 18:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d2ko7aFh228U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18558 |
On 8/6/2015 7:30 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > > I didn't see tables of energy levels for heavier elements. Is there one that I missed? All I saw were the tables of ionisation energies. Even energy levels alone, without line strengths and widths, would be an excellent start. > Sorry... at this stage in a new concept, WYSIWYG. The Mills team is working to build a product based on the concept of sub-Rydberg transitions aka hydrino transitions. Not much more than what's in the book is likely to emerge until that milestone is done. > What's so say, if he insists that his fig 3.3 field for the pancake is right, despite simple numerical calculation showing that it's wrong? If he doesn't accept the stuff in widely-used EM textbooks (e.g., Jackson) as correct, but insists that he is right and they are wrong, what is the point? > > To have no field along the plane of the pancake requires the pancake to be an equipotential (along the plane of the pancake). This, I believe, is where the issue concentrates: We know the pancake shaped charge distribution that give an equipotential in that plane - The pancake is *not* equipotential. This was covered in Chapter 1 that you do not seem to have read (or grasped) yet. single step: A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for *any* physical electron model is that it *must be nonradiative.* This requirement is what "sunk" every physical model up until now. Another necessary (but not sufficient) condition for *any* physical electron model is that it must account for spin. Another necessary (but not sufficient) condition for *any* physical electron model is that it *must* "look like" an electron. IOW, the measured parameters of a real electron. Mass, Charge, spin, must be predicted. (And without any "fudge factors." Yet another necessary (but not sufficient) condition for *any* physical electron model is that when it is 'matched up" with a Proton to form a hydrogen Atom, the combination *must* be robust. The item just above is just one of the reasons why your choosing to look at the free electron *first* was a less than optimum choice. You have *no way* of looking at a free electron physical model (in a physical configuration that is *totally different* from when it is in 'orbit" about a nucleus) and determining whether or not it is "robust." Let's go back to the nonradiative condition of the bound electron as an orbitsphere (or bubble of charge surrounding the proton). If the Orbitsphere were equipotential, then it *would radiate!!* Mills' contribution was the insight that if the charge was not equipotential ie flowing, and flowing in a certain pattern, then it *might* be possible to "build" a physical model that was nonradiative. *That is the insight that Mills made.* *Developing the physical model that met all the above criteria is what Mills accomplished. The results and the proof of nonradiation is explained in Chapter 1.* Everything else builds upon that breakthrough. And that includes the flowing charge on the pancake. I know, Timo, that it is frustrating because you clearly think you are talking past me. But you have not yet grasped the concepts outlined above. As a result, you are assigning interpretations to Mills' model that are different from those that he has assigned. With *any* theory, the same thing can happen if the basic theory is not clearly understood. All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c1c7293-62ec-4b62-bac6-5f0bcc189c9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18566 |
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 8:02:21 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/6/2015 7:30 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > > > What's so say, if he insists that his fig 3.3 field for the pancake is right, despite simple numerical calculation showing that it's wrong? > > If he doesn't accept the stuff in widely-used EM textbooks (e.g., > Jackson) as correct, but insists that he is right and they are wrong, > what is the point? > > > > To have no field along the plane of the pancake requires the pancake to be an equipotential (along the plane of the pancake). > > This, I believe, is where the issue concentrates: > > We know the pancake shaped charge distribution that give an > equipotential in that plane - > > The pancake is *not* equipotential. This was covered in Chapter 1 that > you do not seem to have read (or grasped) yet. The footnote on pg 176 explicitly says that it is equipotential. If the pancake isn't equipotential, there will be in-plane forces acting on the charge making up the pancake, and if that moves in the direction of those forces, work will be done on it. What Mills writes in that footnote about the importance of it being equipotential is quite reasonable. The field that Mills shows in fig 3.3 would be correct if the pancake was actually equipotential. The error is simply that the charge distribution (3.8) isn't the (known) charge distribution for an equipotential pancake. Mills substitutes (3.8) into (3.9) (which is essentially Jackson (1.5)) to obtain his expression for the potential. The integral over z' is easy. Take two points in the place of the pancake (say, (x,y,z)=(0,0,0), for which Mills gives the result in (3.11), and (x,y,z)=(rho_0/2,0,0)) and compare the potentials. Are they the same? Simple way to calculate Phi(x,0,0) using (3.10) is numerically. Some Octave/Matlab code at end of post. To better than 1%: Phi(0,0,0) = 4.932 Phi(0.5,0,0) = 4.316 Different. Therefore not equipotential. Therefore, by Mills (3.13), the in-plane electric field is not zero, which contradicts fig 3.3 and the footnote on pg 176. > Mills' contribution was the insight that if the charge was not > equipotential ie flowing, In the absence of resistance (i.e., dissipative losses), no problem to have charge moving in an equipotential region. Simplest classical example: electron moving at constant v in free space. > and flowing in a certain pattern, then it > *might* be possible to "build" a physical model that was nonradiative. Trivial. Just have p(r) and J(r) time-independent in the rest frame of the electron. Pretty much every classical model of the free electron achieves this. For bound electrons, any model that smears the electron over an orbital/shell/ring achieves this. > I know, Timo, that it is frustrating because you clearly think you are > talking past me. But you have not yet grasped the concepts outlined > above. As a result, you are assigning interpretations to Mills' model > that are different from those that he has assigned. Even if all of chapter 1 is 100% correct, (3.8) and (3.10) disagree with fig 3.3 and the pg 176 footnote. That's an error. > With *any* theory, the same thing can happen if the basic theory is not > clearly understood. Doesn't matter what's in the basic theory. If Mills wrote in chapter 3 that 1+1=17, he'd be wrong. Mills' error with (3.10) is no different: it's a simple mathematical error. The correctness or otherwise of his basic theory is irrelevant to it. Since the footnote on pg 176 makes a big deal of the importance of the pancake being equipotential, the error appears to be important for his free electron model. Octave (or Matlab) code to calculate (3.10) numerically. Check the equipotentialness of the pancake for yourself. % Numerical calculation of Mills (3.10) % For convenience, choose units so that rho_0=1, % and the constants outside the integral = 1. % Make a simple regular Cartesian grid points_diam = 1000; x = linspace(-1,1,points_diam); y = linspace(-1,1,points_diam); dxdy = (x(2)-x(1))*(y(2)-y(1)); [xx,yy] = meshgrid(x,y); xx = xx(:); yy = yy(:); rr = sqrt( xx.^2 + yy.^2 ); inside_points = find(rr<=1); xx = xx(inside_points); yy = yy(inside_points); % Let's compare potentials at (0,0,0) and (0.5,0,0) x1 = 0; x2 = 0.5; dnum = sqrt(1-xx.^2-yy.^2); ddenom1 = sqrt((x1-xx).^2 + yy.^2); ddenom2 = sqrt((x2-xx).^2 + yy.^2); Phi1 = sum( dxdy * dnum./ddenom1 ) Phi2 = sum( dxdy * dnum./ddenom2 )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 15:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d2ppi4Fom7aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18568 |
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:0c1c7293-62ec-4b62-bac6-5f0bcc189c9f@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 8:02:21 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/6/2015 7:30 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > > > What's so say, if he insists that his fig 3.3 field for the pancake is > > right, despite simple numerical calculation showing that it's wrong? > > If he doesn't accept the stuff in widely-used EM textbooks (e.g., > Jackson) as correct, but insists that he is right and they are wrong, > what is the point? > > > > To have no field along the plane of the pancake requires the pancake to > > be an equipotential (along the plane of the pancake). > > This, I believe, is where the issue concentrates: > > We know the pancake shaped charge distribution that give an > equipotential in that plane - > > The pancake is *not* equipotential. This was covered in Chapter 1 that > you do not seem to have read (or grasped) yet. The footnote on pg 176 explicitly says that it is equipotential. If the pancake isn't equipotential, there will be in-plane forces acting on the charge making up the pancake, and if that moves in the direction of those forces, work will be done on it. What Mills writes in that footnote about the importance of it being equipotential is quite reasonable. The field that Mills shows in fig 3.3 would be correct if the pancake was actually equipotential. The error is simply that the charge distribution (3.8) isn't the (known) charge distribution for an equipotential pancake. Mills substitutes (3.8) into (3.9) (which is essentially Jackson (1.5)) to obtain his expression for the potential. The integral over z' is easy. Take two points in the place of the pancake (say, (x,y,z)=(0,0,0), for which Mills gives the result in (3.11), and (x,y,z)=(rho_0/2,0,0)) and compare the potentials. Are they the same? Simple way to calculate Phi(x,0,0) using (3.10) is numerically. Some Octave/Matlab code at end of post. To better than 1%: Phi(0,0,0) = 4.932 Phi(0.5,0,0) = 4.316 Different. Therefore not equipotential. Therefore, by Mills (3.13), the in-plane electric field is not zero, which contradicts fig 3.3 and the footnote on pg 176. > Mills' contribution was the insight that if the charge was not > equipotential ie flowing, In the absence of resistance (i.e., dissipative losses), no problem to have charge moving in an equipotential region. Simplest classical example: electron moving at constant v in free space. > and flowing in a certain pattern, then it > *might* be possible to "build" a physical model that was nonradiative. Trivial. Just have p(r) and J(r) time-independent in the rest frame of the electron. Pretty much every classical model of the free electron achieves this. For bound electrons, any model that smears the electron over an orbital/shell/ring achieves this. > I know, Timo, that it is frustrating because you clearly think you are > talking past me. But you have not yet grasped the concepts outlined > above. As a result, you are assigning interpretations to Mills' model > that are different from those that he has assigned. Even if all of chapter 1 is 100% correct, (3.8) and (3.10) disagree with fig 3.3 and the pg 176 footnote. That's an error. > With *any* theory, the same thing can happen if the basic theory is not > clearly understood. Doesn't matter what's in the basic theory. If Mills wrote in chapter 3 that 1+1=17, he'd be wrong. Mills' error with (3.10) is no different: it's a simple mathematical error. The correctness or otherwise of his basic theory is irrelevant to it. Since the footnote on pg 176 makes a big deal of the importance of the pancake being equipotential, the error appears to be important for his free electron model. Octave (or Matlab) code to calculate (3.10) numerically. Check the equipotentialness of the pancake for yourself. % Numerical calculation of Mills (3.10) % For convenience, choose units so that rho_0=1, % and the constants outside the integral = 1. % Make a simple regular Cartesian grid points_diam = 1000; x = linspace(-1,1,points_diam); y = linspace(-1,1,points_diam); dxdy = (x(2)-x(1))*(y(2)-y(1)); [xx,yy] = meshgrid(x,y); xx = xx(:); yy = yy(:); rr = sqrt( xx.^2 + yy.^2 ); inside_points = find(rr<=1); xx = xx(inside_points); yy = yy(inside_points); % Let's compare potentials at (0,0,0) and (0.5,0,0) x1 = 0; x2 = 0.5; dnum = sqrt(1-xx.^2-yy.^2); ddenom1 = sqrt((x1-xx).^2 + yy.^2); ddenom2 = sqrt((x2-xx).^2 + yy.^2); Phi1 = sum( dxdy * dnum./ddenom1 ) Phi2 = sum( dxdy * dnum./ddenom2 ) Hi Timo... First pass... you made excellent points and I apologize for my equating equipotential with static. The charge in Mills' model is in motion in order to achieve nonradiation and replicate spin. I put keyboard in motion before thinking about terms. Let me ponder (& share) your analysis. Will reply as soon as I can -- no trout in my immediate future. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 12:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d2ul6dF1u9pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18568 |
On 8/7/2015 9:50 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: <snip> >> If he doesn't accept the stuff in widely-used EM textbooks (e.g., >> Jackson) as correct, but insists that he is right and they are wrong, >> what is the point? >>> <snip> Congratulations! It looks like your Eagle Eye caught something. Mills replied to my question in his usual cryptic fashion, "That was an approximation done 15 years ago to show the similarity to a point charge. I’ll update that short section. All else remains the same." So, I/we need to wait a bit until Mills updates that section. Meanwhile, the "aboutness" of this chapter has much to do with self-interaction. If Mills' 2D "bubble" (Bound electron) or 2D "pancake" (Free Electron) self-interacts, then the model will "blow up." And *real* electrons don't "blow up." I believe that this has been an issue with some other (failed) electron models. At your convenience, please take a look at Appendix II that discusses the stability of the model, self interaction and self energy. Thanks for your continued interest, and diligence! Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 21:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55ca4b78$0$2935$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18575 |
On 8/11/2015 6:11 PM, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/7/2015 9:50 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > <snip> >>> If he doesn't accept the stuff in widely-used EM textbooks (e.g., >>> Jackson) as correct, but insists that he is right and they are wrong, >>> what is the point? >>>> > <snip> > > Congratulations! It looks like your Eagle Eye caught something. > > Mills replied to my question in his usual cryptic fashion, "That was an > approximation done 15 years ago to show the similarity to a point > charge. I’ll update that short section. All else remains the same." > > So, I/we need to wait a bit until Mills updates that section. > > Meanwhile, the "aboutness" of this chapter has much to do with > self-interaction. If Mills' 2D "bubble" (Bound electron) or 2D "pancake" > (Free Electron) self-interacts, then the model will "blow up." > > And *real* electrons don't "blow up." > > I believe that this has been an issue with some other (failed) electron > models. So I can now revise my earlier remark! Mills is telling lies, but Bill Miller is not. Apologies Bill. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fd419a6-9c0d-449e-965c-b0d6acf1f586@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18575 |
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 2:11:59 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: > > Mills replied to my question in his usual cryptic fashion, "That was an > approximation done 15 years ago to show the similarity to a point > charge. I'll update that short section. All else remains the same." > > So, I/we need to wait a bit until Mills updates that section. Indeed. > Meanwhile, the "aboutness" of this chapter has much to do with > self-interaction. If Mills' 2D "bubble" (Bound electron) or 2D "pancake" > (Free Electron) self-interacts, then the model will "blow up." In the absence of an ad hoc binding force, yes. For the pancake electron, switching the charge distribution to the one that gives an equipotential pancake doesn't help - there would still be a force on the rim. > And *real* electrons don't "blow up." > > I believe that this has been an issue with some other (failed) electron > models. The usual solution is to use a mystery "binding force" to hold it all together. Which defeats the fundamental purpose of the typical c. 1900 classical electron model. A major part of the motivation for building such models was the hope of explaining everything (i.e., classical mechanics and electromagnetism) in a unified way. That is, to explain mass/inertia and gravitation on the basis of electromagnetism. Having to add extra ad hoc forces is silly in that context. On the other hand, a binding force isn't some parameter being used to tweak the model to bring it into agreement with experiment/observation, just a magic force to make the whole idea of a classical model of a billiard ball electron possible. Ingredients: assume spherical, uniform charge distribution within sphere (or spherical shell). Question: does one get the correct inertia for an electron? But the bigger things that have sunk such models are that classical electron models are too large (without renormalisation) and don't show wave behaviour (because the whole idea was to have something like a billiard ball model).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 11:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d3171tFmga3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18577 |
On 8/11/2015 6:02 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 2:11:59 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: >> >> Mills replied to my question in his usual cryptic fashion, "That was an >> approximation done 15 years ago to show the similarity to a point >> charge. I'll update that short section. All else remains the same." >> >> So, I/we need to wait a bit until Mills updates that section. > > Indeed. > >> Meanwhile, the "aboutness" of this chapter has much to do with >> self-interaction. If Mills' 2D "bubble" (Bound electron) or 2D "pancake" >> (Free Electron) self-interacts, then the model will "blow up." > > In the absence of an ad hoc binding force, yes. For the pancake electron, switching the charge distribution to the one that gives an equipotential pancake doesn't help - there would still be a force on the rim. > >> And *real* electrons don't "blow up." >> >> I believe that this has been an issue with some other (failed) electron >> models. > > The usual solution is to use a mystery "binding force" to hold it all together. Which defeats the fundamental purpose of the typical c. 1900 classical electron model. A major part of the motivation for building such models was the hope of explaining everything (i.e., classical mechanics and electromagnetism) in a unified way. That is, to explain mass/inertia and gravitation on the basis of electromagnetism. Having to add extra ad hoc forces is silly in that context. > > On the other hand, a binding force isn't some parameter being used to tweak the model to bring it into agreement with experiment/observation, just a magic force to make the whole idea of a classical model of a billiard ball electron possible. Ingredients: assume spherical, uniform charge distribution within sphere (or spherical shell). Question: does one get the correct inertia for an electron? > > But the bigger things that have sunk such models are that classical electron models are too large (without renormalisation) and don't show wave behaviour (because the whole idea was to have something like a billiard ball model). Your statements above are correct. Some years back, I was *also* very reluctant to "buy into" the Mills concept for many of the above reasons. In my life, if things look "too good to be true," they usually (but not always) are! It was embarrassing for me when you instantly picked up on what *may* be the only error of that type in the 1000 + pages of work. I was so confident that the whole work was "sanitary" that I was excessive in its defense until you outlined your objection in detail. I apologize. As near as I can determine, there is no "magic" force holding things together in Mills' concepts. Instead, everything is stuck together consistent with Maxwell and the published texts that you often cite. If your patience will hold up, please look here: http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol3/276?e=2444798/2874734 This section deals with the forces that hold the electron together. Inertia, mass and spin are there, although spin is covered elsewhere, as is non-radiation And the size of the model comes out OK without any renormalization. No hand waving, and AFAIK nobody behind the curtain. All the best, Bill >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 16:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1904475d-a568-4d08-832f-04326518b206@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18580 |
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 4:29:04 PM UTC+1, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/11/2015 6:02 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 2:11:59 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: > >> > >> Mills replied to my question in his usual cryptic fashion, "That was an > >> approximation done 15 years ago to show the similarity to a point > >> charge. I'll update that short section. All else remains the same." > >> > >> So, I/we need to wait a bit until Mills updates that section. > > > > Indeed. > > > >> Meanwhile, the "aboutness" of this chapter has much to do with > >> self-interaction. If Mills' 2D "bubble" (Bound electron) or 2D "pancake" > >> (Free Electron) self-interacts, then the model will "blow up." > > > > In the absence of an ad hoc binding force, yes. For the pancake electron, > > switching the charge distribution to the one that gives an equipotential > > pancake doesn't help - there would still be a force on the rim. > > > >> And *real* electrons don't "blow up." > >> > >> I believe that this has been an issue with some other (failed) electron > >> models. > > > > The usual solution is to use a mystery "binding force" to hold it all together. > > Which defeats the fundamental purpose of the typical c. 1900 classical > electron model. > > A major part of the motivation for building such models was the hope of > explaining > > everything (i.e., classical mechanics and electromagnetism) in a unified > way. > > That is, to explain mass/inertia and gravitation on the basis of > electromagnetism. > > Having to add extra ad hoc forces is silly in that context. > > > > On the other hand, a binding force isn't some parameter being used to tweak the model to > > bring it into agreement with experiment/observation, just a magic force > to make the > > whole idea of a classical model of a billiard ball electron possible. > > Ingredients: assume spherical, uniform charge distribution within sphere > (or spherical shell). > > Question: does one get the correct inertia for an electron? > > > > But the bigger things that have sunk such models are that classical electron models are > > too large (without renormalisation) and don't show wave behaviour > (because the whole > > idea was to have something like a billiard ball model). > > Your statements above are correct. Some years back, I was *also* very > reluctant to "buy into" the Mills concept for many of the above reasons. > > In my life, if things look "too good to be true," they usually (but not > always) are! > > It was embarrassing for me when you instantly picked up on what *may* be > the only error of that type in the 1000 + pages of work. I was so > confident that the whole work was "sanitary" that I was excessive in its > defense until you outlined your objection in detail. > > I apologize. > > As near as I can determine, there is no "magic" force holding things > together in Mills' concepts. Instead, everything is stuck together > consistent with Maxwell and the published texts that you often cite. > > If your patience will hold up, please look here: > > http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol3/276?e=2444798/2874734 > > This section deals with the forces that hold the electron together. > Inertia, mass and spin are there, although spin is covered elsewhere, as > is non-radiation And the size of the model comes out OK without any > renormalization. > > No hand waving, and AFAIK nobody behind the curtain. > > All the best, Bill > > > > I wonder if Mill's theory is similar to Ptolemy's epicycles in being able to reproduce just about anything with sufficient tweaking of the parameters? Ptolemy and Homer (Simpson) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw Regards, Larry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 10:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d33mphFau6bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18581 |
On 8/12/2015 7:20 PM, shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com wrote: <SNIP> >> >> >>> > > I wonder if Mill's theory is similar to Ptolemy's epicycles in being able to reproduce just about anything with sufficient tweaking of the parameters? > > Ptolemy and Homer (Simpson) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw > > Regards, > > Larry Hi Larry... You are apparently confusing Mills' theory with QM. I have lost count of the number of Parameters used by QM practitioners to get the *correct* results. Over 80? Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again." I'm with the Big Guy! Mills' theory is based *entirely* on Classical EM & Science. He uses standard texts on the subject as his references. Where appropriate, he references peer-reviwed third party experiments that have not (yet) made their way into textbooks. There are *zero* Parameters. Only Fundamental Constants & formulae from standard texts. Read it Here -- all 1300+ pages! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12mW9CLXL7A38ap6HVxMCf8TuNUvJkizhWGUOjFg1Jpw/pub?amp;output=html All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.electromag
csiph-web