Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 137 of 223 (703462)
07-22-2013 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Son Goku
07-19-2013 1:46 PM


Re: Questions.
quote:
The electromagnetic contributions are quantum mechanical, not classical, since you are talking about QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).
Quantum mechanics is derived from classical field theory, unless you are talking about second quantization. The Lagrangian density (equation 89) for example contains the Dirac equation for the first part and the electromagnetic tensor F(uv) for the second part. The only non-classical aspects of QED are spin and probability.
quote:
Secondly, what are spinning light-like manifolds?
The spinning manifold is attached to the electric field of an electron and determines how the field deforms through relative motion or gravitational interaction. What the Dirac equation does is track two points, one at the classical position and one displaced along a spinning field (the electric field). By determining the motion of a single point displaced from the classical position, the entire field's dynamics are solved for. This is what I refer to as quantization, as the process reduces the time-dependence of a localized field to that of a single point in space-time.
quote:
QED then, is the theory of classical fields interacting with this spinning manifold?
QED depicts the interaction of a spinning, light-like manifold (the electric field of an electron) and photon. Zitterbewegung for example is a misinterpretation of the spinor component, because a massive particle cannot travel at the speed of light. It is instead the surrounding field that moves at the speed of light, while the classical position remains v < c. It is also the classical position that corresponds to energy conservation via classical potential and momentum.
quote:
Anyway, I think I'll stop here. P.19 has some other strange stuff and P.20 has even more, I think we'll deal with these first.
The cosmological aspects are almost entirely separate from the QED/QFT and only require equations derived prior to page 19. The most important parts are discussed on pages 38 - 40, 45 - 47 and 48 - 52.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Son Goku, posted 07-19-2013 1:46 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Son Goku, posted 08-18-2013 8:42 AM Alphabob has replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 144 of 223 (704971)
08-21-2013 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Son Goku
08-18-2013 8:42 AM


Re: Questions.
quote:
No it is not. Quantum Mechanics is, at best, derived from classical mechanics, not classical field theory. Though in truth it is just an independent theory.
But the classical electromagnetic tensor is directly included in the Lagrangian, so I don't see how it's not derived from it. If you start with basic quantum mechanics, the entire theory is based upon the position and momentum of an electron in a classical potential. QED reduces the degrees of freedom via minimal coupling but Lorentz invariance and classical field theory are still included.
quote:
That would be like saying that the only non-Newtonian part of General Relativity is that space-time is curved. The introduction of probability makes an enormous difference to the entire theory.
Einstein’s field equations add a bit more than the space-time metric; but if you look at the mechanics of QED, the only additions with respect to classical Lagrangian dynamics are spin and probability. Probability is the product of the ensemble interpretation of QM and requires nothing beyond classical position and momentum.
quote:
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. The Dirac equation describes how a field (the field that the electron is a lump of) evolves over time and space. It has nothing to do with what you said.
The Dirac field is only real in the sense of momentum and position. How it determines these attributes from the underlying system is a different aspect. Using space-time algebra, the spinor component of the Dirac equation can be directly interpreted as a point spinning around the classical position of an electron. This is well known as Zitterbewegung, except it is not the classical position that is spinning.
So what I’m saying is that there are non-local hidden variables, which is completely valid with modern theory. These hidden variables determine the position and momentum of a particle, which is depicted by the Dirac field.
quote:
That's not what quantisation is. Quantisation is a procedure for converting a classical theory into its quantum version.
There are many types of quantization, but I refer to the common definition. Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values to a relatively small discrete set. So if a particle is a localized field that exists over all points in space, quantization is reducing this continuous set of positions to the classical location. QFT I believe refers to particles as field condensates, but it is in general the same concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Son Goku, posted 08-18-2013 8:42 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Son Goku, posted 08-27-2013 2:42 PM Alphabob has replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 145 of 223 (704973)
08-21-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dogmafood
08-20-2013 11:58 AM


Re: Minority Report
quote:
Is this a different idea from what Mr Pike is hypothesizing?
quote:Now that conventional thinking has been turned on its head in a paper by professor Christof Wetterich at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He points out that the tell-tale light emitted by atoms is also governed by the masses of their constituent particles, notably their electrons. The way these absorb and emit light would shift towards the blue part of the spectrum if atoms were to grow in mass, and to the red if they lost it.
Universe may not be expanding after all, new research suggests
I was actually going to post that story to see if NoNukes believes that Wetterich is a crank for proposing a theory that so clearly violates fundamental laws of physics. But yes, the two theories are completely different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dogmafood, posted 08-20-2013 11:58 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2013 4:34 PM Alphabob has replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 147 of 223 (705030)
08-22-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by NoNukes
08-21-2013 4:34 PM


Re: Minority Report
quote:
No, I don't believe that simply proposing an explanation makes one a crank. If you'd like me to point out some distinctions between Wetterich's presentation and your presentation here, I'd be happy to do so.
Well for one he didn't go through being censored by arxiv. Here's some more distinctions:
" If the mass of everything including the official kilogramme has been growing proportionally over time, there could be no way to find out."
1. His theory violates fundamental laws of physics
2. His theory cannot be tested
3. His theory makes no predictions
"Although the paper has yet to be peer-reviewed"
4. It lacks peer-review
Now my paper is based upon classical (experimentally verified) physics, can be tested and makes several predictions in agreement with direct observations. It has been peer-reviewed but not published. I will also be finishing a shorter paper by next week, which I will be publishing.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2013 4:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Theodoric, posted 08-22-2013 12:08 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 149 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2013 1:21 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 150 of 223 (705123)
08-23-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Theodoric
08-22-2013 12:08 PM


Re: Minority Report
quote:
I don't think you understand what the word censored means. You might want to try a different word.
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body."
Arxiv is the controlling body of preprints, as posting on vixra seemingly makes you a "crank". I received endorsement to upload, where the endorser is suppose to skim through the paper and ensure it meets the requirements of arxiv (so it is actually being endorsed). Arxiv moderation suppressed my research as they determined it to be inconvenient with respect to their interests.
quote:
I don't think that means what you think it means.
"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field."
My paper was under peer review from January 2013 to April 2013...
It is kind of funny because one of the major characteristics of pseudoscience is the lack of falsifiability and presence of untestable claims. So arxiv clearly lets pseudoscience that fits their interest while censoring legit discoveries. What's more important is the lack of ability for many to differentiate between actual science and pseudoscience, including the media.
Anyways I'm done discussing this crank stuff. If it isn't clear at this point to some, then it probably never will be. My second paper will be finished soon and I'll let that do the talking.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Theodoric, posted 08-22-2013 12:08 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2013 1:46 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 152 by Theodoric, posted 08-23-2013 4:06 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 153 of 223 (705246)
08-25-2013 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by NoNukes
08-23-2013 1:46 PM


Re: Minority Report
If you want to discuss the specifics of arxiv then I have no problem. From the wiki page: "In many fields of mathematics and physics, almost all scientific papers are self-archived on the arXiv. " It is a fact the arxiv is the controlling body of preprints, which use to be a government funded server. Considering that public funding has been used to create arxiv, it's not really their "auditorium".
Fledgling site challenges arXiv server – Physics World
It is a fact that arxiv censors based upon personal interests rather than scientific quality or correctness. Ginsparg has admitted this "He told Physics World that Cornell’s filtering system is only biased in the sense that it seeks 'to accommodate the interests of people within the research community' and not 'outsiders'". To further my point, we can look at Wetterich's media success and acceptance onto Arxiv.
Universe May Not Be Expanding After All, Cosmologist Says | HuffPost Impact
"The idea may be plausible, but it comes with a big problem: it can't be tested."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-...
You can google the characteristics of pseudoscience, as they all will arrive at this "Popper famously declared falsifiability as the ultimate criterion of demarcation."
Falsifiability is directly related to a theories ability to make predictions. The entire scientific method requires for a hypothesis, predictions of that hypothesis, experimental (direct observations) and either a negative result or verification. From my paper I count 8 predictions and positive results.
Universe May Not Be Expanding After All, Cosmologist Says | HuffPost Impact
"And the current cosmos could be static, or even beginning to contract."
This is because scientist are beginning to realize that angular diameter distances (how big things appear in size) do not fit big bang cosmology as I've proven through several methods. To fix this they need objects to be redshifted without any relative motion. So Wetterich's theory essentially claims that the conservation of energy is constantly violated, matter gains mass and this generates cosmological redshift. It is a non-testable theory that directly fits the criteria of pseudoscience, i.e. what cranks usually work on.
With these very basic facts, my question is why pseudoscience that supports the big bang theory is allowed while actual science that proves the big bang theory wrong is censored?
Also if you want to see the referee report, my response and the journals response then I can send it over email. My public email is listed on my paper (it will take me a couple of days to get around to).
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2013 1:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 1:02 PM Alphabob has replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 155 of 223 (705450)
08-27-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by NoNukes
08-25-2013 1:02 PM


Re: Kook Report
I think you are missing the point of what censorship actually is. The form I've been dealing with is: "Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship on their own or due to intimidation and fear."
By definition it does not matter who is doing the censoring as long as they are the controlling body. Second, my taxes also pay for parks; are you saying that those are not open to anyone who wishes to use them? NASA data and images are also paid for the public and are free to use by anyone. There is a large difference between publicly paid for things that everyone can use and supersonic jet fighters.
Although Arxiv is now paid for by other universities and third parties, it was created with public funds and is the controlling body of preprints.
Now, we can end this pointless discussion on censorship and cranks unless you have a better definition for these words. The facts have already been laid out and it appears that you wish to ignore most of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 1:02 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 08-27-2013 1:03 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2013 2:14 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 166 of 223 (705525)
08-28-2013 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
08-27-2013 1:03 PM


Re: Kook Report
quote:
Getting involved in discussions about whether or not you're a crank is the kind of things cranks do. The rest of your behavior is also just like a crank. Cranks are unable to make their ideas comprehensible to laypeople, and they prefer less to discuss their ideas than complain about perceived censorship and ill treatment.
It's not that I care if I'm called a crank or whatever, but more of people making up their own definitions for words. If your going to accuse someone of being something, then you might want to at least have an understanding of the basic meaning. What is being argued for with respect to "crank" or "censorship" couldn't be farther from the actual definition. It seems to me like these personal definitions are somewhat made up in order to further individuals own interests rather than have a logical discussion. If someone were to grab an article or website with a legit definition and make an argument, that would be different.
More importantly, "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 08-27-2013 1:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2013 2:07 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 167 of 223 (705531)
08-28-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Son Goku
08-27-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Questions.
I think you are missing the point on a lot of my answers.
quote:
This doesn't really make much sense as a response to my statement.
I said that "Quantum Mechanics is not derived from Classical Field Theory". That is, the principles of quantum mechanics were/are not developed out of the physics of classical field theory.
Saying that the electromagnetic field tensor* is in the Lagrangian has nothing to do with this.
As an analogy, imagine if I had made the statement that "Darwin did not deduce evolution from medical descriptions of the liver". Your response would be equivalent to "But this evolutionary textbook has a chapter about the liver".
My response is similar to saying differential geometry is derived from calculus. Although QED has the Dirac field for the electron's position and momentum (within the ensemble perspective), there is also the photon's field. This is the classical electromagnetic field and since classical field theory is defined by the interaction of fields with each other and/or other particles, it is safe to say that QM is indeed derived from classical field theory. Of course there are some additional rules for introductory QM or fields for QFT, but the entire foundations are based upon classical field theory.
quote:
Quantum mechanics doesn't rest on the position and momentum of the electron. It can describe any particle we've currently observed, none are fundamental to the formalism.
The only observables in basic QM are position and momentum, i.e. the uncertainty principle. I never said the electron was the only type of particle, that depends on the specific theory being referenced to. Are you saying that the Schrodinger equation describes the probability of any other particle besides the electron?
quote:
Wow, QED increases the degrees of freedom from conventional quantum mechanics by an infinite amount!
In the quantum mechanical theory of an electron in a potential there are only six degrees of freedom, the spatial coordinates of the spin up and spin down component of the electron (i.e. x,y,z position of each spin).
It reduces the degrees with respect to coupling additional fields in the equations, not with respect to basic QM.
quote:
The addition of probability turns it into a completely different theory, described using a completely different branch of mathematics, with entirely different predictions.
Also the classical version of the Lagrangian already has spin.
Not for the Schrodinger equation, it needs to be included with Pauli matrices; the Dirac equation includes it though. Of course it is going to change it into a different theory, but the observables and forces are all from classical theory.
quote:
The Dirac field doesn't describe position or momentum, so I don't understand what this means. The Dirac field is an object which fills spacetime and which commonly has excitations known as electrons. Can you explain what your statement means.
The probability density is defined directly from the dirac field, which provides the position and momentum distribution for an ensemble of all possible states. The inclusion of spin complicates the direct interpretation of the wavefunction; however, position and momentum can still be obtained from it.
quote:
A classical spinor can be viewed this way. That is, a single spinor can be viewed this way. However, a spinor field, where you now have a spinor at each point in spacetime can not.
A spinor field is simply an ensemble of classical spinors and is well described by the space-time algebra approach.
quote:
More importantly: You seem to be conflating the Dirac field and the electron in your writings. Electrons are excitations of the Dirac field.
If the Dirac field is directly related to position probability, then a higher probability would essentially make the likelihood of finding an electron there higher. I suppose you could consider this to be an excitation of the Dirac field, but in reality it's only an increased region for finding an electron due to the underlying field/particle dynamics.
quote:
That is not the definition used in physics. That sounds more like wave-function collapse.
Yes, but it is a legit definition. Wave-function collapse is a different concept. What I'm working on is the path integral formulation along one of the infinitely possible trajectories. I'm saying that this single particle perspective for an electron has an electric field, intrinsic spin and a gravitational potential. To get the QED results, all that is needed is the ensemble interpretation of this semi-classical field(s).
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Son Goku, posted 08-27-2013 2:42 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Son Goku, posted 08-28-2013 4:08 PM Alphabob has replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 182 of 223 (705690)
08-30-2013 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Son Goku
08-28-2013 4:08 PM


Re: Questions.
quote:
Probably, but you have admitted to using non-standard terminology of your own invention.
It’s a new concept however, so I didn’t really have an option with respect to terminology. I feel that it would be beneficial to go over the crucial aspects of my theory before continuing with this debate of quantum mechanics.
1. I’m sure that we can agree upon the significance of vacuum energy density and it’s relation to fields and particles. What I have proposed is that vacuum energy density is the result of planck-scale fluctuations of space itself, i.e. the distance between physical points in space are varying analogous to a spring and mass system.
2. This vacuum energy density is directly proportional to the gravitational potential and electric potential of a massive, non-composite particle (electron or positron). The space-time metric is further derived from vacuum energy density at each point in space, acting as a relative medium.
3. Quantum mechanics with minimal coupling allows vacuum energy to be conserved due to its direct relation to the electric potential of particles. This is further extended to neutral fields with electroweak symmetry, which is derived upon the foundations of the electromagnetic field.
4. The degrees of the Planck-scale fluctuations of space can be reduced to a single scalar-vector field. Both the Higgs field and scalar component are directly proportional to the mass of a single fermion.
quote:
The Dirac field is not used to describe an electron's position and momentum. Electrons are excitations of it. See "Peskin and Schroeder: An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Chapter 3".
Which section in chapter 3 are you referring to? The probability 3-current density of a spin-1/2 field is obtained from the dirac field and dirac adjoint (Dirac adjoint - Wikipedia). So it is safe to say that the dirac field is directly related to the position probability density of an electron (and momentum). However, the spinor component does complicate the processes with respect to the usual (psi)(psi*) interpretation.
quote:
I'm sorry, but this is completely false. The particular quantum theory that we happen to be discussing is related to a classical field theory, but there are several relativistic quantum theories that cannot be related to classical fields. See for example the discussion in Araki's book "Mathematical Theory of Quantum Fields", the second and third chapters. There are similar comments in Haag's monograph "Local Quantum Physics".
I thought we were discussing the theories within my paper, which proceed from the Schrdinger equation, to the dirac, to QED, then electroweak and finally the Higgs field.
quote:
The uncertainty principle does not state that position and momentum are the only observables in QM. The closest true statement to what you are saying is that all observables are functions of position and momentum. However that is only true in quantum mechanics, not quantum field theory.
quote:
basic QM
i.e. the Schrdinger equation
quote:
Of course it can, the Schrdinger equation is a whole class of equations, describing different particles in different potentials.
Can you provide an example of where a particle other than an electron is treated within the Schrdinger equation?
quote:
Think about it, introducing additional fields could only increase the degrees of freedom.
Are you saying that minimal coupling doesn’t reduce the degrees of freedom after the introduction of the additional field?
quote:
Look at it this way, Quantum Electrodynamics is a relativistic quantum field theory. Get rid of the "quantum" part and you have classical spinor electrodynamics, which has spin, this is the classical version of the theory that I mentioned.
The classical interpretation in my theory is fully relativistic and Lorentz invariant.
quote:
Point me to a reference for this statement. By spacetime algebra, I assume you mean the Clifford algebra in 3+1 dimensions. Yes, this algebra can be used to manipulate the spinor/Dirac field (the field the electron is an excitation of) mathematically, however the interpretation you mention really only makes sense for the single spinor associated with an electron, not the spinors of the Dirac field. These spinors are two seperate objects. Again see Peskin and Schroeder: Chapter 3 to get an idea of this.
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/REAL_DIRAC.pdf
This claim is false, as should be obvious from the fact that, as we have noted, the wave function determines a unique family of electron trajectories.
quote:
It is not. See any introductory textbook on quantum field theory. The second section of Mark Schrednicki's textbook will demonstrate this to you. Or Part 1 of Anthony Zee's textbook. I can get you the exact page numbers if you wish.
Yes it is, Dirac adjoint - Wikipedia
quote:
How can one have a path integral over one trajectory? The path integral is an integral over all trajectories of the Dirac field, not a single trajectory of an electron.
quote:
What I'm working on is the path integral formulation along one of the infinitely possible trajectories.
I never said I was applying a path integral to the single trajectory..
quote:
Exactly what do you mean here? If it is what I think it means, i.e. you can get QED with classical fields + ensembles, then there is a solid mathematical proof that this is false.
See Quantum potential - Wikipedia
The total potential is the classical contribution (without spin) and the quantum potential (due to spin). So by semi-classical fields I mean with the inclusion of spin, which provides the quantum results. This is of course with respect to pre-QFT, i.e. the Schrdinger equation. As you said, the next step up to the Dirac equation requires Lorentz invariance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Son Goku, posted 08-28-2013 4:08 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024