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:   The Uncertainty Principle - is it real?
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 48 (345339)
08-31-2006 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
01-11-2006 5:17 PM


SMOKE AND MIRRORS / Uncertainty and Normalization are FUDGEs
Is there anyone here familiar enough with the normalization of Feynman Diagrams and the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics to be able to provide solid arguments against the likelihood that our current degree of scientific precision is not the real reason that these FUDGES of mathematics are taking place?
Is it not more realistic, or logical, or just plain common sense that we fudge the results to meet our expectations solely based on our current degree of scientific precision where in reality there is another alternative that does not force us to FUDGE data.
The reality is that we can't see or measure everything in real-time/real-space due to the relativity between us and that which we observe. If however time could be slowed down RELATIVE to that which we are trying to observe and distance/space could be measured in increments RELATIVE to that which we are observing then it would seem common sense that the Uncertainty Principle is a farce and it is being used as a crutch to fit what we see and record to better match what we expect.
Well , I say that what we expect is wrong because we are ignoring that which we can’t see or measure. BUT the fact that we can’t see it or measure it does not mean that it does not exist. And once we can accept the reality that there exists those forces caused by objects that we can not measure (YET) we can begin to approach quantum mechanics and particle physics at a scientific level and remove the smoke and mirrors that have been clouding our ability to understand the true nature of the universe. And when that happens, string theory and membranes collapse. String theory and membranes are like houses of cards. One level on top of the other yet a simple breeze or sneeze and it all falls down. Both have a strong basis on accepted deductions that we can’t prove. If we blindly accept the fallacies or shortcomings in the underlying physics that permeate most of common thought (that I guarantee will be disproved in the next 100 years) then we will be stuck without significant progress until then. It is not until the people with the resources to prove/disprove what is happening at the most fundamental levels of our universe step back from their current direction and accept the possibility that we have a house of cards in front of us that they may be brave enough to say that the emperor is wearing no clothes. And those of you who can appreciate my argument can I hope appreciate my analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 01-11-2006 5:17 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Son Goku, posted 08-31-2006 3:45 AM nipok has replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 48 (345346)
08-31-2006 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Son Goku
08-31-2006 3:45 AM


Re: SMOKE AND MIRRORS / Uncertainty and Normalization are FUDGEs
But can you say (or anyone say) with any degree of certainty that this is not due to our inability to observe an event with sufficient scientific precision? I do not think we have the adequate tools or resources at our disposal to monitor these events with the clarity needed to see what is really happening behind the scenes. We see the before and the after
We can’t see, or measure, or record, the multitude of the in-betweens because of their fleeting nature. They are either too small or exist for too small of a length of time for us to capture or record or observe. That does not mean that they do not exist. That does not mean that they do not have an impact on those objects or events that we can observe and record.
Nor is that any validation of Heisenbergs’s predictive ability to events that he expected our scientific precision to be capable of observing. If anything his prediction further supports our reliance on a model that based on a faulty foundation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Son Goku, posted 08-31-2006 3:45 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 48 (345352)
08-31-2006 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Son Goku
08-31-2006 3:45 AM


Re: SMOKE AND MIRRORS / Uncertainty and Normalization are FUDGEs
Besides the uncertainty principle lets also think about the underlying reasons for The Casimir effect , The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and possibly even Compton scattering. Where is there any proof that these are not due to fallacies of the underling foundation and build upon each other like Band-Aids. It all boils down to our inability to record or observe an event within a sufficient relative time frame and distance to have meaning. All of quantum mechanics builds further and further upon these assumptions.
To assume that because we can't detect smaller particles than those that we can detect that they do not exist and do not impact or react with those that we can detect is a crack in the foundation that we must over come to move forward. Look back at the history of particle physics and quantum mechanics and really, where have we come in 50 years. Yes we know much more about the elementary particles that we can detect but so much of the real physics relies on estimations and acceptance of that which we think can never be measured. I disagree. Once we develop the tools to measure things in trillionths of a second on a scale that would make boson look like the football field we will then have a better idea of a small part of the underlying fabric of space time but we will never be able to map out or grasp the infinite chain of smaller and smaller particles that we will never be able to detect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Son Goku, posted 08-31-2006 3:45 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Son Goku, posted 08-31-2006 2:00 PM nipok has replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 48 (345557)
08-31-2006 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Son Goku
08-31-2006 2:00 PM


Re: SMOKE AND MIRRORS / Uncertainty and Normalization are FUDGEs
What do you think the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle says? ...Heisenberg didn't make any assumptions about our limits of observation.
In a quick nutshell the principle claims that we cannot with any certainty determine both the position and momentum of a particle somewhat because of its dual state as both a particle and a wave. And it most certainly makes a huge assumption about our limits of observation. He may not have said it directly but it’s easy to decipher between the lines that it is the limits of our current scientific precision that cause this inability to perform an accurate observation. Our need to interact or disturb a state in order to make an observation is due to our inability to record energy, mass, velocity, angular momentum, distance, and time on a scale ten thousand times smaller than a lepton or boson.
As far as what we have achieved in the last 50 years I realize that’s an odd way to phrase my point but what I meant was that between 1910 and 1960 there were over 10-15+ major discoveries / theories coming out each decade. From 1960 forward, yes we have made significant progress and discovered new particles and expanded the standard model but the number of significant theories and discoveries are less and more of what has occurred in the last 50 years were because we tried to fit our observations into the existing model making a blind assumption that the model must have a solid foundation. We all know that there are holes in the model which is why the constructs I mention in this thread were created. In the true model of our universe these fudges and false constructs are no longer required but the true model of our universe will not be known until our ability to surpass our current scientific precision expand 10 or 20 times greater than where we are at now and the problem is we may never reach that level. That will continue to add band aids to fix the holes and continue to steer us away from the truth.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Son Goku, posted 08-31-2006 2:00 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Son Goku, posted 09-01-2006 3:54 PM nipok has replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 48 (346880)
09-06-2006 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Son Goku
09-01-2006 3:54 PM


Re: Examples Please.
What constructs were created in response to what holes?
Can you please provide examples?
Dark Matter is a hole that is plugged by phantom particles and phantom energy when in reality it is Aetheric Density that accounts for our inability to directly match up Newtonian physics to our recorded observations and things as common as planets, comets, and moons, star dust, and asteroids that account for the missing matter in the universe.
The need for normalization in Feynman diagrams is another hole that is plugged with assumptions. Ditch the assumptions, account for the true fabric of space and time and the need for normalizations goes away. (OK, it does not go away, but as the precision of our scientific observations continues to increase we may someday be able to account for the need to normalize through real constructs that can be defined, observed, and measured.
The uncertainty principle although capable of producing expected results and helping mathmatical formulas work still at its core was used to plug a hole. Whether you see it or not it is our interpretation of quanta and particle duality that lets it work. If we rethink the interpretation within a wider context it becomes self-evident.
Imaginary Particles and the Casmir Effect are a hole that again try to fit observations into a theory that is flawed and based on accepted deductions that are accepted by consensus not direct proof. Now don’t get me wrong. I am in no way claiming the standard model, quantum physics, general or special relativity, or any of the other constructs that have evolved upon them are flawed as a whole. I would say there is more than enough evidence to support the constructs as a whole. What I don’t agree with is the continued failure to accept the true infinite nature of the universe. Once we accept the true nature of the infinite universe we live in we can then stop trying to plug holes with phantoms and start thinking logically again. Imaginary particles or more so the effects that they have on observable matter are exactly what my theories would expect. So the fact that we can observe their impact would almost seem to prove the existence of particles that we can’t detect yet.
Other holes exist, anyone that has studied particle physics and quantum mechanics is aware that we don’t know enough yet to predict with any accuracy the results we would like at all levels of scientific precision. As the precision increases we close some questions but new ones will pop up. Instead of relying on phantom constructs to put one band aid after another on top of a flawed model we need to separate that which science can prove and that which are assumptions. Once we can split proof and real science from speculation and assumption we will be left with a clearer model of the base physics that govern the universe. I am not saying that all my mutterings are not speculation and assumption, I am quite sure they very much are but we will soon see that they are more correct then the current paradigm. Once we can proof that our universe and all we know of it had initial velocity at the point of expansion it will prove that our pocket of space/time exists inside of a larger pocket of space/time. Along with an infinite number of larger and infinite number of smaller pockets of space/time we exist as a fleeting spec of nothingness in the overall grand picture. To the entire Universe, not just our universe we are a point in time, a point in space, a point in mass, and a point in energy by the definition of a point.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Son Goku, posted 09-01-2006 3:54 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 48 (346901)
09-06-2006 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Son Goku
09-01-2006 3:54 PM


Re: Examples Please.
The uncertainty principle states that noncommuting observables don't have simultaneous eigenstates, which leads to a minimum in the product of their standard deviations
Another example of interpretation of observations misleading the logical mind.
Eigenstates and Eigenvectors and a multitude of other constructs are being used in formulas that rely too much on planes and lines and false frames of reference. Every object exists within its own relative pocket of space time and every pocket of space time has its own relative angular momentum in one way , shape, or form to every other relative center of mass. Every object we observe and every interaction between two objects exists within their own relative frame of references. Einstein's analogy to the curvature of time and space relates not only to the effects of gravity but also to the orbit that every object attempts to maintain around some other object. All objects in space will attempt to obtain a natural orbit and this includes inner space and outer space in an infinite number of directions.
We must stop thinking with Cartesian coordinates. The universe is made up an infinite number of polar coordinates with an infinite number of centers. Some could be a center of mass, others a center of density, others a center of energy, and still others I suppose although I am not sure how to visualize it a center of time. Once we come to understand the true nature of space and time we will begin to apply these centers of relative nature to standard equations and then we will learn how to fill in the holes without fudging the results and creating phantom constructs to make the observations fit the existing paradigm instead of re-evaluating the paradigm as a whole.
Argue all you want, anyone can try as hard as they like but nobody can say with any certainty that our current scientific precision and our false interpretations of what we see augmented by the fact that we don’t take polar coordinates, angular momentum, Aetheric density , and infinite quantum sizes and energies into every single equation are not the true reason why we are having so much trouble coming up with a grand unification theory. The sooner that the resources are given to explore these possibilities with some significant funding the sooner we may be able to unite the forces under the single force of electromagnetism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Son Goku, posted 09-01-2006 3:54 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by fallacycop, posted 09-06-2006 8:21 AM nipok has not replied
 Message 47 by Son Goku, posted 09-06-2006 12:41 PM nipok has replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 48 (347190)
09-07-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Son Goku
09-06-2006 12:41 PM


Re: Examples Please.
How does this idea explain the fact that the gyromagnetic ratio for spin is roughly twice as big as for orbital angular momentum?
How does it explain the production of hadrons by e-e+ annihilation?
Name some predictions of your theory and how they differ from the Standard Model or General Relativity.
You don't get it. I am not trying to argue against anything that we can predict repeatedly through both equation and observation. In a huge percentage of our predictable equations of science for both classical Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics the effects of the separate relative self-contained polar coordinated pockets of space/time are so miniscule that our current levels of scientific precision can’t observe the subtle effects. Every interaction that we can observe is being affected by so many other objects but most are so minimal that they have no direct bearing on our expected predictions. You want a prediction. OK, I say that if my theories are correct then the orbit of our planet is subtly effected by our moon and I use tidal activity as an example of the pull. Now you think that is obvious and goes without saying but then why is it so hard to use the same logic to understand that Mars and Venus also have some minimal effect and take that to the extremes when examining particle physics and astronomy and then things like dark matter or the Casmir effect have other avenues of explanation.
My point is that when the effects of separate self contained centers of gravity or mass or energy interact with each other in ways that we can not explain with our current paradigm we fudge our interpretations or skew them or whatever term you want to use but what we end up with are imaginary particles and Feymann Normalization and a handful of other constructs that all boil down to the raw fact that our existing paradigm is relying too much on interpretation and general consensus and needs to step back for a moment and try to think outside the box.
I can’t argue with everything that science has proven and that is the farthest thing from my intent. I am trying to get some minds with the resources that could make a difference step back for a moment and really give some thought to questioning the existing paradigm and its flaws. What makes imaginary particles that much more likely than what I consider the more likely deduction that our scientific precision is lacking and we can not YET detect these particles and their infinite number of brethren.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Son Goku, posted 09-06-2006 12:41 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