Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 136 of 223 (703353)
07-19-2013 1:46 PM


Questions.
Okay I've your entire article "The Theory of Everything
Foundations, Applications and Corrections to General Relativity".
Up until p.19, there is nothing to disagree with really, in the sense that if somebody said "The moon goes around the Earth" I wouldn't disagree. Until p.19 you just restate standard knowledge.
On p.19 however, there appears things that don't make sense.
The Lagrangian density
of QED for example consists of the Dirac equation
and classical electromagnetic contributions
The electromagnetic contributions are quantum mechanical, not classical, since you are talking about QED (Quantum Eelectrodynamics).
QED is formulated with classical fields coupled to
spinning light-like manifolds.
This sentence alone is a labyrinth of bizarre statements. First of all, QED involves quantum fields (it's in the name).
Secondly, what are spinning light-like manifolds?
Manifold - any abstract shape of any dimension which is smooth enough to do calculus on.
Light-like - a type of distance between two points that occurs in certain types of manifolds.
Spinning - conventional everyday meaning, I assume.
The only sense I can give to this, is that you are talking about a manifold which is made out of points that are all light-like distances from each other in a bigger (unmentioned) manifold. This manifold is then spinning in the bigger one (?).
QED then, is the theory of classical fields interacting with this spinning manifold?
Well, all I can say is that this has no resemblance to the QED I learned as a graduate student.
QED is about two quantum fields. The Dirac field (which electrons are little excitations of) and the Electromagnetic field (which photons are little excitations of). These two fields then interact, which we would percieve in most cases as the interactions of electrons and photons.
The two fields do live on a manifold (spacetime/the universe).
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.
Edited by Son Goku, : Typos

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Alphabob, posted 07-22-2013 1:02 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 223 (704810)
08-18-2013 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Alphabob
07-22-2013 1:02 PM


Re: Questions.
Quantum mechanics is derived from classical field theory
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.
The only non-classical aspects of QED are spin and probability.
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.
QED is not a classical field theory.
What the Dirac equation does is track two points, one at the classical position and one displaced along a spinning field (the electric field).
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.
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.
That's not what quantisation is. Quantisation is a procedure for converting a classical theory into its quantum version.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Alphabob, posted 07-22-2013 1:02 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Alphabob, posted 08-21-2013 12:22 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 223 (704812)
08-18-2013 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
08-11-2013 9:13 PM


Re: The Big Bump
Sorry for the delay, I have time now, I hope AlphaBob is still around!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 08-11-2013 9:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 159 of 223 (705467)
08-27-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Alphabob
08-21-2013 12:22 PM


Re: Questions.
But the classical electromagnetic tensor is directly included in the Lagrangian, so I don't see how it's not derived from it.
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".
If you start with basic quantum mechanics, the entire theory is based upon the position and momentum of an electron in a classical potential.
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.
QED reduces the degrees of freedom via minimal coupling
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).
In QED there is an infinite number of degrees of freedom, a degree of freedom for the value of the electron and photon field at each spacetime point.
Einstein’s field equations add a bit more than the space-time metric
True, but that has nothing to do with my statement, I never mentioned the metric.
but if you look at the mechanics of QED, the only additions with respect to classical Lagrangian dynamics are spin and probability
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.
Probability is the product of the ensemble interpretation of QM and requires nothing beyond classical position and momentum.
I don't really understand what this means. How does probability "require" classical position and momentum.
The Dirac field is only real in the sense of momentum and position.
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.
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.
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.
More importantly: You seem to be conflating the Dirac field and the electron in your writings. Electrons are excitations of the Dirac field. For example:
These hidden variables determine the position and momentum of a particle, which is depicted by the Dirac field.
The Dirac Field does not depict or describe an individual electron, they arise as excitations of it.
Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values to a relatively small discrete set
That is not the definition used in physics.
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
That sounds more like wave-function collapse.
QFT I believe refers to particles as field condensates, but it is in general the same concept.
Particles are excitations of the field in QFT.
*For those reading the electromagnetic field tensor is the mathematical object used to describe the electric and magnetic fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Alphabob, posted 08-21-2013 12:22 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 3:05 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 167 by Alphabob, posted 08-28-2013 1:28 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 162 of 223 (705478)
08-27-2013 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2013 3:05 PM


Re: Questions.
The fields contain a certain amount of energy, the energy they started with due to the big bang. This energy means they can't sit in their ground state, or state of minimum energy, which would appear to us as empty space with no particles. I say appear, because of course the fields are still there. This energy present in the fields causes them to be excited.
The rules of relativity and quantum mechanics demand that in most circumstances these excitations must take the form of small localised packets of energy which we call particles.
The expansion of space after the Big Bang would have provide this energy to the fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 11:44 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 164 of 223 (705500)
08-28-2013 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2013 11:44 PM


Re: Questions.
Is there another way for the fields to "get" the energy besides from the Big Bang?
A given field can obtain energy from another. We would see this as particle decay and creation. For example the Higgs field can pass energy into the photon field. This would appear to us as a disappearance of a Higgs particle and the appearance of two photons, i.e. Higgs decay.
However ultimately this is just energy being passed back and forth among the fields. All the original energy comes from the Big Bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 11:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-28-2013 9:31 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 171 of 223 (705546)
08-28-2013 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Alphabob
08-28-2013 1:28 PM


Re: Questions.
I think you are missing the point on a lot of my answers.
Probably, but you have admitted to using non-standard terminology of your own invention.
Although QED has the Dirac field for the electron's position and momentum (within the ensemble perspective), there is also the photon's field.
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".
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.
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".
Even historically, quantum mechanics was not derived from classical field theory.
The only observables in basic QM are position and momentum, i.e. the uncertainty principle.
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.
Are you saying that the Schrodinger equation describes the probability of any other particle besides the electron?
Of course it can, the Schrdinger equation is a whole class of equations, describing different particles in different potentials.
It reduces the degrees with respect to coupling additional fields in the equations, not with respect to basic QM.
Think about it, introducing additional fields could only increase the degrees of freedom.
Not for the Schrodinger equation, it needs to be included with Pauli matrices;
Where did the Schrdinger equation come from? I said the classical version of the Lagrangian has spin.
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 Schrdinger equation comes from removing the "field" and "relativistic" parts. In other words you are confusing two completely different reductions of the theory.
A spinor field is simply an ensemble of classical spinors and is well described by the space-time algebra approach.
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.
If the Dirac field is directly related to position probability
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.
What I'm working on is the path integral formulation along one of the infinitely possible trajectories.
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.
To get the QED results, all that is needed is the ensemble interpretation of this semi-classical field(s).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Alphabob, posted 08-28-2013 1:28 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Alphabob, posted 08-30-2013 2:18 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 172 of 223 (705576)
08-29-2013 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by New Cat's Eye
08-28-2013 9:31 AM


Re: Questions.
Well, I'll take a simple system, a single hydrogen atom, Even this is quite complicated.
So as I said, particles are caused when the fields get excited to some degree. Quantum mechanics and relativity demand these excitations be concentrated in small lumps called particles.
Now, for some fields another type of excitation is possible, extended excitations. These are dispersed over a wide area. In the case of the photon field, the particle excitations are photons and the extended excitations are electric and magnetic fields or a beam of light*. Now, there are several fields that cannot have extended excitations.
So, a given electron is an excitation of the electron field. Since the electron field and the photon field are coupled (can pass energy to eachother), the presence of an electron excites the photon field, creating one of these extended excitations, that we would recognise as an electric field.
Then, there are the eight gluon fields and six quark fields. It is impossible for these fields to become excited individually**. Only
excitations of all 14 similtaneously are possible. There are several different such possibilities, depending on the amount of energy in each of the 14 fields. However, of the hundreds of possibilities, only one is actually stable. This stable combination also takes very little energy to create, and hence is very common. We denote it the proton.
Hopefully the paragraph above gives some indication of how complicated the proton is, being a similtaneous excitation of 14 fields. For this reason there are several questions about its
structure and physics. One of the most poorly understood aspects of the proton is what is known as its "form factors", this is basically how the fields combine to give the proton a specific shape. LHCb is currently studying these properties of the proton, which will be particularly helpful for nuclear fusion.
Six of the fields associated with the proton are also coupled to the photon field, so the proton comes with an electric field as well.
Then, when an electron and proton come into contact with each other the electric field around both of them alters their dynamics. Essentially altering the probability field of the electron, so that it becomes vanishingly unlikely to be far away from the proton. This is a hydrogen atom.
So to recap, a hydrogen atom is a region of space at the center of which sits an excitation of 14 fields, known as a proton. This excitation disturbs the photon field, creating an extended excitation (commonly known as an electric field).
A nearby electron, an excitation of the Dirac field, interacts with this extended excitation, and gets its probability field altered so that it is no longer likely to be situated away from the proton.
*Contrary to popular explanations a beam of light is not made of photons/is a stream of photons any more than an electric field is. It's an extended excitation of the photon field.
**Sometimes it makes calculations simpler to imagine they can and we use fictional "quark particles". However at the current low tempertures of the universe none of these fields can be excited on their own, so no quarks currently exist. Also the proton is not made of quarks, despite what one will commonly see in texts.
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-28-2013 9:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-29-2013 9:25 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 174 of 223 (705609)
08-29-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
08-29-2013 9:25 AM


Re: Questions.
I realize that a 3D image of something like that isn't really a good idea, but how should I imagine these fields being in relation to each other? Like, are they wrapped up around each other, or would it be more like a lamellar structure or something?
As you said, these things are flat out impossible to imagine. However, the closest macroscale system that quantum fields are similar to is a grid of springs, like you would find in a mattress.
Now, this is not something I'm making up, such a picture is given in a few graduate level textbooks (such as Anthony Zee's "QFT in a Nutshell").
So a given quark field is essentially like (in the sense of: this is the macroscale system it is most similar to) a vast system of springs filling all of spacetime. All six quark fields and eight gluon fields form a set of 14 mattress like layers filling spacetime.
In case this seems silly, look at the first page of these notes to see that this is the mental picture commonly used:
404 Page not found
Now this mattress like layers of springs can be "plucked" setting up a travelling disturbance through them, which we would see as a particle. In the case of the quark and gluon fields it is impossible to have a single field excited. All fourteen layers will be disturbed simultaneously. However there is only one such disturbance which doesn't disperse, this is the proton. It is a travelling stable disturbance all fourteen layers.
You might also visually these disturbances as musical harmonies on fourteen separate drum-like membranes (the mathematics is quite similar). A sound on any of the membranes will produce a resonance on the other thirteen, they cannot vibrate alone. The proton is the only stable "musical note" that these fourteen membranes are capable of producing together.
Now again, I know it might seem stupid to use a mattress or a drum as an analogy, but if you take the mathematics of 4D set of springs or drum membranes add in quantum mechanics and take the limit as the springs get infinitely small, you literally get the mathematics of a quantum field. So this is "objectively" the best analogy. Particles are more mathematical similar to musical harmonies than any other macro-scale phenomena.
Anyways, for the light part of it, they said that there was an experiment with an emitter that emitted a single photon of light at a time, and then they go on to explain how the pattern still emerges. But what I don't get, now, is where the emission of a single photon, which QM+R demand be concentrated in small lumps, could also be an extended excitation?
The pattern actually isn't reproduced by a single photon. If you emit single photons, one after the other, they eventually (after a few million) build up the same pattern as a beam of light.
For sure. This universe is really freakin' weird. It can't believe it gets sooo complicated at such minute levels. You'd think it'd get simpler
Well to give you an idea, the first reasonably accurate simulation of a proton (the simulation ignored four of the six quark fields) in 2008, took IBM supercomputers hundreds of hours to complete. This was for a single proton. Now keep in mind that these same computers can simulate black hole collisions, the fluid dynamics of Boeing aircrafts and the collisions of galaxies in less than a tenth of the time the proton simulation took.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-29-2013 9:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by NosyNed, posted 08-29-2013 1:53 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-29-2013 2:29 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 08-29-2013 10:39 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 178 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-29-2013 11:22 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 223 (705638)
08-30-2013 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by NoNukes
08-29-2013 10:39 PM


Re: Alleged flaws in GR
For example, AB claims to have demonstrated that "the metric of space-time is of mathematical origin and plays no role in the physical structure of space" midway through the first column of page 24.
It's just a statement, the alleged justification for it is a non sequitur proceeded by a description of GR that is incorrect.
He says:
Einstein’s field equations apply quantized densities
in order to determine the curvature and metric of space-time.
Firstly quantised densities has no meaning as a phrase, I can only assume Alphabob means that GR requires mass to be concentrated at points (as he states previously) and not spread out continuously over an area. This is false, as GR can deal with both. For instance an introductory textbook like Schutz's "A first course in General Relativity" has students work out both cases in the exercises.
The real problem is the statement:
The second flaw is similar to the first, where
particles must exist as localized fields rather than
point-like objects. Similar to relativistic electro-
dynamics, the field of a particle becomes deformed
when the background vacuum energy density
varies.
Both of these statements are fine in a sense, the second is somewhat nonsensical. The energy of the vacuum never varies in the way he is imagining. However we'll leave this aside and just accept the two statements. We are then presented with this as the conclusion:
Therefore, the metric of space-time is of
mathematical origin and plays no role in the
physical structure of space.
If we put these two statements and the conclusion together, we have:
1. Particles must be somewhat spread out.
2. The field (I assume either their electric or probability fields, it's not clear which is meant) of a particle is deformed when the vacuum energy varies (unfortunately vacuum energy does not vary).
Then:
3. The spacetime metric (something unconnected to the objects discussed in 1. and 2.) is not physically real.
There is nothing to say really, it is a conclusion which doesn't follow from the two statements and one of these statements involves a process which doesn't occur.
He also argues that it is improbable that gravity waves have yet to be detected if they actually exist, whereas it is my understanding that most of the experiments performed so far have a low or zero probability for detecting gravity waves. AB seems to think that accumulating a bunch of zero or near zero experiments ought to add up to something fairly substantial, but the analysis looks simplistic to me.
It's just nonsensical. General Relativity predicts that it would be quite unlikely that these detectors would see gravitational waves.
So currently, we cannot accept or reject the predictions of GR over the null hypothesis of no gravtiational waves. The equipment currently isn't sensitive enough. No amount of statistics can tell you anything if it is simply based on null results from equipment that should produce null results under both scenarios. This of course, is what you said yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 08-29-2013 10:39 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 223 (705639)
08-30-2013 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by NosyNed
08-29-2013 1:53 PM


Re: Thank you!
In the mattress analogy, a single quantum field consists of a set of points with a set of springs connecting them, as shown in the pdf I linked to.
Another quantum field is simply a second set of springs connected to the same set of points. We can take the simplest picture of the Higgs field and the photon field. Both are sets of springs attached to points in spacetime. Imagine the Higgs field as red springs, photon field as black springs (or however you want to distinguish them, that's just one I sometimes use.) Then a Higgs particle is a vibration travelling along the red springs. When the vibration reaches one of the points there is a probability (this is where quantum mechanics is involved) that the vibration will be passed on to the black springs (photon field). This is would appear as a Higgs particle decaying into two photons.
Again from Anthony Zee (lecturer at Univerity of California, Santa Barbra), "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" (a graduate textbook), Chapter 1.3, p.20:
We would like to create a particle and watch it propogate for a while....To see how to do this, let us go back to the mattress. Bounce up and down on it, to create some excitations.......By bouncing up and down on the mattress we get wave packets (Son Goku: this means harmonic vibrations in the mattress) going off here and there....this corresponds precisely to [particles]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by NosyNed, posted 08-29-2013 1:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 181 of 223 (705640)
08-30-2013 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
08-29-2013 2:29 PM


Re: Questions.
So for the disturbances that do disperse: Is that something that is happening all the time? If so, does it manifest itself in some way?
Yes to both questions. Essentially the disturbances disappear because the quark and gluon fields will pass their vibrations on to other fields. For example the meson is a reasonably common disturbance in the quark-gluon fields. However it is highly likely that the quark-gluon fields will pass the vibrations into the photon field, hence the disappears and is replaced by two photons. This is written schematically as:
The is another common disturbance. Sometimes some of the vibrations associated with it will "bleed off"/pass into the neutrino and electron fields. This creates an electron and a neutrino and the remaining vibrations of the quark-gluon field rearrange themselves as a . This is the reaction: Eventually the will undergo the process above and we get: At this point there are no disturbance left in the quark-gluon fields.
Something like this happens to virtually all disturbances in the quark-gluon fields. They slowly lose their vibrations to other fields, reducing their own vibrations to simpler and lighter ones, until eventually the simplest and lightest vibrations pass into typically the electron, neutrino and photon fields. Leaving the quark-gluon fields undisturbed/at rest/silent.
The proton is the only stable vibration they possess. The only one that lasts.
What I was questioning wass that, since QM+R demand the excitation be concentrated into small lumps (i.e. a photon) then how can a single photon emission also be an extended excitation (and thus exhibit the wave-like behavior needed to make the pattern)?
Oh, that comes from its probabilistic behaviour. The wave-like behavior of a photon doesn't really come from it being an extended object, but rather from it's indeterminate behaviour.
Since quantum mechanics is involved, these vibrations in the mattress/field are indeterminate. One has a probability of a vibration being here or there rather than a definite vibration exactly in one place on the mattress. Of course usually all the possible locations for the vibrations form a very small area, so you can just draw a circle around that and say the photon is located in that area. This leads to the idea that the photon is spread over an area, but really its the possible locations that are spread out.
So there is a single vibration/lump (a photon) in the mattress. However due to quantum mechanics, that vibration is definitely in any one place.
So let me sum up. A quantum field is essentially an indeterminate (you cannot say vibrations are definitely occurring in one place, you cannot say one field will definitely pass a vibration to another at a given time) four-dimensional (fills all of spacetime) mattress (it behaves like a set of springs connected to points).
According to the standard model there are sixteen such fields:
6 Quark fields.
6 Lepton fields (three neutrino fields, electron field, muon field, tau field).
The photon field.
The weak field.
The gluon field (mathematically we often deal with this as a set of eight fields like I mentioned above, but really those are just eight facets of a single field).
The Higgs field.
So matter is the result of the collective vibrations and interactions of sixteen indeterminate, four-dimensional mattresses.
That is the Standard Model.
These mattresses live in spacetime, which itself is distorted (curvature of spacetime) by the presence of any vibrations in the sixteen fields. How exactly it distorts is described by General Relativity.
That is basically current theoretical physics. Sixteen mattress like objects living in a four-dimensional background spacetime that warps and bends under their presence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-29-2013 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2013 2:46 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