Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
How Do You Define "exist"?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Duane Eddy on October 23, 2004 21:15:21 UTC

Nobody knows if any particles exist, including photons. This is an ambiguity in quantum theory.

Quantum theory is incomplete in that there is know way of knowing if only waves exist, or only particles exist or both exist all the time. It is a matter of interpretation, or belief or faith.

(Help me out on the “particle does not exist part”
Does this mean that the entity does not have particle properties or is this a reference to having a surface boundary.)

Feymann did QED theory using particles only. But he also had to use positrons coming back from the future. Can you beoieve that. Yet he got a theory that is said to be the most accurate theory ever based on measurements.

(Would it follow that if you exceed the speed of light you can go backward in time. That is the way it is presented in the science fiction movies. I have never considered it to be actually possible but if I am to consider the speed of light not to be absolute.... This may take some thought on my part to form an opinion.)

But at face value, quantum mechanics is only about waves or eigenfunctions, which have no physical existence. It is presumed that the waves collapse into point particles when we try to measure the waves. But there is no theory of the collapse. The moment of collapse is the only moment that a particle even exists for it immediately becomes some other sort of wave, like the eigenfunctions of an electron, if the response to detecting the light is a current. In this interpretation only waves existmost of the time.

(When you say “no physical existence” would you define a magnetic field as existing or not?)

The state to which the waves collapse to is random for a single collapse. Only the sum of a great number of collapses is predited by the eigenfunctions. An alternative interpretation is that each individual collapse creates a seprpate universe and that every possibility is realized all the time. Can you believe that?

(I am doing my best but this is stretching me a little.
If you read my post containing the coin toss on the end of the other thread. It proves that a specific result can occur on each individual happening and at the same time the sum total of the happenings can still conform to a random law.
Just because the mathematics allow something does not mean it is actually true. Many times there is a negative solution to an equation set when there is no real life condition which matches it. This does not prevent the equation from being correct if the positive solution is used. On the other hand the negative solution can give us a clue there may be an alternate solution.)

Bohm theory is the only theory where both waves and particles exist at the same time, and both are real. The waves then guide the particles as to where they go. I actually like this one the best, but it is perhaps the least popular among physicists. But some believe it in like it was a religion.

(I would say Bohm is correct. Louis de Broglie proved that all matter has a velocity below which it will act as a wave, and above which it will act a particle. Bohm may not have the ability to put an equation to his thoughts but that is no little task. History if full of ideas which took many generations and new forms of mathematics to explain logically.)

The point is that physicists tend to believe in one interpretation or another, as a matter of faith. There is no rational basis to choose one over the other. The mathematics is essentially the same and the predictions always the same no matter which interpretation you believe in.

Now you seem to believe that only particles exist and you seem to assign classical properties to these particles, like saying that a photon has a particular spin now and forever.

(I use the particle approach because it is easier for me to visualize.
I believe that all that can be experientially detected by physical means exists as waves which may exhibit wave or particle properties.
If waves interact that have very different wavelengths then the interaction has predominantly particle properties.
If the waves interact that have similar sized wavelengths then the interaction has predominantly wave properties.
However neither property is ever totally nonexistent.)

Well, photons are described by Maxwell's equations, a wave theory. In that theory you can propagate linearly polarized waves, which have at the same time two opposite spins, or in reality no spin at all. Or you can propagate circularly polarized waves, which have either right handed spin or left handed spin. However, if you measure a linearly polarized wave with circularly polarized you detect circular polarization.

That is all classical thinking. It seems to be the same as your explanation. But it does not include the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics any individual photon is in all possible states at the same time until a measurement makes it collapse to a particular state, or choose a particular universe, or... You see, it is incoeerect to use classical thinking to describe quantum effects.

Worm Holes: They are never connections to every other piece of matter in the universe.

Although in string theory such connections could be the result of compactification of 16 of the 26 dimensions of boson string theory. But that is not the worm holes of GR theory. GR Worm holes exist in 4-d.

The 6-d thread that connects specific entangled particles are not worm holes and the entanglement can be broken resulting in the precipatation of the thread into 4-d space as axions.

So worm holes cannot extent thru black hole event horizons. mIf particle pairs happen to straddle the event horizon, their entanglement is broken as in Hawking's black hole radiation theory.

( Ok, if it helps, the worm hole connect to a common membrane with zero space density. Does that help? It is not my intention to change your ideas but I must poke it some to understand them. I envisioned the worm holes as a door or connection point.)

And photons never have mass. They only have momentum, if, of course, they even exist.

(If the “photon entity” existed only as a wave would you consider that existing?)

Any more questions?

(You asked!
I am trying to understand how gravity works according to your thinking.
Information travels from one mass .. Uh .. Entity to another.
Each entity has a center.
The information conveyed must contain a vector direction to the second mass, a quantity of matter and a distance to the other mass for gravity to respond correctly. The information is conveyed in zero time.
Am I correct so far?.
Does the entanglement convey the actual force or just information?)

Duane

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins