Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Understanding QED: Hi Richard Stafford!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on August 12, 2008 14:29:06 UTC

i wrote this then thought of posting much the same here:

My understanding is that QED was developed when scientists found that trying to predict the behaviour of subatomic particles and their interaction with light was too difficult; so they say that for every way an event can happen they represent this with an arrow with direction and length (like a vector); they add these arrows head to tail giving a final arrow from the start of the first arrow to the end of the last arrow.

From recall I think they square this last arrow (it has a numerical length) to get the (so-called) probability of the event. (The intermediate arrows also have length and direction and are called probability amplitudes.) In my impression what they may be doing is neutralising time such that whether the event happens or not is "up in the air"; but they've ended out defining the event as a "non-event" where only time moves; making the observer and the event able to swap...or even stay; making time and space appear to be different sides of the same idea...

About my method of problem solving:

one way I describe it is "musical chairs, join the dots, know the difference".

Use of language;

I look at what look like the essential defining characteristics of something. Ths gives me a pattern that can be seen in many ways.

One way is to solve a simple problem, using the essential defining characteristics of the original problem, Then translate this back into the original problem.

(E,g, to solve the problems phone companies in some countries have with "crosstalk" (interference between phonelines) and "attenuation" (signal loss over distance); I translated this into a very simple phone system (two tin cans connected by a taut length of string); solved it; then converted this into modern phone line (probably fine details still needed with consultation with phone engineeers). A potential billion dollar discovery given the potential to not have to roll out fibre optic cable by improving the capability of existing copper lines.

With language; e.g. "baseline" has a meaning in tennis; a meaning in astronomy, but both share certain apparent basic defining characteristics.
When I am dealing with a simple, underlying defining pattern I could refer to variations as "baseline". It doesn't mean I am talking necessarily about an actual baseline on a tennis court, or a baseline used in astronomy; but may be referring to the broad concept of "baseline"
that includes many variations.

Cause and effect:

one may say; the bicyclist braked, causing the bicycle to stop.

My method might say;

"bicyclist" compared with "braked":

common ground? One who applies themselves to as bike- so is "broken" from the bike i.e. separate from the bike in some way; "brakes" involves the brake pad separate from the wheel rim, then grabbing the rim, so a "break" here as two aspects here.

The cyclist also "grabs" the bike when applying themselves.

So both the cyclist and the brake pads are separate from the bike, yet grab the bike.

Having found common ground, how to differentiate which is which?

Delayed action- if the brake pads grabbed the bike twice- that would do.
(continuing this days later...:)A gentle rocking motion seems likely. (I've just heard today that if a bottle of alcoholic drink such as beer is put in the freezer till very cold but not frozen, then taken out of the freezer and the bottle tapped against the table then placed on the table, you can watch it freeze rapidly before your eyes. The explanation I've heard has something to to with oscillation; it seems related to the present dscussion re: braking).

After grabbing the bike once, but letting it go, it would tend to "shoot through", but the second grab would thus tend to catch it on the side from which it was moving; giving a sideways deflection (both sides) so cushioning.

"Bicycle to stop" involves "cushioning" so how know which cushioning is "bicycle to stop" and which cushioning is "cyclist brakes" - unless there is a time delay. But "causing" implies such a time delay; so how differentiate "cause" if the pattern involved is already present in the rest of the sentence?

Would need "2d pause"? A change in direction during the time delay?
If the time delay was left out of the original sentence; then I could introduce it to separate the two aspects on "cushioning"; giving a final 50-50 width (arrow) of "the bicyclist braked, causing the bicycle to stop" i.e. the traditional description.

This is a "square" representation of the event as it was time-independent (yet in this case produced a time pause within the event...)
("square" because everything in it has been allowed to free associate with everything else- so everything is "at right angles" to everything...)

(so if "square this final arrow" would be "squaring a square" or RE-CREATING the event as an "event horizon" (i.e. a localised limit on defining room-anywhere within limits - a kind of "floating blob" or input-output between the world outside and the inside of this event; i.e. a communication line.

According to professor Stephen Edleston Toulmin (philosophy of science expertise)(Wrote books including "R.G. Collingwood: An Autobiography, and "the Uses Of Argument) probability is a myth; probability statements are statements about how much one/we are willing to bank on something. They are trust statements.

What of mathematical probability? Well, I think if one says "the probability of a dice with 6 faces landing after being thrown, on any one of the faces, is 1 in 6; is just re-stating that the event "throwing the dice' is a "non-event" (nothing happens to upset the dice)- it remains "virtually tossed" as 6 faces of equal weighting in the equation (in the swap from before to after the supposed tossing).

So it assumes that input and output balance.

So it is apparent the actual tossing of the dice is supposed to be a kind of density wave in the whole surrounding; the dice survives and who knows what happened vis-a-vis the universe- the dice and the universe remain in balance, it appears. So a communication between the dice and the universe is deemed capable of happening- which fits the above idea on "what is probability? in "squaring a square"."

(So a square root of "squaring a square" = a square i.e. minus one square (but don't know which one). Take a square away; times itself; gives a constant flipping over in each direction (reminds of like a Rubik's cube); a second layer of the square that is like the first square inside out and back-to-front and like how the rest of the environment around the square sees the square. So a single interaction in the square's surroundings that models the square.

(this "square standard" to become a "standard model" would need at least TWO interactions within the square's surroundings, representing the square as potentially fuzzy (Or as a generalisation, which I figured out previously one may call "an electron").

So "probability" appears to involve "representation of something as unchanged via communication in its surroundings"!
I.e. the very essential pattern of "prediction"?

I.e. something happens, yet something stays the same.

If this occurs, options remain (energy is conserved ironically through "chaos' i.e. order (at least 2) - "disorder" (any combination) so like a binary code of the world. (May describe this as a group-swap where everything is in groups whose members can swap. Also can be called "Shrodinger's equation" I think...)

(If 2-d physics then get the order as 2x2; the disorder as 2; so a constant turning over (Stafford physics?)

A numerical depiction of "probability" is "anywhere within limits" of probability; so "anywhere within limits of a thing repesented by communication among its surroundings". So "anywhere within limits of somewhere within limits"; so an uncertainty of the thing AND of the surroundings such as to make time become space (i.e. appear to "solidify" AS EVERY WAY the object can be in two places with regard to it's surroundings.

This implies predictability in the sense of two places "A" and "B";
when scientists predict this probability that allow the two places "A" and "B' to be able to swap.

In this way they convert "time" into a fixed "quanta" of space (as distance). With a quanta of space, say like a lab bench; time becomes stretched. When they try to predict further out, time becomes stretched twice so condensed (stretched to and fro) it appears; the further out they predict the more time stretches to and fro; creatng an effect like a wall in the not-distant future.


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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