Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 193 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#3260 - 12/12/05 05:13 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Anonymous
Unregistered


The Problem with a Single electron Wave is that it asks a simple question: Why cant we measure half of Charge or Half of Electron's mass?
If we insist that Electron's fate can not be subdivided then why should a theory ask for its distribution in Unobservable Space?
I am against Censorship.And thats the reason why I thought every Blackholes must communicate.
The law of Causality requires Cause and Effect to be present but doesnt require its common understanding.Why a Seed Is Dropped has different meanings for different Observers.
Thus my interpretation of Measurement has a simple meaning as it allows the observer to be of any kind.

The morphing idea is good but what does it mean ?

Top
.
#3261 - 12/12/05 08:29 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Hi DKV,

DKV:The Problem with a Single electron Wave is that it asks a simple question: Why cant we measure half of Charge or Half of Electron's mass?

Good question, but it is based on the assumption that a wave can be continuously subdivided into smaller and smaller sub-components. This is not generally true. There are lowest energy waves; e.g. the lowest harmonic on a violin string cannot be subdivided into waves with lower energies. The way I see it is that the charge and mass of an electron is the lowest energy manifestation of the electron in "free space". Therefore you cannot measure half a charge or half a mass. Higher energy electron-harmonics in "free space" are possible; i.e. the muon and tau.

It is, however, interesting to note that the electron wave can split up into subcomponents when the boundary conditions change. See for example the shapes of p-orbitals , d-orbitals etc. of an atom. According to my postulate the whole orbital is the electron (not a particle that "is not there" and only appears mystically when one makes a measurement). This also explains double slit diffraction; the electron-wave splits up and passes through both slits.

DKV: If we insist that Electron's fate can not be subdivided then why should a theory ask for its distribution in Unobservable Space?

I assume that by unobservable space you mean the fourth dimension. The mass of the electron relates to the wave-function component within three-dimensional space because this is what we can directly observe; however, if one models the electron as a lowest energy harmonic wave (there is not space to do the calculation here) one finds that a fourth distance comes into play, which one can only interpret as a distance along the fourth dimension. This indicates that there must also be an energy component along the fourth dimension. This does not influence the mass of the electron but it must influence space-time outside the wave in some way.

DKV: I am against Censorship.And thats the reason why I thought every Blackholes must communicate.The law of Causality requires Cause and Effect to be present but doesnt require its common understanding.Why a Seed Is Dropped has different meanings for different Observers.
Thus my interpretation of Measurement has a simple meaning as it allows the observer to be of any kind.

I deduce that you believe that the universe is out there and not determined by the "mind" of the observer. This is exactly what my postulate brings back to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. All interactions can be causally described in terms of waves superposing and decomposing when measurements are made. There is no "implicate magic" in nature.

DKV: The morphing idea is good but what does it mean?

It flows from the postulate that everything consists of matter- and electromagnetic waves. Each one of these waves can interact as follows:

It can superpose with other waves; this usually requires it to change shape: i.e. such a wave morphs. This happens when valence electron waves delocalise to bond a solid together.

It can entangle with another wave; this means that the two waves flow together to form a new single holistic entity. This, for example, happens when a photon impinges resonantly on an atom. The photon-wave and electron-wave (orbital)entangle and this causes the new wave to morph into a higher energy orbital. Note that this explains what happens to the photon when it disapppears. Jumping electrons from one energy level to the next cannot say anything about the fate of the photon. Oh I wish that Schroedinger was still alive!

I hope this is of help.

Regards,
Johnny Boy
--------------------
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#3262 - 12/12/05 10:30 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Anonymous
Unregistered


Good question, but it is based on the assumption that a wave can be continuously subdivided into smaller and smaller sub-components.
This is not generally true. There are lowest energy waves; e.g. the lowest harmonic on a violin string cannot be subdivided into waves with lower energies.
REP: If you take a strong analogy between String and Wave then yes.But if the ends can can be moved then we can generate new sound with some new fundamental Harmonic.Unless you fix the length of the Violin to some fundamental value new objects can get created.Energy around Atom is Qunatized meaning you either you measure all or none.
=========================================
The way I see it is that the charge and mass of an electron is the lowest energy manifestation of the electron in "free space".
REP: Thats an assumption which may be true or false.But this fact doesnt come out of any model automatically.
==========================================
Therefore you cannot measure half a charge or half a mass. Higher energy electron-harmonics in "free space" are possible; i.e. the muon and tau.
REP: You are talking about continous distribution of energy in Absolute Terms...
==============================================
It is, however, interesting to note that the electron wave can split up into subcomponents when the boundary conditions change. See for example the shapes of p-orbitals , d-orbitals etc. of an atom.
REP: Electron Wave can split . But not electron.
=============================================
According to my postulate the whole orbital is the electron (not a particle that "is not there" and only appears mystically when one makes a measurement).
REP: Due uncertainity this is what is practically available for us in our thoughts.
But on the ground the Electron is still a particle with a Probability Distribution.
========================================
This also explains double slit diffraction; the electron-wave splits up and passes through both slits.
REP:This has already been explained.Sorry to say your interpretation of Electron Wave is not correct.
===================================
I assume that by unobservable space you mean the fourth dimension. The mass of the electron relates to the wave-function component within three-dimensional space because this is what we can directly observe;
REP: Any higher dimensional object must be observable in the Universe in some form. It must have measurable footprint.Unobservable Space means something which can be observed or experienced in Principle.
===========================================
I deduce that you believe that the universe is out there and not determined by the "mind" of the observer.
REP: Mind is not the word I used.I said Observer are equipped with their theories of Universe.
During the Interaction what went between the Observer and the Observed is highly subjective but equally true till a better explanation is found. This process carries on till we obsever Nothing.Nothing as we defined is different from what is generally accepted .It is the Absolute Answer or complete Knowledge.
==========================================
This is exactly what my postulate brings back to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. All interactions can be causally described in terms of waves superposing and decomposing when measurements are made. There is no "implicate magic" in nature.
REP: all that is fine but probably you need to revisit your interpretation of Waves in Quantum Mechanics.And the immediate necessity to satisfy the Heisenberg Principle for anything carrying Momentum and Mass.We cant say something holding Energy and Momentum Doesnt Exist in our Time or Space(even if it is Higher Dimensional Object).
================================================
It flows from the postulate that everything consists of matter- and electromagnetic waves. Each one of these waves can interact as follows:
It can superpose with other waves; this usually requires it to change shape: i.e. such a wave morphs. This happens when valence electron waves delocalise to bond a solid together.
REP: Superposition is well known.
=============================================
It can entangle with another wave; this means that the two waves flow together to form a new single holistic entity.
REP: Such entities keep forming.
===================================
This, for example, happens when a photon impinges resonantly on an atom. The photon-wave and electron-wave (orbital)entangle and this causes the new wave to morph into a higher energy orbital. Note that this explains what happens to the photon when it disapppears.
Jumping electrons from one energy level to the next cannot say anything about the fate of the photon. Oh I wish that Schroedinger was still alive!
REP: The Fate of the Photon is given by the Change in Energy Level of Electron in an Atom.
Photon is Absorbed.The Jump is not the usual Physical Jump but its much more complicated than
that .. it affects the entire Wave function of the Atom or Atoms.Even for Simple Atoms you have only Probablistic Jumps which works accurately only when in Bulk.Therefore such a simple interpretation wont work.
==========================================

Top
#3263 - 12/12/05 11:00 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Anonymous
Unregistered


A correction :
Anything in Unobservable Space can not be observed or experienced in Principle ever.
But can be known to exist.

Top
#3264 - 12/12/05 12:48 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Hi DKV,

That seems a reasonable conclusion to say that it cannot be directly observed; however, it can have an effect on our observable space which one can experience. I conclude that this is what you implied when you stated that it "can be known to exist".
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#3265 - 12/12/05 01:50 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Hi DKV,
Sorry I did not see your long reply.

DKV: If you take a strong analogy between String and Wave then yes.But if the ends can can be moved then we can generate new sound with some new fundamental Harmonic.Unless you fix the length of the Violin to some fundamental value new objects can get created.Energy around Atom is Qunatized meaning you either you measure all or none.

You just repeat what I have already said: i.e. when you change the boundary conditions (length of violin string) then the wave can morph into another form.
=========================================
DKV: Thats an assumption which may be true or false.But this fact doesnt come out of any model automatically.

It must be true or else the electron would decay to a lower energy entity.
==========================================
DKV: You are talking about continous distribution of energy in Absolute Terms.

I do not understand your argument here.
==============================================
DKV: Electron Wave can split . But not electron.

Exactly, that is why I say an electron particle does not exist!!
=============================================
DKV: Due uncertainity this is what is practically available for us in our thoughts.
But on the ground the Electron is still a particle with a Probability Distribution.

This what I challenge. Probability has nothing to do with wave entities. Born should never have postulated that a wave is a probability distribution.
========================================
DKV:This has already been explained.Sorry to say your interpretation of Electron Wave is not correct.

This is again where we differ. You are caught within the Copenhagen paradigm which I reject, because it is against everything we really experience in life.
===================================
DKV: Any higher dimensional object must be observable in the Universe in some form. It must have measurable footprint.Unobservable Space means something which can be observed or experienced in Principle.

No argument with that; see prvious posting.
===========================================
REP: Mind is not the word I used.I said Observer are equipped with their theories of Universe.
During the Interaction what went between the Observer and the Observed is highly subjective but equally true till a better explanation is found. This process carries on till we obsever Nothing.Nothing as we defined is different from what is generally accepted .It is the Absolute Answer or complete Knowledge.

This reasoning sounds to me more like some sort of parapsycholgy than physics.
==========================================
DKV: all that is fine but probably you need to revisit your interpretation of Waves in Quantum Mechanics.And the immediate necessity to satisfy the Heisenberg Principle for anything carrying Momentum and Mass.We cant say something holding Energy and Momentum Doesnt Exist in our Time or Space(even if it is Higher Dimensional Object).

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is also valid for a time-independen wave; how can such a wave have momentum. It only has momentum in a reference frame moving relative to it.
================================================
DKV: Superposition is well known.

Exactly; so what is new?
=============================================
It can entangle with another wave; this means that the two waves flow together to form a new single holistic entity.
DKV: Such entities keep forming.

How do they "keep forming"?
===================================
DKV: The Fate of the Photon is given by the Change in Energy Level of Electron in an Atom.
Photon is Absorbed.The Jump is not the usual Physical Jump but its much more complicated than
that .. it affects the entire Wave function of the Atom or Atoms.Even for Simple Atoms you have only Probablistic Jumps which works accurately only when in Bulk.Therefore such a simple interpretation wont work.

How is the photon absorbed? When one of the superposed component waves change it will of course affect the whole atomic wave function; so what? You do not need a probabilistic interpretation of the wave function to model probability in jumps. When atoms diffuse in a solid the process is also modelled as probable jumps even though the model is completely classical.
==========================================
Regards,
Johnny Boy
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#3266 - 12/13/05 09:33 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Shane Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/13/05
Posts: 4
Loc: Flintshire
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist.
Even Stringist say they will never be able to prove there theories but what was once science fiction are now documented fact you never know stick around long enough and find out.

Top
#3267 - 12/14/05 04:52 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Anonymous
Unregistered


Thats a shortsightedness on their part.
I think they are focussing in the wrong area.
Paradoxically the verification requires Energy of level of Universal Birth.If you believe in Mathematical Calculations based on Bosons and Fermions you will not dare to risk the life of Universe by creating such scenario.Short Bursts of Energy can be created but it is difficult to contain such a Energy for Long time to observe.
And there are complete unknown effects related to such states when high in number.
Undoubetedly our means of measurements are ancient and our means of communications are ancient when compared to Animal Worlds ability.
Therefore is lot of scope for improvement.
I think everyone should be confident of finding the Truth themselves someday.Infact there is no censorship at all.We are living those laws everyday .. it is just that it no more remains demonstratable with current technology.
Probably we all are waiting for that new technological breakthrough before finding the right answer.From where it will come is a good debate we should undertake with confidence...

Top
#3268 - 12/14/05 09:23 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
ashu Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 2
Loc: bkk
something INFITESIMALLY DIVERSE....
_________________________
Ashish

Top
#3269 - 12/15/05 05:22 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
physic Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/27/05
Posts: 4
Loc: India
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
Amaranth,
What about the multi- universe theory?
If the big bang is true, this universe is finite.
So it's not really EVERYTHING that exists...
Rob
yes, multiple universes could well be there and our universe could be finite as well. All the universes could be finite in their own sense. Yes, our universe is thus not everything that exists, but it is EVERYTHING WE PERCEIVE. Any individual in any universe can define his/her/... universe in this way.
_________________________
physic

Top
#3270 - 12/18/05 03:16 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
y Offline
Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 49
Loc: everywhere
A good clue should be the word UNIverse, there can be no multi-universe, because as soon as the prefix 'multi' is used, the prefix 'uni' becomes redundant. so in the use of language the UNIverse is the one and only verse (by definition).
_________________________
y

Top
#3271 - 12/19/05 03:18 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Words do not have to mean what their etymologies suggest.

Top
#3272 - 12/21/05 08:55 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Anonymous
Unregistered


I thought I had already explained its meaning.
It is an all inclusive and all exlcusive Space.
In other words the final answer to your question exists due all inclusive nature but it can not be fully demonstrated using any medium found.
In other words there is always some scope for finding a better answer with time.
The answer I gave you is just the best possible answer which can be reached using the current methodology of knowledge transfer.. which is a combination of written Mathematical text and Internet.Internet or the computer just turns out be textual in its current manifestation.Tomorrow we can think of Computers with their own voice which can give us more inherent variables to describe the Universe.
Again to put it in a more simple form the Universe has multiple answers about itself.
Your answer is limited by the medium or technology used.

Top
#3273 - 12/21/05 10:15 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
Philege Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/30/04
Posts: 184
Loc: United Kingdom
What about the 'string' theory and the recent findings that our universe is on a collision course with another universe. I think it was that scientist in a wheel chair who first proposed the theory.

Top
#3274 - 12/21/05 11:37 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Philege, could you be conflating two ideas?

I'm not sure how anyone could be aware that our universe was on a collision course with another. There is, however, an awareness that our galaxy is going to collide with another.

Top
#3275 - 12/25/05 09:21 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Many times I have heared the expansion of the universe described using dots on an inflating baloon. They say the space between the dots increases as the baloon surface (space-time) expands. Rubbish, if you do this yourself you will see that the dots themselves expand. And so, they are still the same distance from one another. This is a terrible example anyway.

Top
#3276 - 12/26/05 05:11 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Not rubbish Rob ... it is an analogy. Analogies are always flawed by definition. But this analogy happens to be extremely close to reality.

Give those dots gravity proportionate to the real thing and the analogy would still be flawed but far closer to reality.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#3277 - 01/02/06 12:37 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
I've also read that the expansion of the universe is the expansion of space-time, and not the particles moving through a static space-time as I thought originally. Using numbers on a graph as an example, please explain how an axis can expand.

Top
#3278 - 01/02/06 07:47 PM Re: what do we mean by the universe
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I've no clue how an axis can expand. But then I've no idea what your question is intended to convey either.

The expansion of the universe is viewed as being the expansion of space-time itself. Nothing is moving ... the measured distance between objects not closely bound together by the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces, and to some extent by gravity are increasing.

You can attribute this increase in distance to one of two equivalent causes:

1. The space between the objects is increasing
2. The speed of light is decreasing

Neither requires that anything move. Neither requires an axis.

I don't know your age but I'd sugget you hit amazon.com, look up books by Brian Greene, and if you can't find them at a local library ... purchase them.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#3279 - 01/03/06 12:07 AM Re: what do we mean by the universe
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
16/17. What does that have to do with reading books by Brian Greene?

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.