I am sick of all these misunderstandings that occur in discussions about the universe. This topic is meant to solve this problem once and for all by deciding on a general definition for everything.

Can everyone please just explain what they mean when they say "the universe". Then we can start working on a general definition...

IMHO,the universe is everything that exists, from the germy dirt between your toes to the furthest star or star cluster and everything around, under, above and in between.

Everything within your lightcone is your universe. Everything that inflated from the Big Bang is the universe. There is a rather a lot of it overall, and most of it probably plays by different rules.

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,

your last remark suggests that you think that beyond the universe that is presumably formed by the Big Bang, something can exist.
According to most established theories, this is not the case. Beyond our Universe, there is nothing, neither time nor space, according to the current BB theory anyway. So even to characterize that which lies beyond the observable universe with "nothing" is 7 characters too much.

If multiple universes exist, a possibility not excluded by the inflationary BB theory, they much likely reside in other dimensions than those we dwell in.

other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist.

Rob:"other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist."

The best explanation I was give to pretty much the same question was the following: those people (stringists in principle, but also multiversists) need also to earn a living.Go figure.

Rob: other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist.

Obviously you cannot comprehend the concept of more than 3 spatial dimensions. As Pasti said, string theorists believe that on a micro scale, the universe has infinite dimensions "curled up". Its almost impossible to picture, as humans think in a 3 dimension spatial world but mathematically, it is possible.

'The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy has, in what we laughingly call the past, had a great deal to say on the subject of parallel universes. Very little of this is, however, at all comprehensible to anyone below the level of Advanced God, and since it is now well-established that all known gods came into existence a good three millionths of a second after the Universe began rather than, as they usually claimed, the previous week, they already have a great deal of explaining to do as it is, and are therefore not available for comment on matters of deep physics at this time.
One encouraging thing the Guide does have to say on the subject of parallel universes is that you don't stand the remotest chance of understanding it. You can therefore say "What?" and "Eh?" and even go cross-eyes and start to blither if you like without any fear of making a fool of yourself.
The first thing to realize about parallel universes, the Guide says, is that they are not parallel.
It is also important to realize that they are not, strictly speaking, universes either, but it is easiest if you try and realize that a little later, after you've realized that everything you've realized up to that moment is not true.
The reason they are not universes is that any given universe is not actually a thing as such, but is just a way of looking at what is generally known as the WSOGMM, or Whole Sort of General Mish Mash. The Whole Sort of General Mish Mash doesn't actually exist either, but it is just the sum total of all the different ways there would be of looking at it if it did.
The reason they are not parallel is the same reason that the sea is not parallel. It doesn't mean anything. You can slice the Whole Sort of General Mish Mash any way you like and you will generally come up with something that someone will call home.
Please feel free to blither now.'

From "So long, and thanks for all the fish" by Douglas Adams

Amara,
prove that this is mathematically possible.

Rob, there are countless books on the issue. Try Polcinski's String theory, or Clifford Johnson's book.The latter deals beautifully with compactifications.

If you want to picture it, roughly speaking, imagine a plane tangent to a sphere, than make the sphere very very small. This is simple to picture. The difficult thing to picture is that at every point in your spacetime you have such a plane tangent to a microscopic sphere.

Have a read of Briane Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and you'll see what I mean.

Greene's books are excellent. I highly recommend them.

Also the November issue of Scientific American.

Is this what you mean by dimentions in maths?
x^1 = we can picture - 1D
x^2 = we can picture - 2D
x^3 = we live in - 3D
X^4 = we can't fathom - 4D
x^n = forget it! - nD

Nope, imagine an extra dimension as a curve in space. I'll use Brian Greene's 'ants on a hosepipe' analogy. Normally with our perception of 3 spatial dimensions, we can specify the position of a point with 3 co-ordinates. But if there was an ant on a hosepipe, we can also specify its location with an extra dimension, a value of position on the curve.

Take a look at the article in November Scientific American. One interesting aspect of it is that it is seemingly impossible to distinguish between a projection of two dimensions and three with gravity.

I never quite understood that example, and I still don't. Is the hosepipe supposed to be a representation of space-time or something. Anyway, no matter how complicated a shape gets, it's still 3D.

Rob wrote:
"... no matter how complicated a shape gets, it's still 3D"

No it isn't. It is indistinguishable. That is the point. The two are equivalent.

what's equivalent to what?

A projection of 2D without gravity can be equivalent to 3D with gravity.

Read.

I don't have access to the Scientific American

Who has any clue as to what the dimentions beyond ^3 may be. Use a simple cube as an example. Apart from length, width and height, what else can there be? Hmmm...

Scientific American is carried by most public libraries.

A spatial dimension beyond the usual 3 is not necessarily imaginable and not necessarily physical in the sense you are thinking.

To answer the question of where something is requires 3 dimension. I need to supply an x, y, and z coordinate. A fourth dimension is merely a statement that to fully define where something is requires a fourth value. It does not necessarily follow that it is a place, as represented in science fiction movies, where you can go.

thanks

It is regularly stated by cosmologists that there is "nothing outside the universe". What is "nothing". Can one not define it as (1) timelessnes: i.e "nothing can change when there is nothing"; therefore "nothing" should (2) have zero entropy and thus zero temperature. A four-dimensional Euclidean space-time will have these properties because the time axis is perpendicular to the space axes. This implies that any differential within three-dimensional space with respect to time will have to be zero. Maybe our universe is flying apart to unbend space-time towards a state of zero entropy; as it had been before creation?

JB:"It is regularly stated by cosmologists that there is "nothing outside the universe". What is "nothing"."

The nothing in your quote means that there is nothing else besides our universe. Or in other words that there is no "outside" for our universe, only the "inside".

JB:"A four-dimensional Euclidean space-time will have these properties because the time axis is perpendicular to the space axes. This implies that any differential within three-dimensional space with respect to time will have to be zero."

Nah, it ain't working that way. First of all, the spacetime is not euclidean, is lorentzian, so time is pseudo-orthogonal on the space, so to speak.
Second of all, the time derivative in a foliation is not vanishing, unless you really don't know mathematical analysis. The difference being that you do not calculate d/dt[a(t_fixed)] but d/dt[a(t)]|t=t_fixed.


Maybe our universe is flying apart to unbend space-time towards a state of zero entropy; as it had been before creation?

Hi Pasti,

How can a geometry be Lorentzian? Either you have a "flat space" with linearly independent coordinates or you have a bent space whatever shape you call it. Even Einstein's equations of general relativity describes a "bent space-time field" relative to a four-dimensional Euclidean space. In a Eucildean space of any dimension derivatives calculated relative to a change along one of the axes are always zero. Thus within such a space one cannot calculate any change with time (the so-called fourth dimension); If nothing can change there must be nothing.

JB:"How can a geometry be Lorentzian?"

Huh?Come again? Lorentzian geometry (and not Riemannian geometry) is the basis of both special relativity and general relativity. How can you have such a geometry? Well, in lorentzian geometry you have a metric given by

(ds)^2= -(dt)^2+(dx)^2+(dy)^2+(dz)^2

instead of

(ds)^2=(dt)^2+(dx)^2+(dy)^2+(dz)^2

I am not exactly sure that I seee the problem.


JB:"Either you have a "flat space" with linearly independent coordinates or you have a bent space whatever shape you call it."

Well, the Riemaninan flat space (i.e. the Euclidean space) is given by a (global) metric g^ab=diag(+,+,+,+) while the Lorentzian flat space(i.e. the Minkovski space) is goven by a (global) metric g^ab=diag(-,+,+,+,). What is your point? I am not sure I follow.

JB:"Even Einstein's equations of general relativity describes a "bent space-time field" relative to a four-dimensional Euclidean space."

No, they originally have been developed for Lorentzian spacetimes. However, for certain applications where certain technicalities become annoying, you can have Euclidean/Riemanian GR.

JB:"In a Eucildean space of any dimension derivatives calculated relative to a change along one of the axes are always zero."

By no means. If what you say were true, you wouldn't have mechanics (classica) nor would you have differential geometry.

JB:"Thus within such a space one cannot calculate any change with time (the so-called fourth dimension); If nothing can change there must be nothing."

I would suggest that you take a look at lagrangean and hamiltonian mechanics. Also at quantum mechanics. Also differential equations and partial differential equations (specifically the initial value problem). I can give you refs on these issues if you so like.

Of course such a chnge in time can be calculated, that is why you have what is called the evolution equations (the equations of motion).

Hi Pasti,

You have good arguments and they are mostly correct in terms of the accepted framework.
The problem is the what you call the Lorentzian metric seems to indicate that one can represent the time axis as an imaginary axis perpendicular to the space axes; whereas it is known that space-time is bent. Although the Lorentzian metric also represents an inherent bending, I believe that it is not the whole story. Spaces could exist within which a time derivative is not possible and within which time then cannot exist. In fact I believe that an entangled mass-wave ("multi-particle" wave) represents such a space. I know you will now say that mass-waves are probability distributions and thus do not constitute an entity within space on their own. This is where I differ from Born; because Born's interpretaion of mass-waves violates the conservation of energy.

Rob:"The problem is the what you call the Lorentzian metric seems to indicate that one can represent the time axis as an imaginary axis perpendicular to the space axes; whereas it is known that space-time is bent."

You are confusing local flatness with global flatness (in both the Riemannian and Lorentzian case). A spacetime can be curved (not bent-use the appropriate terminology) and yet, locally it is always flat. This is quite straightforward to understand (the lower dimensional equivalent are that at any point of a curve you can construct a tangent, at any point on a surface you can construct a tangent plane,etc).

Alternatively, the quadratic form that represents the metric can always be diagonalized locally, but not always globally.

Rob:"Although the Lorentzian metric also represents an inherent bending, I believe that it is not the whole story. Spaces could exist within which a time derivative is not possible and within which time then cannot exist."

Well, then how about you construct it? Give me a spacetime metric in which time does not exist!

Rob:"In fact I believe that an entangled mass-wave ("multi-particle" wave) represents such a space."

You mean that a wavefunction can be represented on such a curved functional space, right? A wave is not a space, it either "exists" in a space, or is represented in a space.

Usually, such wavefunctions from a Hilbert space, and it is possible that this Hilbert space be not globally flat, but I won't ask you for an example.

Rob:"I know you will now say that mass-waves are probability distributions and thus do not constitute an entity within space on their own."

Once again, you mean that the squared magnitude of a wavefunction is distribution of localization probability in a space, right? Let's make a deal: if you want to dicuss such a topic, use the appropriate terminology, so that we can understand each other.

Rob: "This is where I differ from Born; because Born's interpretaion of mass-waves violates the conservation of energy."

First of all, you mean Bohr, right? Born was a physicist too, got a Nobel prize too, "discovered" the photon and quantum absorption of light, but he did not develop the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Bohr did.

So you say that this is where you disagree with Bohr. Fine with me. Now how does the Copenhagen interpretation of the wave-function violate energy conservation? This I am really interested to see (you realize why, right?)

Wnderful response Pasti!
You know the present paradigm well; so you have raised so many questions that it requires a book.
Go to my website.

Nonetheless, if you have linearly independent coordinates you cannot differentiate them relative to each other. If time is one of the coordinates it means that nothing can change within the remaining 3 coordinates. This is where mathematics predicts unequivocably what will happen in such a 4 dimensional (Euclidean)space. So I will leave it there for you to ponder.

The statistcal interpretation of the wave function is accredited to Born; not Bohr. In fact Born was belatedly given the Nobel Prize for it in 1954. It is based on Heisenverg's Uncertainty Relationship, which, according to Born implies that one cannot know the position and momentum of an electron at the same time. If this is true, then all the calculations to design electron microscopes and electron accelerators MUST be wrong. The statistical interpretaion of the wave function has NOTHING to do with experimental difficulties. This has been the mistake made by Heisenberg, and even Pauli, and blindly folloed by Einstein. The fact is that even if one could make perfect measurements Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship should still hold. Thus let us apply Born's interpretaion by using "perfect" measurements. This means that when measuring the position of an electron with momentum p, one will get a position but the momentum will become indeterminate. When now again measuring the momentum of the electron you get another value which can be larger than the original value p. This implies that the electron's energy has increased even though one has made perfect measurements. This not possible. You might want to argue that perfect measurements are not possible and walk away. This is correct in all cases (also clasically), but this does NOT remove the fact that the Born interpretation of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship has NOTHING to do with acuuracy of measurement. Thus the Born interpretation has to be wrong because it violates the conservation of energy.

QED

JB:?You know the present paradigm well; so you have raised so many questions that it requires a book.Go to my website.?

Don?t insult me, will you. While I am open to new descriptions of superconductivity without cooperons, the internet is clogged with websites like yours where people claim to have discovered things that will revolutionize physics, philosophy and you name it and prove that whatever knowledge has been developed up to date is entirely wrong.
I will assume that at least you know the author of the book, if you are not him. So a few pieces of advice. I believe that you are aware of the fact that such a book can never have the general audience as a marketing target. In which case, the lack of a list of publications on the topic, as well as reviews by people working in solid state physics don?t exactly qualify the book as more than a hoax. The author should be aware of that, given his academic pedigree. So as I said before, I will wait for the published papers.

JB:?Nonetheless, if you have linearly independent coordinates you cannot differentiate them relative to each other. If time is one of the coordinates it means that nothing can change within the remaining 3 coordinates. This is where mathematics predicts unequivocably what will happen in such a 4 dimensional (Euclidean)space. So I will leave it there for you to ponder.?

You can leave anyplace until it gets rotten. Mathematics does not unequivocally predict such a nonsense (at least that is what comes out from what you say). And until you clear this up in a more cogent manner, I wil treat it as a nonsense, and I will send you back to learn calculus, differential geometry and theoretical mechanics.

JB:?The statistcal interpretation of the wave function is accredited to Born; not Bohr. In fact Born was belatedly given the Nobel Prize for it in 1954. It is based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship, which, according to Born implies that one cannot know the position and momentum of an electron at the same time.?

You are right, my bad. I apologize. It was Born who stumbled upon the ideea that the square of the amplitude is the localization probability distribution.

JB:?If this is true, then all the calculations to design electron microscopes and electron accelerators MUST be wrong.?

Eppur si muove?

JB:?The fact is that even if one could make perfect measurements Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship should still hold. Thus let us apply Born's interpretaion by using "perfect" measurements.?

Then let?s.

JB: ?This means that when measuring the position of an electron with momentum p, one will get a position but the momentum will become indeterminate. When now again measuring the momentum of the electron you get another value which can be larger than the original value p. This implies that the electron's energy has increased even though one has made perfect measurements. This not possible.?

I agree it isn?t possible, but there is an error in your nicht gut gedankt experiment screaming at me. If you measure the position precisely, say you get x1, the measurement error for the momentum is indeterminately large, via Heisenberg uncertainty relations. This means that the momentum can be anything, and you don?t know what it is, since you didn?t measure it. Let?s say it was p1.
If you then measure the momentum precisely, you get a value, say p2. But since you don?t know what p1 is, from the first measurement, you cannot actually say that p2 can be larger than p1. You?ve introduced this assumption ad hoc, and of course that if you consider it valid, you get a violation of energy conservation. The problem is that you cannot introduce it as you please, unless you have some very heavy observational evidence for it. Which you don?t have such evidence. Au contraire.


JB:?You might want to argue that perfect measurements are not possible and walk away. This is correct in all cases (also clasically), but this does NOT remove the fact that the Born interpretation of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship has NOTHING to do with acuracy of measurement. Thus the Born interpretation has to be wrong because it violates the conservation of energy.?

I won?t argue that perfect measurements do not exist in fact. For the time being it isn?t necessary for the example you gave to figure out where and how experimental/instrumental errors come into play. Not even principialy.
And while I am open to arguments about Born being wrong in its interpretation, yourr example hardly qualifies as that. For the time being, it qualifies only as a not so well thought experiment. But then I am sure you won?t agree with my conclusion.

Pasti: Don?t insult me, will you. While I am open to new descriptions of superconductivity without cooperons, the internet is clogged with websites like yours where people claim to have discovered things that will revolutionize physics, philosophy and you name it and prove that whatever knowledge has been developed up to date is entirely wrong.
I will assume that at least you know the author of the book, if you are not him. So a few pieces of advice. I believe that you are aware of the fact that such a book can never have the general audience as a marketing target. In which case, the lack of a list of publications on the topic, as well as reviews by people working in solid state physics don?t exactly qualify the book as more than a hoax. The author should be aware of that, given his academic pedigree. So as I said before, I will wait for the published papers.

I agree that there are numerous books published by individuals who claim they have solved the problems of physics which qualified scientists have not been able to do up to now. The latest one that I am aware of is "The Final Theory". It usually does not take long to determine the wrong premises that have led such an author astray. In the latter book it is clear that the author became stuck in the time before Galileo. He does not understand the role that relativity (Galilean and Einsteinian) plays when analysing dynamical systems. It is a pity that such books are published. They muddy the water so that people ignore other books which are truly adding to our knowledge. You should at least have been opnminded enough to read the prologue to the book on "superconduction without Cooper pairs". The reason why the author was forced to publish a book is explained in detail. The book is at present being reviewed by competent scientists and these reviews (posistive or negative) will be posted on that website as they become available. There are already some reviews. The author of that book also challenges the whole scientific community to prove him wrong (in writing). Furthermore on the website it is clearly argued why the BCS theory is not a theory at all, and what the actual mechanism for superconduction must be. So I challenge you to read that and point out the flaws.

Pasti: Mathematics does not unequivocally predict such a nonsense (at least that is what comes out from what you say). And until you clear this up in a more cogent manner, I wil treat it as a nonsense, and I will send you back to learn calculus, differential geometry and theoretical mechanics.

Consider a four-dimensional Euclidean space with coordinates x(1), x(2), x(3) and x(4). these coordinates are lineraly independent so that
dx(i)/dx(j)=0 for all i not equal to j. Thus if the fourth axis relates to time in any way nothing can change within three-dimensional space defined by the first three coordinates. What I speculated on is that this might be why space-time must be curved; i.e. neither special relativity or general relativity can be described by an Euclidean metric. I further speculated that a Euclidean space-time might thus be considered as "nothing" because if it exists nothing can change with time within the three space coordinates. I just thought it might be an interesting idea, and did not expect that I will be sent back to relearn calculus!

Pasti: I agree it isn?t possible, but there is an error in your nicht gut gedankt experiment screaming at me. If you measure the position precisely, say you get x1, the measurement error for the momentum is indeterminately large, via Heisenberg uncertainty relations. This means that the momentum can be anything, and you don?t know what it is, since you didn?t measure it. Let?s say it was p1.
If you then measure the momentum precisely, you get a value, say p2. But since you don?t know what p1 is, from the first measurement, you cannot actually say that p2 can be larger than p1. You?ve introduced this assumption ad hoc, and of course that if you consider it valid, you get a violation of energy conservation. The problem is that you cannot introduce it as you please, unless you have some very heavy observational evidence for it. Which you don?t have such evidence. Au contraire.

No you misunderstood: you first measure p1, then the position x1 and then p2 using perfect measurements. Now Shroedinger's equation is a statement of the conservation of energy. Thus if you start of with a momentum p1, then measure x1, and then p2, one must have that p1=p2 or else you violate the conservation of energy. After all there was no potential energy term involved. Furthermore it is a perfect measurement which, owing to its perfectness does not inject energy when making the measurement. Thus if p1 and p1 are different where did the energy come from or go to? I hope I have expressed myself more cogently.

Pasti:I won?t argue that perfect measurements do not exist in fact. For the time being it isn?t necessary for the example you gave to figure out where and how experimental/instrumental errors come into play. Not even principialy.
And while I am open to arguments about Born being wrong in its interpretation, yourr example hardly qualifies as that. For the time being, it qualifies only as a not so well thought experiment. But then I am sure you won?t agree with my conclusion.

The mistake that Born and Heisenberg made was to equate the wave-function in k-space as relating to de Broglie's wavelength and thus to the momentum of the electron. Now accept for arguments sake that you can model a single stationary electron in space by a localised time-independent field that does not spread with time and that you are within the same inertial framework in which the electron is stationary. The localised field lives in position space as well as in k-space. How do you measure the De Broglie wavelength of the electron? You cannot, because the De Broglie wavelength is a relativistic paramter. You will measure different values for it when you move at different velocities relative to the time-independent stationary field representing the electron. Thus the De Broglie momentum-wavelength relationship has nothing to do with the uncertainty in k-space. The uncertainties in position an k are determined, as for any other wave, by the boundary conditions. It is for this reason that an electron can spread out and go through both slits when it encounters the boundary conditions set by the slits. It is also for this reason why it can again become a localised wave when it encounters the boundary conditions set by the detector. You will now probably ask what the boundary conditions are which localises the electron wave in "free space". This relates to the mass of the electron. There is not enough space to treat it further in this forum. I hope that my discussion above might now convince you. Thanks for your responses it helped me to think more clearly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JB: ?The author of that book also challenges the whole scientific community to prove him wrong (in writing). Furthermore on the website it is clearly argued why the BCS theory is not a theory at all, and what the actual mechanism for superconduction must be. So I challenge you to read that and point out the flaws.?

You see, JB, your academic pedigree should have taught you long ago that it is not the others burden to prove you wrong, but it is your burden to prove to the others that you are right (with all the pain this actually implies). If you are wrong, most of the scientists will just ignore you, with all of the unfortunate consequences of this attitude. And believe it or not, I sympathize with you more than you will ever be able to know. I am however not impressed by the close-mindedness of peer reviewing, although it can be pigheaded. There are alternatives to it that allow you to actually publish your papers for the entire scientific community to be able to read and judge them. For example, you can upload your work, both experimental and theoretical on www.arxiv.org. And you?d better do that soon, because you know how this is, if the papers are there, chances for you to be vindicated by someone are larger. You should be able to do it quite fast, since I understand that you already have the rejected drafts. As I said previously, I will be waiting for the papers first. Then I will form my own conclusion, whichever that might be.

JB:?Consider a four-dimensional Euclidean space with coordinates x(1), x(2), x(3) and x(4). these coordinates are lineraly independent so that dx(i)/dx(j)=0 for all i not equal to j. Thus if the fourth axis relates to time in any way nothing can change within three-dimensional space defined by the first three coordinates. What I speculated on is that this might be why space-time must be curved; i.e. neither special relativity or general relativity can be described by an Euclidean metric. I further speculated that a Euclidean space-time might thus be considered as "nothing" because if it exists nothing can change with time within the three space coordinates. I just thought it might be an interesting idea, and did not expect that I will be sent back to relearn calculus!?

Oh boy, now I think I understand what you want to say by all this. See why clear communication is preferable? In a certain way, you are right, but it seems to me you have forced particular conclusions into a general context.

You are right about the fact that indeed an euclidean, respectively minkowskian space is an absolutely empty space with nothing happening in it (but not based on the arguments that you made, see below). This doesn?t mean, formally at least, that time does not exist. It exists, but you have simply nothing evolving in time into the same thing, i.e. into nothing. Just take my word for it, this is not related to the traditional issue of time in field theory (if you want I can give you refs on this issue, for gravity at least).

For your arguments to become generally valid (i.e. the derivative relations involving the Kronecker delta to give the information about the spacetime), you need a theory where the spacetime geometry is intimately related to the phenomenology, and for this reason, it would only apply to general relativity. It isn?t working for any other theory.

If you are not talking of gravity, then your conclusion is erroneous. This is straightforward to understand, if you accept the concept of ?background?. In special relativity, the minkowski space is the background in which everything happens, all phenomenology takes place in this background. Consider a point P in the background spacetime, with coordinates
xP1,?xP4 (index 1 usually stands for time). Now consider a phenomenon/event (say a moving particle) at the same point P in the spacetime (at least at a certain moment), and label the coordinates xPE1,?xPE4. Then at say xP1=xPE1, you will have xPi=xPEi, i=2-4, i.e. the event coincides with your point. You see where I am going with this? While in time nothing happens with the point P of the minkowskian spacetime, not the same is the case with the coordinates of the events, which will generally evolve in time.
This means that nothing happens with the spacetime, and yet something happens in the spacetime. In GR, the spacetime point is the ?event?, roughly speaking. This is the difference, and this is why your equations do not imply that nothing happens in that space. They only mean that nothing happens with the space itself, but the space doesn?t have too be empty! This is basically why I sent you back to lagrangean mechanics, differential geometry and calculus. You have unwillingly extended automatically what happens to the space to what happens in the space. Which in 8 out of 10 cases is incorrect (the remaining correct cases are QFT in curved spacetimes and GR)

JB:?No you misunderstood: you first measure p1, then the position x1 and then p2 using perfect measurements.?

JB, this is not what you said. You said just measure first x1 and then p2. But OK, suppose that I misunderstood.

JB:?Now Shroedinger's equation is a statement of the conservation of energy. Thus if you start of with a momentum p1, then measure x1, and then p2, one must have that p1=p2 or else you violate the conservation of energy. After all there was no potential energy term involved.?

We agree, even if potential energy were involved.

JB:?Furthermore it is a perfect measurement which, owing to its perfectness does not inject energy when making the measurement. Thus if p1 and p1 are different where did the energy come from or go to? I hope I have expressed myself more cogently.?

Yes, you exposed the issue in a clearer manner. I might have even understood what you wanted to say. So to summarize (perfect measurements): you measure first p0, then you measure x1. Due to the Heisenberg inequalities, after you measure x1, the momentum p1 has become indeterminate. Then you measure the momentum again, and due to the fact that you measured x1 previously and p1 had become indeterminate, the value p2 that you will measure now (the third time) can be anything, including the case where p2>p0. This is your thought experiment right? Please confirm if this is what you indeed wanted to say, before we go any further.


JB:?The mistake that Born and Heisenberg made was to equate the wave-function in k-space as relating to de Broglie's wavelength and thus to the momentum of the electron.?

OK?

JB:?Now accept for arguments sake that you can model a single stationary electron in space by a localized time-independent field that does not spread with time and that you are within the same inertial framework in which the electron is stationary.?

OK, let?s say for argument?s sake that I do accept your assumptions. What is a localized field, and what is the localized field describing the electron?

JB:?The localized field lives in position space as well as in k-space.?

With this I kind of start having problems. Due to Fourier reasons, you cannot have a localized field in both spaces. Which is what I assume you are saying above.

JB:?How do you measure the De Broglie wavelength of the electron? You cannot, because the De Broglie wavelength is a relativistic parameter.?

Not the way I know it. The de Broglie wavelength is also present in classical mechanics. The particle wave duality applies for any moving particle, and as far as I know, it was tested also for slow (nonrelativistic) electrons.

JB:?You will measure different values for it when you move at different velocities relative to the time-independent stationary field representing the electron.?

Sure, but this a reference frame issue, not a measurement issue. What is your point?

JB:?Thus the De Broglie momentum-wavelength relationship has nothing to do with the uncertainty in k-space.?

It never did. Exactly for the reason that it is a reference frame issue and not a fundamental issue, in your example. The uncertainty in the reciprocal space will also change with the reference frame. As far as I know, it is not Lorentz invariant.

JB: ?The uncertainties in position and k are determined, as for any other wave, by the boundary conditions. It is for this reason that an electron can spread out and go through both slits when it encounters the boundary conditions set by the slits. It is also for this reason why it can again become a localized wave when it encounters the boundary conditions set by the detector. You will now probably ask what the boundary conditions are which localizes the electron wave in "free space".

No, I am asking how boundary conditions (in the sense of partial differential equations) can determine the uncertainties (any uncertainties)in position and momentum (as in measurement uncertainties). I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that once again, your formulation of the issue is not very clear. So maybe you would like to elaborate.

JB:?This relates to the mass of the electron. There is not enough space to treat it further in this forum. I hope that my discussion above might now convince you.?

It hasn?t convinced me yet, not even by a long shot, but I agree with you that the discussion is limited on this forum. Any suggestions?

Johnny Boy Johnny Boy ... are you sure you made it to post-graduate work?

If so please explain why this doesn't just make you lose your cookies?

"The author of that book also challenges the whole scientific community to prove him wrong (in writing)."

What a blivet.
(feel free look up the definition of the word at wikipedia.org)

Pasti: You see, JB, your academic pedigree should have taught you long ago that it is not the others burden to prove you wrong, but it is your burden to prove to the others that you are right (with all the pain this actually implies). For example, you can upload your work, both experimental and theoretical on www.arxiv.org. You should be able to do it quite fast, since I understand that you already have the rejected drafts.

Thanks, that is good advice, and I would have followed it if I were still publishing only for academic merit. Unfortunately I could not find sponsorship over the last three years and had to go into debt to do my reseach and file patents. Thus I am forced to make ends meet by selling my book. It is, however, the burden of peer reviewers to prove you wrong if they can. The problem is that I had trouble finding peer reviewers even when I published my original experimental results. By the way these papers have been in the public domain for nearly three years and nobody could point out an obvious mistake in them. Furthermore the results has recently been independently confirmed and this will be published soon. Fortunately, for the mechanism responsible for superconduction, peer reviewers have now come forward. These reviews will be posted on the relevant website when they become available.

Pasti: Oh boy, now I think I understand what you want to say by all this. See why clear communication is preferable? In a certain way, you are right, but it seems to me you have forced particular conclusions into a general context.

That is all I wanted to hear. I just raised the point to get some reaction from people like you who who are better qualified in Relativity than I am. From my "stupid" viewpoint it seemed attractive to speculate that the "nothing outside the universe" is a four-dimensional Euclidean space which became locally curved for our universe to initiate. What I like of this idea is that our universe is then "surrounded" by an infinite zero-entropy reservoir and that this means that our universe is flying apart to go back to zero entropy, instead of to maximise entropy.

Pasti:This doesn?t mean, formally at least, that time does not exist. It exists, but you have simply nothing evolving in time into the same thing, i.e. into nothing.

How can you have time when nothing is evolving? There is then no mechanism to even measure time!

Pasti: For your arguments to become generally valid (i.e. the derivative relations involving the Kronecker delta to give the information about the spacetime), you need a theory where the spacetime geometry is intimately related to the phenomenology, and for this reason, it would only apply to general relativity. It isn?t working for any other theory.

You are correct. This is why I raised the issue of the electron being a time-independent field within a inertial reference frame; i.e. it is not a particle within a space but a piece of warped space within which time does not exist. I will elaborate further below.

Pasti: If you are not talking of gravity, then your conclusion is erroneous. This is straightforward to understand, if you accept the concept of ?background?. In special relativity, the minkowski space is the background in which everything happens, all phenomenology takes place in this background. Consider a point P in the background spacetime, with coordinates
xP1,?xP4 (index 1 usually stands for time). Now consider a phenomenon/event (say a moving particle) at the same point P in the spacetime (at least at a certain moment), and label the coordinates xPE1,?xPE4. Then at say xP1=xPE1, you will have xPi=xPEi, i=2-4, i.e. the event coincides with your point. You see where I am going with this? While in time nothing happens with the point P of the minkowskian spacetime, not the same is the case with the coordinates of the events, which will generally evolve in time.
This means that nothing happens with the spacetime, and yet something happens in the spacetime. In GR, the spacetime point is the ?event?, roughly speaking. This is the difference, and this is why your equations do not imply that nothing happens in that space. They only mean that nothing happens with the space itself, but the space doesn?t have too be empty! This is basically why I sent you back to lagrangean mechanics, differential geometry and calculus. You have unwillingly extended automatically what happens to the space to what happens in the space. Which in 8 out of 10 cases is incorrect (the remaining correct cases are QFT in curved spacetimes and GR).

I may be wrong, but this argument seems to me to be only valid if time exists separate from three-dimensional space. It also rests on the assumption that is now generally accepted, that particles exist "in space"; i.e. are seperate to space. I am not saying I will be proved correct in the end, but it is exactly these two assumptions I am trying to challenge.

JB, this is not what you said. You said just measure first x1 and then p2. But OK, suppose that I misunderstood.

I am sorry, I am a bit dyslexic and my mind sometimes races ahead of what I am writing.

Pasti: We agree, even if potential energy were involved.

I am happy we are in agreement on this point; even when potential energy is involved.

Pasti:Yes, you exposed the issue in a clearer manner. I might have even understood what you wanted to say. So to summarize (perfect measurements): you measure first p0, then you measure x1. Due to the Heisenberg inequalities, after you measure x1, the momentum p1 has become indeterminate. Then you measure the momentum again, and due to the fact that you measured x1 previously and p1 had become indeterminate, the value p2 that you will measure now (the third time) can be anything, including the case where p2>p0. This is your thought experiment right? Please confirm if this is what you indeed wanted to say, before we go any further.

Yes you have got it! This is exactly my thought experiment.

Pasti: OK, let?s say for argument?s sake that I do accept your assumptions. What is a localized field, and what is the localized field describing the electron?

Great question. An atomic orbital is a localised time-independent field. What I am proposing is that the orbital is the electron; and not a magically mysterious point particle. It is my opinion that point paerticles can only exist in Plato's mathematical universe; not in ours.

Pasti: quoting JB:?The localized field lives in position space as well as in k-space".With this I kind of start having problems. Due to Fourier reasons, you cannot have a localized field in both spaces. Which is what I assume you are saying above.

Let us again consider an atomic orbital. In terms of Heisenberg's terminology such an orbital has an uncertainty in position and an uncertainty in k-space. Thus in my terminology, the orbital exists in both spaces and one can go from one representation to the other by means of a Fourier transform. Obviously the more localised the orbital is in postion space the less localised it becomes in k-space and vice versa.

Pasti: Not the way I know it. The de Broglie wavelength is also present in classical mechanics. The particle wave duality applies for any moving particle, and as far as I know, it was tested also for slow (nonrelativistic) electrons.

I agree for non-relativistic. What I meant by relatavistic incles Galileo's statement of relativity as a subset.
I can only agree with you if you accept the validity of Bohr's priniple of complemetarity; which I believe is totally wrong. There is no duality. The electron is a localised wave-field which seems to us to be a particle when it is "viewed" from outside the field; it seems to be a particle because such a field has a centre of mass and a centre of charge.

Pasti: Sure, but this a reference frame issue, not a measurement issue. What is your point?

The point I am trying to make is that in order to measure the De Broglie wave-length the electron has to interact with a measurement apparatus that is moving relative to the stationary time-independen electron wave. By this interaction the electron wave has to become part of the framework within which the apparatus (say a double slit) resides; i.e. the electron also now has kinetic energy within the framework of the apparatus. By interacting with the apparatus the boundary conditions change and this changes the relationship between the "uncertainty" in position and the "uncerainty" in k. Thus the electron wave can then spread out in position space and move through both slits. If you now want to determine through which slit the electron has moved, you must have another apparatus behind the double slit screen. This apparatus again changes the boundary condition. The electron wave becomes localised and cannot interfere with itself.

Pasti:It never did. Exactly for the reason that it is a reference frame issue and not a fundamental issue, in your example. The uncertainty in the reciprocal space will also change with the reference frame. As far as I know, it is not Lorentz invariant.

Exactly my point above!

Pasti: No, I am asking how boundary conditions (in the sense of partial differential equations) can determine the uncertainties (any uncertainties)in position and momentum (as in measurement uncertainties). I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that once again, your formulation of the issue is not very clear. So maybe you would like to elaborate.

There are no measurement uncertainties as implied by the Copenhagen interpretation. The electron is a wave-field that can morph from one form into another. And these forms can be directly calculated from the Shroedinger equation. Schroedinger did not realise that he has solved the whole problem, because he was misled by the arguments he had with Bohr and Heisenberg

Pasti:It hasn?t convinced me yet, not even by a long shot, but I agree with you that the discussion is limited on this forum. Any suggestions?

After thinking about it I have come to the conclusion that I should try and elaborate a bit further using this forum:
Let us start by comparing photons and electrons. The difference between an electron and a photon is that one has mass and the other not; but mass is also energy. Why this discrepancy? It of course relates to relativity. A photon can never be stationary within an inertial reference frame. The fact that the electron has mass means that it can be stationary within an inertial reference frame. So if the latter reasoning is correct, then it implies that you can know both the position and momentum for an electron at the same time. This is also borne out by the fact that we can accurately calculate and predict the trajectory of an electron in free space by knowing using both its position and momentum at any point along the trajectory.
Now what is mass? We know it relates to inertia; i.e. once in rest within an inertial reference frame it will remain at rest unless a force is applied. Even when applying a force, the electron resists this force because it has mass. To be at rest, such a particle must be in equilibrium; and because it resits being forced out of rest it must be in STABLE EQUILIBRIUM. Thus there must be a restorin force acting. Accordingly, the assumption that a free electron in space has zero potential energy must be wrong. Where does the restoring force come from? It can only be a virtual positive charge which comes into action. By using Coulomb's law one can derive such a charge and one then finds that one can describe the restoring force by a harmonic force; i.e. "the electron "perfoms harmonic vibrations" through its equilibrium point. Using a wave equation one can then calculate the localised wave which is the electron. The electron is then a time-independent localised field with a Gaussian shape. The frequency relates to the "virtual" positive charge being seperated by a distance over the fourth dimension. Within the wave the space is Euclidean four-dimensional. Time only exists outside the wave.
By postulating this model (which I agree is still speculative) it does give new insights; for example, it implies that matter and antimatter is separated over the fourth dimension by a three-dimensional interface (our space). It also indicates that the muon and the tau are excited states of the electron. It also indicates that within such a wave time does not exist, even though the wave can morph from one form to another when the boundary conditions it encounters change; because time does not exist it also does not exist within a properly entangled wave (this explains the EPR paradox); however, there are "multiparticle waves" within which time interactions can occur (the latter are not entangled and therefore I have called them enmeshed waves); etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered: Oct 2004 | IP: Logged |

JB, sorry for the delay. I will get to your message as soon as I can.

Once again, sorry it took me so long. But with this long postings, it is bound to happen.

JB:?The problem is that I had trouble finding peer reviewers even when I published my original experimental results. By the way these papers have been in the public domain for nearly three years and nobody could point out an obvious mistake in them.?

As I said, I sympathize with you regarding the peer reviewing process. More often than not, a rejected paper signifies not that something is wrong with a paper as much as either the fact that the reviewer is either really unfamiliar with the topic, or that he is really uncomfortable (for one reason or another) with it. And even more unfortunately, due to phenomena like Pons and Fleischman (I am sure you remember the ?cold? fusion hysteria that was sparked by them in the 80?s), very few of the peer reviewers do not want anymore to take a stand in any controversial issue.
The only effective way to counteract this most unfortunate tendency of peer reviewing is to make papers and research public before the peer-reviewing process, hence the utilities of e-print archives like arxiv, spires, etc.

BTW, could you provide me a list of the refs that are already public? It will only make my search shorter.

JB:?Furthermore the results has recently been independently confirmed and this will be published soon. Fortunately, for the mechanism responsible for super-conduction, peer reviewers have now come forward. These reviews will be posted on the relevant website when they become available.?

Well, I can only whish that were you right, you should be vindicated so to speak. All the best of luck with that.

JB:?That is all I wanted to hear. I just raised the point to get some reaction from people like you who are better qualified in Relativity than I am. ?

It took me a while to understand what you wanted to say, because your basic argument was flawed. But somehow you got a rather correct ideea, even if it was based on incorrect arguments.

JB:?From my "stupid" viewpoint it seemed attractive to speculate that the "nothing outside the universe" is a four-dimensional Euclidean space which became locally curved for our universe to initiate.?

If we are talking about GR (general relativity) the Universe is the Lorentzian (not euclidean) spacetime. There is nothing ?outside? it, it has no outside. Only inside. And if you want to pay tribute to the Big Bang, the Universe was not created in this Lorentzian space, but the entire spacetime was created as the Universe. And BTW, it is globally curved and locally flat. Not locally curved.

JB:?What I like of this idea is that our universe is then "surrounded" by an infinite zero-entropy reservoir and that this means that our universe is flying apart to go back to zero entropy, instead of to maximize entropy. ?

Nope. For several reasons. First one is even if GR does allows such a view (but the background is curved, you have something in it) it will hardly be a zero entropy reservoir. In short, it ain?t working that way. And in SR (special relativity where the background is flat) energy cannot be exchanged with the background, simply because the background has nothing in it that could take such energy.

JB:?How can you have time when nothing is evolving? There is then no mechanism to even measure time!?

I said formally. You simply have a time axis, that is all. It is the same issue as with a chamber containing ?perfect vacuum?, just that now you have a 4-dimensional chamber. Does it make physical sense to have an entirely empty Universe? Hardly, in my opinion, unless you consider this empty space as a background (i.e. you are talking about perturbative GR). But nevertheless, such an empty space satisfies Einstein?s equations.

JB:? This is why I raised the issue of the electron being a time-independent field within a inertial reference frame; i.e. it is not a particle within a space but a piece of warped space within which time does not exist. I will elaborate further below.?

You are principially right, but this means that you need to unify gravity with electromagnetism. Only gravity curves spacetime, electromagnetism does not.

JB:?I may be wrong, but this argument seems to me to be only valid if time exists separate from three-dimensional space.?

It is in SR and GR. Not in say regular electromagnetism.

JB:?It also rests on the assumption that is now generally accepted, that particles exist "in space"; i.e. are separate to space. I am not saying I will be proved correct in the end, but it is exactly these two assumptions I am trying to challenge. ?

Yes, particles exist as separate entities from the background in everything but GR. Formally at least. But as I said before, in order to challenge these assumptions, and to have the picture you envision, you have to unify gravity with electromagnetism, and this is energetically way, way beyond the range of regular electromagnetic interaction (what you usually have in solids and in plasmas).

JB:?Yes you have got it! This is exactly my thought experiment.?

Well, once we?ve cleared this issue, let?s see. We assume perfect measurements, a la Born. If we do that, the interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relations cannot be but that if you measure accurately the position, the measured value for the momentum has huge errors. And not that the momentum becomes indeterminate. The measured value for the momentum will have huge errors, but the momentum of the particle remains unaffected (perfect measurements). Which of course, doesn?t make sense when you start thinking about how you could actually measure ?simultaneously? two quantities (that would be related to Heisenberg?s uncertainties for simultaneous measurements of conjugate variables), and what a perfect measurement a la Born means (beyond a formal definition)
Alternatively, if you would assume that after the measurement the conjugate quantity becomes indeterminate (the other way to interpret Heisenberg uncertainty relations- imperfect measurements), this would mean that you wouldn?t even be able to measure the position after first measuring the momentum simply because you wouldn?t know where your particle is.
So anyway, NOW indeed I am starting to have problems with the measurement process. Not to mention with this picture which is quite semiclassical. But as far as I am aware, Born?s perfect measurement assumptions/models have long been abandoned, ever since von Neumann toyed with this issues (not that he actually solved it unequivocally).


It would be a rather a forced conclusion to state that Heisenberg?s inequalities violate energy conservation (not to mention incorrect if you assume perfectmeaurements). Not because I am encroached in the traditional paradigms, but because as far as I know, the issue of measurement has not yet been given a satisfactory explanation. To me it makes much more sense to first understand better the measurement issue/process, and then draw any conclusions on the violation of energy conservation by Heuisenberg?s uncertainty relations.



JB:?Great question. An atomic orbital is a localized time-independent field. What I am proposing is that the orbital is the electron; and not a magically mysterious point particle. It is my opinion that point particles can only exist in Plato's mathematical universe; not in ours.?

Now I am again having problems. An orbital is not a localized object. It is exactly the opposite, a delocalized object. Extending spatially to infinity (just think of the fact that the s-orbital for the H atom decreases exponentially with the radius).

And the orbital ?is? basically the electron, in the sense that say, for the case of the H-molecule, the strength of the ?bonds? are given by the overlap of the valence orbitals. The ionic or covalent character of the bond (a la Pauling) is based on the degree of overlap of valence orbitals so in materisl structures you can pretty much say that the electron is the orbital. But the risk is high to get stuck into syntax rather than physics.The problem is that you do not have such structures for the free electron, as you well know.

As for the electron not being a point particle, the only answer I can give is ?duh!?. Point particles are a classical abstraction. But the electron not being a particle at all, that is an entirely different issue. Because then you have to explain (differently) all the classical phenomena where the electron behaves exactly like a particle. Including the Stern-Gerlach experiment, including the trajectories of charges in electromagnetic fields (mass-spectrometers, accelerators, multipliers etc). You have to admit that the body of evidence in favor of the electron being some sort of volume limited blob of mass and charge is quite large and quite consistent, in the (semi)classical regime.


JB:?Let us again consider an atomic orbital. In terms of Heisenberg's terminology such an orbital has an uncertainty in position and an uncertainty in k-space.?

No, the electron in the orbitals has the uncertainty in position and momentum. The orbitals are related to the wavefunction and hence to the localization probability in the position representation.

JB:?Thus in my terminology, the orbital exists in both spaces and one can go from one representation to the other by means of a Fourier transform. ?

True.

JB:?Obviously the more localized the orbital is in position space the less localized it becomes in k-space and vice versa.?

Nope. The electron does this, not the orbitals. By the electron now I mean the operators associated with it, which act on the wavefunction/orbital.

JB:?I can only agree with you if you accept the validity of Bohr's priniple of complemetarity; which I believe is totally wrong. There is no duality. The electron is a localized wave-field which seems to us to be a particle when it is "viewed" from outside the field; it seems to be a particle because such a field has a centre of mass and a centre of charge.?

OK, and what is this field? Because for the time being, you have practically restated Bohr?s complementarity principle in a slightly different from.

JB:?The point I am trying to make is that in order to measure the De Broglie wave-length the electron has to interact with a measurement apparatus that is moving relative to the stationary time-independent electron wave.?

OK?!?!

JB:?By this interaction the electron wave has to become part of the framework within which the apparatus (say a double slit) resides; i.e. the electron also now has kinetic energy within the framework of the apparatus.?

OK?!?! I mean, up to this moment you are not saying anything new.

JB:?By interacting with the apparatus the boundary conditions change and this changes the relationship between the "uncertainty" in position and the "uncerainty" in k. ?

If by this you mean that the spectrum of the operators (and of course the corresponding wavefunction for the electron) changes ? and hence the explicit expression of the Heisenberg relations ? because the boundary conditions for solving the Schroedinger equation change, then I agree.

JB:?Thus the electron wave can then spread out in position space and move through both slits. If you now want to determine through which slit the electron has moved, you must have another apparatus behind the double slit screen. This apparatus again changes the boundary condition. The electron wave becomes localized and cannot interfere with itself.?

I am not sure I see the point. Sure, each (non-perfect, in the Born sense) measurement will change the momentum and the position of the electron in its trajectory, but so what? If the electron continues to propagate, then you solve the Schroedinger equation picewise, each time with the appropriate boundary conditions. This does not mean the electron cannot interfere with itself. It can if you leave it continue its way until it is absorbed by the screen. And we are back to the issue of how you actually do the measurements. If you absorb it immediately after the slit, or if you strongly perturb it with your measurement, of course you won?t get the diffraction pattern on the screen. Or you will get it very distorted.

You cannot make such considerations and just ignore the influence of the measurement. Here, the details of the measurement become essential, and you cannot actually idealize so easy the measuring apparatus. But again, this is nothing new on this issue. If you really have the time for that, try a Monte Carlo simulation.


JB:?There are no measurement uncertainties as implied by the Copenhagen interpretation. The electron is a wave-field that can morph from one form into another. And these forms can be directly calculated from the Shroedinger equation. Schroedinger did not realise that he has solved the whole problem, because he was misled by the arguments he had with Bohr and Heisenberg.?

Sure, the Copenhagen interpretation is relatively simplistic when it comes to the picture of it, with perfect measurements and so on and so forth. But it is an idealized interpretation, for perfect measurements. Extension to actual measurements (and if you ever attempted that you know how difficult it is to model even the simpler detection apparatus) will not change the Heisenberg uncertainty relations (remember their derivation), you will only have to match them piecewise for each measurement.


JB:?Let us start by comparing photons and electrons.?

Let?s.

JB:?The difference between an electron and a photon is that one has mass and the other not; but mass is also energy.?

You mean the electron has rest mass (energy) while the photon doesn?t. And this is not all. One has charge, the other doesn?t, one is a fermion, the other is a boson, etc.

JB:?The fact that the electron has mass means that it can be stationary within an inertial reference frame.?

In principle? Now you have to devise an experiment where indeed you have a stationary electron?And to my best knowledge, there hasn?t been any such experiment.

JB:?So if the latter reasoning is correct, then it implies that you can know both the position and momentum for an electron at the same time.?

To know is not exactly the same as to measure. While you might get an electron like this (stationary somehow), a realistic measurement would immediately change this state (remember, the any measurement related to the electron must necessarily be of quantum nature!).

JB:?This is also borne out by the fact that we can accurately calculate and predict the trajectory of an electron in free space by knowing using both its position and momentum at any point along the trajectory.?

OK?

JB:?Now what is mass? We know it relates to inertia; i.e. once in rest within an inertial reference frame it will remain at rest unless a force is applied. Even when applying a force, the electron resists this force because it has mass. To be at rest, such a particle must be in equilibrium; and because it resits being forced out of rest it must be in STABLE EQUILIBRIUM. Thus there must be a restorin force acting.?

JB, it seems to me that you are mixing Newton?s principles in their idealized version with practice. First of all, in an inertial frame your particle can move with constant velocity, and the same description of inertia works if you attempt to change the particle?s ?state of motion?.

Seconf of all, if at rest, as you say, you don?t need stable equilibrium for it to be at rest, you can have also ?indifferent? equilibrium (particle on a flat potential vs particle in a potential well), and in this case, you don?t need any restoring force to act on it. It seems to me again that you are twisting the issue of centipetal/centrifugal force from mechanics. So maybe you can clarify your idea better.


JB:?Accordingly, the assumption that a free electron in space has zero potential energy must be wrong. ?

Not in an idealized environment, with everything electrically neutral and no image charges (no conductors, semiconductors or dielectrics) present. In practice, you can never have these idealized conditions (you can at best have a large UHV chamber, but you will have ?image? charges affecting the electron (even though these interactions will be probably negligible for any reasonable sizes of the chamber).

JB:?Where does the restoring force come from? It can only be a virtual positive charge which comes into action. By using Coulomb's law one can derive such a charge and one then finds that one can describe the restoring force by a harmonic force; i.e. "the electron "perfoms harmonic vibrations" through its equilibrium point. ?

Oh, JB, for God?s sake. The electromagnetic force between two attracting charges cannot give you a harmonic force (no echilibrium configuration for the system) unless you have also a repulsive force between them. And don?t quote me the Drude model, and the similar one for the dielectric permitivity due to bound electrons (I forget it?s name). The situations are entirely different.

JB:?Using a wave equation one can then calculate the localised wave which is the electron. The electron is then a time-independent localised field with a Gaussian shape.?

Any linear harmonic ?response? has a gaussian profile.

JB:?The frequency relates to the "virtual" positive charge being seperated by a distance over the fourth dimension. Within the wave the space is Euclidean four-dimensional. Time only exists outside the wave. ?

Now it gets better and better. It seems that you need a Kaluza-Klein type of theory, but with a lorentzian space. BTW, just for fun, in Kaluza-Klein theories (you have two ?time? axes and three spatial axes) you can recover the charge of the electron by projection onto the regular space, but don?t get excited, it is completely different than what you are talking about.

JB:?By postulating this model (which I agree is still speculative)

Still?? You have dismissed away by a handwave without too much consideration (or based on equally speculative arguments) classical mechanics, special and general relativity and the underlying experimental evidence at the same time and you say it?s speculative? OK.

JB:?it does give new insights; for example, it implies that matter and antimatter is separated over the fourth dimension by a three-dimensional interface (our space). It also indicates that the muon and the tau are excited states of the electron.
Oh, that?s peachy. So now out of the way goes also quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics (with the appropriate supporting experimental evidene). Just peachy.

JB, I am sorry. In order NOT to explain much, and based on arguments which I can only hope I did not understand correctly, because if I did, most of them are incorrect, and without any shred of evidence you have just overthrown all the theories of physics (classical, and quantum) in favor of a wildly speculative theory unsupported by any experimental evidence.
As I said, I am open to such things (new thewories, new interpretations, etc). But not when even the theoretical argumentation lacks in validity. And in your particular case, not when also experimental evidence also lacks totally.

Dear Pasti,

Thank you for spending so much time. I really appreciate it. Thank you also for your understanding when it comes to peer reviewers. I agree Pons and Fleischman caused some havock. You ask for references. The following two papers:
Semicond. Sci. and Technol. volume 18, 2003 page S125 and page S131. Thank you also for wishing me luck with being vindicated. I am sure I will be. Unfortunately, I am not convinced by all your arguments. Fortunately we live in the 21st century; it is not a sin to differ with accepted dogma anymore. If I want to consider every argument you raised, my response will be far too long for this forum. Thus I am going to pick out a few points and respond. This does not mean that I necessarily agree with the arguments that I am not responding to.

Pasti: And BTW, it is globally curved and locally flat. Not locally curved.

I thought it is locally curved around a black hole, or a star, or even the earth?

Pasti: Nope. For several reasons. First one is even if GR does allows such a view (but the background is curved, you have something in it) it will hardly be a zero entropy reservoir. In short, it ain?t working that way. And in SR (special relativity where the background is flat) energy cannot be exchanged with the background, simply because the background has nothing in it that could take such energy.

I think we are using different semanitics and will not be able to solve it quickly here. I was of the opinion that even for special relativity space-time is curved (not space on its own I agree): see for example Feynman lectures vol. II chapter 42.

Pasti: You are principally right, but this means that you need to unify gravity with electromagnetism. Only gravity curves spacetime, electromagnetism does not.

I believe that gravity and electromagnetism have been unified via quantum mechanics. We just did not realise it. In my model of the electron the mass is purely electromagnetic in origin. Unfortunately I cannot present the model here, but am willing to e-mail you extracts from it. Is the e-mail address under your profile still correct?

Pasti: from JB:.. "this argument seems to me to be only valid if time exists separate from three-dimensional space." It is in SR and GR. Not in say regular electromagnetism.

I disagree but will leave it there for now.

Pasti: Well, once we?ve cleared this issue, let?s see. We assume perfect measurements, a la Born. If we do that, the interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relations cannot be but that if you measure accurately the position, the measured value for the momentum has huge errors. And not that the momentum becomes indeterminate. The measured value for the momentum will have huge errors, but the momentum of the particle remains unaffected (perfect measurements). Which of course, doesn?t make sense when you start thinking about how you could actually measure ?simultaneously? two quantities (that would be related to Heisenberg?s uncertainties for simultaneous measurements of conjugate variables), and what a perfect measurement a la Born means (beyond a formal definition)
Alternatively, if you would assume that after the measurement the conjugate quantity becomes indeterminate (the other way to interpret Heisenberg uncertainty relations- imperfect measurements), this would mean that you wouldn?t even be able to measure the position after first measuring the momentum simply because you wouldn?t know where your particle is.
So anyway, NOW indeed I am starting to have problems with the measurement process. Not to mention with this picture which is quite semiclassical. But as far as I am aware, Born?s perfect measurement assumptions/models have long been abandoned, ever since von Neumann toyed with this issues (not that he actually solved it unequivocally).

What I advocate is that Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship has nothing to do with a measurement problem for a particle; it simply states the average dimension of the wave (which is the actuality), and how it relates to the dimension of the same wave in k-space. This relationship can change when the boundary conditions change; which also happens when making a measurement.In other words delta(p) has nothing to do with the actual momentum of an electron; because if it does it would mean that an electron which forms an atomic orbital will be moving all the time. How can it do that without radiating em waves? The reason why this does not occur is that the electron is not a particle playing "hide and seek" but it is actually a non-changing distributed charge around the nucleus. Why do we not accept what the Schroedinger equation gives us as the reality?

Pasti: Now I am again having problems. An orbital is not a localized object. It is exactly the opposite, a delocalized object. Extending spatially to infinity (just think of the fact that the s-orbital for the H atom decreases exponentially with the radius).....And the orbital ?is? basically the electron, in the sense that say, for the case of the H-molecule, the strength of the ?bonds? are given by the overlap of the valence orbitals. etc.

Now that is a good argument!! But why are two hydrogen atoms not always bonded? After all their electron orbitals stretch to infinity and must thus always overlap. This is what my experiment solved. There is a critical radius for an orbital outside of which one experiences the orbital as a point charge; and therefore classical calculations can then be used; however, when the two electron orbitals overlap so that their critical radii overlap, quantum mechanics becomes applicable. For an orbital this radius is given by the "uncertainty in position" as calculated from the centre of charge of the orbital multiplied by the square root of 2.


Pasti:..... But the risk is high to get stuck into syntax rather than physics.The problem is that you do not have such structures for the free electron, as you well know.

This is where I differ. A free electron is also a localised orbital. This is the calculation I will send to you once you have confirmed your e-mail address.

Pasti: But the electron not being a particle at all, that is an entirely different issue. Because then you have to explain (differently) all the classical phenomena where the electron behaves exactly like a particle. Including the Stern-Gerlach experiment, including the trajectories of charges in electromagnetic fields (mass-spectrometers, accelerators, multipliers etc). You have to admit that the body of evidence in favor of the electron being some sort of volume limited blob of mass and charge is quite large and quite consistent, in the (semi)classical regime.

Your argument is correct; however, I have just (above) given you the limits when classical mechanics and quantum mechanics apply. The interface is given by the critical radii of the waves that interact (the spherical region within the wave defined by this radius is the localised wave or "blob" that is the electron).

Pasti: Nope. The electron does this, not the orbitals. By the electron now I mean the operators associated with it, which act on the wavefunction/orbital.

Yes the electron does it because the orbital IS THE ELECTRON!!

Pasti: If by this you mean that the spectrum of the operators (and of course the corresponding wavefunction for the electron) changes ? and hence the explicit expression of the Heisenberg relations ? because the boundary conditions for solving the Schroedinger equation change, then I agree.

We agree!

Pasti: I am not sure I see the point. Sure, each (non-perfect, in the Born sense) measurement will change the momentum and the position of the electron in its trajectory, but so what? If the electron continues to propagate, then you solve the Schroedinger equation picewise, each time with the appropriate boundary conditions. This does not mean the electron cannot interfere with itself. It can if you leave it continue its way until it is absorbed by the screen. And we are back to the issue of how you actually do the measurements. If you absorb it immediately after the slit, or if you strongly perturb it with your measurement, of course you won?t get the diffraction pattern on the screen. Or you will get it very distorted.

Yes but why do you get the diffraction pattern on the screen if the electron is a particle? To answer you fully is not possible in this forum. If you are interested I will send you another extract dealing with this situation in detail.

Pasti: In principle? Now you have to devise an experiment where indeed you have a stationary electron?And to my best knowledge, there hasn?t been any such experiment.

Any body with mass travelling with a constant speed is stationary within an inertial framework travelling with it. Galileo stated it and nearly lost his life; and Newton's first law formalised it. By shooting an electron from an electron gun to a screen one can calculate the trajectory classically (using Newton's laws). This implies that while the electron is travelling at a constant speed to the screen it is stationary within the inertial framework travelling with it QED.

Pasti: To know is not exactly the same as to measure. While you might get an electron like this (stationary somehow), a realistic measurement would immediately change this state (remember, the any measurement related to the electron must necessarily be of quantum nature!).

According to Born it is not possible to know the position and momentum at the same time. His interpretation has nothing to do with the problems assiciated with doing the measurements.

Pasti: JB, it seems to me that you are mixing Newton?s principles in their idealized version with practice. First of all, in an inertial frame your particle can move with constant velocity..

That is right, but it is stationary within the inertial reference frame travelling with it.

Pasti: Second of all, if at rest, as you say, you don?t need stable equilibrium for it to be at rest, you can have also ?indifferent? equilibrium (particle on a flat potential vs particle in a potential well), and in this case, you don?t need any restoring force to act on it.

If you have "indifferent" equilibrium you will not have inertia. Consider a ball on a flat frictionless plane. To move it requires nearly no force; in the limit zero force. The fact that a body with mass has inertia means that it resists being moved from being at rest. This is exactly the interpretation of mass.

Pasti: Oh, JB, for God?s sake. The electromagnetic force between two attracting charges cannot give you a harmonic force (no echilibrium configuration for the system) unless you have also a repulsive force between them.

It can as you will see from the extracts I am willing to send you. Consider the following thought experiment: assume an electron approaches a positive charge below a surface that it cannot penetrate (this is a possible scenario when you have a suitable n-type semiconductor surface). It can then not form an orbital around the charge but it still experiences a Coulomb interaction when it approaches the charge along a line going through the positive charge and which is normal to the surface. When the electron moves away from the normal line in a direction parallel to the surface it will experience a restoring force back to the normal line; i.e. the lateral wave function describing such an electron is Gaussian. Closed solutions can be derived from the Schroedinger equation. All I did for a "free electron" has been to extend this model to four dimensions.

Pasti: Now it gets better and better. It seems that you need a Kaluza-Klein type of theory, but with a lorentzian space. BTW, just for fun, in Kaluza-Klein theories (you have two ?time? axes and three spatial axes) you can recover the charge of the electron by projection onto the regular space, but don?t get excited, it is completely different than what you are talking about.

This has nothing to do with Kaluza-Klein.

Pasti: Still?? You have dismissed away by a handwave without too much consideration (or based on equally speculative arguments) classical mechanics, special and general relativity and the underlying experimental evidence at the same time and you say it?s speculative? OK.

I disagree with your analysis here.

Pasti: Oh, that?s peachy. So now out of the way goes also quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics (with the appropriate supporting experimental evidene). Just peachy.

I do not believe in any theory that has to be renormilsed to get away from infinies. Such theories need a very close shave from Occam's Razor. Remember Ptolemy's model of the universe with its "epicycles" was also for hundreds of years supported by "appropriate supporting experimental evidence"

"Yes the electron does it because the orbital IS THE ELECTRON!!"
Very beautifully said.Please explain it more.
Thanks.

Thanks for the question dkv. What I mean is that the electron is not a point charge particle. Its charge is distributed within the critical radius of an actual time-independent wave (which can be calculated by using the Schroedinger equation) Similarly the energy of the wave is equal to the mass of the electron. This energy is also distributed within the critical radius. Thus the electron is this "blob" defined by this critical radius within which the mass and charge are both distributed. When interacting with this "blob" at a distance outside of the critical radius it acts like a point particle because the "blob" has a centre of charge and a centre of mass at the same point within it. In other words, an electron will experience another electron as a point charge; however, if the two electrons approach each other so that the distance between their centres of charge become less than the sum of their critical radii, they interact quantum mechanically; for example they could form a covalent bond. It then seems as if a short range force kicks in to bind the atoms together. It is thus not surprising that the critical radii are of the order of bond lengths.

Interestingly, when modelling the proton in the same way, its critical radius is of the order of the proton radius within the nucleus. Is this why we think that the nucleus is held together by a short range force. Maybe the nuclear forces are equivalent to covalent bonding on a smaller scale. This speculation will put the cat amongst the pigeons!!

I wanted to know about the Electron Spin.
What is the actual meaning of the Electron Spin in Qunatum Mechanics? Once an electron is declared a Wave how do we expect it to have a Spin.As we know the classical spin can we say the same for its Quantum Mechanical Spin....
If not then why?
If yes then how?
Due to Wave spread we have a blob of possibilities but not the blob of electron.
Electron if and when detected is always detected as a whole.
Let us keep them seperate.

Hi DKV,

Excellent question: When you model the free electron in the way I do as a spherically symmetric Gaussian zero-point function; and you next calculate what the solution is in spherical coordinates r, theta and phi when switching on a magnetic field along the z-direction, the resultant energy of the wave becomes a function of phi; i.e. for all values of phi the resultant energy (which is the mass of the electron) increases except for phi=0 (spin up) and phi=pi (spin down) The parameter within the frequency formula that becomes a function of phi happens to be a distance which can be interpreted as a distance along the fourth dimension between the charge centres of the electron and the positive charge reponsible for the restoring force within three-dimensional space (which can be considered as a positron separated from the electron because three-dimensional space forms a barrier within four-dimensional space-time-whow!! if this is correct even I will be amazed). It is this direction that needs to stretch back to its initial value so that the mass of the electron does not increase. It has an equal probability to do this for PHI=0 (spin up) or PHI=pi (spin down). When applying a magnetic field along another direction it has to restretch again. It is very exciting that such a mechanism is inbuilt into the solution.

Furthermore, the electron is a time-independent field within the inertial framework moving with it. This wave does not spread or change within the latter framework unless it encounters new boundary conditions; i.e. a region which requires it to change its potential energy or a photon that requires it to change its kinetic energy. Of course you will always detect a free electron as a whole even when it is in reality a time independent "wave blob". Furthermore, in a reference frame moving relative to the one in which the elecreon is a time-independent stationary blob, one will observe it as a moving wave with a De Broglie wavelength.

I hope this is of some help.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

JB, can I contact you by email through your book's websites somehow? Please let me know.

Hi Pasti,

Yes you can use the website for the book. it will be passed onto me.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

JB, I sent you an email on the address on your website. When you get it, please confirm.

Rob:"other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist."
The best explanation I was give to pretty much the same question was the following: those people (stringists in principle, but also multiversists) need also to earn a living.Go figure.

DKV:This is not true. Have you ever wondered why the 3-D is so obvious to us...?
3-D is obvious to us because we have evolved our understanding of events for a very short
period of Space and time(in GR this becomes obvious).The measured momentum was never doubted for its true consistency within 3-D Mathematics.
Imagine a Mountain sitting idle with all the usual stories of Gravity.
Suddenly it experiences a Blast from no where.A hole was dig into it.
The apparently non-existent extra 3-D like path becomes available through it.
How can this happen ?
The well known Mountain topology had well known events and laws associated with it till the day
it lost some of its mass.That lost mass created a new Dimension for travelling the same so called 3-D space in reduced time.The laws still holds but the experience of time differs.
Notice that in the newly dig tunnel the 3-D dimensions have curled up to represent the concept of 4th Dimension.

I think that was a good illustration of a Multidimensional World.

Hi DKV,

Are these remarks relevant to this discussion?

The explanation for Spin which you have given says spin ,if I am not wrong, is something which restores the Mass of Electron. But Why call it Electron Spin if there is no mention of its Angular Momentum? (We are talking about Electron only)
The spin is very much defined in the Classical Mechanics.. For obvious reasons the explanation doesnt hold for Qunatum Mechanics ..
==================================================================
JB:"It is regularly stated by cosmologists that there is "nothing outside the universe".
What is "nothing"."
The nothing in your quote means that there is nothing else besides our universe. Or in other words that there is no "outside" for our universe, only the "inside".
Dkv:I disagree here since Nothing is equally capable of being expressed.
What you discover Now was not Known Earlier ... Which means there was a Nothing of some Type at some point of time.Thus it is the Absence of Information.Or more precisely Nothing is Absence of Change of Information.Nothing is a completely Known World.Nothing is complete identification of Observer with what is getting Obseverd.
======================================================================

Hi DKV

Very valid obsevations:

DKV: The explanation for Spin which you have given says spin ,if I am not wrong, is something which restores the Mass of Electron. But Why call it Electron Spin if there is no mention of its Angular Momentum? (We are talking about Electron only)
The spin is very much defined in the Classical Mechanics.. For obvious reasons the explanation doesnt hold for Qunatum Mechanics ..

I agree fully. The postulate that an electron has spin is a misnomer. We know it does not relate to the classical spin. It should have been called something else. All it is is a directional interaction with an applied magnetic field. What I pointed out is that my model of the electron causes the Guassian wave representing the electron to have such a directional interaction with an applied magnetic field in order to maintain the same mass (lowest energy). It is known that a magnetic field does not affect the energy of a free electron as it does for an electron forming part of a chemical bond. In the latter case there are more magnetic fields involved than the applied field.
==================================================================
DKV qoutes: JB:"It is regularly stated by cosmologists that there is "nothing outside the universe".
What is "nothing"."
The nothing in your quote means that there is nothing else besides our universe. Or in other words that there is no "outside" for our universe, only the "inside".
Dkv:I disagree here since Nothing is equally capable of being expressed.
What you discover Now was not Known Earlier ... Which means there was a Nothing of some Type at some point of time.Thus it is the Absence of Information.Or more precisely Nothing is Absence of Change of Information.Nothing is a completely Known World.Nothing is complete identification of Observer with what is getting Obseverd.

Thanks DKV, this is in line with what I have been trying to convey: i.e. that we know what nothing implies. I would define nothing as zero time (no change in time) zero entropy (no change in entropy) and zero temperature. What I pointed out is that an Euclidean four-dimensional space-time can be considered as "nothing", because time is then linearly independent from the space axes. Thus there is no change. The existence of our universe required the time axis to be bent relative to the space axes. Although I am not an expert, I believe that this is inherent in both special and general relativity.
======================================================================

--------------------
Regards,
DKV

Do you mean to say that electron carries no Angular Momentum of its own with or without Magnetic field?
================================
Thanks DKV, this is in line with what I have been trying to convey: i.e. that we know what nothing implies. I would define nothing as zero time (no change in time) zero entropy (no change in entropy) and zero temperature.
Dkv:Why only zero ? Zero is just a reference point.Why not replace zero with absolute certianity of the quantity.
==========================================
What I pointed out is that an Euclidean four-dimensional space-time can be considered as "nothing", because time is then linearly independent from the space axes.
Thus there is no change. The existence of our universe required the time axis to be bent relative to the space axes. Although I am not an expert, I believe that this is inherent in both special and general relativity.
DKV: I agree partailly here. Yes indeed your understanding of Nothing is correct but Linearity doesnt go away with the "bending" of Space Time. The Mathematics involved remains linear.
Non-linearity appears somewhere else.
========================================

DKV: Do you mean to say that electron carries no Angular Momentum of its own with or without Magnetic field?

Incisive and scary question: Yes this is what my model implies. The potential energy term responsible for the formation of the Gaussian orbital is a harmonic potential which only depends on the distance from the equilibrium point (which is also the centre of charge and centre of mass). It is really a one-dimensional function because space is assumed to be isotropic. The solution does not include any degenerate angular components at al. It cannot because there is no spherical symmetry betwen the positive nad negative charges involved. They are separated over the fourth dimension. It sounds crazy but when I apply this principle to the covalent bond between two hydrogen atoms along the (two-dimensional) directions perpendicular to the bond lenth, I can derive the binding energy correctly without having to use perturbation theory a la Heitler and London. Thus, according to my model, the "spin" of the electron has to do with the fourth dimension, along which the electron is seprated from the positive charge responsible for the restoring force in three dimensions. If my model withstands the test of time, this will imply that "spin" has nothing to do with an intrinsic angular momentum of a single "free" electron within three-dimensional space.
================================
DKV quotes and answers:Thanks DKV, this is in line with what I have been trying to convey: i.e. that we know what nothing implies. I would define nothing as zero time (no change in time) zero entropy (no change in entropy) and zero temperature.
Dkv:Why only zero ? Zero is just a reference point.Why not replace zero with absolute certianity of the quantity.

You are correct I have not been clear. I should not have said zero time but absence of time. Absence of time means no relative movements and thus one cannot define entropy or temperature; however, I will not be surprised if in the latter two cases zero is more than just a reference point.

==========================================
What I pointed out is that an Euclidean four-dimensional space-time can be considered as "nothing", because time is then linearly independent from the space axes.
Thus there is no change. The existence of our universe required the time axis to be bent relative to the space axes. Although I am not an expert, I believe that this is inherent in both special and general relativity.

DKV: I agree partailly here. Yes indeed your understanding of Nothing is correct but Linearity doesnt go away with the "bending" of Space Time. The Mathematics involved remains linear.
Non-linearity appears somewhere else.

Yes in special relativity the mathematics remains linear owing to the "magic" bestowed by the imaginary number square root of minus one. But if you analyse histories in this space-time you will find that it is curved.
========================================

--------------------
Regards,
DKV

Johnny Boy:

The above is not the ravings of a materials scientist that doesn't understand the concept of peer review. Please explain the morph.

Hi DA,

Wonderful question: Schroedinger was upset by "quantum jumps". What happens when the photon "disappears" and the electron changes energy. What happens, according to my present insights, is that the photon "entangles" with the electron: they become one holistic entity and therefore the wave(which is the electron) has an increase in mass; i.e. it has to morph into a new wave to accomodate this extra energy. The original stationary time-independent wave increases its energy. The photon energy and electron energy morphs together to form a higher energy electron-wave.

This also happens when an electron+neutrino+proton morphs into a single entity called a neutron. Morphing together falls within the ambit of "entanglement".

Normal superpostion of separate waves happens when, for example, the Mott transition kicks in. A single "multi-particle" wave still forms, but its subcomponents can interact with each other. Therefore you need statistical thermodynamics to analyse these interactionsm "within" such a wave.

I hope you can follow my ideas.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

I think the Angular momentum is intrinsic to the electron with possible components in other dimensions.If you can explain the momentum using the 4th Dimension then you have good chance of getting it right.
But I wonder how can a point be exclusively defined on a higher dimension without having some footprint on other dimesnions.
Therefore any particle which exists in higher dimension must be observable in some form somewhere.
Can you please restate the positive outcome of your theroy? What extra information do we get ?
What new does it explain ?
What does it predict?

Hi DKV,

DKV: I think the Angular momentum is intrinsic to the electron with possible components in other dimensions.If you can explain the momentum using the 4th Dimension then you have good chance of getting it right.

In my model the "electron" is treated as a "harmonic vibration" through a point (which becomes the centre of mass and of charge) where the "vibration" has an equal probability to be along any direction within three-dimensional space. The reason why it "vibrates" can only be ascribed to the manifestaion of a "virtual charge" when the "electron" "moves away" from the equilbrium point. When using Coulomb's law to model such a virtual charge, you find a fourth distance manifesting so that you can consider the virtual charge as a real charge seperated from the equilibrium point over the fourth dimension. The time-independent wave solution within three-dimensional space is then a Gaussian function. You cannot derive any intrinsic angular momentum because the "electron" is forced to "vibrate" through the equilibrium point; not "rotate around it". When you solve the same equation with an applied magnetic field you find that the solution becomes dependent on angle, and that the electron energy (equated to its mass) increases when the angle is not zero (spin up) or pi (spin down). This behaviour has nothing to do with an intrinsic angular momentum of the electron. It has rather to do with a reorienation of four-dimensional space-time. In my opinion spin cannot be an intrinsic angular momentum, because it requires the electron to rotate twice around the spin axis in order to restore symmetry.

What is, however, interesting is that the solution I derived is only the wave within three-dimensional space. There must also be a component along the fourth dimension. Can this be the explanation for dark energy?


DKV: But I wonder how can a point be exclusively defined on a higher dimension without having some footprint on other dimesnions.
Therefore any particle which exists in higher dimension must be observable in some form somewhere.

In my model the positive (positron?) seperated from three-dimensional space along the fourth dimension, makes it presence felt because it is responsible for the electron's mass. This separation of matter-antimatter over the fourth dimension might also make its presence felt (as speculated above) by manifesting as dark energy.

DKV:Can you please restate the positive outcome of your theroy? What extra information do we get ?
What new does it explain ?
What does it predict?

There are many positive outcomes of my theory. The major positive outcome is that quantum mechanics becomes a causal theory; just like Einstein wanted it to be. The reason for this is is that according to my model matter does not exist of fundamental particles but of waves with critical radii within which the essence (mass and charge) is present in distributed form. Therefore it gives an interface between classical and quantum mechanics. The interface is deterined by the critical radius of the wave. When two "particle waves" are far enough apart so that their critical radii do not overlap, then the interaction between the waves is in essence classical. An observer outside both waves (outside means the observer does not overlap with their critical radii) will experience them as point charges owing to Gauss' law. Similarly when you now want to calculate the wave function of one of the entities owing to the presence of the other entity, you can model the latter entity as a point charge. When the waves, however overlaps by so much that their critical radii overlaps, then they interact differently; i.e. quantum mechanics takes over completely. Only at this point does a "multi-particle" wave have to form; for example, in the case of dopant waves in a semiconductor this situation occurs when the Mott transition kicks in. The waves then actually delocalise and superpose to form the basis waves which spans the "multiparticle" electron wave which impurity band formation.

The upshot of all this is that causality is back in quantum mechanics because the wave intensity is NOT a probability distribution of where one will find a point particle, but is itself the fundamental building block of nature. Scroedinger's equation has nothing to do with a particle, but tels one how the wave will evolve (morph) (in shape and energy) when the potential energy term changes. When the potential energy term does not chage the solutions are a time-independent spectrum of solutions with different energies EACH OF WHICH COULD BE "AN ELECTRON". Although these solutions can be superposed it such superposition can only occur when each wave represents an "electron". To form a wave packet of "empty waves" in free space and then to associate it with a single electron violates conservation of energy. A wave packet can thus only form from the conduction electron waves within a material, and this only happens when you apply an electric field. The idea that electron particles are continiously moving within a material, even at absolute zero temperature, must be wrong because there are also positive charges: when charges move relative to each other you must get electro-magnetic radiation!!

I can go on and on, but will stop here in order not to abuse this forum.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

The reason for this is is that according to my model matter does not exist of fundamental particles but of waves with critical radii within which the essence (mass and charge) is present in distributed form.
Therefore it gives an interface between classical and quantum mechanics. The interface is deterined by the critical radius of the wave.
DKV: Please do not expect a single Electron to behave like a Wave ... The wave properties appear only when we extend the discussion to multiple electrons which means that Electron itself is not a wave but something else which determines the fate of Group of Electrons and that something is well known as proability distribution.If you wish to consider the Electron as Wave with distributed Mass and Charge you must give a good reasoning behind it.
==========================================
When two "particle waves" are far enough apart so that their critical radii do not overlap, then the interaction between the waves is in essence classical. An observer outside both waves (outside means the observer does not overlap with their critical radii) will experience them as point charges owing to Gauss' law. Similarly when you now want to calculate the wave function of one of the entities owing to the presence of the other entity, you can model the latter entity as a point charge. When the waves, however overlaps by so much that their critical radii overlaps, then they interact differently; i.e. quantum mechanics takes over completely.
DKV: All this can be said in great detail using the current understanding of Physics.
===========================================
Only at this point does a "multi-particle" wave have to form; for example, in the case of dopant waves in a semiconductor this situation occurs when the Mott transition kicks in. The waves then actually delocalise and superpose to form the basis waves which spans the "multiparticle" electron wave which impurity band formation.
DKV: The multiparticle Wave is a wave of what?
==============================================
The upshot of all this is that causality is back in quantum mechanics because the wave intensity is NOT a probability distribution of where one will find a point particle, but is itself the fundamental building block of nature.
DKV: Who says that Wave is not the fundamental answer but it is not the only one.The cause has always been there.Again your ideas need more clarity with respect to the nature of Wave.
==========================================
Scroedinger's equation has nothing to do with a particle, but tels one how the wave will evolve (morph) (in shape and energy) when the potential energy term changes.
DKV : It has nothing to do with the Particle but it in the end when you measure it is the Particle which gets measured.In other words a Qunatum of Information gets easured.Discreetness comes out of measurement.Therefore the Critical Radius stuff needs to revisited in your theory becuase for far no one has predicted or discovered any such boundary. For practical purposes your model might work but it fails to give some fundamental answers.And when you give the boundary do you mean to say that anything outside the boundary is not covered by Qunatum Laws?
=======================================
When the potential energy term does not chage the solutions are a time-independent spectrum of solutions with different energies EACH OF WHICH COULD BE "AN ELECTRON". Although these solutions can be superposed it such superposition can only occur when each wave represents an "electron".
DKV: Again all these arguments are based on incorrect understanding of the Wave you are talking about .. and there is something related to Collapse of Wave Function (refer to Understanding Measurements in this forum)which depends on the Observer.
=================================
To form a wave packet of "empty waves" in free space and then to associate it with a single electron violates conservation of energy. A wave packet can thus only form from the conduction electron waves within a material, and this only happens when you apply an electric field. The idea that electron particles are continiously moving within a material, even at absolute zero temperature, must be wrong because there are also positive charges: when charges move relative to each other you must get electro-magnetic radiation!!
DKV: Didnt get any.What is empty wave?

=========================================
In my model the positive (positron?) seperated from three-dimensional space along the fourth dimension, makes it presence felt because it is responsible for the electron's mass.
DKV: Electron's Mass is felt as a whole.We do not attribute any mass to Positron. Positron and Electrons are well defined with their respective masses.
=======================================
This separation of matter-antimatter over the fourth dimension might also make its presence felt (as speculated above) by manifesting as dark energy.
DKV: You are asking me to put 80% mass in 4th Dimension that too with a huge three Dimensional Void which actually decreases the Effective Field Strength to negligible and unpredictable values.You must give me a good reason for that.

Hi DKV,
We are talking past each other. Your arguments are based on the Copenhagen interpretation which I totally reject as being surreal. But let us try and proceed:

DKV: Please do not expect a single Electron to behave like a Wave ... The wave properties appear only when we extend the discussion to multiple electrons which means that Electron itself is not a wave but something else which determines the fate of Group of Electrons and that something is well known as proability distribution.If you wish to consider the Electron as Wave with distributed Mass and Charge you must give a good reasoning behind it.

A single electron does behave like a wave; for example, when it moves with a momentum p relative to an observer it has a wavelength. There is no reason to interpret a "multi-electron" wave as a probability distribution. It is nothing else but a superposition of single-electron waves.
It is possible that an electron can be emitted from an n-type substrate. While it moves away it decelerates and moving when moving back accelerates; i.e. it loses energy owing to the attraction of an image charge. When the conditions are correct it cannot move back into the substrate. This happens when the energy to move into a donor site is more than the energy the electron has. The emitted electron can then not rejoin the "multiparticle wave" (i.e. the substrate). It has to lead a separate existence on the surface. By analysing this problem it is possible to derive the critical radius of an electron-wave. Obviously I cannot represent the whole calculation here. This analysis also fits all the experimental evidence for superconduction.
==========================================
DKV: All this can be said in great detail using the current understanding of Physics.

I have had discussions with other people who will disagree with you on this point.
===========================================
DKV: The multiparticle Wave is a wave of what?

Any wave has energy. The wave is a matter wave: i.e. its energy is equal to mcsquared. There are no particles "in it".
==============================================
DKV: Who says that Wave is not the fundamental answer but it is not the only one.The cause has always been there.Again your ideas need more clarity with respect to the nature of Wave.

I do not follow you here. Which cause has always been there. Are you claiming that the Copenhagen interpretation is causal?
==========================================
DKV : It has nothing to do with the Particle but it in the end when you measure it is the Particle which gets measured.In other words a Qunatum of Information gets easured.Discreetness comes out of measurement.Therefore the Critical Radius stuff needs to revisited in your theory becuase for far no one has predicted or discovered any such boundary. For practical purposes your model might work but it fails to give some fundamental answers.And when you give the boundary do you mean to say that anything outside the boundary is not covered by Qunatum Laws?

This is where we disagree. It is not a "particle" that gets measured. When you measure you change the boundary conditions experienced by the wave and the wave morphs into another shape (provided that the measurement did not change the energy of the wave).It can, of course change both shape and energy when interacting with the apparatus. Discreetness is only observed when the boundary conditions are such that only disreetly different waves can manifest; like the harmonics on a violin string. The existence of such boundary conditions are commensurate with chemical bonding as well as with experimental results on superconduction. All I am saying is that any other entity which is outside of the critical radius of a "free-electron" wave, will experience the charge and mass of the wave as point-entities.
=======================================
DKV: Again all these arguments are based on incorrect understanding of the Wave you are talking about .. and there is something related to Collapse of Wave Function (refer to Understanding Measurements in this forum)which depends on the Observer.

As I have said above, you are defending the Copenhagen interpretation which I reject. There is no such thing as "the collapse" of the wave function. What happens is that the wave itself morphs into another shape. It is not the observer who affects nature through his/her selfawareness, but the receptor in your eye which affects the boundary conditions of the wave so that it morphs into another form. It is just normal causal physics.
=================================
DKV: Didnt get any.What is empty wave?

When constructing a wave packet in free space and equating it to an electron, the waves being superposed is not each an actual electron. Because none of them represents an actual electron except when they are superposed, I call them "empty waves"; how can they exist on their own so that they can superpose?


DKV: Electron's Mass is felt as a whole. We do not attribute any mass to Positron. Positron and Electrons are well defined with their respective masses.

They might be well defined, butb this has nothing to do with the argument. THe question is, where does the mass comes from? PLEASE do not talk about poppycock like the Higg's boson.

=======================================
DKV: You are asking me to put 80% mass in 4th Dimension that too with a huge three Dimensional Void which actually decreases the Effective Field Strength to negligible and unpredictable values.You must give me a good reason for that.

I am not placing 80% mass in the 4th dimension. All I am saying is that the complete wave representing the electron should also have a component along the fourth dimension. How to calculate this I do not know at present.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

Johnny Boy wrote:
"I am not placing 80% mass in the 4th dimension. All I am saying is that the complete wave representing the electron should also have a component along the fourth dimension. How to calculate this I do not know at present."

It think it quite possible that some component of everything we think we understand exists in one or more additional dimensions.

But I'd stay away from using 4th, specifically, as most people understand that to mean time.

Good argument DA. My argument comes from my postulate that an electron is not a particle but a single holistic wave-entity within which (i.e. within its critical volume)charge and mass are continuously distributed entities (not point entities). Although the wave itself can change shape and even energy when the potential energy term in The Schroedinger equation changes with time, time does not exist within such a wave; i.e. it is in immediate contact with itself over the space it occupies. Within the wave the fourth dimension can then not be related to time at all; i.e. the fourth dimension only relates to time "outside" the wave; i.e. in proper space-time. Similarly for an entangled wave; for example, a single wave consisting of two electrons with opposite spins. It is for this reason why such a wave, even when it stetches over light years can be decomposed into two single electron waves whose opposite spins correlate. Time is not involved and therefore non-local (faster than light speed) correlations are possible. This is not possible after the entangled wave has been decomposed into two separate single-electron waves: communication must then be through space-time. Two electrons with parallel spins cannot become entangled, but they can still form part of a single entity like an atom. In this case interactions ("communication") between them are time related because they do not form a single timeless holistic wave; I have coined the phrase that these electron waves are then enmeshed.

To summarise: In my view, entanglement of waves is similar to the merging of two water droplets to form a larger droplet; except that for matter waves there are no molecules within them. Once they entangle they form a larger continuous distribution of charge and mass over the space the new entity occupies. Enmeshment of waves is just normal superposition as is observed for all kinds of waves in nature.

Entanglement need not just occur for waves of the same type. I propose that when a photon excites an atom it does not kick an electron from one energy level to another. It entangles with the lower energy electron-wave which then morphs into the higher energy electron wave. I also believe that another example of entanglement is the formation of a neutron when a proton, electron, and a neutrino entangles.

Whether I am correct or not, everything becomes very much simpler when one accepts my interpretation. According to Occam's Razor, this bodes well.

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 ?

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
--------------------

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.
==========================================

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

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".

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

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.

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...

something INFITESIMALLY DIVERSE....

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.

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).

Words do not have to mean what their etymologies suggest.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

16/17. What does that have to do with reading books by Brian Greene?

P.S. Do you think it possible for EVERY atom in existence to be stable (bonded to another one) If so, that is another possible end for the universe, like the big crunch or infinite expansion.

Just a suggestion: The expansion of the universe could be imagined to be the "uncurving" of space-time. This means that at the end of the process, time will cease to exist and with it entropy will become zero. Maybe it is similar to throwing a rock into a large pond. The circular waves expand until they again merge with the pond so that no further change with time can manifest.

The Universe is a big place where the time and things changes. For example the time of the din osaurs weere different to those of now. This happens in every other planet not in the form of living life but in the abiotic factors. This also takes place differently in different galaxiesw which we haven't discovwered so far.Can u discover it ?

Hariharan wrote:
"This also takes place differently in different galaxiesw which we haven't discovwered so far."

How, precisely, can you comment upon what has not yet been discovered?

I thought the Cosmos comprised everything that is, including universes, multiverses, etc.

VB

sigh, definitions...

Defining it any way you wish ... you can not comment on that which has not yet been discovered.