| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"p6" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2005 09:37:34 AM |
| Object: |
Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
Do you or do you not agree? And why?
John Gribbin described in his book "The Search for Superstrings,
Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" the following which I
found so elegant as it clarifies very distinctly that particles
are not classical objects but energetic bits of fields:
"On the old, classical view fo the world there were two basic
components, material objects and the fields which linked them.
But the field is now the ultimate, fundamental concept in
physics, because quantum physics tells us that particles
(material objects) are themselves manifestations of fields. One
of the first great surprises of quantum physics was the
realization that a particle, such as an electron, had to be
treated like a wave. In this first application of quantum
principles, we learn to treat these matter waves as fields, with
one field corresponding to each type of particle. For example,
there is a general matter field, filling the Universe, which is
described by the wave equations of an electron. But, as the
discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in
particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for
the existence of particles. Quantum physics say the energy in the
field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously, as in the classical picture. Energy comes in
definite lumps, called quanta, and every matter field must have
its own qunta, each with a definite amount of energy, or mass.
The particles are energetic bits of the fields, confined to a
certain region by the uncertainty principle. A photon is a
quantum of the electromagnetic field; in the same way, by
applying quantum principles a second time to the matter field
electrons, we find that we recover the idea of the electron as a
particle, as the quantum of the electron matter field. This
interpretation of particles as "field quanta" is known as second
quantization. It tells us that there is nothing else in the
Universe except quantum fields. So the more we know about quantum
fields, the better we will understand the Universe."
<End Quote>
(Something eludes me. Fields of what?? What is the field
made of? -P6)
.
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
01 Jul 2005 09:58:44 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (1 Jul 2005 07:37:34 -0700) it happened "p6"
<atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1120228654.079672.4520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Do you or do you not agree? And why? But, as the
discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in
particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for
the existence of particles. Quantum physics say the energy in the
field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood in e = h.v
that v (or frequency) can take any value.
So e can have any value.
(And h is Plancks constant).
Have a look here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html#c3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
01 Jul 2005 01:17:25 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (1 Jul 2005 07:37:34 -0700) it happened "p6"
<atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1120228654.079672.4520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Do you or do you not agree? And why? But, as the
discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in
particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for
the existence of particles. Quantum physics say the energy in the
field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood in e = h.v
that v (or frequency) can take any value.
In unbound systems.
So e can have any value.
In unbound systems.
But Gribbin (who p6 is quoting) also talks about "a general
matter field, filling the Universe, which is described by the wave
equations of an electron".
If that's actually a correct way of looking at reality, there are
no unbound particles anywhere. But it also means that all particles
everywhere, including those we ordinarily consider "free" (far from
other bodies) must exhibit quantized energy levels.
But they don't seem to, which means either Gribbin is wrong, or
it's so subtle we haven't noticed it.
Either that, or I've missed a possibility.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
01 Jul 2005 01:21:05 PM |
|
|
Bits are just a stream of electrons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
01 Jul 2005 05:15:08 PM |
|
|
In article <VMfxe.15437$ro.15236@fed1read02>, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> writes:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (1 Jul 2005 07:37:34 -0700) it happened "p6"
<atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1120228654.079672.4520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Do you or do you not agree? And why? But, as the
discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in
particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for
the existence of particles. Quantum physics say the energy in the
field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood in e = h.v
that v (or frequency) can take any value.
In unbound systems.
So e can have any value.
In unbound systems.
But Gribbin (who p6 is quoting) also talks about "a general
matter field, filling the Universe, which is described by the wave
equations of an electron".
If that's actually a correct way of looking at reality, there are
no unbound particles anywhere. But it also means that all particles
everywhere, including those we ordinarily consider "free" (far from
other bodies) must exhibit quantized energy levels.
Well, assuming a particle bound in a box of the size of the universe,
estimate the spacing of the energy levels.
But they don't seem to, which means either Gribbin is wrong, or
it's so subtle we haven't noticed it.
Again, assuming a particle bound in a box of the size of the
universe, estimate the spacing of the energy levels.
Talk about any possible effects is *meaningless* until the magnitude
of the effects is estimated. Saying "either it is continuous or it is
quantized" is presenting a false dichotomy, when you cannot
distinguish between "continuous" and "quantized with very small
spacings".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
02 Jul 2005 11:50:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <VMfxe.15437$ro.15236@fed1read02>, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> writes:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (1 Jul 2005 07:37:34 -0700) it happened "p6"
<atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1120228654.079672.4520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Do you or do you not agree? And why? But, as the
discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in
particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for
the existence of particles. Quantum physics say the energy in the
field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood in e = h.v
that v (or frequency) can take any value.
In unbound systems.
So e can have any value.
In unbound systems.
But Gribbin (who p6 is quoting) also talks about "a general
matter field, filling the Universe, which is described by the wave
equations of an electron".
If that's actually a correct way of looking at reality, there are
no unbound particles anywhere. But it also means that all particles
everywhere, including those we ordinarily consider "free" (far from
other bodies) must exhibit quantized energy levels.
Well, assuming a particle bound in a box of the size of the universe,
estimate the spacing of the energy levels.
Hrm. Didn't Dirac puke on this one? You expect me to do better?
But they don't seem to, which means either Gribbin is wrong, or
it's so subtle we haven't noticed it.
Again, assuming a particle bound in a box of the size of the
universe, estimate the spacing of the energy levels.
Oh, all right. Sans math, ISTM the boundary conditions are:
1) box width equivalent to the apparent diameter of the universe
2) box depth proportional to the mass of the universe (or rather,
the unbound mass of all the particles making it up plus their total
binding energy)
Taking 1) as between 20 (within our past lightcone) and 176
(within + without our past lightcone in an inflated universe) BLY
and 2) as between 1e53 (visible matter within our past lightcone)
and say 1e54 (matter within +without our past lightcone in an
inflated universe) kg* I get "very damn close" for some value of
"damn"**. Refine the numbers for me and I'll take another stab.
But then there's the question of whether or not the positive and
negative energies (electrons plus positrons) cancel.
Nor have we considered the contribution of the matter fields of
other fermions, not to mention whether the matter fields of massive
bosons interfere one way or another...
I can see why Dirac puked.
Talk about any possible effects is *meaningless* until the magnitude
of the effects is estimated. Saying "either it is continuous or it is
quantized" is presenting a false dichotomy, when you cannot
distinguish between "continuous" and "quantized with very small
spacings".
Well, do you disagree with Gribbin on principle? He makes a
fairly strong theoretical argument for quantization regardless of
whether we can figure out how to actually detect it.
* numbers grabbed from reasonable-looking Google hits plus a little
handwaving
** I'd like to ask Heisenberg about this
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
02 Jul 2005 04:20:48 PM |
|
|
In article <lBzxe.15651$ro.11909@fed1read02>, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <VMfxe.15437$ro.15236@fed1read02>, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> writes:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (1 Jul 2005 07:37:34 -0700) it happened "p6"
<atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1120228654.079672.4520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Do you or do you not agree? And why? But, as the
discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in
particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for
the existence of particles. Quantum physics say the energy in the
field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood in e = h.v
that v (or frequency) can take any value.
In unbound systems.
So e can have any value.
In unbound systems.
But Gribbin (who p6 is quoting) also talks about "a general
matter field, filling the Universe, which is described by the wave
equations of an electron".
If that's actually a correct way of looking at reality, there are
no unbound particles anywhere. But it also means that all particles
everywhere, including those we ordinarily consider "free" (far from
other bodies) must exhibit quantized energy levels.
Well, assuming a particle bound in a box of the size of the universe,
estimate the spacing of the energy levels.
Hrm. Didn't Dirac puke on this one? You expect me to do better?
But they don't seem to, which means either Gribbin is wrong, or
it's so subtle we haven't noticed it.
Again, assuming a particle bound in a box of the size of the
universe, estimate the spacing of the energy levels.
Oh, all right. Sans math, ISTM the boundary conditions are:
1) box width equivalent to the apparent diameter of the universe
2) box depth proportional to the mass of the universe (or rather,
the unbound mass of all the particles making it up plus their total
binding energy)
You make it needlessly complicated. We're talking about anergy level
*spacing* and this, to first order, depends on the dimensions of the
box alone. The depth is not relevant.
So, lets do a auick and dirty 1D calculation. You've a box of length
D (the diameter of the universe). The wavelenghts it can sustain are
lambda_n = D/n where n is an integer. So, the possible frequences are
of the form f_n = c/lambda_n = c*n/D and the energies are E_n = h*c*n/D.
The spacing between consecutive energy levels is
dE = E_(n+1) - E_n = h*c/D
which is the energy of a photon with a wavelength equal to the
diameter of the universe.
OK, numbers. D is around 2*10^10 lightyears, i.e. 6*10^17 light
seconds. c is 1 lightsecond/second, of course:-). Throwing in h you
get
dE ~ 10^(-51) J ~ 6*10^(-33) eV.
That's an incredibly small energy, many, many orders of magnitude
below the smallest we can measure/resolve. Grainines on such scale
will appear to us as continuum.
It is interesting to look at this in terms of equivalent temperature
(defined through dE = kT). this gives you a temperature of about
7*10^(-36) K. Compare with the 3 degrees background microwave
radiation.
Talk about any possible effects is *meaningless* until the magnitude
of the effects is estimated. Saying "either it is continuous or it is
quantized" is presenting a false dichotomy, when you cannot
distinguish between "continuous" and "quantized with very small
spacings"
Well, do you disagree with Gribbin on principle? He makes a
fairly strong theoretical argument for quantization regardless of
whether we can figure out how to actually detect it.
I don't disagree with Gribbin on principle (can't say that I agree,
either, till I read what he has to say). What I disagree with, here
is the line "the theory predicts this but we don't observe this, so
there appears to be a problem here". As I'm sure you know, physical
theory doesn't just predict "something happens (or doesn't)" it
predicts actual magnitudes. And observations of magnitudes *always*
have a finite resolution. So, if a theory predicts "A" but you
observe "B", this is *only* a contradiction if you're experimentally
capable of resolving "A" and "B". Else, all you can say is that you
can't say anything.
For example, all current measurements of electron's size are
consistent with zero size. But the resolution is (as I recall) around
10^(-18) m. So, if you've a theory predicitng that the electron has a
non-zero size of, say 10^(-20) m, your observations neither contradict
nor support such theory. That's all there is to it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
02 Jul 2005 04:43:19 PM |
|
|
Guys, correct me if I'm wrong but I think Gribbin is simply referring
to convensional wisdom like Blackbody Radiation, etc. without adding
his own theory or model. In Blackbody Radiation. The results can be
explained by the fact that electromagnetic wave energy is distributed
in particle lumps called quanta (that's why it is made to appear
"energy in the field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously, as in the classical picture" (by this I think he meant
the Maxwell Distribution that uses statistical law in the determination
of the behavior of moving air molecules inside a container) and it is
difficult to make em energy at high frequency due to more exertion or
effort (and the EM wave use qunta lumps). This is how I understood
Gribbin text.In his books. He presents mainstream ideas without
adding his own (but correct me if I'm wrong).
p6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
01 Jul 2005 05:31:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <VMfxe.15437$ro.15236@fed1read02>, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> writes:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (1 Jul 2005 07:37:34 -0700) it happened "p6"
<atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1120228654.079672.4520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Do you or do you not agree? And why? But, as the
discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in
particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for
the existence of particles. Quantum physics say the energy in the
field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood in e = h.v
that v (or frequency) can take any value.
In unbound systems.
So e can have any value.
In unbound systems.
But Gribbin (who p6 is quoting) also talks about "a general
matter field, filling the Universe, which is described by the wave
equations of an electron".
If that's actually a correct way of looking at reality, there are
no unbound particles anywhere. But it also means that all particles
everywhere, including those we ordinarily consider "free" (far from
other bodies) must exhibit quantized energy levels.
Well, assuming a particle bound in a box of the size of the universe,
estimate the spacing of the energy levels.
But they don't seem to, which means either Gribbin is wrong, or
it's so subtle we haven't noticed it.
Again, assuming a particle bound in a box of the size of the
universe, estimate the spacing of the energy levels.
Talk about any possible effects is *meaningless* until the magnitude
of the effects is estimated. Saying "either it is continuous or it is
quantized" is presenting a false dichotomy, when you cannot
distinguish between "continuous" and "quantized with very small
spacings".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Maybe we are just confused by what Gribbin is simply saying.
I think he is just saying that energy is quantized when you are
talking of collective fields with their corresponding quanta. In
unbound particle, for example a free electron, it can have any value
of say kinetic energy. Perhaps the field of a particle is more free
than one entrapped in a mother field.
What do you say.
p6
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
01 Jul 2005 04:13:05 PM |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (1 Jul 2005 07:37:34 -0700) it happened "p6"
<atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1120228654.079672.4520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Do you or do you not agree? And why? But, as the
discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in
particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for
the existence of particles. Quantum physics say the energy in the
field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place,
continuously,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood in e = h.v
that v (or frequency) can take any value.
In unbound systems.
So e can have any value.
In unbound systems.
But Gribbin (who p6 is quoting) also talks about "a general
matter field, filling the Universe, which is described by the wave
equations of an electron".
If that's actually a correct way of looking at reality, there are
no unbound particles anywhere. But it also means that all particles
everywhere, including those we ordinarily consider "free" (far from
other bodies) must exhibit quantized energy levels.
But they don't seem to, which means either Gribbin is wrong, or
it's so subtle we haven't noticed it.
Either that, or I've missed a possibility.
Mark L. Fergerson
Maybe Gribbin mentioned it because of his background. And he
is no layman. At the back of the book, it says:
"John Gribbin holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from Cambridge
University. His books, which have won awards in both Britain
and the United States, include the bestselling In Search of
Schroedinger's Cat, Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science (with
Michael White), and Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search of
Reality. He lives in Sussex with his wife, Mary, who is
also a science writer, and their two sons."
He has written about 14 books. I only got two. The other
one is "In Search of Schroedinger Cat".
Bjoern mentioned some of his concept (as mentioned in other
thread) is wrong. Let's see how Bjoern can debunk an
astrophysicist with Ph.D. Note Gribbin is no crank.
p6
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
01 Jul 2005 04:28:50 PM |
|
|
To continue above. There is a footnote at the end of this sentence
"For example, there is a general matter field, filling the Universe,
which is described by the wave equations of the electron. 2"
below in the "2" Griffin mentions:
"Strictly speaking, the wave function describes electron-positron
pairs, more of this shortly."
It is after reading this book by Gribbin that I was inspired to get
Griffiths "Introduction to Elementary Particles" which has
12 reviews in amazon with full 5 stars. It is advanced layman
book (with good amount of conceptual facts and supporting
mathematics) and recommended for all interested in particle physics.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471603864/qid=1120253218/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-0435079-4662200?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
03 Jul 2005 12:22:03 AM |
|
|
that is exactly *the point*
you cant just hide behind some abstart
words or concepts!!
how is the field working??
that is the key question
and once you dont answer it
you will not go far!
sio lately a showed that the existing
concept of
the foield is exerting force (attraction force!!)
by exchanging photons ' is ......... idiotic!!
from basic physics logic
photons tha tmove in strigh tlines cannot do it-no way!!
unless you are jungairing youself and others
untill they loos their hands and legs
and say ok i got it !!
but that is cheating!!
and i repeat my claim that as a result of all the above-
a particle that moves naturally in a closed
or curved path
is inevitable!!
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
03 Jul 2005 01:19:08 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
that is exactly *the point*
you cant just hide behind some abstart
words or concepts!!
how is the field working??
that is the key question
and once you dont answer it
you will not go far!
sio lately a showed that the existing
concept of
the foield is exerting force (attraction force!!)
by exchanging photons ' is ......... idiotic!!
from basic physics logic
photons tha tmove in strigh tlines cannot do it-no way!!
unless you are jungairing youself and others
untill they loos their hands and legs
and say ok i got it !!
but that is cheating!!
and i repeat my claim that as a result of all the above-
a particle that moves naturally in a closed
or curved path
is inevitable!!
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------
What if the entire universe is a closed/curved path?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
03 Jul 2005 06:26:03 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120371548.624568.84500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What if the entire universe is a closed/curved path?
What if it isn't? Does the current evidence imply it is closed, open, or
flat?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
03 Jul 2005 03:58:07 AM |
|
|
indeed if you look at galaxies it is sort of
spirals!!
but that as well is at theend of the day
because of a bsic very basic particles that move naturally
in a closed circle
the experimental data shows that even galaxies are 'expanding'
but they do it afaik instright outwads lines
from one point say of the gig bang radially in stright lines right ??
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Particles as Energetic Bits of Fields |
03 Jul 2005 05:18:13 PM |
|
|
I think the curves are in space not the particles!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
