| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"tony fleming" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2005 10:16:03 PM |
| Object: |
SFT and entanglement |
p6 and potte have both asked me to explain photon entanglementvia SFT,
so here goes.
it's important to realise that the SFT photon is massive; it ends up
having a similar spectroscopic behaviour to the hydrogen atom, hence it
has a balmer-like analytic equation for its spectroscopy in fact, but
it is assumed to consist of two oppositely charged sub-particles of
equal mass to fit the observed phenomena such as a continuous energy
spectrum etc, etc and much more besides.
so if there IS in fact a subphotonic structure AND it has fields like
the hydrogen atom, these fields must be incredibly tiny!! iun the same
way that the photon is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, so too,
these subphotonic fields are quanta of the photonic field. so really
really small.
now if we have two ATOMS joined at the hip and then displace them, a
little bit (not beyond their 'elastic' ability to stay bonded) we will
still have aa EM field between them, the photons will still be
excahnged between the atomic nuclei. finally if we break the atomic
bond between the two the photons will fly off into the cosmos somewhere
else.
now if we look at this same type of effect at the subphotonic level, it
appears to me like the photonic 'nuclei' can be shifted a long way
before the 'photonic bond' is broken.
.
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
08 Sep 2005 05:14:50 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
more fascism; if you don't undestand a point of view, it MUST be
wrong!!
No. If something is wrong, it is wrong. It's that simple.
rho = q/V does *not* describe a collection of discrete particles.
If you don't understand this very simple, totally basic fact, then
you are really not qualified to discuss any physics.
think about a charged atomic particle such as the proton and its
internal structure; does it have a volume?
Yes, a proton does have a volume. So what? This has precisely nothing
to do with my argument above.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 06:01:05 AM |
|
|
think about the proton; it has an internal structure; afar we see a
point-particle; as we get closer, we "zoom-in" to see three quarks
buzzing around; it has a volume; it turns out NOT to be a delta, but a
highly structured entity that the standard model and particle physics
attempt to understand; they can only get "shape functions" just like
brendan's orbitals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 06:24:43 AM |
|
|
think about the proton; it has an internal structure; afar we see a
point-particle; as we get closer, we "zoom-in" to see three quarks
buzzing around;
*******
Oh, really? "We" can see the 3 quarks????? You need to disinguish
between observation and speculation, sanity and insanity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 07:27:13 AM |
|
|
we "see" quarks going very quickly in terms of frequency compared with
the electron of QED and EMSFT. its "shape function" is akin to an
electron's orbital
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 08:03:07 PM |
|
|
i think you'll find the standard model accepts that the proton has 3
quarks in its structure and that these are very energetic compared with
the electrons. so there IS a structure, and it DOES have a certain
volume. hence SFT's eqn 1a is totally correct despite all the
porotestations coming from a certain quarter!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 08:13:27 PM |
|
|
but anyway i'm here to get you guys to grill me; you're the geriller's
ok?? so you are part of the process of "peer-review", a pre-form before
i venture into journals with this work. i have been published in
physics essays and within the biophysics arena so far, but it appears
to my thinking that it has stood up so far to anything you thrown at
it, so, so far so good, keep firing away with your stones, gentlemen,
oh and you too bjoern. LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
08 Sep 2005 04:02:40 AM |
|
|
Tony, how do you like my New Model?
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
08 Sep 2005 09:20:41 AM |
|
|
i'm leading with my chin here Autymn. What new model??
cheers Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
11 Sep 2005 01:19:46 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
i'm leading with my chin here Autymn. What new model??
It's in the "gimme money" thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
12 Sep 2005 02:09:39 AM |
|
|
all the men of the earth had perished except for a few old warlords who
sat around in their once pristine fortresses; now in the post
apocalyptic world, these edifices were skeletons of their former
selves; no one came; no one was alive who could come; but these old
warriors just cried softy to the dead who lay scattered around "Gimme
money!!"
autymn, we need health and energy, jobs and an aim for our own
betterment, money is not important!!
cheers Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
13 Sep 2005 08:07:48 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
all the men of the earth had perished except for a few old warlords who
sat around in their once pristine fortresses; now in the post
apocalyptic world, these edifices were skeletons of their former
selves; no one came; no one was alive who could come; but these old
warriors just cried softy to the dead who lay scattered around "Gimme
money!!"
autymn, we need health and energy, jobs and an aim for our own
betterment, money is not important!!
Money is credit, for such things, in print. So are you going to read
my thread or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
13 Sep 2005 10:06:42 PM |
|
|
sorry, how do you search for it within the group?
didn't realise you were being more than sarky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
14 Sep 2005 09:46:02 PM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
sorry, how do you search for it within the group?
didn't realise you were being more than sarky.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
08 Sep 2005 05:23:32 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
i think you'll find the standard model accepts that the proton has 3
quarks in its structure
Actually, additionally to the three quarks of the naive parton model,
there are infinitely many sea quarks in the proton.
and that these are very energetic compared with
the electrons. so there IS a structure, and it DOES have a certain
volume. hence SFT's eqn 1a is totally correct despite all the
porotestations coming from a certain quarter!!
That the proton has a volume has nothing at all to do with my argument
that rho = q/V does *not* describe a collection of discrete particles.
Let's consider a spherical particle with radius R, charge q and a
homogenous charge distribution, whose position is described by
\vec{x}(t). Then the charge density is
\rho(\vec{r},t) = \theta(|\vec{r}-\vec{x}(t)| - R) q/(4 pi R^3/3)
(I hope you know the Heaviside step function \theta ?)
If you have a collection of such particles, with charges q_i, radii
R_i, and position \vec{x}_i(t), then the charge density is
\rho(\vec{r},t) = \sum_i \theta(|\vec{r}-\vec{x}_i(t)| - R_i)
q_i/(4 pi R_i^3/3)
I think you will agree with me that this has precisely nothing to do
with your expression rho = q/V?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
08 Sep 2005 09:23:22 AM |
|
|
but hey!! let's NOT consider a spherical particle!! lets consider a
particle with substructure, NOT just a heaviside function!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
08 Sep 2005 08:41:19 PM |
|
|
so the use of a fractal substructure allows us to avoid any discussion
about its charge density until post solution, if we want to.
the other nice thing about this formulation is that the use of
centre-of-motion avoids the singularity issue at any origin, this is
why i'm saying put it inside QFT and you do away with any
renormalization issues. (again its a simple geometricconcept, this
time avoiding having the fields at a zero!!
(hey, did i notice a 'nice' bjoern coming out under that viking
costume?? can't be!!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
09 Sep 2005 03:22:34 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
so the use of a fractal substructure allows us to avoid any discussion
about its charge density until post solution, if we want to.
Huh??? Why on earth should this follow???
the other nice thing about this formulation is that the use of
centre-of-motion avoids the singularity issue at any origin,
Well, if the particle has a substructure, there does not need to be a
singularity.
this is why i'm saying put it inside QFT and you do away with any
renormalization issues. (again its a simple geometricconcept, this
time avoiding having the fields at a zero!!
(hey, did i notice a 'nice' bjoern coming out under that viking
costume?? can't be!!)
You get what you give. If you show signs of actually listening to my
arguments, I can be nice. Unfortunately, you seldom do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
09 Sep 2005 03:20:55 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
but hey!! let's NOT consider a spherical particle!! lets consider a
particle with substructure, NOT just a heaviside function!!
*sigh* You *still* do not get my point.
O.k., let's consider particles with a substructure. Let's say the
charge density of these particles is described by rho_i(\vec{x}),
where \vec{x} is a position vector in a coordinate system whose origin
is at the center-of-charge of the respective particle.
Then if you have a collection of such particles, whose positions are
described by \vec{x}_i(t), the total charge density is
\rho(\vec{r},t) = \sum_i \rho_i(\vec{r}-\vec{x}_i(t)}
This looks even *less* than you rho = q/V.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 06:38:54 AM |
|
|
when i say see i mean "see" as in observe using the methods of particle
physics; doesn't the proton have an internal structure? doesn't it have
a certain volume?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 06:19:06 AM |
|
|
this particle has a FRACTAL nature. just like the photon btw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
08 Sep 2005 05:15:35 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
think about the proton; it has an internal structure; afar we see a
point-particle; as we get closer, we "zoom-in" to see three quarks
buzzing around; it has a volume; it turns out NOT to be a delta, but a
highly structured entity that the standard model and particle physics
attempt to understand; they can only get "shape functions" just like
brendan's orbitals.
I agree with all that, but this *still* has *nothing* to do with my
argument that
rho = q/V
does *not* describe a collection of discrete particles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
05 Sep 2005 12:07:04 AM |
|
|
affect
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
05 Sep 2005 07:03:35 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
[snip]
for some reason, i chose to put the charge density not as rho as your
eqns above, but in the trivial form of 1a.
Apparently you *still* miss my point. My point is *precisely* that
this "trivial form" you use is *wrong*. This form does *not* describe
the system you claim to describe (a set of discrete (point) charges),
directly above the equations. Instead, the form you use describes
a space which is *homogeneously* filled with charge.
now this is NEVER used in the subsequent analysis.
I'll believe you on that.
But why should I think that the subsequent analysis has any value if
you even fail to get my argument above, even after I repeated it
several times?
it is replaced immediately by a "suitable
field form" (see my eqn 2); this field form was used by von hippell in
his derivation of the herzian far-field energy density (i'll give you
the exact ref if you need it) which i used in my "zero-radiation"
derivation:
E =q*exp(j*phi)*r_hat/(4*pi*eps0*r^2)
so we continue with this field form and another for the H-field that is
compliant with 1b; etc, etc.
I have asked you about 10 times now what exactly you mean with "field
*form*". You *still* have not told me.
so this version of 1a is correct as it stands where we define a
point-charge to have a volume (which is messy)
Oh my goodness. You don't see a contradiction between "point" and
"volume"?
And no, even for a "point" charge with a non-zero volume, this version
of 1a *still* is not correct. It would *only* be correct if the
"point" charge covered the whole space, homogeneously!!!
so it probably should be
amended to comply with jackson's version and yours, so thank you.
notice that this does'nt effect the results in any way whatsoever.
See above. I don't trust the analysis of someone who fails to
understand such a *very* basic point.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
05 Sep 2005 10:41:25 AM |
|
|
bjoern, you have been asked to justify the heuristic nature of QFT's
"quantization" and how this field form is coulomb-like and you won't
answer.
it is replaced immediately by a "suitable
field form" (see my eqn 2); this field form was used by von hippell in
his derivation of the herzian far-field energy density (i'll give you
the exact ref if you need it) which i used in my "zero-radiation"
derivation:
E =3Dq*exp(j*phi)*r_hat/(4*pi*eps0=AD*r^2)
so we continue with this field form and another for the H-field that is
compliant with 1b; etc, etc.
I have asked you about 10 times now what exactly you mean with "field
*form*". You *still* have not told me.
actually i HAVE but you don't understand!! absolute waste of time
talking with someone so blind and bigotted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 04:00:31 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
bjoern, you have been asked to justify the heuristic nature of QFT's
"quantization" and how this field form is coulomb-like and you won't
answer.
Since you *still* have not told me what you actually *mean* with
"field form",
how *could* I answer that?
If you ask how QFT explains that the field of a point charge is
"Coulomb-like": try looking e.g. into Peskin's & Schroeder's book on
QFT. This is addressed there in some detail.
it is replaced immediately by a "suitable
field form" (see my eqn 2); this field form was used by von hippell in
his derivation of the herzian far-field energy density (i'll give you
the exact ref if you need it) which i used in my "zero-radiation"
derivation:
E =q*exp(j*phi)*r_hat/(4*pi*eps0*r^2)
so we continue with this field form and another for the H-field that is
compliant with 1b; etc, etc.
I have asked you about 10 times now what exactly you mean with "field
*form*". You *still* have not told me.
actually i HAVE
Err, where?
but you don't understand!! absolute waste of time
talking with someone so blind and bigotted
You have really stranges ideas about communication and discussion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
05 Sep 2005 10:43:58 AM |
|
|
what did i say today about the bohr magnetron then?? and what is your
reply?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
07 Sep 2005 04:01:20 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
what did i say today about the bohr magnetron then??
Lots. Nevertheless, you apparently still have not noticed that it is
called "magneton", not "magnetron".
and what is your reply?
That you apparently don't know what you are talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
05 Sep 2005 10:55:09 AM |
|
|
if we know the fields are quantized, and made up of photons, why does
QFT use a "syrup" field just like the old aether? isn't it composed of
particles?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
05 Sep 2005 10:58:30 AM |
|
|
and why does your wave function go out to infinity?? what physical
basis is this
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
05 Sep 2005 11:00:45 AM |
|
|
and why use the point-point distances between charge, what is physical
about that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
