| 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: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
29 Aug 2005 01:47:25 PM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
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;
[snip crap]
Short explanation, git.
"The mass of the photon" Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 77-130 (2005)
"New Experimental Limit on the Photon Rest Mass with a Rotating
Torsion Balance" Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 081801 (2003)
Empirical photon mass is less than 10^(-51) grams; less than
7x10^(-19) eV.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 05:18:35 AM |
|
|
al, the term "massive photon" is found in most standard model texts
W.N. Cottingham and D.A. Greenwood, An introduction to the standard
model of particle physics, (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge,1998)
i'll be interested in your refs to the latest upper limit for the
photon's mass; i am aware of R. Lakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. (80), 9, 1826
(1998), who gives the limit as 1.4 * 10^(-51) kg, thank you
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
11 Sep 2005 03:53:14 AM |
|
|
hi old parrot (and crook as well)
i thought you daid once
that the mass of the photon is
*theoretically zero*
if so there is nothing to look for it experimentally!!
Y.P
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
29 Aug 2005 05:56:36 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
p6 and potte
are the same person
[snip]
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.
breaking the bond requires an input of energy, and does not emit
radiation. *Forming* the bond can result in emission of radiation, the
exact opposite of what you have just said. How do you explain this?
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.
in entanglement, there are *two* photons emitted in opposite
directions, not one stretched one. It is known that there are two via
conservation of energy, spin, and the fact that you detect two photons.
Wouldn't separating your "photonic nuclei" require an energy input? If
they are oppositely charged, and become separated, shouldn't they at
some stage come back to eachother due to the restoring force and bounce
around? What is the energy needed as a function of separating distance?
Would each nucleus become redshifted as they separate, due to the
increasing energy stored in the subphotonic bond, or how is wavelength
determined any more?
If the photonic nuclei have become separated over a distance of many
metres or kilometres, will they be affected by an external
electric/magnetic field? If so, this could be a test of your
hypothesis, do an entanglement experiment with a high electric field,
and see if the photon path deviates with field strength.
br
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 04:24:01 AM |
|
|
actually i would luuuvvv to be able to produce plots like you
referenced. to be able to do this inside SFT will take a major major
coding effort, maybe in another decade there might be a similar
ability. i must talk to mcneal schwindler (the EMAS people)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 06:39:07 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
[irrelevant]
this could have been a follow up to the previous-previous post, but not
to the post you actually followed up to. The questions asked were more
conceptual, rather than ultra-detailed. Seems like I'll have to repost
them:
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.
breaking the bond requires an input of energy, and does not emit
radiation. *Forming* the bond can result in emission of radiation, the
exact opposite of what you have just said. How do you explain this?
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.
in entanglement, there are *two* photons emitted in opposite
directions, not one stretched one. It is known that there are two via
conservation of energy, spin, and the fact that you detect two photons.
Wouldn't separating your "photonic nuclei" require an energy input? If
they are oppositely charged, and become separated, shouldn't they at
some stage come back to eachother due to the restoring force and bounce
around? What is the energy needed as a function of separating distance?
Would each nucleus become redshifted as they separate, due to the
increasing energy stored in the subphotonic bond, or how is wavelength
determined any more?
If the photonic nuclei have become separated over a distance of many
metres or kilometres, will they be affected by an external
electric/magnetic field? If so, this could be a test of your
hypothesis, do an entanglement experiment with a high electric field,
and see if the photon path deviates with field strength.
br
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 06:50:27 AM |
|
|
Dr Photon wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
[irrelevant]
this could have been a follow up to the previous-previous post, but not
to the post you actually followed up to. The questions asked were more
conceptual, rather than ultra-detailed. Seems like I'll have to repost
them:
This seems to be a specialty of Mr. Fleming: posting answers to
questions which weren't asked in the post he replies to, and ignoring
the questions which actually were asked. He has tried this trick
already several times on me.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 12:01:27 PM |
|
|
a childish waste of time talking with you bjeorn; yuu're a dunderhead
who can't see beyond QFT.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 07:02:30 AM |
|
|
bjeorn, grow up!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 09:19:36 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
bjeorn, grow up!!
Says the one who keeps ignoring my arguments, and does not even bother
to spell my name right.
There is a saying about a pot and a kettle, maybe you know it...
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 12:08:44 PM |
|
|
bjoern, i'm so sorry please forgive me, i hope i didn't make you
wimper!! you poor poor thing how can you ever forgive me!! let me get
my violin out again, bjoern has a soft side!! he gets miffed if i
mispell his name!! o the inhumanity of it!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 12:11:12 PM |
|
|
can you see how seriously i take your efforts, bjeorn?? sorry bjoern!!
i take them about as seriously as you take mine; so??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 01:11:17 PM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
bjoern, i'm so sorry please forgive me, i hope i didn't make you
wimper!! you poor poor thing how can you ever forgive me!! let me get
my violin out again, bjoern has a soft side!! he gets miffed if i
mispell his name!! o the inhumanity of it!!
Don't even worry about that guy, Tony.
His English isn't good enough to really
understand subtleties. Plus, you can lead a
horse to water, but you can't make him
drink.
I have an electrical engineer who is
presently working on moving a magnet's
ends so they follow each other thusly:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/He.GIF
This is two orthogonal rotations linked
in a 1:2 ratio.
Once it gets going fast enough, if electrons
share this movement, we will know easily-enough.
You say mapping these linked rotations is
difficult? What do you want done?
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 03:30:09 PM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
bjoern, i'm so sorry please forgive me, i hope i didn't make you
wimper!! you poor poor thing how can you ever forgive me!! let me get
my violin out again, bjoern has a soft side!! he gets miffed if i
mispell his name!! o the inhumanity of it!!
Don't even worry about that guy, Tony.
His English isn't good enough to really
understand subtleties. Plus, you can lead a
horse to water, but you can't make him
drink.
I have an electrical engineer who is
presently working on moving a magnet's
ends so they follow each other thusly:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/He.GIF
This is two orthogonal rotations linked
in a 1:2 ratio.
Once it gets going fast enough, if electrons
share this movement, we will know easily-enough.
You say mapping these linked rotations is
difficult? What do you want done?
John
Thanks for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 06:29:48 PM |
|
|
many thanks john; that's really excellent; let me think about that kind
offer. can we get perspectives of that diagram (He.gif) for starters??
boy it's good to see there ARE people at this group who are interested
in doing some real reesearch!! what's really annoying is that the guy's
a strutting little inconsequencial peacock trying top flame those who
don't agree with his fascist views, representing many poeple who use
QFT who would like to know that there's a way through probability
densities and heisenberg inaccuracy. i wonder if graham bell, nicholas
tesla, or thomas edison, would look the gift horse in the mouth??
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 07:33:15 AM |
|
|
i'm sorry br, i'm in the middle of a lightning storm here in melbourne
and have lost the computer more than once; and you guys are grilling me
in wolf-packs!! let me think about your questions for a few hours, ok?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 11:59:09 AM |
|
|
do you get paid for this er 'work' bjeorn??
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
28 Aug 2005 11:17:07 PM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
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.
Wrong. If you propose some kind of subphotonic carrier force that
exchanges between the two photons. It has to travel at ten million
times the speed of light. Here's a passage from Aczel book
"Entanglement":
"But Gisin wanted to go much farther. First, he designed an experiment
by which entangled photons travelled a distance of 35 meters,
inside his laboratory.
His connections with the telephone companies allowed him to
enlist their enthusiastic support for an ambitious experiment. The
scale of the work would be unprecedented: Gisin conducted his
photon experiment not in air but within a fiber optical cable. And
the cable was laid from one location to another, 10.9 kilometers
(seven miles) away as the crow flies. Counting the actual distance
travelled, with all the bends and curvature of the cable, one riches
a total distance of 16 kilometers (10 miles). Gisin came to the
experiment with an open mind. He would have found either
outcome fascinating: a confirmation of quantum mechanics or
a result supporting Einstein and his colleagues. The result was
an overwhelming affirmation of entanglement, the "spooky
action at a distance," which Einstein so disliked. Bell's inequality
was once again used to provide strong support for nonlocality.
Because of the experimental setup, a signal from one end of
the cable to the other, telling one photon what setting the other
photon found, would have had to travel at ten million times the
speed of light".
Either Gibin is wrong (that is.. I hope those folks familiar with it
can share their view).. or there is a superluminal signal that travel
at billions of times the speed of light or reality is multidimensional
and space is kinda illusion, etc. Take your pick.
Hope you, TomGee and likes (like Lockyer, Sefton) would read
that book so you would know reality is weirder than you think
and classical model based on billiard balls behavior and dynamics
may not represent reality but just an approximation in macroscopic
eigenevents. This is also why physicists stick to quantum mechanics,
because of its breath of flexibilities in explaining so many things
and its elegance. This is also why you guys are most likely all wrong.
Although it is possible some of your concept form part of the Grand
Model where the causal mechanisms of all can be derived.
Physics I agree with you use "black box" where you input something
and use mathematical to derive at the facts. This means without
knowing why there is light duality and entanglement. Just deal
with the end result.
This is also why I understand why there are so many crackpots..
because they want to glimpse what is the causal mechanisms. It is
not bad to speculate as long as one doesn't ignore experimental
data. Many cranks just ignore them and hide the head under the
sand and became stuck in their dreamworld (such as Smart model
dude).
Anyway I wanna thank you Fleming for your presentation because
it inspires me to master quantum field theory which is applying
quantum physics to fields. We must understand QFT in all its
glory before we can know the "subtler" stuff.
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
28 Aug 2005 11:32:54 PM |
|
|
Potte wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
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.
Wrong. If you propose some kind of subphotonic carrier force that
exchanges between the two photons. It has to travel at ten million
times the speed of light. Here's a passage from Aczel book
"Entanglement":
"But Gisin wanted to go much farther. First, he designed an experiment
by which entangled photons travelled a distance of 35 meters,
inside his laboratory.
His connections with the telephone companies allowed him to
enlist their enthusiastic support for an ambitious experiment. The
scale of the work would be unprecedented: Gisin conducted his
photon experiment not in air but within a fiber optical cable. And
the cable was laid from one location to another, 10.9 kilometers
(seven miles) away as the crow flies. Counting the actual distance
travelled, with all the bends and curvature of the cable, one riches
a total distance of 16 kilometers (10 miles). Gisin came to the
experiment with an open mind. He would have found either
outcome fascinating: a confirmation of quantum mechanics or
a result supporting Einstein and his colleagues. The result was
an overwhelming affirmation of entanglement, the "spooky
action at a distance," which Einstein so disliked. Bell's inequality
was once again used to provide strong support for nonlocality.
Because of the experimental setup, a signal from one end of
the cable to the other, telling one photon what setting the other
photon found, would have had to travel at ten million times the
speed of light".
Either Gibin is wrong (that is.. I hope those folks familiar with it
can share their view).. or there is a superluminal signal that travel
at billions of times the speed of light or reality is multidimensional
and space is kinda illusion, etc. Take your pick.
Hope you, TomGee and likes (like Lockyer, Sefton) would read
that book so you would know reality is weirder than you think
and classical model based on billiard balls behavior and dynamics
may not represent reality but just an approximation in macroscopic
eigenevents. This is also why physicists stick to quantum mechanics,
because of its breath of flexibilities in explaining so many things
and its elegance. This is also why you guys are most likely all wrong.
Although it is possible some of your concept form part of the Grand
Model where the causal mechanisms of all can be derived.
Physics I agree with you use "black box" where you input something
and use mathematical to derive at the facts. This means without
knowing why there is light duality and entanglement. Just deal
with the end result.
This is also why I understand why there are so many crackpots..
because they want to glimpse what is the causal mechanisms. It is
not bad to speculate as long as one doesn't ignore experimental
data. Many cranks just ignore them and hide the head under the
sand and became stuck in their dreamworld (such as Smart model
dude).
Anyway I wanna thank you Fleming for your presentation because
it inspires me to master quantum field theory which is applying
quantum physics to fields. We must understand QFT in all its
glory before we can know the "subtler" stuff.
Potte
The implication from the experiment is that the "communication"
was instantaneous, and that it it had a finite speed that it was
greater than 10^7 c. Aczel pgs 234, 236-237. My copy of the book
is misprinted with pgs 234 and 235 reversed.
But let us not forget that confirming agreement between the two
locations cannot occur any faster than c. Moreover quantum
entanglement cannot be used for arbitrary communication which
remains constrained by the speed of light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
28 Aug 2005 11:47:31 PM |
|
|
The implication from the experiment is that the "communication"
was instantaneous, and that it it had a finite speed that it was
greater than 10^7 c. Aczel pgs 234, 236-237. My copy of the book
is misprinted with pgs 234 and 235 reversed.
But let us not forget that confirming agreement between the two
locations cannot occur any faster than c. Moreover quantum
entanglement cannot be used for arbitrary communication which
remains constrained by the speed of light.
at present level of technology which depends on HUP, no, i agree, but
with SFT, with NO HUP, you get a theory INSIDE the photon, and hence
our technology has to learn to use SFT to design instruments to reach
inside photon experimentally. once we do this THEN we might be able to
use subphotonic 'spooky action at a distance' to drive comms. (anyone
interested in this please contact me privately). (this also has
relevance to mental processes also)
the mass of the subphotonic field is the all important factor, we can
go arbitrarily small to increase the speed,to greater than 10^(7) c.
SFT claims (from the maths and the series form of forces within the
universe) that the field structure within the universe is FRACTAL. so
we get a field below photon (and who knows another field at a lower
domain??)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Potte" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
29 Aug 2005 05:53:25 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
The implication from the experiment is that the "communication"
was instantaneous, and that it it had a finite speed that it was
greater than 10^7 c. Aczel pgs 234, 236-237. My copy of the book
is misprinted with pgs 234 and 235 reversed.
But let us not forget that confirming agreement between the two
locations cannot occur any faster than c. Moreover quantum
entanglement cannot be used for arbitrary communication which
remains constrained by the speed of light.
at present level of technology which depends on HUP, no, i agree, but
with SFT, with NO HUP, you get a theory INSIDE the photon, and hence
our technology has to learn to use SFT to design instruments to reach
inside photon experimentally. once we do this THEN we might be able to
use subphotonic 'spooky action at a distance' to drive comms. (anyone
interested in this please contact me privately). (this also has
relevance to mental processes also)
the mass of the subphotonic field is the all important factor, we can
go arbitrarily small to increase the speed,to greater than 10^(7) c.
SFT claims (from the maths and the series form of forces within the
universe) that the field structure within the universe is FRACTAL. so
we get a field below photon (and who knows another field at a lower
domain??)
Your scheme seems to violate Special Relavity. If superluminal
signal is possible. It may be a private lines used by nature and not
accessible to our world using physical instruments. You may say
photonic travel is what SR describe and not subphotonic travel.
But it is still somewhat photonic. SR says going faster than
light can make time go backward. How do you deal with this,
any way to go around it?
Potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
29 Aug 2005 10:43:35 AM |
|
|
Your scheme seems to violate Special Relavity. If superluminal
signal is possible. It may be a private lines used by nature and not
accessible to our world using physical instruments. You may say
photonic travel is what SR describe and not subphotonic travel.
But it is still somewhat photonic. SR says going faster than
light can make time go backward. How do you deal with this,
any way to go around it?
i personally see relativity as one of the highlights of SFT. the
fields in SFT are called physical SPINORS, because the fields (in
general equilibria states) move in repeatedly periodic motions
including the more simpler cases of circles and ellipses, (not to
forget spirals or PARTS of curves where force carriers are involved);
the actual motions will be stochastic and involve random motions made
up of short accelerations due to all the collisions that are occurring,
very much like a gas model (e.g. drude's model of electrons in a
conductor). the idea i want to get across is a very random world like
einstein's brownian motion world. and this underlies all solutions to
the maxwell-lorentz equations. the circles and ellipses are
approximations to a much more jagged reality.
light moves in a TWO-SPINOR motion on general; in GR both are curved
e.g. a photon in outer space say moving from earth to sun, or sun to
earth. this photonic (spiral) motion as we now moves with the observed
speed of light. in a 'special' frame of reference, i.e. in a
terrestrial observatory, one of the curves becomes a 'straight line' to
all detectors, while we do NOT see the internal spinor motion; hence we
get all the relativistic effects such as time and distance dilation
BECAUSE THE PHOTON IS PERFORMING INTERNAL ROTATIONS (wanting to stress
the internal motions here);
when we come to the nucleus, we get ANOTHER level of 'relativity' due
to the fact taht there are now THREE spinor motions per quark, AND per
gluon, so we now get 'confinement' because of the third spinor degree
of freedom.
in SFT, we do NOT prescribe the speed of the photon INSIDE the atom,
because the self-field equations allow for planck's constant to be a
'variable of motion'. if you check out the hydrogen paper and you
follow the maths its turns out that the LHS of the equations are a
balance of the various components of energy for each particle (e.g the
\electron has four components, the electric and magnetic kinetic
energies, and the electric and magnetic potential energies), while the
RHS are quanta of photon energies that just turn out having planck's
constant!! so since planck's 'constant' can be variable, then so to can
the photon speeds vary if necessary.
this doesn't alter the OBSERVATION that light in free-space (not inside
an atom) has always been observed to be c (although there are reports
all the time of c possibly varying in various regions of the cosmos).
our EYES have been designed to observe, guess what, LIGHT, so our
senses are fine-tuned to light and small variations in frequency (due
to the internal rotations); all light hitting our retinas moves at c =
299.76 x 10^(8) m s^(-1)
that internal rotation or spinorial motion of the light reaching our
eyes gives us our sense of time. every rotation is what is measured by
the quartz crystals, so 'time' CANNOT go backwards, unless the
rotations suddenly reverse direction etc which hasn't been observed to
happen. time is equal to the internal photon rotations, and there is an
ionternal distance moved by the light due to its internal motions, so
"god's" time and distance are conserved as per relativity.
i personally think entropy and the second law of thermodynamics is
governed by a physical process outside of our own universe, a bit like
a biological living cell that obeys a cell cycle and undergoes a
direction of order and chaos dictated by the propagation of species
etc.
at the subphotonic level, say for example the particles taking part in
the 'spooky' field effect, we see that there is a SEPARATE relativity
due to the internal motions of the subphotonic particles but this speed
is NOT that of light but a different and faster velocity, due to the
smaller masses involved.
hope this helps, potte
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
29 Aug 2005 01:22:34 PM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
i personally see relativity as one of the highlights of SFT. the
fields in SFT are called physical SPINORS, because the fields (in
general equilibria states) move in repeatedly periodic motions
including the more simpler cases of circles and ellipses, (not to
forget spirals or PARTS of curves where force carriers are involved);
the actual motions will be stochastic and involve random motions made
up of short accelerations due to all the collisions that are occurring,
very much like a gas model (e.g. drude's model of electrons in a
conductor). the idea i want to get across is a very random world like
einstein's brownian motion world. and this underlies all solutions to
the maxwell-lorentz equations. the circles and ellipses are
approximations to a much more jagged reality.
So how do you explain the following:
"Direct observation of d-orbital holes and Cu-Cu bonding in Cu2O",
The first paragraph is free at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v401/n6748/abs/401049a0_fs.html
main experimental image at
http://cbed.mse.uiuc.edu/images/cu2o.gif
where he overlays the data with a box to show where the crystal is.
See also
"Tomographic imaging of molecular orbitals"
where the authors image the molecular N2 bonding orbital. The abstract
is at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7019/abs/nature03183_fs.html
and main figure can be found half way down at
http://cibernautes.com/didaclopez/944/2670/
figure caption I think approximately translates as
" One of the images obtained by the group of Villeneuve, which shows
the molecular orbital around the exterior of molecular N2, which
includes an amplitude region that encompasses both atoms and which is
unique. The images obtained coincide with the theoretical models of the
molecular orbital of diatomic nitrogen."
In other words, experiments have been made and not only do orbitals
exist, their wavefunctions look just as QM says they do.
Other orbital measurements such as:
*loads* of stuff on "electron momentum spectroscopy" (Google this), for
example
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/85007032/PDFSTART
and
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/momentum.pdf
and Google "photoelectron angular distribution", see for example
http://swpx28.sw.ehu.es/ricardo/papers/jpb_rdm02.pdf
and Google "photoelectron angular distribution fixed-in-space", for
example
www.iop.org/EJ/article/0953-4075/36/1/104/b301l4.pdf
and you can even time resolve them, for example
http://www.clf.rl.ac.uk/Reports/1998-1999/pdf/45.pdf
All of the above agree with (and imply) the QM description of orbitals,
as evaluated by the Schroedinger eqn.
Does your model reproduce the Schroedinger orbitals? From your site,
all I saw was a slinky going around on itself.
Even the Bohr model reproduces the hydrogen spectrum to 5 decimal
places (it fails as it doesn't account for the level splittings), hence
Bjoern's question as to how many decimal places you have.
[snip]
i personally think entropy and the second law of thermodynamics is
governed by a physical process outside of our own universe,
ermmm
hope this helps
ermmm
br
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 04:17:57 AM |
|
|
there's a lot there brian, thank you, i'll try to answer your questions
as best i can. i guess your asking me, "can SFT produce such orbital
plots?" and secondly "these pistures don't appear rondom, so what's
with the comments about a random gas?" if this is not the intent of
your questions then let me know, but without being a mind reader i'll
assume that's what you're asking.
first, in SFT, there's a 'region of stability' wherein electrons can
'wiggle about' a bit and orbit along non-circular, or non-elliptic
paths. but even more so, photons are rapidly hitting the electrons (or
protons) and so the electron is really bumping around the stable region
of its motion. so this is just a bit of statistical mechanics as per
QM, so the picture is quite similar between SFT and QM.
but the maths we use is a simplification of this physical reality; both
SFT and QFT, use simpified equations of motions.
as to your question, can SFT produce orbital pictures as shown, the
answer is YES, but it is a derived output; first we plot the motions
using a suitable "delta time", or time increment. then we just use
this like a probability density in exactly the same way as QM.
i don't know what a 'slinky' is you might have to translate that one.
no the SFT is NOT a schroedinger method; for a start, it is
relativistically correct, so it more like the dirac eqn
Even the Bohr model reproduces the hydrogen spectrum to 5 decimal
places (it fails as it doesn't account for the level splittings), hence
Bjoern's question as to how many decimal places you have.
asctually bjeorn was asking about the bohr magnetron which takes
"years" of supercomuting time and thousands and thousands of Feynam
diagrams to compute to any accuracy; i answered by stating that using
the simplified hydrogen model (a point-mass proton instead of a
three-quark proton) i got prel;iminary results about 1-2 places off the
'correct answer'; i was pretty impressed by this MAPLE calculation 'cos
it can be improved once the proton model is improved.
but have no doubts, SFT is the first model of any kind to obtain ACTUAL
motions, because of the heisenberg uncertainty principle which results
from the use of point-point fields. ( iwill have to explain this
centre-of-motion concept further for you)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 06:36:09 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
there's a lot there brian
Brendan actually (as in my email address)
, thank you, i'll try to answer your questions
as best i can. i guess your asking me, "can SFT produce such orbital
plots?" and secondly "these pistures don't appear rondom, so what's
with the comments about a random gas?" if this is not the intent of
your questions then let me know, but without being a mind reader i'll
assume that's what you're asking.
well basically as follows: the first ref images d-orbitals in Cu2O,
shown in red and blue (they even measured the positive and negative
phase information!), the second shows the bonding orbital in N2 (also
with the positive and negative phase). Do SFT orbitals look like these?
first, in SFT, there's a 'region of stability' wherein electrons can
'wiggle about' a bit and orbit along non-circular, or non-elliptic
paths.
so you're saying SFT orbits are fundamentally circles and ellipses? ie
like a Bohr orbit?
but even more so, photons are rapidly hitting the electrons (or
protons) and so the electron is really bumping around the stable region
of its motion. so this is just a bit of statistical mechanics as per
QM, so the picture is quite similar between SFT and QM.
so how do you get zeroes? Note that the d-orbitals have four zeroes and
the N2 orbitals have two zeroes, centred on the nuclei. How do you get
these zeroes from elliptical orbits?
but the maths we use is a simplification of this physical reality; both
SFT and QFT, use simpified equations of motions.
still, even for a hydrogen atom, what do you get? Please calculate for
a 2p orbital or a 3d orbital.
as to your question, can SFT produce orbital pictures as shown, the
answer is YES, but it is a derived output; first we plot the motions
using a suitable "delta time", or time increment. then we just use
this like a probability density in exactly the same way as QM.
i don't know what a 'slinky' is you might have to translate that one.
a slinky was a coiled toy that could flip end to end downstairs.
Basically just a spiral. The point being that a spiral does *not*
reproduce the Schroedinger orbitals, even after jiggling and averaging
to get the 1s sphere. Your spiral will have a zero in the centre,
whereas a 1s orbital does not. So it looks like you are not going to
reproduce the orbitals. I imagine the problem is worse for higher
orbitals. What does an SFT 2p orbital look like? Do you get the zero
plane?
no the SFT is NOT a schroedinger method; for a start, it is
relativistically correct, so it more like the dirac eqn
the Dirac orbitals are practically identical to the Schroedinger ones
for hydrogen. I am suspicious of what the SFT ones are like, especially
after seeing your spiral orbit.
Even the Bohr model reproduces the hydrogen spectrum to 5 decimal
places (it fails as it doesn't account for the level splittings), hence
Bjoern's question as to how many decimal places you have.
asctually bjeorn was asking about the bohr magnetron which takes
"years" of supercomuting time and thousands and thousands of Feynam
diagrams to compute to any accuracy; i answered by stating that using
the simplified hydrogen model (a point-mass proton instead of a
three-quark proton) i got prel;iminary results about 1-2 places off the
'correct answer'; i was pretty impressed by this MAPLE calculation 'cos
it can be improved once the proton model is improved.
ok, he did ask about that, but he did also ask about the fine structure
splitting in the hydrogen spectrum. In any case, I'll ask it here
anyway - how do you account for fine structure/hyperfine splitting/Lamb
shift ? What values do you get?
but have no doubts, SFT is the first model of any kind to obtain ACTUAL
motions, because of the heisenberg uncertainty principle which results
from the use of point-point fields. ( iwill have to explain this
centre-of-motion concept further for you)
as was already mentioned, this is an assertion. Bohr also could draw
motions of circles and ellipses, and reproduce the hydrogen spectrum,
and noones going to go back to that. What experiment do you cite to
back this up? I can't imagine one. Reproduce the orbitals first, even
if it does take jiggling and everaging, as at least we have experiments
to compare to.
br
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 07:29:43 AM |
|
|
so how do you get zeroes? Note that the d-orbitals >have four zeroes and
the N2 orbitals have two zeroes, centred on the nuclei. >How do you get
these zeroes from elliptical orbits?
zeroes aren't a problem with SFT's direct substiution maths; or more
correctly, they aren't the problem they are with integral equation
methods.
this is a result of the maths of obtaining the fields directly rather
than getting the fields from the potentials
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 09:23:24 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
so how do you get zeroes? Note that the d-orbitals >have four zeroes and
the N2 orbitals have two zeroes, centred on the nuclei. >How do you get
these zeroes from elliptical orbits?
zeroes aren't a problem with SFT's direct substiution maths;
Well, then please demonstrate how you obtain them.
or more
correctly, they aren't the problem they are with integral equation
methods.
What "integral equation methods" are you talking about for which the
zeroes pose a problem?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 08:17:39 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
so how do you get zeroes? Note that the d-orbitals >have four zeroes and
the N2 orbitals have two zeroes, centred on the nuclei. >How do you get
these zeroes from elliptical orbits?
zeroes aren't a problem with SFT's direct substiution maths; or more
correctly, they aren't the problem they are with integral equation
methods.
this is a result of the maths of obtaining the fields directly rather
than getting the fields from the potentials
we might be slightly at cross purposes here, so I'll clarify to be
sure:
I wasn't implying that a zero is a mathematically unstable point, or
the calculation goes to infinity, or is meaningless.
I was asking the following: take a 2p orbital. Both Schroedinger and
SFT say that such an orbital exists. So what do they look like if you
plot them side by side? Do all the randomization, jiggling and
averaging that you think appropriate to SFT, and plot them up. The
Schroedinger orbital has a zero plane, does the SFT orbital have one?
My suspicion is that after all that randomization, the zero will have
got smeared out and you just get a fuzzy blob. What do *you* say you
get? Can we see the plot?
Even taking the non-randomized orbit, does it have an elliptical spiral
shape? If it has then averaging lots of these will *never* reproduce
the zero plane, and you have a big problem. The N2 experiment
*measures* the zeroes, if for N2 your theory predicts a fuzzy egg
shaped orbital, then it is discredited. If you can't get the 2p zero
plane, then I don't think you will ever get the N2 zeroes.
br
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 09:25:11 AM |
|
|
Dr Photon wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
so how do you get zeroes? Note that the d-orbitals >have four zeroes and
the N2 orbitals have two zeroes, centred on the nuclei. >How do you get
these zeroes from elliptical orbits?
zeroes aren't a problem with SFT's direct substiution maths; or more
correctly, they aren't the problem they are with integral equation
methods.
this is a result of the maths of obtaining the fields directly rather
than getting the fields from the potentials
we might be slightly at cross purposes here, so I'll clarify to be
sure:
I wasn't implying that a zero is a mathematically unstable point, or
the calculation goes to infinity, or is meaningless.
I was asking the following: take a 2p orbital. Both Schroedinger and
SFT say that such an orbital exists. So what do they look like if you
plot them side by side? Do all the randomization, jiggling and
averaging that you think appropriate to SFT, and plot them up. The
Schroedinger orbital has a zero plane, does the SFT orbital have one?
Judging from what Mr. Fleming said, he has not the faintest clue what
"zero plane" actually means here... Good luck.
My suspicion is that after all that randomization, the zero will have
got smeared out and you just get a fuzzy blob. What do *you* say you
get? Can we see the plot?
I predict that he will use further obfuscation, further misunderstand
or misrepresent you, and never actually bother to answer this question
in any way. For sure, he won't show a plot.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: SFT and entanglement |
30 Aug 2005 07:10:24 AM |
|
|
actually, br, 'no', to your first question, SFT doesn't only consider
circles and ellipses, it can be as numerical as QFT,
seems like according to you i'm damned if i do and damned if i don't
eh?
without HUP to hinder it, SFT will be able to calculate actual MOTIONS
br, do you understand the significance of this next to QFT? you DO want
better understanding of physics don't you?
both SFT/QFT are analytic/numerical techniques, so i can only say that
at present, the preponderance of physicists, engineers, scientists, use
QFT.
but you must see the shallowness of your argument; if we take your
opinion to the extreme, we'd still be rubbing sticks together to make
fire!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
