Science > Physics > Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Aug 2004 04:58:52 AM |
| Object: |
Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge |
Assumed (I really mean assumed) that elementary particles are vortices
can one explain double slit interference?
Describing how a single vortex interferes with itself is not easy.
The beackground of the challenge is the following. Many string and
brane models look suspiciously similar to the old vortex models
(by Kelvin). (This is not meant to start a flame war!)
But in Kelvin's time, there was something missing:
there was no quantum theory, and thus no knowledge of
particle interference.
How would one combine, knowing what we know about particles today,
the idea of vortices with that of interference? Has anybody
published anything on the issue? Is the challange still open or
has somebody taken it up already?
Did/does any of the ether theories discuss the issue?
jon
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge |
14 Aug 2004 07:56:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Assumed (I really mean assumed) that elementary particles are vortices
can one explain double slit interference?
[snip crap]
Fermions and bosons give indistinguishable double slit
diffraction.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge |
16 Aug 2004 02:50:27 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<411E0BEE.9473F966@hate.spam.net>...
Assumed (I really mean assumed) that elementary particles are vortices
can one explain double slit interference?
Fermions and bosons give indistinguishable double slit
diffraction.
Of course, but this does not answer the challenge.
The original vortex model describes neither bosons
nor fermions, but non-quantized particles;
the question now is just that: can it be extended
or modified to model either fermions or bosons?
Or is this impossible?
This is not an easy issue. One could imagine that
a particle is modeled by a Planck-sized vortex,
provided that one finds a way to explain double slit
intereference. The rest of physics seems to be
backwards compatible. (One can, for example,
define vortices that behave as fermions and others
that behave as bosons.)
But intereference is *not* yet explainable.
Has anybody every looked into this up to now?
jon
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge |
16 Aug 2004 06:00:21 PM |
|
|
<pdkgpznxenvlya@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:828cb1da.0408152350.2aea1ddc@posting.google.com...
<snip repost>
Of course, but this does not answer the challenge.
The original vortex model describes neither bosons
nor fermions, but non-quantized particles;
the question now is just that: can it be extended
or modified to model either fermions or bosons?
Or is this impossible?
This is not an easy issue. One could imagine that
a particle is modeled by a Planck-sized vortex,
provided that one finds a way to explain double slit
intereference. The rest of physics seems to be
backwards compatible. (One can, for example,
define vortices that behave as fermions and others
that behave as bosons.)
But intereference is *not* yet explainable.
Has anybody every looked into this up to now?
It won't work. Vortices are mathematically descriptive of fluid flow in
fields, and require *distributed* properties of fields incompatible with the
basic QM properties of single "particles" which have essentially no
significant spatial extent.
One cannot meaningfully refer to the "curl" of a particle any more than one
can refer to the "mass" of a cyclone.
There *IS* a phenomenon that can be reduced either to particle
representations (for QM purposes) or to field representations, but it
requires fluency in tensor calculus to mathematically describe it. It
"falls" naturally out of the unified representation of Maxwell's Equations
in Relativistic Four-Space. One simply needs to be able to solve the
Electromagnetic Wave Equation in four dimensions.
Once that has been accomplished, then the difference between a particle and
a field is simply one of the choice of a reference frame.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "greywolf42" |
|
| Title: Re: Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge |
17 Aug 2004 10:14:20 AM |
|
|
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nuKdnYW5eNQ4o7zcRVn-vw@comcast.com...
<pdkgpznxenvlya@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:828cb1da.0408152350.2aea1ddc@posting.google.com...
<snip repost>
Of course, but this does not answer the challenge.
The original vortex model describes neither bosons
nor fermions, but non-quantized particles;
the question now is just that: can it be extended
or modified to model either fermions or bosons?
Or is this impossible?
This is not an easy issue. One could imagine that
a particle is modeled by a Planck-sized vortex,
provided that one finds a way to explain double slit
intereference. The rest of physics seems to be
backwards compatible. (One can, for example,
define vortices that behave as fermions and others
that behave as bosons.)
But intereference is *not* yet explainable.
Has anybody every looked into this up to now?
It won't work. Vortices are mathematically descriptive of fluid flow in
fields, and require *distributed* properties of fields incompatible with
the basic QM properties of single "particles" which have essentially no
significant spatial extent.
We happen to use fluid flow for real, physical fluids. Such as water --
which is made up of particles.
Green's identities must hold for our limited mathematics to work in those
comfortable 'field' interpretations. But that doesn't mean that there is
nothing particluate under the field.
{snip}
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge |
17 Aug 2004 03:33:43 PM |
|
|
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10i48qansq5fv94@corp.supernews.com...
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nuKdnYW5eNQ4o7zcRVn-vw@comcast.com...
<pdkgpznxenvlya@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:828cb1da.0408152350.2aea1ddc@posting.google.com...
<snip repost>
Of course, but this does not answer the challenge.
The original vortex model describes neither bosons
nor fermions, but non-quantized particles;
the question now is just that: can it be extended
or modified to model either fermions or bosons?
Or is this impossible?
This is not an easy issue. One could imagine that
a particle is modeled by a Planck-sized vortex,
provided that one finds a way to explain double slit
intereference. The rest of physics seems to be
backwards compatible. (One can, for example,
define vortices that behave as fermions and others
that behave as bosons.)
But intereference is *not* yet explainable.
Has anybody every looked into this up to now?
It won't work. Vortices are mathematically descriptive of fluid flow in
fields, and require *distributed* properties of fields incompatible with
the basic QM properties of single "particles" which have essentially no
significant spatial extent.
We happen to use fluid flow for real, physical fluids. Such as water --
which is made up of particles.
Green's identities must hold for our limited mathematics to work in those
comfortable 'field' interpretations. But that doesn't mean that there is
nothing particluate under the field.
The question posed by pdkgpznxenvlya is whether a vortex model can be used
to describe the behavior of an *INDIVIDUAL* particle: "One could imagine
that a particle is modeled by a Planck-sized vortex, provided that one finds
a way to explain double slit intereference."
While vortices can be applied to the *collective* behavior of a *LARGE*
(i.e. statistically significant) number of particles (even as thermodynamics
typically deals with particle collections number something on the order of
10^23 particles), the mathematics of a single vortex cannot be applied to a
single particle any more than thermodynamics can be applied to a single
hydrogen atom.
When one recognizes the fact that a vortex is characterizable as a structure
that reduces the entropy of a thermodynamic system, the inapplicability to
single particles (which possess *zero* entropy) should become apparent.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "greywolf42" |
|
| Title: Re: Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge |
18 Aug 2004 04:17:47 PM |
|
|
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yNidnXN_IsyU7b_cRVn-gg@comcast.com...
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10i48qansq5fv94@corp.supernews.com...
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nuKdnYW5eNQ4o7zcRVn-vw@comcast.com...
It won't work. Vortices are mathematically descriptive of fluid flow
in fields, and require *distributed* properties of fields incompatible
with the basic QM properties of single "particles" which have
essentially no significant spatial extent.
We happen to use fluid flow for real, physical fluids. Such as water --
which is made up of particles.
Green's identities must hold for our limited mathematics to work in
those comfortable 'field' interpretations. But that doesn't mean that
there is nothing particluate under the field.
The question posed by pdkgpznxenvlya is whether a vortex model can be used
to describe the behavior of an *INDIVIDUAL* particle: "One could imagine
that a particle is modeled by a Planck-sized vortex, provided that one
finds a way to explain double slit intereference."
I'm well aware of that, thank you. But the key is, that 'double slit
interference' identifies the particle in question as a particle of *matter.*
(i.e. an electron).
While vortices can be applied to the *collective* behavior of a *LARGE*
(i.e. statistically significant) number of particles (even as
thermodynamics typically deals with particle collections number something
on the order of 10^23 particles), the mathematics of a single vortex
cannot
be applied to a single particle any more than thermodynamics can be
applied to a single hydrogen atom.
The 'field' that you talk about may be merely a mathematical description of
an underlying, physical substrate of corpuscles -- i.e. Maxwell's
superfluid aether. (I use the term 'corpuscle' to denote the substantive
difference between an aether 'corpuscle' and a matter 'particle'). The
underlying corpuscles are very much smaller than the matter particle that is
a *result* of the dynamics of the aether. And Green's identities may well
describe the aether at that size.
When one recognizes the fact that a vortex is characterizable as a
structure that reduces the entropy of a thermodynamic system, the
inapplicability to single particles (which possess *zero* entropy)
should become apparent.
Only if you consider that the vortices are vortices *OF* the particle you
are discussing. Which is a poor strawman.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Vortices, elementary particles and interference - a challenge |
16 Aug 2004 09:05:16 AM |
|
|
Dear pdkgpznxenvlya:
<pdkgpznxenvlya@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:828cb1da.0408152350.2aea1ddc@posting.google.com...
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<411E0BEE.9473F966@hate.spam.net>...
Assumed (I really mean assumed) that elementary particles are
vortices
can one explain double slit interference?
Fermions and bosons give indistinguishable double slit
diffraction.
Of course, but this does not answer the challenge.
The original vortex model describes neither bosons
nor fermions, but non-quantized particles;
the question now is just that: can it be extended
or modified to model either fermions or bosons?
Or is this impossible?
This is not an easy issue. One could imagine that
a particle is modeled by a Planck-sized vortex,
provided that one finds a way to explain double slit
intereference. The rest of physics seems to be
backwards compatible. (One can, for example,
define vortices that behave as fermions and others
that behave as bosons.)
But intereference is *not* yet explainable.
Has anybody every looked into this up to now?
Not in direct answer to your question, but molecules larger than C60
buckyballs have been made to self-interfere. "Quantum" is not so much a
size...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
