Uncentity Principle

[edonkoh]

identify the flaw in uncentainty relation for (ΔΦ*ΔLz)

[ed van der meulen]

The Heisenberg uncertaincy is statistical.

But ask mathematicians about statistics. Always we need a "mass" under it.

Also for a quark. What is that "mass". Maybe you can yuse your own brain as well. We also thought that the world was flat some years ago.

For me the experement shows that the Heisenberg uncerianty is roughly right.

Do you also walk precise and eat precise.

The heisenberg uncertainty is a margin.

You could google for - margins everywhere

And then a warm drink for it's cold here.

ed van de meulen

[Albers]

Could you clue me as to cap PHI? There is weirdness in pseudovectors, I know. Does the flaw have to do with quantization of Lz?

[Cerveny]

Imagine a measuring of any particle’s position. The finest position you want, the harder (shorter wave length) (for example) photons you need. The harder photons you use, the bigger impulse measured particle accepts and moves. So you are loosing an information about particles original velocity...

[Epsilon=One]

Imagine a measuring of any particle’s position. The finest position you want, the harder (shorter wave length) (for example) photons you need. The harder photons you use...What do you mean by "harder"?; does it have anything to do with mass or are you referring to just the speed of "motion."

[Cerveny]

What do you mean by "harder"?; does it have anything to do with mass or are you referring to just the speed of "motion."
There are not any photons in fact, there are only exhibitions of el-mag radiation. “The harder photon” it means using shorter wave, more energetic el-mag radiation. Its energy is inversely proportional to wave length.

[Epsilon=One]

There are not any photons in fact, there are only exhibitions of el-mag radiation.What do you mean there "are not any photons"? Why can't "exhibitions of el-mag radiation" be photons?

How do you define electromagnetic radiation that it doesn't have "photon"-like properties such as behaving as a particle? I don't like either word: electric or magnetic unless you can define how they relate to "light."

What creates "exhibitions of el-mag radiation"? How does it propagate? How does it acquire the properties of mass? Where does it go?

“The harder photon” it means using shorter wave, more energetic el-mag radiation. Its energy is inversely proportional to wave length.In English, "harder photon" does not seem an appropriate description; particularly, if you believe: "There are not any photons in fact..."

[Cerveny]

What do you mean there "are not any photons"? Why can't "exhibitions of el-mag radiation" be photons?

I mean "Photons are not any real localized particle. Exhibitions of el-mag radiation are called (for simplicity) impacts of photons "

Imagine a source of el-mag radiation - for example the sun. Do you believe there are some localized particles, bullets moving from it? There are only electromagnetic radiation, a vibrated vacuum. If such excited vacuum effectuates something - for example excites an electron from some atom - they say: “it was done by photon”. Such “photon” has got a precision velocity so it can not be localized (can not be called as a particle) as follows from uncertainty principle. I am not able it explain better by my English... “Soft photons”/long wave radiation go from warm stove (f.e.) and from “harder photons”/shorter wave radiation go from roentgen lamp (f.e.)

[Albers]

Cerveny, have you read my paper on photon localization? http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na I see the phenomenology demanding bunched wave packets. Otherwise could we see light from distant stars? I think we misplaced the logic of quantization because it stems from atoms of our detectors which always have quantum absorption rules. Nature cannot quantize until a length is defined by a resonance. TAKE IT, EPSILON...

[Cerveny]

Cerveny, have you read my paper on photon localization? http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na
I have looked at it... but you know my opinion about photons...
We all (searching) should better to start again - perhaps together - and find new origins of science. We all need to build and settle particular terms, to put a sentence after sentence into new mosaic of the world...

[Epsilon=One]

TAKE IT, EPSILON...Got it!

I see the phenomenology demanding bunched wave packets.My term for "bunched wave packets" is Resoloids. They form within Pulsoids (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Pulsoids) ("envelopes") from motion harmony.

Pulsoids (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Pulsoids) expand as iterarated waves. The fourth state of Light (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/4) is probably what Cerveny refers to as “el-mag radiation,” which are Resoloids (http://www.Resoloid.com) (spinning photons/particles without mass because they are detached from the Pulsoids’ internal, seminal motion) that have been ejected from “dark” matter” (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) during Critical Compression (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CrC) and are creating Pulsoidal waves as they lose speed and dissipate.

Otherwise could we see light from distant stars?Such fourth state Light (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/4) is always the result of atomic trauma.

I think we misplaced the logic of quantization because it stems from atoms of our detectors which always have quantum absorption rules.Exactly. And, detectors tend to pick up a pulsing wave as a particle. Ironically, shortly behind that wavehead is a massless, spinning particle!!

Nature cannot quantize until a length is defined by a resonance.Wow! That’s about my take. Except, I tend to believe a length (the Conceptual Unit (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CU)) creates the harmony that creates the resonance; but, then, I could be accused of nitpicking pedantry.

I mean "Photons are not any real localized particle..."As best I understand your words, photons are “real localized particles.” They differ from fermions because they have no mass in Light’s fourth state (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/4) because they have been ejected from their source quantum where they had minuscule mass and were very similar to the inner (nuclear) particles (Resoloids (http://www.Resoloid.com)).

Your “soft photons” and “harder photons” are included in what I refer to as the fourth state of Light. (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/4)

Such “photon” has got a precision velocity so it can not be localized (can not be called as a particle) as follows from uncertainty principle.The origin of the uncertainty that is described by Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html) (HUP (http://www.hi.is/~hj/QuantumMechanics/quantum.html)) has nothing to do with “photon” “precision velocity” (which has deceleration); HUP (http://www-theory.chem.washington.edu/~trstedl/quantum/quantum.html) has to do with at what point within a dimensionless sphere does the axis of revolution evolve from with every pulse of the seminal quantum (Pulsoid (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Pulsoids)).

have you read my paper on photon localization? http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na You work on the scientific/mathematics terminology; I’ll work on explaining it to the masses. I’ll bet my group understands Nature before your group of academics acknowledges your insight.

…you know my opinion about photons...Yes. Disagreement is good when it leads to concurrence.

We all (searching) should better to start again - perhaps together - and find new origins of science. We all need to build and settle particular terms, to put a sentence after sentence into new mosaic of the world...Amen! (I believe that is what we are doing . . .)

Let’s start at the beginning of concepts. Can anyone come up with something before the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere as a concept to begin with.

When we can concur concerning a beginning, we have begun . . .

[Cerveny]

Let’s start at the beginning of concepts. Can anyone come up with something before the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere as a concept to begin with.
I think we should start with the vacuum. I suggest put a few common widely accepted statement for a vacuum description/delimitation. For example:
1. There are not any another environment that we are going to touch and somehow refer in our theory.
2. Every influence/incidence (a force leading to status or position change) to anything that is described and delimited in our theory follows from concrete local status of the vacuum.

Please translate it into English eventualy...

[Epsilon=One]

I think we should start with the vacuum.I don't like the term "vacuum" as it connotes an emptiness that does not physically exist. And, what does exist where some see a "vacuum" is quite complex . . . nowhere near what is fundamental.

I suggest put a few common widely accepted statement for a vacuum description/delimitation. For example:
1. There are not any another environment that we are going to touch and somehow refer in our theory.Such a limitation would be like current theoretical physics; we are starting with a poorly defined contrivance, which is misleading, that is not near the beginning of evolution

2. Every influence/incidence (a force leading to status or position change) to anything that is described and delimited in our theory follows from concrete local status of the vacuum.This is little better than quantum field theory (QFT); it is far from being fundamental; and, I would imagine that it would be near impossible to reconcile with observation. It would seem to have the same reconciliation problems that the Standard Models (SM) have.

[Albers]

Cerveny, I like and respect your attitude. I seem to be building bridges into further possibilities and my entire adventure seems to be characterizing the vacuum. Epsilon, I am counting on no one and academics are not my group. They are the group I would like to stun.

[Cerveny]

I...
So you can put another statement, this is an opportunity to “measure” the reality. Such statement is as “wave function” and if your “measuring” was OK it would not be modified by anyone ;-)

[Epsilon=One]

So you can put another statement, this is an opportunity to “measure” the reality. Such statement is as “wave function” and if your “measuring” was OK it would not be modified by anyone ;-)I don't understand what you are referring to . . . ???

[Cerveny]

I don't understand what you are referring to . . . ???
I have asked you to put any other simple physical statement/claim that is not semantically empty and that would be widely acceptable and that has not a declarative/describe meaning only. I would like to provoke you putting first bricks into new physics base...

[Epsilon=One]

I have asked you to put any other simple physical statement/claim that is not semantically empty and that would be widely acceptable and that has not a declarative/describe meaning only. I would like to provoke you putting first bricks into new physics base...You have touched on the problem of current academic physics. And also, the fact that most physicists have a poor understanding of Korzybski's General Semantics . . . or philosophical logic in general.

Physics has become similar to engineering with a preeminent concern for "How?" and "What?" with little concern for "Why?" Physics has become a contrivance of fitting symbolism to observation without an explanation or proof of either. Nothing is wrong with this; providing that benefits are commensurable with required resources. Which I contend is not the way "things are going."

To put “first bricks into new physics base…” requires an emphasis on “Why?” which for many reasons is no longer of much importance to academic theoretical physicists because of the pressures of their milieu.

Thus, what you ask is impossible because it must start before there was physics or mathematics; and, by its very simplicity it would not be “widely acceptable” because there are few that are not so biased by secular faith that their minds can absorb “new physics.” Such bias and denial of General Semantics is evidenced by your selection of “vacuum” as a starting point.

[Albers]

I am having a hell of a nice time cooking up a great deal of essential physics from what we call the vacuum.

[Epsilon=One]

I am having a hell of a nice time cooking up a great deal of essential physics from what we call the vacuum.As am I. Except, I don't use the term "vacuum" for obvious reasons.1. Absence of matter.
.....a. A space empty of matter.
.....b. A space relatively empty of matter.
.....c. A space in which the pressure is significantly lower than
.........atmospheric pressure.
2. A state of emptiness; a void.
3. A state of being sealed off from external or environmental
.........influences; isolation.

[Albers]

Nominations for better terms are being taken. It is as a neutral, massless plasma in that it manifests currents in a changing magnetic field.

[Epsilon=One]

Nominations for better terms are being taken. It is as a neutral, massless plasma in that it manifests currents in a changing magnetic field.Nuts. There must be mass before plasma. What the hell is current? And, what is a field; let alone a magnetic one.

You guys are all selecting "something." This will continue to beg the question: What comprises "something."

[Albers]

Epsilon, I cannot answer you here. I think you are hung up on the old terms and I am seeing past them. What do you call what goes through your flashlight bulb?

[Epsilon=One]

Epsilon, I cannot answer you here. I think you are hung up on the old terms and I am seeing past them. What do you call what goes through your flashlight bulb?I didn't mean there wasn't current. I was asking what is it? I was implying that it was not fundamental. That current comprises many concepts such that it shouldn't be used as a part of a starting point,

[Albers]

Sing along with The Beatles, "One two three four five six seven, All good theories go to heaven."

[Cerveny]

As am I. Except, I don't use the term "vacuum" for obvious reasons.
You are not able to proof that vacuum is not the most complex the most organized the most basic form of being. The empty "nothing" has not got any properties. The Vacuum has got many of them (at least permittivity, permeability, gravity polarization... , ability to lead a free particle on direct motion as compass, ability of particle pair creation ...) Sou you should consider figure with the vacuum...

[Albers]

Cerveny, this is exactly what I have been doing.

[Epsilon=One]

You are not able to proof that vacuum is not the most complex the most organized the most basic form of being. The empty "nothing" has not got any properties. The Vacuum has got many of them (at least permittivity, permeability, gravity polarization... , ability to lead a free particle on direct motion as compass, ability of particle pair creation ...) Sou you should consider figure with the vacuum...If you will read your comment carefully, I believe that you will see that you have proved my point that the "Vacuum" is an inappropriate starting point.

If you can't understand my point, please advise.

[Cerveny]

Cerveny, have you read my paper on photon localization? http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na
I have read it (as my English reach), but it seems to be a classical model only (not quantum). I am afraid such construction would not have been stable in Quantum environment...

[Albers]

I have read it (as my English reach), but it seems to be a classical model only (not quantum). I am afraid such construction would not have been stable in Quantum environment...
Electromagnetically I have shown how there can be wave packets that don't fall apart spreading out, given a simple and clear response from the polarization field. Why do you see it as not stable? Yes I do calculus on a smoothly varying field of inhomogeneity (charge) but this could be understood as a quantized fluctuation field. Is that the essence of the Dirac theory?

[Epsilon=One]

Electromagnetically I have shown how there can be wave packets that don't fall apart spreading out...Absolutely correct. The "wave packets" don't fall apart because of their stable, dynamic pulsing, self-adjusting, ellipsoidal geometry that gives rise to a universal constant that underlies the coalescing harmonies that produce the resonances that the "wave packets" carry. When ejected these resonances continue the geometry as they dissipate as what is erroneously referred to as electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

The "wave packets" are stable much for the same reason that a "standing" bicycle becomes stable when it begins to move.

[Albers]

I am content to be among other bright and blind men poking at the elephant. You will be as moved as I am by Perelman's reaction to the Fields Award in Mathematics. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/science/23math.html?ex=1313985600&en=16823c58a56d5745&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (Move this thread if it's in the wrong locale.)

[Epsilon=One]

I am content to be among other bright and blind men poking at the elephant. You will be as moved as I am by Perelman's reaction to the Fields Award in Mathematics. ...(Move this thread if it's in the wrong locale.)I can well understand Dr. Perelman's posture!!!

Note: Reposted at: Math General - Poking

[Cerveny]

Electromagnetically I have shown how there can be wave packets that don't fall apart spreading out, given a simple and clear response from the polarization field. Why do you see it as not stable? Yes I do calculus on a smoothly varying field of inhomogeneity (charge) but this could be understood as a quantized fluctuation field. Is that the essence of the Dirac theory?

You have not used neither Schrodinger nor Dirac equation.., I think..

[Albers]

Correct, I do not do quantum mechanics! If my analyses are useful they will flesh out the interactions described by QM. Someone in another forum asked about actual fields in a photon, since all you get for 'expectation values' is zero on average. This is not useful, so I offered my analysis. The blue-star moderator admitted that QM does not so this. What if we use my electron representation as the potential to plug into the Schroedinger eq., eliciting interaction with another electron?

[Cerveny]

What if we use my electron representation as the potential to plug into the Schroedinger eq., eliciting interaction with another electron?
You can try to solve Schrodinger equation with “Your” potential. You seem to be an excellent mathematician and Schrodinger equation is easier then Maxwell equations are. If you find any solution of such equation, Your potential would be seriously accepted....

[Albers]

I have tamed the order of the singularity so I certainly predict a well-behaved solution. The scalar potential is fairly simply analytic and should wash through 'easily', but the vector potential is more complicated. The theorist's first job in such a case is to envelope the solution space, show its existence.

[Epsilon=One]

The theorist's first job in such a case is to envelope the solution space, show its existence.Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV) has done this. See: Emergent Ellipsoids (http://www.EmergentEllipse.com) and Pulsoid Theory is . . . (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) And, ask questions.