🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 27, 12:26 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <jirk/Physics/Fumbles>
wrote:
> glird wrote:
>
> <An excellent message, Pentcho!
 Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
  Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists
- >
>
> Metaphysics is the introspective study of >imbeciles.
>
> Jerk Vdm

The rest of this message is copied from W2 ("What it all is and Why")
by G Lebau.
   Present physics thinks that "probability" is a component of the
quantum, and, to a large degree, a physical component of "the way God
made the world". They argue whether, due to probability and
indeterminacy, God plays dice at the sub-atomic level. They suggest
that indeterminacy {their inability to measure ("determine") both the
position and velocity of a given electron simultaneously} is also a
physical component of reality. They even provide the equations with
which, according to them, this "10% indeterminacy" enters into atomic
level phenomena.
The equations {"laws"} about interacting masses were initially based
on the actions of particulate things. Such laws do not apply to
photons or to raw, unstructured matter. The quantum equations,
tailored to ever closer approximations to experimental data, do
closely fit, but the words and concepts for some of the symbols in the
equations don't apply either.  The underlying metaphysical concepts,
not the equations, are incorrect.
"The World of the Atom" commentary concerning Schrodinger says on page
1064,
"We may illustrate an eigenvalue problem in a simple way by
considering a violin string. The vibrations of such a string can be
described by a 'differential equation' that contains a constant, which
can be chosen at will. However, it turns out that only those
vibrations of the string are actually observed (that is, are possible)
for which this constant is an integer. These integers are called the
eigenvalues of the problem. Thus, although the string is continuous,
its vibrations are governed by integers." [My emphasis.]
After discussing the development of the wave versus particle aspects
of light in his 1929 Nobel Prize Address, de Broglie said in "The
Undulatory Aspects of the Electron" [pg 1050]:
"Thus we see once again it had become necessary to assume two
contradictory theories of Light, in terms of waves, and of corpuscles,
respectively; while it was impossible to understand why, among the
infinite number of paths which an electron ought to be able to follow
in the atom according to classical ideas, there was only a restricted
number which it could pursue in fact. Such were the problems facing
physicists at the time when I returned to my studies.
"When I began to consider these difficulties [1920] I was chiefly
struck by two facts. On the one hand, the Quantum Theory of Light
cannot be considered satisfactory, since it defines the energy of a
light-corpuscle by the equation W = hv, containing the frequency, v.
Now a purely corpuscular theory contains nothing that enables us to
define a frequency; for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled
in the case of Light, to introduce the idea of a corpuscle and that of
periodicity simultaneously. ... In this way, then, I obtained the
following general idea ... that it is necessary in the case of Matter,
as well as of radiation generally and of Light in particular, to
introduce the idea of the corpuscle and of the wave simultaneously: or
in other words, in the one case as well as in the other, we must
assume the existence of corpuscles accompanied by waves. But
corpuscles and waves cannot be independent of each other: in Bohr's
terms, they are two complementary aspects of Reality: and it must
consequently be possible to establish a certain parallelism between
the motion of a corpuscle and the propagation of its associated wave.
The first object at which to aim, therefore, was to establish the
existence of this parallelism.
"With this in view, I began by considering the simplest case: that of
an isolated corpuscle, i.e. one removed from all external influence;
with which we wish to associate a wave. Let us therefore consider
first of all a reference system O xoyozo in which the corpuscle is at
rest: this is the 'proper' system for the corpuscle according to the
Theory of Relativity [the wet noodle].  Within such a system the wave
will be stationary, since the corpuscle is at rest; its phase will be
the same at every point [another limp noodle] and it will be
represented by an expression of the form
sin pivo(to - tauo)
[the timelag, tauo, is the twisted relativistic timelag noodle inside
this needle], to being the 'proper' time and tauo [the lie] a
constant.
"Now this is exactly the condition of atomic periodic motion,
according to Planck. Thus the quantum conditions of stability appear
as analogous to resonance phenomena, and the appearance of integers
here becomes as natural as in the theory of vibrating cords and
disks."
From childhood on, most of us have been conditioned in our thinking by
the kinetic atomic theory. This holds that all things are made of
individual independent separate particles. That theory is totally
false. ...
For a particle to exist, i.e. a specific parcel of material locked
into a lasting configuration, several requirements must be met. First,
the given atom and/or molecule must be stopped from exchanging outer-
shell material with its neighbors. They cannot, therefore, be part of
a gas!  Second, the continuum of which they are a part cannot be in a
fluid, easily flowing state in which outer-shells continuously
rearrange their groupings and thus their shared material. They cannot,
therefore, even be parts of a liquid!
Only a solid state substance can be a true particle; a lastingly
specific segment of matter. In order for such a solid particle to
exist, multiple atoms and/or molecules have to be joined together to
form it. The intervening material has to be denser than the shell-
layers trapped within. The substance then is kept in place.
The only time a molecule or atom is a particle, then, is when it is
forced to be by the structure of the field of which it is a part.
Otherwise they are configurations that more or less hold on to a semi-
permanent, freely exchangeable portion of the material of the field.
Conversely, as we study the actions of the field, which for an atom
may be the molecule of which it is a part, the same hydrogen bomb
revision in mental approach is required:  There is no such thing as a
homogeneous field.
There is no field at all, other than that made of the very substance
of all the matter-units that fill the field. Indeed, for our purposes
the term "field" merely denotes a given, abstract local volume. (There
is no such thing as an "electromagnetic field" or "gravitational
field", of themselves.  They are only variations in structure and
actions of the things that fill a local environment.)
We saw that Einstein held his relativistic field "homogeneous". That
turns out to be the Rosetta Bimp!  No field, in nature, is
homogeneous. All fields are made of the highly organized material
portions that fill them. All highly organized material portions are
therefore part of their field. They are part of a non-linear Navier-
Stokes equilibrium with each other because:
Particles and fields do not separately exist. They are different
aspects of one and the same matter-filled-space, whether that be an
atomic nucleus or the Cosmos.

Our constructions will arrive at integer multiples of a constant times
relative thicknesses and other things from layered shell to layered
shell. Since we do intend to show that light-waves and other things
really are the results of vibrations analogous to those released by
vibrating chords and disks, I agree with de Broglie's conclusion. It
is only fair to point out that his above "constant", (tauo actually
equal to -vx/c2, the unchanging local time discrepancy) was present
early in the development of quantum and electron theory and wasn't
side stepped until Feynman switched to absolutes, world lines, to plot
small scale relations. Even now, though, people still try to construct
a relativistic set of equations for qed and in the process discover
that they have to go back to "proper time" instead of relativistic
"time". {In calculating the precession of the perihelion of Mercury,
Einstein did the same thing!  Schwinger did it for quantum physics,
some sixty years later.}
The four dimensional vibrations are analogous, but the source is not.
Cords and disks are solid state objects. The entire inside of an atom
is a highly organized continuous fluid material. The actions that are
the sources of the radiating vibrations take place throughout the
entire volume of this material.

The commentaries preceding Schrödinger's article said,
"One could eliminate, so he thought, the idea of quantum jumps and
replace it by another concept of transition from one mode of vibration
to another. Schrodinger did not quite see how to do this before 1926,
when he learned about de Broglie's wave theory of the electron through
some words of praise written by Einstein."
A transition from one mode of vibration to another is very probably a
part of what does physically happen; but not by absolutely separate
and discretely independent particles or layers. There are no such
things.
It isn't that a "particle" (the electron) is accompanied by waves, the
electron IS a wave system and thus its precise location at a point IS
"indeterminate".  {That's another misuse of semantics. It isn't really
indeterminate; it just isn't at a point. A vibrating material
continuum, no matter how small or localized, is not point sized nor,
therefore, ever precisely "at a point".
Another tunnel?  You like the twists and turns?  Try this:
On page 507 Freeman's Physics says,
"A brilliant yet simple explanation of the experimental facts of
photoelectricity was given by Einstein in 1905. ... Later, the name
photon was given to a quantum of radiant energy. The amount of energy
of a photon is E = hf, where f is the frequency of the associated
radiation.
"Einstein found the key to an explanation of the photoelectric effect
by assuming that each photon, on striking an atom, can release one
electron:  'a photon, if it is absorbed at all, never shares its
energy among a number of electrons, but delivers all of it to a single
electron.'" [My italics.]
Insofar as a photon is supposed to be a quantum of light, this notion
is generally expressed in the phrase that it is an "all or nothing"
affair. On page 500, however:
"To the amount of energy E = hf Planck gave the name one quantum. Thus
his hypothesis may be expressed by saying that *the amount of energy
possessed by an oscillator can only be an integral multiple of one
quantum*. ... The possible amounts of energy that the oscillator can
possess are depicted by equally spaced lines, like the rungs on a
ladder. The energy of the oscillator must be located on one of these
levels, except when in transition."
Semantic meaning?  The energy of an electron as an oscillator must
change by whole number multiples of eo, except when it doesn't.  On
page 512, however, we are informed,
"If the incident photon in the Compton Effect is considered to be an
entity having kinetic energy and momentum, it may also be regarded as
able to collide with and rebound from matter. Compton considered what
happens if a photon strikes a free electron and rebounds elastically.
The photon communicates some of its energy to the electron and so must
have less energy afterward. But if its energy is less, its frequency
is also less after collision. This means that the scattered photons
have lower frequency - and so a greater wavelength - than the incident
ones, as observed. ... Notice that the change in wavelength is
independent of the initial wavelength and the nature of the target
material and that this change is always positive, which means an
increase in wavelength."
The Physics text thus informs us that, "The energy of the oscillator
must be located on one of these levels, except when in transition."
and "a photon ... never shares its energy among a number of electrons"
and "The photon communicates some of its energy to the electron".
Translation?  Quantum theory is twisting in the wind.  {There appears
to be a modicum of uncertainty, there.}
The Uncertainty Principle was another road to nowhere. It was a way to
hide a consequence of kinematics within the mantle of a basic
postulate. This made it seem to be a property of physical reality
rather than a product of the abstract hypotheses through which we
interpret the results of experimental measurements. Again metrical
relation was mistaken to be the physical relation it measures.
The key phrase, above, is:  the Compton Effect stipulates that a wave
suffers no decrease in velocity after striking an electron, "but
merely a decrease in frequency".
A photon always undergoes a red shift and an electron always undergoes
a velocity change. Our choice of metrical hypotheses thereupon now
comes into play.
The cause of "Indeterminacy".
Smith's "Elements of Physics" says on pg 165:
"Let m1 and m2 be the masses of [two elastic spheres], v1 and v2 their
respective velocities before collision, and u1 and u2 the
corresponding velocities after collision.
Momentum before collision = momentum after collision.
     m1v1 + m2v2 = m1u1 + m2u2."
Let v1 and v2 be the velocities of mass m1 (a photon) before and after
it collides with a body of mass m2 (an electron). Let u1 and u2 be the
velocities of m2 before and after the collision. The photon and
electron masses are not supposed to change via such an act. Equating
their initial and final momentums we have the balancing act,
m1v1 + m2v2 = m1u1 + m2u2,
which requires that the total momentum is conserved if the masses
remain constant.
Obviously, if u2 changes but v2 remains constant, i.e. v1 = v2 = c,
then the value of u2 remains indeterminate even after you know where
the photon and electron went.
The cure.
A red shifted wave is lengthened because its quantity of energy and
action is lessened, so less medium is involved per second. Thus, in
terms of absolute speed [quantity of matter traversed per second] a
red shifted wave has slowed down. If a photon's "absolute velocity" is
stated in terms of "quantity of matter traversed per unit time" [a new
rule of the game], there would always be a change of velocity of a
rebounding photon, measurable by the degree of red shift.
A red shift would then mean that the velocity of the photon had
decreased by exactly the amount required to balance the conservation
of momentum equation and thus delete the principle of uncertainty.
[In reality, the velocity of light is a universal variable.]
The conservation of momentum equation would thereby arithmetically
balance and we could therefore predict the paths and positions and
velocities of both, after collision; or calculate the velocity and
position of the electron once we see the direction and altered
velocity - in terms of degree of red shift - of the departing photon.
If, instead of quantity of matter traversed per unit time, we measure
absolute velocity in terms of quantity of action per second per unit
distance, a red or blue shift would still denote a change in
rebounding velocity. Accordingly, the indeterminacy still disappears.
The point at issue now arises: Is indeterminacy a God-given fact of
nature or is it a product of our metrical treatment of relation? Well,
the postulates of kinematics are a free choice. As to whether or not
the postulates fit nature, the court of last appeal is physical
experiment. Postulates that lead to contradiction with results of
experiment remain perfectly acceptable for pure mathematics, but are
completely unacceptable to Metaphysics and (sometimes) even to its
insubordinate servant, physics.
In any event, we see that if we elect to measure velocity in terms of
amount of matter traversed per second then the indeterminacy
disappears. If we elect the present metrical choices then the
indeterminacy reappears.
  The indeterminacy is thus a product of our free choice of abstract
metrical postulates rather than being a fact of (meta)physical
reality.

glird