# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  I can prove there's something smaller than a photon

## nonsqtr

Okay, the first useful result.

Planck kinda proved this already, in a way, but I'm deriving it from basic principles. Just math. Even a 1 hz photon can be partitioned.

The proof uses the same logic as Tsirelson's bound, and it's remarkably easy.

I will illustrate by example.

Consider a double slit experiment. Some of the photons go this way, some go that way, they interfere on the other side. The experiment requires a coherent light source, which means spins are correlated on the way in.

Here's the important observation: they're also correlated on the way out. The interference pattern doesn't happen if detectors are placed at the slits.

What does this tell us?

It tells us, that information is neither created nor destroyed, when the photons traverse the slits. It's being conserved.

Two possibilities obtain: slit traversal is either a stochastic process, or it's not. If it's not, the lack of information is unsurprising, however we have proven that photons can be subdivided. Why? Because the experiment works with a single photon (no interference pattern, obviously, but you can show passage through both slits).

If it is (stochastic), nonsqtr's law says the generator has to be symmetric, in a particular kind of way, to get the information invariance. 

In the non-stochastic case the phase is shifted by the slit, so if the correlation remains the phases must be shifted by equal amounts. In the stochastic case this need not be so, however the outcomes must symmetrize with the phase shifts (to retain coherence).

We can calculate the required symmetries quite easily, at least for pairwise correlations. (Entanglement beyond pairs is out of scope for this discussion).

To see this we build the transition matrices the same way Tsirelson does (btw it turns out these are the vertices of a graph, which is very convenient), with the constraint that the change in total information must be 0 (which is basically a "null measurement").

Under these conditions, using the Khalfin identity on the correlated pair, we find that 

A0 B0 + A0 B1 + A1 B0 = A1 B1

This is the required symmetry when the observable is null. This tells us that A has anti-parity with B, which is only possible if there is a conditional expectation (essentially the same situation as having a non-zero expectation in the vacuum state). Which is not possible, in this scenario, unless there is a change in correlation. Which by definition there can't be because the correlations remain. Which in turn tells us we can't have a non-zero expectation which means we MUST have subunits ("partitions" - the parities of which must be complementary).

This kind of thinking suggests the photon can be further divided into "dust particles", which at this point are undescribed and unnamed but the math says they must exist.

Warning: stochastic parity is something different from geometric parity.

----------

Authentic (01-24-2022),Camp (01-24-2022),donttread (02-05-2022),Swedgin (01-24-2022)

----------


## Camp

I have always thought that if the expansiveness of space has no limit then so to should the expansiveness of the subatomic realm have no limit.

----------


## mrclose



----------

JMWinPR (01-24-2022)

----------


## fmw

> I have always thought that if the expansiveness of space has no limit then so to should the expansiveness of the subatomic realm have no limit.


Infinity exists in mathematics but not in nature.

----------

nonsqtr (01-25-2022)

----------


## Authentic

Shouldn't you be publishing this in a physics journal instead of here?

----------


## Authentic

Does a sub-photon travel faster than c?

----------

nonsqtr (01-25-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Well in physics, measurements are important,and to measure anything at the Planck scale, you’d need a particle with sufficiently high energy to probe it. ..to get down to Planck lengths, you need a particle at the Planck energy: ~1019 GeV, or so. At such ultra-high energies,the momentum of the particle would be so large that the energy-momentum uncertainty would render that particle indistinguishable from a black hole. This is truly the scale at which our laws of physics break down.

At present, there is no way to predict what’s going to happen on distance scales that are smaller than about 10-35 meters, nor on timescales that are smaller than about 10-43 seconds. These values are set by the fundamental constants that govern our Universe. In the context of General Relativity and quantum physics, we can go no farther than these limits without getting nonsense out of our equations in return for our troubles.

If we decide to go down to below about 10-35 meters ⁠— the Planck distance scale ⁠— our conventional laws of physics would need many quantum corrections,or else would give nonsensical answers.. there are quantum corrections of order ~ħ that arise. There are corrections of all orders: ~ħ, ~ħ2, ~ħ3, and so on,and at Planck scale we cannot ignore the higher order corrections,as we do at larger length scales.

At the Planck distance scale, this implies the appearance of black holes and quantum-scale wormholes, which we cannot investigate.

But at these ultra-intense energy, the curvature of space is unknown. We cannot calculate anything meaningful.

If you put a particle in a box that’s the Planck length or smaller, the uncertainty in its position becomes greater than the size of the box.

The background curvature of space that we use to perform quantum calculations is unreliable, and the uncertainty relation ensures that our uncertainty is larger in magnitude than any prediction we can make. The physics that we know can no longer be applied,a la Ethan Siegel blog post.

That is why we limit space at Planck scale,to avoid a breakdown of known laws. Physicists put a fundamental minimum scale . Of course, a finite, minimum length scale would create its own set of problems. That would imply questioning the fundamentality of Lorentz invariance,and Einstein relativity.

May be we need some fundamental paradigm shifts to transcend Planck epoch.According to Brian Greene, there's a minimum possible length beyond which getting smaller is mathematically equivalent to getting larger. Anyhoo, I thought you were a fan of Loop Quantum Gravity, which make space itself discrete on the scale of the planck length.

----------

nonsqtr (01-25-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Berkenstein's hypothesis

Bekenstein-Hawking entropy - Scholarpedia

This what resulted in Hawkings Information paradox.

----------

nonsqtr (01-25-2022)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Shouldn't you be publishing this in a physics journal instead of here?


I'm just being entertaining.  :Grin: 

Honestly, I'm not a physicist. Real physicists know a lot about a lot, you tell em something and they'll pull some distant quasar out of their butt. I don't know diddly, I'm mostly mystified by all this stuff. What's worse is I hate calculus and dislike geometry almost as much. lol  :Smile: 

I'm not the first guy who's learned enough physics to be stupid, but the difference between me and them is I'm an equal opportunity hater. I'm the "McCain was no hero" guy, you know, "Einstein was full of shit, and so were Schrodinger and Heisenberg". (That's entertainment, ain't it?  :Drumdude:  )

I'm a biologist, if you start talking to me about membranes my head goes to lipids and transport. (Transport is where I learned about partitions). And, the history here is, I posted about the brain but no one knew wtf I was talking about because I didn't know how to speak physics. So eventually it dawned on me I should try to learn some physics, and kinda took you along on the journey. And I'm glad you're still here!

I ain't a brainiac like the real physicists, I'm just excited, that's all. I can't speak physics yet, need more practice, but I can speak a little math - which is kind of like asking a Brazilian to translate from Spanish to English (you get most of it, but once in a while...)

Thanks for hanging out. I'm gonna stop spouting verbiage for a while, I have to hit the books. (So I don't make a complete fool out of myself, when the time comes).

The box world thing is the only model that comes close, that I've found so far. There's only a very few people working on it, it doesn't seem to be well known yet. (It IS a bit esoteric)...

But here's the central concept, for the physicists. You have complex numbers for 'phase', you need them to explain the spinors, and complex numbers are like a "dimension", they're an extra degree of freedom. And, they "entangle" kinda behind the backs of the real world, we can't explain it with real numbers, we need to invoke the complex numbers and the extra dimension.

Well, probability densities can entangle in a DIFFERENT way, it's like "yet another" dimension, completely different from complex geometry. The two are distinct, you can have both at the same time. So like, in addition to i, you now need j too, and what the heck maybe we should just keep going and use quaternions.

Well, if you read the paper by Janotta he shows that quaternions aren't even enough, you need octonions to explain everything that's going on.

But I was intrigued because we were talking about gravity, and then I found the Schleier video, and then I'm like Holy Mackerel, this is what I've been looking for. It provided the missing link between the physics-speak and the brain-speak.

So now I know exactly what I have to do, to make my concept of "unfolding" intuitive to physicists, AND, they've shown me a mechanism by which it might work in the brain.

Heck, I would love to be able to give back something useful to the physicists. Not there yet though, need to study and work some more.

It's a good retirement activity. Beats sitting around watching TV.

----------

Authentic (01-25-2022)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Does a sub-photon travel faster than c?


Tachyonic condensation?

I don't know anything about it 

It's supposed to have something to do with the Higgs field.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Berkenstein's hypothesis
> 
> Bekenstein-Hawking entropy - Scholarpedia
> 
> This what resulted in Hawkings Information paradox.


See, I can't respond to that, don't know enough. As near as I can tell the Bekenstein logic is based on Planck-sized patches, and... see... the very first thing that happens is they start talking about "entropy", which as we all now know, has to do with number of states and not occupancy.

It's kinda like they're using circular reasoning. Casini's proof is kinda self-referential. This whole business of defining information in terms of the expectation value is ... imprecise. I don't know, I shouldn't open my yap yet.

I think Casini's contribution in the area of "bounds" is pretty exciting though. You physicists are used to thinking like that, I'm not. I'm kind of an old control systems guy. (Phase plane, ha ha).

----------


## nonsqtr

> Well in physics, measurements are important,and to measure anything at the Planck scale, you’d need a particle with sufficiently high energy to probe it. ..to get down to Planck lengths, you need a particle at the Planck energy: ~1019 GeV, or so. At such ultra-high energies,the momentum of the particle would be so large that the energy-momentum uncertainty would render that particle indistinguishable from a black hole. This is truly the scale at which our laws of physics break down.
> 
> At present, there is no way to predict what’s going to happen on distance scales that are smaller than about 10-35 meters, nor on timescales that are smaller than about 10-43 seconds. These values are set by the fundamental constants that govern our Universe. In the context of General Relativity and quantum physics, we can go no farther than these limits without getting nonsense out of our equations in return for our troubles.
> 
> If we decide to go down to below about 10-35 meters ⁠— the Planck distance scale ⁠— our conventional laws of physics would need many quantum corrections,or else would give nonsensical answers.. there are quantum corrections of order ~ħ that arise. There are corrections of all orders: ~ħ, ~ħ2, ~ħ3, and so on,and at Planck scale we cannot ignore the higher order corrections,as we do at larger length scales.
> 
> At the Planck distance scale, this implies the appearance of black holes and quantum-scale wormholes, which we cannot investigate.
> 
> But at these ultra-intense energy, the curvature of space is unknown. We cannot calculate anything meaningful.
> ...


Seems to me we're 20 orders of magnitude away from anything Planck. I'd be happy if we got... y'know .. halfway there...  :Smile: 

I like the discrete models mainly because they're simpler.  :Grin:  Usually if I start simple and discrete, I can "conceptualize" in the limit. Not always, but my math needs are pretty simple, it's rare that I have to grapple with corner cases.

So... conceptually... "the" Hamiltonian (or LaGrangian) defines the boundaries of the system. In other words, if we apply an operator to "dv" we get a different answer than if we apply it to delta-v, like v2 - v1, and we get yet a different answer if we apply it to (v2-v1)(A) + (v2-v1)(B) + ... and etc. The Ising structure is instructive because it's a non-local optimization, the Hamiltonian contains "influence terms" between neighboring dipoles.

Scale is important, and bounds are important. I agree that there is such a thing as a "bit", an indivisible unit of information. I just think that word "information" doesn't mean quite what we think it means.

If you redefine it in terms of occupancy instead of states, first of all physics suddenly starts matching your intuition again, and secondly the relationship between entropy (states) and actual information becomes treatable mathematically, and thirdly it then allows you to formulate a conservation law in terms of a symmetry, which is pretty much the keys to this particular kingdom.

So, instead of defining "symmetry breaking" as the average result of zillions of outcomes, we want to reduce scale and look at the symmetry "within" an outcome. In the same way that you conceptualize the Higgs field forming an energy "shape" that breaks symmetry, we want to consider that same symmetry breaking process occurring "within" the generator, actualizing what is mathematically equivalent to the random selection of a member from the set of available states (each state being identified with a "possible outcome").

I'm sorry, I can't speak English yet. Working on it, senor.  :Smile:

----------


## nonsqtr

I guess what I was trying to say is, we're not changing anything. Entropy is still entropy. We're just being "more precise" about the steps between the initiation of the selection and the definition of the outcome. The physicists call that definition a "measurement", they say it's an operator being applied to a state. What does that really tell us? Nothing! You perturb the state and it changes... like, duh.

They're totally completely glossing over the issue of the choice of operator. They say "you have an operator", and you ask them "where did you get it", and then their eyes glaze over for a second and you know what they say? "Pick one, the choice of operator is irrelevant". Well no, it ain't. lol

What we really want to know is, can we influence the generator. In physics you have mostly either a Gaussian "distribution", or a Poisson "distribution" (both of which happen to be smooth functions, but that's beside the point... or is it?)

What if I could alter the probability density by mucking with the information structure? Your Mexican hat function would change into a French chapeau, and your ball would roll off the bill instead of into the well. Or for a more interesting example, what if I could change a 2-way symmetry into a 3-way symmetry, just by mucking with the generator? Like, the Mexican hat is symmetric "IF" the distribution of balls rolling off the top is symmetric, but what if I can arrange it so the cannon only fires to the left? In that case I haven't touched your geometry, but your outcomes are totally different 

I'm interested in the relationship between the cosmological constant and the bit. I think there is one. The Renyi method allows us to approach it asymptotically, and you can go out to as many orders as your hardware will conveniently handle in your lifetime. If there's divergence to be found it'll usually happen pretty quickly

----------


## nonsqtr

See so, physicists see information in terms of spin. Why? Because it's the only thing that works for them. Because they deal with waves. Spin, waves... seems logical enough... until you begin to realize they're actually constraining themselves.

In the example of the ball rolling off the top of the Mexican sombrero, there are two competing but not necessarily mutually exclusive theories. The first one says the direction of motion is due to initial conditions, and the second one says it's due to quantum fluctuations. Seems to me, there's a third possibility.

----------


## nonsqtr

Here's another way of looking at it. The physicists look at states like information, but it's not. If I'm a poker player and I want to know what card you have in your hand, the fact that there are 52 cards in the deck tells me nothing. The "information" I want is defined by occupancy, not states. I care about the card that's "in your hand".

In physics we would like the path through the states, that tells us which ones are actually being occupied. Which is the idea behind the Feynman path integral, except well ... they get this far and then they give up. 

Regarding the modes - every collection of separable modes also has separable energies. If you have a single photon showing multiple modes at once, it means part of the energy lives in one mode, and part of it lives in another. Therefore if you see multiple modes in a ground state it means you have subunits and you should decrease the scale of your "system".

Non-local interactions will support ground state modes too, once again suggesting the scale of the "system" is what matters. 

For instance, in a Boltzmann gas each particle is guaranteed to collide with a wall. That's a shared boundary condition, so any model that doesn't include the wall is going to fail

----------


## nonsqtr

> Berkenstein's hypothesis
> 
> Bekenstein-Hawking entropy - Scholarpedia
> 
> This what resulted in Hawkings Information paradox.


Okay, now I can respond to it.

"Bekenstein is full of it". lol  :Grin: 

Why?

Quick and easy.

He defines quantum information in terms of "bits". Classical bits. No kidding. Shannon entropy. Read it and weep.

I don't know from ultraviolet divergences, but I know a lot about bits. That's what I meant by "circular reasoning". You can't prove something using the thing you're trying to prove.

----------


## nonsqtr

Look man, physicists just don't understand noise.

Their understanding of it is so restrictive, so... childish as to be practically useless.

And unfortunately, the world doesn't acknowledge the value of something until the physicists do.

For an example, you can look up the word "martingale", which describes almost nothing in real life, yet underlies almost the entirety of physics. 

The biologists we're on to this LONG before the physicists we're, as a matter of fact the Lottka-Volterra model was around 1920, and they used "no geometry" to formulate their reaction-diffusion equation - instead what they did is collaborate with that fellow Kolmogorov I told you about, and what they came up with describes systems with memory.

The story is Volterra's son in law was wondering why the fish catch increased during WW2 when there was almost no fishing.

Volterra and Wiener series - Scholarpedia

Prigogine ended up getting the Nobel prize for something Volterra had already done 45 years earlier. Except no one knew it at the time. Now we know the two frameworks are equivalent, relative to outcomes.

----------


## nonsqtr

Here's a question for the physicists. 

Can you get 1/f noise out of a photon?

Why or why not?

What happens if I have zero-mean noise energy?

Volterra says you can prove any physical system with noise. How come no one's used ensemble noise methods with weak measurement?

According to the Standard model we should be able to build a detector whose noise is opposite to that of a photon.

Noise, in this case equates with uncertainty. Not so much in terms of numbers of states, but more in terms of jitter.

----------


## nonsqtr

All right, here is some VERY strange behavior of photons.

The technology now, is good enough to where single photons can be emitted from a quantum dot, and guided into a cavity, where its phase can be altered pretty much at will (using lasers - and often a rubidium crystal).

And to verify results, there has to be a detector somewhere.

So here's the strange part.

Photons have a "shape". Which can be experimentally controlled. It's not exactly a shape in space like we ordinarily think of a shape (although that could happen too, don't know yet). What they call "photon shape" is a shape IN TIME, it's also called a temporal profile.

The strange part is, that a photon with a particular shape, will only register on a detector with the same shape.

Physics - How to Shape a Single Photon

Multidimensional quantum information based on single-photon temporal wavepackets

Okay? So, all this nonsense about Bekenstein bound is a bunch of hooey. There are degrees of freedom in photons, that we only discovered recently, and there are doubtlessly more we haven't discovered yet.

Kay, so, the beginning of nonsqtr's simple and self evident mathematics.

degrees of freedom = number of states = information "capacity"

occupancy = stochastic outcome = information

Remember that, you'll hear more about it.

Anyway - I interpret photon "shape" as evidence of varied internal construction. Supports the idea of subunits.

----------


## nonsqtr

Boom. Shape of a photon:



That looks like subunits to me.

Does that look like subunits to you?

Call them what you will (symmetries, or whatever) - in algebra they are "partitions".

You see the partitions in the image, yes? They're clear as day.

----------


## nonsqtr

So now, here's what I'd like to know.

You can see this shape, these partitions, and you can kinda-sorta see how they might be related to "transverse electromagnetic waves".

Well, in a wave, especially one realized by boundary conditions (ie anything with "modes"), the energy is divided among the modes.

So for example if there are harmonics, part of the energy is in the harmonics. So I did a little research and found this interesting thing about the distribution of energies in modes -

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02235

"Energy flow towards the higher order modes", is the interesting thing here.

My qurstion is, is this energy flow an artifact from boundary conditions, or is it inherent in the geometry of photons?

Here's a starting point that describes boundary conditions, I couldn't find anything meaningful about internal photon tendencies.

The Quantum Particle in a Box  University Physics Volume 3

----------


## nonsqtr

Cool. So the beautiful symmetry is the transverse picture, and then we have the other version of "shape" for the longitudinal picture. 

The transverse behavior seems regular and is well understood, the longitudinal behavior is a little weirder and has something to do with measurability. (Incidence on detectors or some such thing).

Well so, how come the photon is "mass-less"? 

It certainly has energy, which is mass-equivalency...

It can't feel the Higgs field?

----------


## nonsqtr

Hm. There's all kinds of catstrophes in physics. There's one called "infrared catastrophe", there's another one called "ultraviolet catastrophe", and there's a "vacuum catastrophe" too.

These physicists lead dangerous lives, they're swimming in a sea of catastrophes!

(On the other hand, they have everything covered but the visible spectrum - everything's catastrophic except what we can actually see - which sounds just like a Copenhagen weenie!)  :Drumdude: 

But so now, this unbroken U(1) symmetry, I "get it", but still looking at W and Z bosons. U(1) goes like this, it goes

A => A + d £, where £ is lambda

Whereas it had mass it would be

m^2 A A / 2

which is not invariant. Which means you end up with negative energies and negative probabilities.

----------


## nonsqtr

Well, I'm about at the point where I'm trying to do some actual math, and it all checks out but boy is it slow. Every time I see two variables in order I have to ask myself if they can be reversed, and it's a great education but it takes twice as long as actually solving the equation! lol  :Grin: 

I like the little notations that kinda remind you ...  :Smile: 

Anyway - I want to know about the wave "packet". It's a transverse wave with a defined frequency, but it's also a longitudinal wave that has more to do with "delay" than frequency. The numbers say, the frequency of one has very little to do with the delay of the other, there are relationships but they don't change in the same way.

And, I can already see one has to be a full-fledged expert to understand the renormalization game, the issue of being IR divergent and then things balancing out to finiteness... yeah, expert level stuff for sure.

I don't want to be an expert necessarily, I just need to understand the basics. Which is kinda halfway there lol - so like, a photon is E-M, so how come it doesn't have a charge? An electron has a charge, it carries it around with itself. What's the diff? Well, Coulomb potential is a limiting case of Yukawa potential, and one has to be half an expert to wrap one's mind around that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukawa_potential

Oh, btw - the fools at Wiki have done it again. If you read the link, "platzwechsel" means literally "exchanging places", NOT migration. It has nothing to do with migration, it has a whole different meaning. But you knew that. Carry on.

----------


## UKSmartypants

You're not making any friends here trashing physics.....    :Cool20:

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're not making any friends here trashing physics.....


I'm not trashing physics, I'm LEARNING physics.

But physics is not my religion, and Einstein is not God.

I trash physicists, not physics. "Individual" physicists, not all of them.

Look here, you have a brain. There are two FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT kinds of stochastic behavior going on here. Only one of them involves information.

In the one version, you have "a" single outcome, which is isomorphic with selection from a set.

In the other version, we get "all" possible outcomes. As in the path integrals and all the rest 

The PHYSICS says, if you have multiple paths then the energy must be divided between them.

This is not a problem that Einstein has solved, or even addressed.

I'll stand behind my statements and methods. I'm an expert at biological processes, which includes anything larger than a couple of atoms, but I don't yet know as much as I need to about quantum fields and such.

However I can smell nonsensical BS a mile away. "Uncertainty" is nonsensical BS

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're not making any friends here trashing physics.....


The other thing is, if you want physics to advance, some trashing is necessary.

Let's face it, the idiots at Copenhagen bowed to public pressure from the lefties. They were so cucked they ended up saying 'fine, we won't even look inside the dust cloud, we'll just call it uncertainty and leave it at that".

I'm sorry but... fucking morons....  :Dontknow:

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're not making any friends here trashing physics.....


Here's what I know:

The whole deal behind the Feynman path integral is they're "building" the probability distribution. It's a combinatoric approach, yes? And, since the probability is a norm, they need the "entire" area under the "whole" density.

Well, the math works, but it's circular. It tells me there's something much simpler going on underneath. A particle or even a wavelet has no way of calculating "all its possible paths". So here's the real question: do we agree that the end outcome is the selection of "one" path from among the many available?

Because if not, you're postulating a space(time) filling process, and I know a whole lot about those.

Including membranes ("sheets") undulating to fill volumes.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Shouldn't you be publishing this in a physics journal instead of here?


No problem, I'll do it.

And thanks in advance for the accolades I will receive.

Mwhahahahaha!!

----------

nonsqtr (01-28-2022)

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're not making any friends here trashing physics.....


Pooh.

This is Nathan Seiberg, physicist extraordinaire at the Institute for Advanced Study.




> Prior to observation, electrons essentially exist nowhere — and everywhere.


I'm very sorry, but that's complete and total bullshit. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it because I showed you the pictures.

Who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or the lying physicist?

I'm going to help you clowns make sense of this stuff. We simply can't have Nobel prize winners running around spreading lies, that simply won't do.

There's a DISEASE in the physics community with this uncertainty BS, it's kind of like a mass psychosis or something.

----------


## nonsqtr

> No problem, I'll do it.
> 
> And thanks in advance for the accolades I will receive.
> 
> Mwhahahahaha!!


This may be the first time ever in history, that an online political forum has been used as a platform to promote and circulate important scientific ideas.

I will point out, that it took us human be'ans two THOUSAND years to agree on what a real number is. Now we agree, the real numbers are a "complete ordered field". (Gee, there's that word "field" again). That only happened in the 1850's.

Now we have quantum "fields", and no one knows wtf they are. We have thousands of physicists PRETENDING like they know, but they don't. The proof is, they're still calling them "uncertain".  :Grin: 

In the actual math of this (which I'm just starting on, so far so good), the idea that infinities come out of the woodwork should be an obvious clue that we need to expand scope. Every physicist will tell you that if you go outside of the very narrow scope of the equilibrium model, catastrophes happen. Most of the math is figuring out how they happen, and then trying to circumvent them.

The quantum field is perfectly understandable as long as nothing's happening in it. The minute anything happens we get "uncertain" lol

----------


## nonsqtr

See look - these guys, are on the right track 

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03698

You remember Zeno's paradox, yes?

Well, here we have the "quantum Zeno effect".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect




> time evolution can be suppressed not only by measurement: the quantum Zeno effect is the suppression of unitary time evolution in quantum systems provided by a variety of sources: measurement, interactions with the environment, stochastic fields, among other factors.


I'm just about ready to blow the physicists' minds with a discussion about measurement. This whole business of "things don't exist till you measure them" has to be laid to rest once and for all.

If measurement is an operator acting on a field then I should be able to extract "just about all" the information about the field, by probing it with noise.

So when we see stuff like this

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/201...hile-you-watch

we wonder wtf they're thinking. (Or IF they're thinking lol)

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're not making any friends here trashing physics.....


Come on, man.  :Grin: 

What moron would come up with this?




> Youve probably heard about Schrödingers cat, which famously is trapped in a box with a mechanism that is activated if a radioactive atom decays, releasing radiation. The act of looking in the box collapses the atoms wave functionthe mathematical description of its statefrom a superposition of states to a definite state, which either kills the cat or lets it live another day.


Physics is supposed to explain the OBSERVABLE !

Not something no one's ever seen.

These birdbrains are trying to explain something that doesn't exist.

No cat EVER has been both alive and dead.

Just as no particle EVER has been in two states at once.

----------


## Authentic

> Just as no particle EVER has been in two states at once.


What if it on the border of two states, like the water in the Columbia River north of Portland?

----------


## nonsqtr

> What if it on the border of two states, like the water in the Columbia River north of Portland?


Good analogy. State boundaries are entirely arbitrary. The laws of physics don't change if you're in Upper Slobovia.

Physicists can't speak English - either that or they want to convince us they're magicians. If a particle has a location (x,y), are you going to say it's in "two states at once" just because it can be represented as a linear combination? No, of course not! The particle is in ONE position, and it just so happens the state can be decomposed into linearly independent substates.

Same with this whole crap about "things don't exist till you look at them". And "the particle can't decide what state it's in till it's measured". Horseshit! That is absolutely NOT the way things happen! !!!

I can only conclude that the vast majority of "physicists" don't know the first thing about actual physics!

You can NOT have a particle that's in two states at once, such a thing would render the whole concept of "state" entirely meaningless, and make it completely impossible to calculate probability densities

----------

Authentic (01-28-2022)

----------


## nonsqtr

So, I really want to know how bad the situation actually is. I'm translating stuff into the domain I know, which is molecules.

First thing is, to get an idea for what "scale" actually means.

For example -

Let's say you have an amino acid, which has a molecular volume of about 0.1 nm^3. And a very powerful light, with lots and lots of photons, say, 1 gW/m^2.

Then, the numbers indicate, the molecule only sees a photon once every 2 ns.

And the mean photon content in the molecule's volume is 10^-9.

Which means - at the scale we're interested in, we have to deal with "individual" photons. Which means we actually need the full power of QED, the semi-classical approximations won't work.

Then - there is a field of study called "cavity QED" which is all about how the boundary conditions affect the coupling between the field and the material. This is essential to understand, it's a must-have for any serious student of information 

Because - it turns out that certain interactions use only the transverse part of the vector potential (the neatly symmetric part). Why this happens, is apparently not yet clear. There's something called a PZW Hamiltonian that seems to describe part of it, it has one non-trivial commutation. So, y'know, we're changing the definition of "state" to make the math work lol  :Grin: 

(Merciless, ain't I?  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  One has to be that way, when one is trying to understand something like this. It won't do to accept things at face value. PZW is Power-Zienau-Woolley if you're interested, it's kind of a "reduced" Hamiltonian, therefore a different gauge, it's still controversial because it's not "exactly" the same as minimal coupling).

There is an interesting phenomenon in the interaction of the field with a periodic system (like, a radio antenna) called "second harmonic generation". I'm super-interested in this based on the earlier question regarding the distribution of energies in modes and the flow into the higher frequencies.

Quantum electrodynamics in modern optics and photonics: tutorial

----------


## nonsqtr

Oh joy. The infinite Hilbert space gets extended by an infinite Fock space. If they're discrete, the space grows exponentially with the number of states.

Making ab initio QED functional(s): Nonperturbative and photon-free effective frameworks for strong lightâmatter coupling | PNAS

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're not making any friends here trashing physics.....


Okay, so here's a challenge for you, Mr.  @UKSmartypants

Italian physicists are currently trying to measure general relativity using an array of ring lasers, it's called the Ginger project.

But, there's a professor of physics at U Conn, who says ring lasers can actually generate gravitational fields. Here's his theoretical:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...607?via%3Dihub

Question: real science or not?

Context: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

The key concept is "frame dragging".

Can it be created with lasers?

----------


## nonsqtr

And just to prove I'm not a meanie, note that the general gist of the work has been replicated:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3414



And here's a paper from the Italians

Testing general relativity by means of ring lasers | SpringerLink

----------


## nonsqtr

This is pretty cool. They put ultra cold rubidium gas in a rocket ship and measured the Earth's gravitational field in zero-gravity conditions. lol

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0202141018.htm

Rubidium is quite a remarkable atom!

So, this turns out to be a bit of a trick question 

If you say yes it's real science, then you're admitting that "any" mass-energy equivalent is gravitational, in which case why are we wasting our time with unified theories?

But if you say no then you have to explain why there's neutron interference in the middle of the laser ring.

Based on what I've been reading about ring lasers, they will "entrain" a nearby frequency, just like what happens in the brain.

So lemme see... we have this woman at Stanford, she already has rubidium atoms in a ring... my thinking is, the gravity should be ever-so-slightly different at the vertices of her tessellation pattern.

So if you "rotate" her entire experiment, like with one of these ring laser gyroscopes, you should see the beats. If they exist.

(I mean, in the "middle" of the ring).

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Same with this whole crap about "things don't exist till you look at them". And "the particle can't decide what state it's in till it's measured". Horseshit! That is absolutely NOT the way things happen! !!!


I agree. after the Big Bang there were no observers around for hundreds of millions of years at best, yet the universe managed to exist and evolve.  we currently receive light from 13.4 billion years ago, which is 300 million years after the Big Bang. So did those parts of the universe just sit there until their light entered the Hubble space telescope and all of a sudden create 13.4B years worth of evolution. Its ridiculous.

Quantum wave function collapse must happen all the time all over the universe with absolutely no observes present, or we wouldnt see what we see.  I suspect it happens spontaneously at a quantum level due to virtual particles, and this creates a ripple that cascades up to a macro level. 

The Standard Model has some massive holes and glaring omissions, but Quantum Theory also has a couple of massive elephants in the room.  This, to me, shows they are both incomplete approximations of something else far deeper, and M Theory is something to do with it.

Ill address the laser ring question later......

----------


## nonsqtr

Yeah. So... scattering.

At tiny wavelengths we can have Rayleigh scattering, at approximately equal wavelengths it's Mie scattering, and above that we could have geometric scattering. The Compton wavelength is always smaller than the deBroglie wavelength, and etc. At tiny distances we get a sea of particles because the "model" energies tend to infinity.

So, how about we forget about particles entirely? They just seem to confuse the issue. Particles come, particles go, they are... "transient". Yes there are stable configurations, but they're "special", they have to obey lots of rules. And if we have to deal with them, we get into wierdo concepts like "center of mass" when we actually have gazillions of spinning "particles".

The cosmology is exciting, and there's certainly a lot to be learned from it, but I think we can do this stuff in the laboratory. 

Here's my take: the photon is a dust cloud. Yes it has symmetries, but underneath is dust. The symmetries of the "whole photon" are elegant and explain a lot of things, but what we really want is the symmetries and properties of the dust.

Dusts explain a lot of things. How photons can take multiple paths at once, how they seem to be spread out in space and time - and if you believe all this then obviously the connectedness matters and you're into the world of stochastic topology.

But for example, physicists love the periodic solutions and they work, but there are also noise solutions that no one ever talks about. Noise solutions are what lead to dusts. Dusts are very friendly, they're very mathematical. It's slightly different vocabulary though. For instance...

Fractal differential equations and fractal-time dynamical systems | SpringerLink

And a good application would be:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00674

----------


## nonsqtr

Yikes.

Bump functions.

And Grassmanians.

Yikes.  :Geez:

----------


## nonsqtr

By Jove, I think he's got it!




> the “quanta” are virtual, and do not represent actual particles but rather states of resource allocation, rendered in the formalism as states of "*occupancy*.”


Exactly. This guy gets it.

In physics the Hilbert space is (eventually) based on frequencies, and the way they work in the quantized context is they become linearly independent basis functions.

In information, which these days is a lot about quantum computing, the linearly independent basis space is an exterior product of primitives (if you're into computer graphics you might call them features).

So for example, psi (pingpongball) = roundness ^ thickness ^ color ^ weight and etc, where the features are embedded in a "potential space", that is to say, a space of potentialities. It actually ends up looking very much like a light cone, centered at 'now".

Which ones are actually occupied is exactly like a measurement, however the operator works against a space of test functions because there are singularities all over the place.

Pretty clearly and self-evidently obviously, the information is in which conditions are occupied. 

And you can understand intuitively, that the path integral in terms of all possible paths, is much like trying to describe all possible variations of a ping pong ball. Just so, you can run an exterior product on the independent degrees of freedom and you'll have a basis for your state space. 

The MOST important thing to understand out of all this, is that the definition of "the system" is NOT arbitrary. It matters! Not only that, but the definition of "the space" matters just as much!

Physicists are sly, they wave their hands over this stuff. If the ping pong ball can be either white or yellow, we say it has the property of color and we say it's in a yellow "state". But that's not really a state, is it? It's a SUB-state, and it happens to be linearly separable from other substates. The "complete" state description of a ping pong ball is a very long vector of features, and if they happen to be separable we can add the substates but if for example Dunlop is the only one that makes yellow ping pong balls then there is a conditional expectation between the feature "name" and the feature "color" and they're no longer linearly independent.

Just so, we say a photon has spin and it has state 0 or 1, but that's not a "complete" state description. It very much represents an assumption of independence, and for example accelerating spins precess, so there is not strict independence between spin and position.

And, if you try to "reduce complexity" and try to describe a photon in terms of spin only, you're losing all the correlations with other degrees of freedom. You have to make sure, the state you're describing, is "complete".

----------


## nonsqtr

So, I propose the photon is actually a dust cloud.

The "quanta" we're familiar with, aren't real quanta - they're artifacts from equilibria arising from boundary conditions. The "real" quanta are the dust particles.

How else are you going to explain 

- split paths
- multiple paths
- self interference

Dust is the low-hanging-fruit answer. It also conveniently fits with both the transverse symmetries and the longitudinal shape of the photon.

It also explains how "parts of" a photon can behave differently from the rest. I'm not yet sure how it explains detector incidence, still working on that one... but I mean, 90% of it is covered.

Now... the "mechanism" around the dust is a whole different issue. Tiny distances = high energies = lots of particles... the projection of Planck sized strings onto 3d points constitutes a dust

However a better (simpler) model is, quantized frequencies are actually noise induced oscillations that synchronize because of the shared boundary conditions

----------


## UKSmartypants

> So, I propose the photon is actually a dust cloud.


Well its a cloud of information probablity. But it still is limited by some finitely small distance, on the basis the smaller it gets compared to the planck distance, the less the max probability is


Look at it like this - at the planck distance theres a probability curve like a poisson distribution that peaks at 100% , saying if theres a photon here, theres 100%  chance of detecting it. As you get smaller than the planck distance, the lower the peak gets eg maybe at 1/2ℓP  the peak probability is only 50% at 1/4ℓP its 10%  etc. So its not that theres a cutoff point, its just that the chances get vanishing small very quickly


The problem you have is that any attempt to place mass inside a planck length immediately produces a black hole. So the photon is the only thing that can be smaller, because its massless. but its energy has to reduce in proportion. Since its cant have a mass/energy equivalence less than the planck energy, then it has to resort to reducing its information probability instead.

That raises the hitherto unaddressed but interesting question, is there such a thing as the Planck information, the minimum quanta of information or probability?  Since Spin is assumed to be the basic property of an elementary particle, all of which are massively larger than the Planck length, is it a property whos information content can  be quantised?  Spin is given as a dimensionless spin quantum number by dividing the spin angular momentum by the reduced Planck constant - so why does it have to be a whole number or a multiple of 0.5?  Why cant were have 0.235568 spin at  ℓP/2 ?


I need to stop reading your posts.....they are madness.....

----------


## nonsqtr

> I need to stop reading your posts.....they are madness.....


Well, if you're reading your own words, you're actually proving my point!

Coherent states are not orthogonal, and this is exactly why.

I mean look, it's so simple it's painful.

Uncertainty exists "because of" the dust cloud.

It's perfectly logical. At some point your detector resolution will be inadequate and all you'll see is... well... dust.

But the dust has properties and they can be defined.

This "uncertainty" business is what's madness.

Imagine that, all of physics is based on a human being's (incomplete) knowledge? THAT is crazy. 

If you're telling me about phenomenology, I already know all that. (Well, most of it, anyway).

Physicists are stuck in a geometric world, they need a good dose of noise. Consider: before ripples, there was noise. If you get a "random wave" on a membrane, it started with noise. Guaranteed.

Have you ever actually studied the NOISE PHYSICS of a drum head? Everyone and their brother knows about the vibrational modes, but very few people consider how the energy gets there in the first place.

Yes, I'm not challenging the math. The math works. I'm trying to point to the issue of SCALE. The universe is self-similar, there are galaxies, suns, planets, atoms, .... dust. For some reason, the search for the elusive "smallest quantum" STOPPED with these idiots at Copenhagen. They threw up their hands in defeat and surrendered to uncertainty.

While, the answer is right there in plain view and it's been staring them in the face the whole time.

Here's a concrete example: what is the first thing physicists do in quantum two-body problems? Answer: they want to "minimize the uncertainty" so they ASSume it's evenly divided - but guess what, it's not! There are squeezed states where the relative probabilities are far from equal.

So it's like, you read 99% of the physics out there and they'll still talk about minimizing uncertainty, it's like these assholes are completely unaware there's squeezed states out there and what the significance is.

The squeezed states PROVE the probability distributions can be directly manipulated. Yes I'm thoroughly familiar with the way they "behave", but I'm trying to look at this from an engineering standpoint. So far I understand the matrix mechanics, and the "proof of probability amplitudes" strikes me as a self-congratulatory exercise. Yes of course they're going to match, because those are the assumptions you made when you did the math.

But, y'know, in optics there are Poissonian processes and there are also sub-Poissonian and supra-Poissonian ones.

----------


## nonsqtr

> .
> 
> That raises the hitherto unaddressed but interesting question, is there such a thing as the Planck information, the minimum quanta of information or probability?


Right question.




> Since Spin is assumed to be the basic property of an elementary particle,


Wrong answer.

See? You're doing exactly what I said you'd do. You're using a "reduced" state vector.  :Grin: 




> all of which are massively larger than the Planck length, is it a property whos information content can  be quantised?


Let's keep it real. 

Spin is angular momentum.

It's not "fundamental", it's one of many different kinds of momentum.

What makes it interesting is that it is inherently asymmetrical, relativistically speaking. Anything with spin will precess in any kind of field it feels.

----------


## Gator Monroe

Dark matters

----------


## nonsqtr

> So the photon is the only thing that can be smaller, because its massless.


Virtual photons acquire mass.

Do you agree?

----------


## nonsqtr

What about my laser question?

Do you agree that light causes frame dragging?

----------


## nonsqtr

Here lemme see, here's some stuff maybe you can relate to.

They talk about dust in space, like interstellar dust.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_bubble

Photon Bubbles in a Self-gravitating Dust Gas: Collective Dust Interactions - IOPscience).

Space dust, is what creates the rings around some planets.

Physics - Space Dust in a Vacuum

Quantum dust, creates different types of rings

----------


## Authentic

Earth is a _Pebble in the Sky_?

----------


## Gator Monroe

The idea that EVERYTHING is connected has traction ...

----------


## Authentic

_The Stars, Like Dust_.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Virtual photons acquire mass.
> 
> Do you agree?



well they must acquire energy or information, being mass equivalence.

----------


## nonsqtr

So like, in a "photon plasma", the dust reorganizes itself.

Or, let me say it this way - it starts being guided along different behavioral pathways because of the changes in the geometric constraints.

Let's say, just hypothetically, we had a Planck sized dust. A "photon" then, is a packet of dust that obeys certain geometric rules (call them... "influences"). And, "some" of those rules are classically intuitive, like minimizing action. The "uncertainty" of it is in the idea that the ground state isn't zero, it's always active. So these dust configurations will rapidly traverse 10^20 states in the same amount of time it takes an electron to traverse a nucleus. The overall state of "the system" though, will be quite consistent. Dust is dust, right? No matter how you look at it, it's still a ball of dust. Even if you get way up close, there's no way to tell one configuration from another.

So I think we have things like vacuum birefringence, that we need to explain. Which is simply, put a photon in a magnetic field, and it can generate an electron-positron pair.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...03491612001820

This "decay" of a photon is quite interesting. We have a magnetically perturbed vacuum, that results in different (photon) polarizations moving at different speeds. Which are "less than" the speed of light, just like in a crystal - so one is led to suggest there's some bouncing around going on.

Ordinarily the magnetic field would have to be large, which is why they look at neutron stars, where 10^13 Gauss is do-able.

----------


## nonsqtr

> well they must acquire energy or information, being mass equivalence.


The symmetry is broken, is the point. No, mass as in the Higgs field 

Seems to me, we have light generating gravity, and we also have photons acquiring mass

----------


## nonsqtr

> well they must acquire energy or information, being mass equivalence.


Photon "anomalous magnetic moment"

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0604059

----------


## nonsqtr

Remember this?

https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...Standard-Model

The muon's anomalous magnetic moment disagrees with the prediction by 3.5 standard deviations.

Strange and charm HVP contributions to the muon (g â 2) including QED corrections with twisted-mass fermions | SpringerLink

----------


## nonsqtr

Let's see...

Anything that spins will warp spacetime.

Anything that warps spacetime will create birefringence.

Which means a mapping of phase to position.

Here, lemme see - in this quickie math, I'll use tA to represent the adjoint of the matrix A, which is it's conjugate transpose.

Ordinarily we have, for a probability density p,

P = | p | ^ 2

and p is represented in matrix form for generators A and B we have

P^2 = Pa^2 + Pb^2 or | A | ^ 2 + | B | ^ 2

because of the norm relationship (ie the metric, the inner product)

But when the probabilities become complex we have 

P^2 = Pa^2 + Pb^2 + (tAB + AtB)

Where that last term depends on the generator. All the same symmetries are available, as are available in quantum mechanics. "And then some".

See, there's a central problem here, which the mathematicians who give prizes for solving unsolvable problems haven't even recognized yet.

"Every known space filling algorithm is sequential".

Procedural. You can only get to B by going through A. In other words: ordered.

Physics has something called a time ordering operator. It's not quite the same thing though.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The symmetry is broken, is the point. No, mass as in the Higgs field 
> 
> Seems to me, we have light generating gravity, and we also have photons acquiring mass



no they acquire energy or information. Its the same thing and doesnt cause wierd stuff to happen

----------


## nonsqtr

Look here - the best and most fun way to understand this is with fractals.

Here's how you create a dust, of any desired size and shape:

Iterated Function Systems - Chaos  Fractals

You can create a Cantor dust this way, it's easy to the point of being trivial.

So, if you were doing a Monte Carlo of one of these things you could randomize the order in which cuts are made, but to guarantee coverage you'd also need partitioning.

Anyway - I found a very helpful site lol -

https://onlinemathtools.com/generate-cantor-dust

Scroll down to where it says "all math tools"

----------


## nonsqtr

> no they acquire energy or information. Its the same thing and doesnt cause wierd stuff to happen


Okay, so you don't agree then.  :Smile: 

You don't believe in the off-shell concept?

E^2 - p^2 < 0 for a virtual particle

supposedly

----------


## nonsqtr

A photon will turn into pairs of quarks and leptons under the right conditions.

They even try to quantify the "quarkness" of a photon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phot...cture_function

----------


## nonsqtr

Hm. Remarkable.




> A single-photon has size and shape and has an internal structure. The electromagnetic field exists only in the entity part, but not outside. A photon propagating in the vacuum has a wave-train length equal to its wavelength, namely, L=λ. The shape of a linearly polarized photon is a membrane-like cuboid. The photon length in the electric field direction is LE=2λ/π, and the photon length in the magnetic field direction is LM=αλ/2π. Its cross-sectional area is σP=αλ2/π2, its volume is VP=αλ3/π2. The magnitude of amplitude of the Poynting vector (energy flow) of the photon is P0=ε0cE20=ℏω4/4παc2. The average energy density of the photon is w=ℏω4/8παc3. The Compton effect probability depends on the ratio of Compton-wavelength λC to the photon wavelength λ when a photon with a wavelength of λ collides with a stationary electron. The circularly polarized photon is a hollow cylinder which radius is R=λ/2π. Its electromagnetic field is confined to a membrane-like shell, while the central part is empty. The cross-sectional area of the entity part is σp=αλ2/2π2, the thickness of the membrane is δ=αλ/2π2.


https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperi...paperid=107462

----------


## nonsqtr

Hm. Well, notwithstanding the Chinese know-it-alls, I've seen nothing that convinces me a photon is mass-less. In fact the actual experimental work seems to indicate it has a very small rest mass.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Okay, so you don't agree then. 
> 
> You don't believe in the off-shell concept?
> 
> E^2 - p^2 < 0 for a virtual particle
> 
> supposedly



Because if they acquired mass they turn into little black holes, they either have to become more energetic or contain more information, something thats doesnt make them violate the Planck energy density for black holes.

----------

nonsqtr (01-31-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Hm. Well, notwithstanding the Chinese know-it-alls, I've seen nothing that convinces me a photon is mass-less. In fact the actual experimental work seems to indicate it has a very small rest mass.



or a very small rest energy. or a very small rest information. same thing.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Because if they acquired mass they turn into little black holes, they either have to become more energetic or contain more information, something thats doesnt make them violate the Planck energy density for black holes.


Okay, I don't know anything at all about black holes. Does it take time for one to evolve or is it instantaneous like pair production?

----------


## nonsqtr

> or a very small rest energy. or a very small rest information. same thing.


You keep saying that.

Not the same thing, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest scuttlebutt is that anything with mass, gets that way because of an interaction with the Higgs field. Is that not the case?

So, if you believe a photon is mass-"less", then all the energy is in the momentum and it doesn't feel the Higgs field. Yes?

I'm still trying to figure out the "quark-ness" thing, they're talking about QCD but the photon part of it is interesting anyway, exactly because of this mass issue.

Same thing for information, it's kind of a "special state" of energy, just like mass. They don't just flip-flop between each other, it requires specific interactions with specific fields.

That word "field" is a bad word. It has multiple meanings. Some physics tries to equate the aether with points on a manifold, and they're not the same thing.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> You keep saying that.
> 
> Not the same thing, though.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest scuttlebutt is that anything with mass, gets that way because of an interaction with the Higgs field. Is that not the case?
> 
> So, if you believe a photon is mass-"less", then all the energy is in the momentum and it doesn't feel the Higgs field. Yes?
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out the "quark-ness" thing, they're talking about QCD but the photon part of it is interesting anyway, exactly because of this mass issue.
> ...



no, see i see mass energy and information as equivalent. Can  a photon sore more or less information than another photon - well maybe, since you can break up  a photon into leptons and quarks. 



The reason i  think this is because if you treat them like this, it solves all sorts of elephants in the room when it comes to black holes, and especially the Hawking Information Paradox.

----------


## nonsqtr

> no, see i see mass energy and information as equivalent. Can  a photon sore more or less information than another photon - well maybe, since you can break up  a photon into leptons and quarks. 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason i  think this is because if you treat them like this, it solves all sorts of elephants in the room when it comes to black holes, and especially the Hawking Information Paradox.


So you equate information with wavelength?

There are problems with each of these interpretations. I'll keep showing you what they are. There's only one way it works.

If you claim that a photon "stores" information, then what happens when a photon splits into two photons? Is the information destroyed? Altered? What happens?

----------


## nonsqtr

The Italian physicist Ettore Majorana showed that an electron could be split into two halves.

Now, apparently, there is a "Majorana boson", a photon that can be split into two halves.

â€œSplitâ€ Photons â€“ New Research Predicts the Existence of a Previously-Unimaginable Particle

Not only that - a photon can be split THREE ways.

Photons meet with three-way split | Nature

https://phys.org/news/2021-12-discovery-photon.html

----------


## UKSmartypants

ah yer we know about majoranas


intially they were proposed only as a form of fermions, and have this same sort of 'spooky action at  a distance' you get in quantum physics,  but some bright spark has tried to apply it to bosons and it works differently with them.  But anything below a planck length is a probability, not a physical particle. otherwise the moment it acquires any momentum it turns into a black hole

----------


## nonsqtr

> ah yer we know about majoranas
> 
> 
> intially they were proposed only as a form of fermions, and have this same sort of 'spooky action at  a distance' you get in quantum physics,  but some bright spark has tried to apply it to bosons and it works differently with them.  But anything below a planck length is a probability, not a physical particle. otherwise the moment it acquires any momentum it turns into a black hole


There seems to be considerable debate about micro black holes. Some people claim the torsional effect puts the minimum mass at 10^16 kg.

But then, other people like Hawking claim there may be micro black holes at the Planck scale, and they might even create gravity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_black_hole

----------


## UKSmartypants

As Martin Amis the mathematician said, "We are about five Einstiens away from knowing how the Universe works"




The maths says if you compress   a proton down to a planck distance its makes a black hole

----------

nonsqtr (02-02-2022)

----------


## nonsqtr

> As Martin Amis the mathematician said, "We are about five Einstiens away from knowing how the Universe works"


Progress in inches. Yes, it's maddening sometimes.

Well, so far I see only two theories that work. One of them is the quantum foam, the other one is high dimensionality. (The two not being mutually exclusive). The foam concept is elegant in many ways, and it greatly simplifies the math. 

But I can't speak to the phenomenology, don't know anything about quasars or the early universe.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Progress in inches. Yes, it's maddening sometimes.
> 
> Well, so far I see only two theories that work. One of them is the quantum foam, the other one is high dimensionality. (The two not being mutually exclusive). The foam concept is elegant in many ways, and it greatly simplifies the math. 
> 
> But I can't speak to the phenomenology, don't know anything about quasars or the early universe.



Three.

Theres also the concept of the False Vacuum collapse

----------


## nonsqtr

> Three.
> 
> Theres also the concept of the False Vacuum collapse


Would you put Hawking's micro black holes into the false vacuum category?

Heh heh - there's another interesting turn of phrase. "False vacuum".  :Grin:

----------


## nonsqtr

> Three.
> 
> Theres also the concept of the False Vacuum collapse


lol - "false vacuum"

Everyone else calls it a local minimum, but nothing is "local" to a cosmologist.  :Grin:

----------


## UKSmartypants

> lol - "false vacuum"
> 
> Everyone else calls it a local minimum, but nothing is "local" to a cosmologist.



Call it what you like, you wont be laughing when it tunnels through and roills down the energy gradient and a bubble appears  here and spreads out at the speed of light.......

----------


## nonsqtr

Good. Well, speaking of nonlinear interactions, here's a couple of interesting ones having to do with photons.

This first one seems to confirm my hypothesis that the universe is inherently unstable.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2019.0534

The second one shows that "arbitrary deviations from equilibrium" (quantum fluctuations) create nonlinearity.

Entropy  | Free Full-Text | Nonlinear Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics Based on the EhrenfestâKlein Model | HTML

And...

Entropic thermodynamics of nonlinear photonic chain networks | Communications Physics

----------


## donttread

> Okay, the first useful result.
> 
> Planck kinda proved this already, in a way, but I'm deriving it from basic principles. Just math. Even a 1 hz photon can be partitioned.
> 
> The proof uses the same logic as Tsirelson's bound, and it's remarkably easy.
> 
> I will illustrate by example.
> 
> Consider a double slit experiment. Some of the photons go this way, some go that way, they interfere on the other side. The experiment requires a coherent light source, which means spins are correlated on the way in.
> ...



A little heavy for me on a Saturday morning but I remember the idea put forth that the universe was infinite in both directs. The cosmos infinitely large and the sub-atomic infinitely small.
In fact , In my youth I saw tremendous parellels between the solar system and the atom. In a "Horton hears a Who" sort of way.

----------

nonsqtr (02-07-2022)

----------

