User Tag List

Page 1 of 9 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 84

Thread: I can prove there's something smaller than a photon

  1. #1
    Alumni Member & VIP Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    40,298
    Thanks
    17,406
    Thanked: 44,384
    Rep Power
    21474885

    I can prove there's something smaller than a photon

    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.
    Last edited by nonsqtr; 01-24-2022 at 06:57 AM.
    Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. - John Donne, Meditation XVII

    We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. - Ben Franklin, upon signing the Declaration of Independence

    For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light. Luke 8:17

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

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

  3. #2
    Senior Member Forum Donor Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 12.0%

    Camp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    949
    Thanks
    10,516
    Thanked: 2,207
    Rep Power
    3212405
    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.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    mrclose's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,404
    Thanks
    1,450
    Thanked: 4,654
    Rep Power
    8571336
    Think of how stupid the average person is ... then realize the bottom half is stupider.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to mrclose For This Useful Post:

    JMWinPR (01-24-2022)

  6. #4
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    fmw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    2,992
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked: 2,209
    Rep Power
    1706697
    Quote Originally Posted by Camp View Post
    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.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to fmw For This Useful Post:

    nonsqtr (01-25-2022)

  8. #5
    Loki on a Calvinist bent Forum Donor Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassOverdrive1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Authentic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    24,583
    Thanks
    10,996
    Thanked: 17,933
    Rep Power
    21474862
    Shouldn't you be publishing this in a physics journal instead of here?
    Let em come, we are Millwall

    Seattle in the past (and future), Milwaukee in spirit, Millwall for life.

    I love and hate L.A. (and I will miss it)

  9. #6
    Loki on a Calvinist bent Forum Donor Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassOverdrive1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Authentic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    24,583
    Thanks
    10,996
    Thanked: 17,933
    Rep Power
    21474862
    Does a sub-photon travel faster than c?
    Let em come, we are Millwall

    Seattle in the past (and future), Milwaukee in spirit, Millwall for life.

    I love and hate L.A. (and I will miss it)

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Authentic For This Useful Post:

    nonsqtr (01-25-2022)

  11. #7
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 43.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    8,372
    Thanks
    1,012
    Thanked: 10,152
    Rep Power
    12195967
    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.
    Last edited by UKSmartypants; 01-24-2022 at 03:45 PM.
    I declare that the entire content and attachments of any and all of my posts are for the purposes of personal entertainment, and that I do not vouch for the veracity of the content. Neither do I care if you doubt my sources. That's your prerogative, but not my concern.


    WARNING: In the Science Forum, the Big Bang is settled science. if you want to doubt it, go and doubt it in another forum.
    REMEMBER: Xenophobia Can Save Lives!

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to UKSmartypants For This Useful Post:

    nonsqtr (01-25-2022)

  13. #8
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 43.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    8,372
    Thanks
    1,012
    Thanked: 10,152
    Rep Power
    12195967
    Berkenstein's hypothesis

    Bekenstein-Hawking entropy - Scholarpedia

    This what resulted in Hawkings Information paradox.
    Last edited by UKSmartypants; 01-24-2022 at 03:53 PM.
    I declare that the entire content and attachments of any and all of my posts are for the purposes of personal entertainment, and that I do not vouch for the veracity of the content. Neither do I care if you doubt my sources. That's your prerogative, but not my concern.


    WARNING: In the Science Forum, the Big Bang is settled science. if you want to doubt it, go and doubt it in another forum.
    REMEMBER: Xenophobia Can Save Lives!

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to UKSmartypants For This Useful Post:

    nonsqtr (01-25-2022)

  15. #9
    Alumni Member & VIP Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    40,298
    Thanks
    17,406
    Thanked: 44,384
    Rep Power
    21474885
    Quote Originally Posted by Authentic View Post
    Shouldn't you be publishing this in a physics journal instead of here?
    I'm just being entertaining.

    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

    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? )

    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.
    Last edited by nonsqtr; 01-25-2022 at 03:49 AM.
    Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. - John Donne, Meditation XVII

    We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. - Ben Franklin, upon signing the Declaration of Independence

    For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light. Luke 8:17

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Authentic (01-25-2022)

  17. #10
    Alumni Member & VIP Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    40,298
    Thanks
    17,406
    Thanked: 44,384
    Rep Power
    21474885
    Quote Originally Posted by Authentic View Post
    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.
    Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. - John Donne, Meditation XVII

    We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. - Ben Franklin, upon signing the Declaration of Independence

    For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light. Luke 8:17

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •