Dear Sir,

There is much misunderstanding regarding uncertainty of the quantum world. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

There is much misunderstanding regarding uncertainty of the quantum world. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Kennard’s formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg’s. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Kennard’s formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. “Spontaneous” creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Kennard’s formulation and not in Heisenberg’s formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.

The uncertainty relation of Heisenberg was reformulated in terms of standard deviations, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored. A correct formulation of the error–disturbance uncertainty relation, taking the perturbation into account, was essential for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty principle. In 2003 Masanao Ozawa developed the following formulation of the error and disturbance as well as fluctuations by directly measuring errors and disturbances in the observation of spin components: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π.

Ozawa’s inequality suggests that suppression of fluctuations is not the only way to reduce error, but it can be achieved by allowing a system to have larger fluctuations. Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the new relation but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite. Our description of uncertainty follows this revised formulation.

While the particles and bodies are constantly changing their alignment within their confinement, these are not always externally apparent. Various circulatory systems work within our body that affects its internal dynamics polarizing it differently at different times which become apparent only during our interaction with other bodies. Similarly, the interactions of subatomic particles are not always apparent. The elementary particles have intrinsic spin and angular momentum which continually change their state internally. The time evolution of all systems takes place in a continuous chain of discreet steps. Each particle/body acts as one indivisible dimensional system. This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the fields that create the perturbations are not always known to us. We may quote an example.

Imagine an observer and a system to be observed. Between the two let us assume two interaction boundaries. When the dimensions of one medium end and that of another medium begin, the interface of the two media is called the boundary. Thus there will be one boundary at the interface between the observer and the field and another at the interface of the field and the system to be observed. In a simple diagram, the situation can be schematically represented as shown below:

O !->

view post as summary

You and many others on this blog have very good intuition and feeling about the nature of physical reality, but often have difficulty conveying those notions to others.

First of all there are classical notions and quantum notions and there is nothing illogical about either classical or quantum notions, they are simply different. Right now, neither classical nor quantum notions adequately...

view entire post

You and many others on this blog have very good intuition and feeling about the nature of physical reality, but often have difficulty conveying those notions to others.

First of all there are classical notions and quantum notions and there is nothing illogical about either classical or quantum notions, they are simply different. Right now, neither classical nor quantum notions adequately explains all of reality even though both classical and quantum predictions are very good in their limited realms.

A classical spinning sphere is a great analog, but you must be careful and differentiate between a gravity sphere and a charge sphere. And then you must be careful about the observer since a classical observer only perturbs rotation in ways that are knowable and causal. A quantum observer also has knowable perturbations, but a quantum observer perturbs rotation in ways that are not knowable and so are not causal.

A gravity sphere can rotate one way or the other, that is true, and those rotation senses only have meaning relative to the observer. So there are as you say two equal and opposite momentum states and a continuum of states in between. Furthermore, gravity rotation couples with the spin of orbital motion and a rotating sphere that orbits another body will have two very different states in that rotation with and against the orbit phase.

However there is no self energy for a rotating gravity sphere. The spin of a gravity sphere does not affect the gravity of the sphere. But there are all kinds of tidal forces that heat the gravity sphere and the radiation of that heat slows both spin and orbit.

Why this is an elephant in the room completely escapes me.

A charge sphere like an electron can rotate one way or the other as well and that spin magnetism will couple with the magnetism of an electron in orbit around a nucleus. This means that there will be a difference for up spin versus down spin just like a spinning gravity sphere.

A charge sphere in orbit around another charge behaves similar to the gravity sphere and classically, there are a continuum of states. However, the classical charge sphere radiates continuously as it orbits and so loses energy. A quantum electron also radiates, but the nucleus captures that radiation in a resonance that is what quantum is and returns it back to the electron in a perpetual game of catch.

Instead of a continuum of classical states, there are now just discrete quantum states. The electron can be either up or down and the orbit can be a ground state or any number of excited states, each with a factor of two less velocity. In order for the electron to leave, it must lose a succession of discrete photons each a factor of four less in energy in an infinity of Zeno's paradox.

The quantum spin state exists as a superposition of up and down both prior to and in orbit. Unlike the classical spin in a classical orbit, the quantum spin exists in a spherical or S state and there is no up or down yet and no elephant in the room. However, there is a photon of energy lost when a nucleus captures an electron and that photon phase is entangled with the electron spin phase.

So now there is a quantum elephant in the room. The electron also does not exist only in the ground state and spends some short time in all of the states and in fact, the electron spends some time in all of the universe as well. This makes quantum sense but does not make classical sense. Moreover, the electron spin does affect its charge and the electron motion in its orbit also affects its charge. The electron self energy is called the anomalous gyromagnetic ratio and it is possible to derive it from the fine structure constant.

Thus far there is no gravity analog to this effect of spinning quantum charge and its entanglement with the lost photon that literally does exist in the whole universe and that is the elephant that is in the room. With a quantum gravity, of course, there is an analogous self energy and meaning for photon entanglement but that is a different story.

view post as summary

Steve,

"It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse."

Every time you write about what I say it is as if you don't know what I say. I have no discrepancy with regard to photon deflection and matter deflection. Photon deflection is twice the deflection of matter. Here is my main point and it does not...

view entire post

Steve,

"It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse."

Every time you write about what I say it is as if you don't know what I say. I have no discrepancy with regard to photon deflection and matter deflection. Photon deflection is twice the deflection of matter. Here is my main point and it does not rely upon all of the rest of my work. The first error of theoretical physics was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. A defined property, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It is introduced into physics equations as one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics.

Repeating these sentences: "A defined property, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It is introduced into physics equations as one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics."

There is no need for me to supply a dictionary so that physicists can understand what I am saying in these sentences. The first page of an introductory physics textbook is what is needed:

" College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.  Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the  definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be  expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics. 

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...

Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ... "

My work is completely separate from establishing how to define a physics property. It was established without my input. My work begins by revealing to physicists these two points: The first is that both mass and force could have been and should have been made defined properties. The second point is that I have defined mass in accordance with the directive quoted from Sears Zemansky. If you do not like these two points. If you consider them to be unimportant for physics, then our works will definitely differ. Your work will necessarily not include a physics definition for mass. Mine includes a physics definition for mass. Your work will necessarily not include a definition for kilograms. Mine includes a definition for kilograms. You work with properties and units that are loose in meaning to the point that you can write and use E=M as if it was an equation, which it definitely is not. You made use of it when you suggested that the equivalence of mass and energy justified your exchanging the units of kilograms to replace those of Joules as a unit of action. There is no way that E=MC² can be reduced to E=M except by making units disappear with non-mathematical 'slight-of-hand' handling.

James Putnam

view post as summary

Dear Steve Agnew,

"There is nothing really wrong here, but this approach just doesn't seem that useful to me."

Its usefulness is the restoration of fundamental unity right from the beginning of physics. It is the opportunity to remove theory, which consists of guesses and conclusions that lack both empirical support and a finished fundamental foundation. This circumstance prevents us...

view entire post

Dear Steve Agnew,

"There is nothing really wrong here, but this approach just doesn't seem that useful to me."

Its usefulness is the restoration of fundamental unity right from the beginning of physics. It is the opportunity to remove theory, which consists of guesses and conclusions that lack both empirical support and a finished fundamental foundation. This circumstance prevents us from learning the nature of the Universe. Instead, we learn what theorists' think when they are imagining what mathematically plausible solutions might suffice to appear to make up for the unfinished business of properly deriving the properties of fundamental physics from their empirical evidence.

The restoration of fundamental unity at the beginning of physics makes the theorists' work unnecessary. It is not the imagination of the theorists that we should trust in. We need to put our trust trust back into the ability of empirical evidence to reveal to us everything we will ever know about the mechanical operation of the Universe. Empirical evidence is our source of knowledge about the mechanical operation of the Universe. Its solutions are not located in extra dimensions or extra Universes or in the convoluted visions that result from theorists guesses. All empirical evidence consists of effects. Cause is a physics unknown.

Theory is the practice of imagining what cause might be and, inserting those imaginings into physics equations. Cutting to the bone: Theory is a facade, placed in front of empirical physics knowledge, that prevents us from seeing the true nature of the Universe. We learn instead the dilemmas that result from theorizing. It is clear why amateurs disagree with one another. It should be just as clear why theorists disagree with one another. The cause in both cases is lack of understanding.

In the case of professionals, that lack of understand is self-imposed. It is not that professionals seek lack of understanding. Their problem is that the unfinished fundamentals of physics allow for gaps in knowledge that theorists' impatiently fill with mathematically plausible substitutions that they insert into physics equations in place of that which remains unknown. It is theorists' substitutions that need to be removed from physics equations and be replaced with empirically revealed knowledge. Fixing physics begins with finally defining mass, temperature, and removing the circular definition of electric charge. After those changes are made, physics equations no longer leave room for theorists intrusions.

James Putnam,

view post as summary

Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) is a standard physics textbook now in its 14th edition although the one you quote is the 3rd Ed. The 13th S&Z no longer uses the awkward terminology that ends up defining indefinable quantities. Instead, S&Z state that there are three fundamental quantities from which all other quantities derive. Science...

view entire post

Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) is a standard physics textbook now in its 14th edition although the one you quote is the 3rd Ed. The 13th S&Z no longer uses the awkward terminology that ends up defining indefinable quantities. Instead, S&Z state that there are three fundamental quantities from which all other quantities derive. Science defines the three fundamental quantities of mass, length, and time with measurement rules. In other words, you must simply believe in these three fundamental quantities as axioms or operational definitions that then define all other physical quantities.

What you propose is that there are actually only two fundamental quantities, length and time, and those two axioms then define mass. The use of indefinable or undefinable is not very helpful in the context of explaining definitions.

It is true that for any set of axioms that define all physical quantities, the axioms must also define each other as well. This means that it is true that length and time define mass just as mass and length define time. This means that you are actually correct that length and time define mass, but this truth is already embedded in S&Z.

In other words, S&Z define both space and time from the action of light and so light along with mass really define both space and time. Unfortunately, the classical formulation of space and time as continuous and infinitely divisible results in the pothole singularities that tie spacetime in knots. So the classical axioms of length and time do not work for the whole universe and that is why your approach, while not wrong, is simply not that useful.

My view is that matter and action represent much more useful axioms. Action is the path integral of the Lagrangian (i.e. KE - PE) over some path in space, time, or spacetime. Thus, action can have different dimensions depending on the nature of the path integral. Minimization of the action integral over a classical path is then what defines GR's geodesics while QED's discrete action Lagrangian integral probabilities result in quantum paths as entangled superpositions.

Observers cause decoherence and then realize an uncertain path from the entangled superpositions of quantum paths. Although mainstream science argues endlessly about this measurement problem, aethertime's universal decoherence of quantum phase noise makes reality objective even without an observer derives. Quantum phase noise comes from the gravity fluctuations of charge motion and is what makes reality objective even without an observer decoherence.

view post as summary