What exactly is all this stuff in the Cosmos?
Discussion
I'm going to try to encompass as much as I can of todays thinking about this.
MATTER.
You have to get your head around 'fields'.
The entire Cosmos is not aether, as our less informed predecessors thought, instead of a 'substance' fields are more like the field of magnetism that is emitted at the poles of a magnet, invisible but can be 'seen' if something is effected by it, for a magnet we use iron filings, for the fields we see all that the cosmos is... all that you see and all that you know exists and behaves in the way it does because they are in the sway of the many fields that form our cosmos, it is the tiny excitations in those fields that that gives the Cosmos existence.
There are many fields and they appear to be part of a unified matrix of fields each one not so much fills spacetime but is itself spacetime.
These fields overlap/interlace one another perfectly.
Fields are in an of themselves outside of the laws of nature, but all that they do is, they produce the laws of nature, Thermodynamics, entropy everything.
Fields do not experience time, they do not experience space, they create both but are immune to their existence.
They explain the twins paradox that foxed Einstein all his life and they account fully for every 'paradox' I have encountered to date.
At each point in spacetime, each field has a value, this value is nothing more than a probability, a likelihood of existence, this probability fluctuates at Planckian lengths (possibly, this is under fierce debate).
A Fundamental particle is a compound of these probabilities we call an excitation and this is simply where a number of fields behave in unison (improved probability) to produce a particle.
There are as many fields as there are types of particle... photon, gluon, electron, quark, and even the as yet proven graviton.
The graviton field is there, it has to be as it is what gives us our 3D geometry (object distances and co-ordinates) and then our 4D geometry to give us trajectories.
Combine all the fields and we have a working model for everything.
What we call matter is made from particles, they are called things like Fermions, electrons, quarks and others all of these particles have an attribute we call ½ spin this spin is complex but it gives a primary solidity to matter. This is an attribute of just one field, but it needs other fields to gain existence, each field relies on others to make itself 'known'.
Next up is the integer (whole number) spin fields we call Gauge occupied by Bosons, photons, gluons and gravitons all of which are excitations.
These two layers although fields work on a different form of probabilities and rather than being cohesive are the opposite and fly about freely, they can't and don't make matter, but combined with the field above allow the ½ spin particles to do so.
Infact they give true solidity its solid nature, each individually does little, combined they are all that there is that has substance.
These interactions are electromagnetic in nature and although individually very weak, there are so many that they form something so solid that your hand cannot pass through it, despite it being almost entirely empty space.
All our theories, every one of them, simply explains how these fields interact or not to produce a Cosmos of huge complexity in the simplest terms we can find.
Matter is mostly Fermions plus other ½ spin particles, but it needs Bosons and other integer spin particles to give them the force to ensure they don't combine and become a mess of continual flux, the '½ spin' provides the hand and the face and the 'full spin' give the hardness of the slap when you whisper something rude into a sweet things ear!
So now you know what matter is, it is nothing more and nothing less.
Now let's consider what gave the power to that slap on the face for your impertinance.
ENERGY.
You have to get your head around the fact that energy is not in and of itself an object, although we speak of harnessing energy we don't we simply have to 'account' for it, energy is perhaps the truest 'numbers game' in physics, it ain't and never can be material.
This account is what we call the conservation of energy and iot works like this:-
Remember in the two previous fields we talked of excitations (probabilities) they are quanta of energy and in an area at midday there are (say) 100 of them... the account must have 100 at 1pm also, even if they are not in the same place that they were at midday, that is all that energy is an account of use or as we call it, work!
So, can we turn matter into energy?..
We can turn photons (which are sometimes incorrectly thought of as "pure" energy) into matter particles.
We can even combine particles, such that a photon of energy E vanishes as it combines with an electron, and that electron now has an increase of E in its own energy.
So, can we turn mass into energy?..
Mass is simply a measure of how much energy there is in a given volume of space.
Any talk of turning one into the other is meaningless.
So, can we turn matter particles into other matter particles?..
E=Mc^2 and the Bomb.
You will often hear that a small amount of mass has been turned into energy and that seems to contradict all the above?
The assertion is and always was wrong and was due to an error in interpretation of events.
An Atomic Bomb has a given mass, we'll call it 'M'. Mass is measure of the total energy of the bomb, the sum total of all the field excitations above that make up the bomb.
Plutonium in a bomb is a 'big atom' and not quite as stable as say Lead or Gold and as a result there is more energy binding the 'matter' of the atom together than there is matter.
The majority of this energy is in the form of force bosons.
When we set the Bomb off a lot of the force bosons holding the atomic structure together are converted into free bosons that fly out of the bomb.
There will also be a few matter particles ejected as the nuclei destabilise.
If you account for all the mass (or energy) of the entire event including the bosons and fermions that have radiated away in the explosion the total Mass has actually not changed at all... bits just radiated away from the initial point and it looks like the mass has shrunk but it's just changed its field excitation.
This conservation of mass is also present in chemical explosions too, but no Nucleic Bosons are released... just photons.
Cheers
Gene.
Edited to try to resolve formatting issues!
MATTER.
You have to get your head around 'fields'.
The entire Cosmos is not aether, as our less informed predecessors thought, instead of a 'substance' fields are more like the field of magnetism that is emitted at the poles of a magnet, invisible but can be 'seen' if something is effected by it, for a magnet we use iron filings, for the fields we see all that the cosmos is... all that you see and all that you know exists and behaves in the way it does because they are in the sway of the many fields that form our cosmos, it is the tiny excitations in those fields that that gives the Cosmos existence.
There are many fields and they appear to be part of a unified matrix of fields each one not so much fills spacetime but is itself spacetime.
These fields overlap/interlace one another perfectly.
Fields are in an of themselves outside of the laws of nature, but all that they do is, they produce the laws of nature, Thermodynamics, entropy everything.
Fields do not experience time, they do not experience space, they create both but are immune to their existence.
They explain the twins paradox that foxed Einstein all his life and they account fully for every 'paradox' I have encountered to date.
At each point in spacetime, each field has a value, this value is nothing more than a probability, a likelihood of existence, this probability fluctuates at Planckian lengths (possibly, this is under fierce debate).
A Fundamental particle is a compound of these probabilities we call an excitation and this is simply where a number of fields behave in unison (improved probability) to produce a particle.
There are as many fields as there are types of particle... photon, gluon, electron, quark, and even the as yet proven graviton.
The graviton field is there, it has to be as it is what gives us our 3D geometry (object distances and co-ordinates) and then our 4D geometry to give us trajectories.
Combine all the fields and we have a working model for everything.
What we call matter is made from particles, they are called things like Fermions, electrons, quarks and others all of these particles have an attribute we call ½ spin this spin is complex but it gives a primary solidity to matter. This is an attribute of just one field, but it needs other fields to gain existence, each field relies on others to make itself 'known'.
Next up is the integer (whole number) spin fields we call Gauge occupied by Bosons, photons, gluons and gravitons all of which are excitations.
These two layers although fields work on a different form of probabilities and rather than being cohesive are the opposite and fly about freely, they can't and don't make matter, but combined with the field above allow the ½ spin particles to do so.
Infact they give true solidity its solid nature, each individually does little, combined they are all that there is that has substance.
These interactions are electromagnetic in nature and although individually very weak, there are so many that they form something so solid that your hand cannot pass through it, despite it being almost entirely empty space.
All our theories, every one of them, simply explains how these fields interact or not to produce a Cosmos of huge complexity in the simplest terms we can find.
Matter is mostly Fermions plus other ½ spin particles, but it needs Bosons and other integer spin particles to give them the force to ensure they don't combine and become a mess of continual flux, the '½ spin' provides the hand and the face and the 'full spin' give the hardness of the slap when you whisper something rude into a sweet things ear!
So now you know what matter is, it is nothing more and nothing less.
Now let's consider what gave the power to that slap on the face for your impertinance.
ENERGY.
You have to get your head around the fact that energy is not in and of itself an object, although we speak of harnessing energy we don't we simply have to 'account' for it, energy is perhaps the truest 'numbers game' in physics, it ain't and never can be material.
This account is what we call the conservation of energy and iot works like this:-
Remember in the two previous fields we talked of excitations (probabilities) they are quanta of energy and in an area at midday there are (say) 100 of them... the account must have 100 at 1pm also, even if they are not in the same place that they were at midday, that is all that energy is an account of use or as we call it, work!
So, can we turn matter into energy?..
- No.
We can turn photons (which are sometimes incorrectly thought of as "pure" energy) into matter particles.
We can even combine particles, such that a photon of energy E vanishes as it combines with an electron, and that electron now has an increase of E in its own energy.
So, can we turn mass into energy?..
- No.
Mass is simply a measure of how much energy there is in a given volume of space.
Any talk of turning one into the other is meaningless.
So, can we turn matter particles into other matter particles?..
- Yes.
E=Mc^2 and the Bomb.
You will often hear that a small amount of mass has been turned into energy and that seems to contradict all the above?
The assertion is and always was wrong and was due to an error in interpretation of events.
An Atomic Bomb has a given mass, we'll call it 'M'. Mass is measure of the total energy of the bomb, the sum total of all the field excitations above that make up the bomb.
Plutonium in a bomb is a 'big atom' and not quite as stable as say Lead or Gold and as a result there is more energy binding the 'matter' of the atom together than there is matter.
The majority of this energy is in the form of force bosons.
When we set the Bomb off a lot of the force bosons holding the atomic structure together are converted into free bosons that fly out of the bomb.
There will also be a few matter particles ejected as the nuclei destabilise.
If you account for all the mass (or energy) of the entire event including the bosons and fermions that have radiated away in the explosion the total Mass has actually not changed at all... bits just radiated away from the initial point and it looks like the mass has shrunk but it's just changed its field excitation.
This conservation of mass is also present in chemical explosions too, but no Nucleic Bosons are released... just photons.
Cheers
Gene.
Edited to try to resolve formatting issues!
Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 13th July 14:42
Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 13th July 14:44
I don't want to be picky, or perhaps I do, but it's not really on to criticise our predecessors for suggesting that space is aether when we are calling stuff that we don't know what it is black whatever. It's just a name that could just as well be aether. They didn't know what space was so invented a name and we have followed suit.
You started off by saying more or less this is our best guess and good on you for that. The thing that gets me is that despite every scientific theory that there has ever been has been being disproved or substantially modified, apart from the more recent ones which will be disproved or substantially modified in the not too distant, scientists do tend to state things as fact.
Matter is stuff you can move about with a stick. That stands as much chance of being acceptable in 30 or even 20 years as your statement defining our present understanding of the matter.
I was brought up in a family where there was a distinct Hail Mary group. Whilst most of them had lost what was probably a very tenuous grip on reality some were quite sharp but having been brought up in an atmosphere of guilt they would cross themselves to get upset if I didn't cross myself. I did a lot of reading on various religions which, as you would probably guess, put me off believing in any of them. But what convinced me that science, or at least the scientific method, is the way to go was being told by my science teacher before every statement of supposed it fact that "this is what scientists think, or at least some of them".
I was told by my history teacher at the start of the first lesson that "Everything I am going to tell you is wrong. I know this because everything I was told when I was your age has been proved wrong apart from those things which were proved wrong but are currently right." It was struck me that it could have been talking about science.
Thanks for the clarification.
You started off by saying more or less this is our best guess and good on you for that. The thing that gets me is that despite every scientific theory that there has ever been has been being disproved or substantially modified, apart from the more recent ones which will be disproved or substantially modified in the not too distant, scientists do tend to state things as fact.
Matter is stuff you can move about with a stick. That stands as much chance of being acceptable in 30 or even 20 years as your statement defining our present understanding of the matter.
I was brought up in a family where there was a distinct Hail Mary group. Whilst most of them had lost what was probably a very tenuous grip on reality some were quite sharp but having been brought up in an atmosphere of guilt they would cross themselves to get upset if I didn't cross myself. I did a lot of reading on various religions which, as you would probably guess, put me off believing in any of them. But what convinced me that science, or at least the scientific method, is the way to go was being told by my science teacher before every statement of supposed it fact that "this is what scientists think, or at least some of them".
I was told by my history teacher at the start of the first lesson that "Everything I am going to tell you is wrong. I know this because everything I was told when I was your age has been proved wrong apart from those things which were proved wrong but are currently right." It was struck me that it could have been talking about science.
Thanks for the clarification.
I wasn't criticising, just pointing out how aether based science was without foundation, this is in stark contrast to modern science.
My post is not a best guess, it has foundation of 50 years of testing, second by only a couple of years to that of Feynmans QED and the fundamentals are largely unchanged just as Feynmans.
The above is a very accurate portrayal of how this Cosmos works, the Higgs confirmed it, just as the W and Z bosons did 20+ years ago.
This is how it is as of today it has been tested and never found wanting, furthermore it solves every paradox that it is faced with and nothing that we know to works and is observed is violated, in short... it's not wrong, but it will be added to and sharpened, but it is how our Cosmos operates.
You've mentioned Dark Matter, my next thread will be about where we are with that and how the maths will help us see the invisible.
My post is not a best guess, it has foundation of 50 years of testing, second by only a couple of years to that of Feynmans QED and the fundamentals are largely unchanged just as Feynmans.
The above is a very accurate portrayal of how this Cosmos works, the Higgs confirmed it, just as the W and Z bosons did 20+ years ago.
This is how it is as of today it has been tested and never found wanting, furthermore it solves every paradox that it is faced with and nothing that we know to works and is observed is violated, in short... it's not wrong, but it will be added to and sharpened, but it is how our Cosmos operates.
You've mentioned Dark Matter, my next thread will be about where we are with that and how the maths will help us see the invisible.
EPR and the 'Spooky action at a distance' is resolved easily by field theory and ties in with observation.
In short both are quantum variables and these variables fit exactly with the field numericals.
In the past there was much discussion about FTL action and all sorts of foolishness, many years ago now this was resolved.
To repeat this, both have no speed related content, just quantum variables, that fit the fields exactly.
In short both are quantum variables and these variables fit exactly with the field numericals.
In the past there was much discussion about FTL action and all sorts of foolishness, many years ago now this was resolved.
To repeat this, both have no speed related content, just quantum variables, that fit the fields exactly.
Gene Vincent said:
My post is not a best guess, it has foundation of 50 years of testing, second by only a couple of years to that of Feynmans QED and the fundamentals are largely unchanged just as Feynmans.
The above is a very accurate portrayal of how this Cosmos works, the Higgs confirmed it, just as the W and Z bosons did 20+ years ago.
Yet Georg Weiglein of the German Electron Sychotron research centre, said, after the discovery of something which might have been the Higgs, said:The above is a very accurate portrayal of how this Cosmos works, the Higgs confirmed it, just as the W and Z bosons did 20+ years ago.
Many of my colleagues and I think that this discovery . . . may mark the beginning of the end of the standard model.
As for the Higgs confirming anything, I'm not sure finding something you are looking for confirms anything. Let's have a chat in 100 years time.
Derek Smith said:
Gene Vincent said:
My post is not a best guess, it has foundation of 50 years of testing, second by only a couple of years to that of Feynmans QED and the fundamentals are largely unchanged just as Feynmans.
The above is a very accurate portrayal of how this Cosmos works, the Higgs confirmed it, just as the W and Z bosons did 20+ years ago.
Yet Georg Weiglein of the German Electron Sychotron research centre, said, after the discovery of something which might have been the Higgs, said:The above is a very accurate portrayal of how this Cosmos works, the Higgs confirmed it, just as the W and Z bosons did 20+ years ago.
Many of my colleagues and I think that this discovery . . . may mark the beginning of the end of the standard model.
As for the Higgs confirming anything, I'm not sure finding something you are looking for confirms anything. Let's have a chat in 100 years time.
ETA, I should add that his personal model will likely be close to mine, but his working model, the one for which e is responsible for proving everyday will be older, experimentation is the slow cousin of thought.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 13th July 22:44
Bedazzled said:
Gene Vincent said:
In short both are quantum variables and these variables fit exactly with the field numericals.
I thought Bell's inequality theorem and Aspect's test experiments in the 80's ruled out local hidden variables?The errors in the probability aspects of the accounting of both concepts you mention is down to inherent error in themselves, not in the underlying fields they attempt to describe.
Bedazzled said:
How do these structures of interacting fields account for quantum uncertainty and the associated effects such as the EPR paradox? And how does the field theory fit with the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations, and Schrodinger's cat? Overlaying quantum fields and summing up perturbations seems very deterministic and mathematical, compared with the indeterminate nature of quantum reality.
I was just thinking exactly that. Not really.
As usual, in awe at the planet-sized brains of PHers. My massively less educated shot at the composition of dark matter is that it is the evolved state of countless civilisations floating about the place.
Gene Vincent said:
In field theory quantum variables are not hidden, in addition, again in simple terms, the fact that fields form both space and time but remain part of neither, terms such as 'local' or 'distant' are meaningless.
The errors in the probability aspects of the accounting of both concepts you mention is down to inherent error in themselves, not in the underlying fields they attempt to describe.
So is it that the Aspect experiments were misinterpreted and that they didn't produce anything that looked like 'spooky action at a distance', or is it that field theory explains the apparent action in non spooky, non FTL, terms?The errors in the probability aspects of the accounting of both concepts you mention is down to inherent error in themselves, not in the underlying fields they attempt to describe.
Dr Jekyll said:
Gene Vincent said:
In field theory quantum variables are not hidden, in addition, again in simple terms, the fact that fields form both space and time but remain part of neither, terms such as 'local' or 'distant' are meaningless.
The errors in the probability aspects of the accounting of both concepts you mention is down to inherent error in themselves, not in the underlying fields they attempt to describe.
So is it that the Aspect experiments were misinterpreted and that they didn't produce anything that looked like 'spooky action at a distance', or is it that field theory explains the apparent action in non spooky, non FTL, terms?The errors in the probability aspects of the accounting of both concepts you mention is down to inherent error in themselves, not in the underlying fields they attempt to describe.
I can appreciate that if a pair of particles have some predetermined relationship, examining one tells you about the other.
From what I read about the Aspect experiments though, it wasn't just that discovering that one particle answered to Ronnie meant the other would inevitably turn out to be Reggie. It was that one particle would respond whether you addressed him as Ronnie or Reggie, and the non local particle would then immediately respond to the other without time for a message to get across.
This was why the only options seemed to me to be
1) A mixture of FTL and some strange relationship between observer and subject.
or
2) Two possibilities existing side by side until you study the particle, at which point you are committed to being in either the local Ronnie/distant Reggie universe or the local Reggie/distant Ronnie one.
Seems even spookier when you listen to the multi universe brigade. Though I'm not sure it's reallly any spookier than a single universe.
So does how you examine the local particle really affect the remote one? If so, how quickly?
From what I read about the Aspect experiments though, it wasn't just that discovering that one particle answered to Ronnie meant the other would inevitably turn out to be Reggie. It was that one particle would respond whether you addressed him as Ronnie or Reggie, and the non local particle would then immediately respond to the other without time for a message to get across.
This was why the only options seemed to me to be
1) A mixture of FTL and some strange relationship between observer and subject.
or
2) Two possibilities existing side by side until you study the particle, at which point you are committed to being in either the local Ronnie/distant Reggie universe or the local Reggie/distant Ronnie one.
Seems even spookier when you listen to the multi universe brigade. Though I'm not sure it's reallly any spookier than a single universe.
So does how you examine the local particle really affect the remote one? If so, how quickly?
Dr Jekyll said:
I can appreciate that if a pair of particles have some predetermined relationship, examining one tells you about the other.
From what I read about the Aspect experiments though, it wasn't just that discovering that one particle answered to Ronnie meant the other would inevitably turn out to be Reggie. It was that one particle would respond whether you addressed him as Ronnie or Reggie, and the non local particle would then immediately respond to the other without time for a message to get across.
This was why the only options seemed to me to be
1) A mixture of FTL and some strange relationship between observer and subject.
or
2) Two possibilities existing side by side until you study the particle, at which point you are committed to being in either the local Ronnie/distant Reggie universe or the local Reggie/distant Ronnie one.
Seems even spookier when you listen to the multi universe brigade. Though I'm not sure it's reallly any spookier than a single universe.
So does how you examine the local particle really affect the remote one? If so, how quickly?
Good morning...From what I read about the Aspect experiments though, it wasn't just that discovering that one particle answered to Ronnie meant the other would inevitably turn out to be Reggie. It was that one particle would respond whether you addressed him as Ronnie or Reggie, and the non local particle would then immediately respond to the other without time for a message to get across.
This was why the only options seemed to me to be
1) A mixture of FTL and some strange relationship between observer and subject.
or
2) Two possibilities existing side by side until you study the particle, at which point you are committed to being in either the local Ronnie/distant Reggie universe or the local Reggie/distant Ronnie one.
Seems even spookier when you listen to the multi universe brigade. Though I'm not sure it's reallly any spookier than a single universe.
So does how you examine the local particle really affect the remote one? If so, how quickly?
I'll try to address this directly.
1/. There is no FTL action and nothing even slightly strange.
2/. There is no multiverse nor dichotomy of relationship or even cotermineity.
What we have is cohesive field properties.
Each field behaves consistently, so throughout the Cosmos the integer spin field will what it does in the same way here as it does a light year away or 13 billion.
If you cut down the interaction you wish to observe you effectively view just the initial interaction of a single field and your instrumentation which you endeavour to make consistent to prove results.
So with this restricted purview what would you expect to happen when you introduce a force here and one any distance away?
The property of the field is consistent right across the cosmos as it does not experience space and experiences no time, so what you do here will invoke the exact same reaction anywhere in the field in what to us appears instantaneous, but in reality it is because of our limited purview.
It is like a stick of Blackpool rock, where ever you cut it you still find the words Blackpool, that is the property of Blackpool rock (that and a sweet minty flavour) and what you'd expect, but you only expect that because you know what it is, before theory it was like just the words Black pool was printed on each end of it.
It's not the best analogy, but it is 10.45 on a Sunday morning and I need another cuppa.
Bedazzled said:
I think GV may be superimposing his own pet theory with the structure of QFT somehow existing outside of our laws of nature and spatial dimensions, thereby removing the problem of distant separation, but I haven't seen any mainstream theories which describe this (sorry if I'm misinterpreting).
Not at all.The key term you did use is that QFT underpins... it really does.
But the understanding of the fields properties rather than the phenomenon we encounter as a result is quite new and not resolved.
These fields don't exist outside of the laws of nature but are the cause of them.
In general, mainstream theories follow a few years after primary theoretical research.
This is how it is today, a few years down the line it will very likely be quite mainstream with the wrinkles ironed out.
There are a number of unresolved aspects, one that has my attention at the moment is attempting to resolve the maths of a fields seeming property of null time and space.
You can wait five/ten years and read about it on Wikipaedia if you want.
Bedazzled said:
I'm still getting to grips with stuff that was discovered 50 years ago, but it's interesting to hear about new ideas too. Anyhow contributing to the thread helps me structure my thoughts and test what I've understood. I think you should mention when you are describing new concepts which are not yet in the mainstream, ideally with links to published papers.
My first sentence in this thread was:- "I'm going to try to encompass as much as I can of todays thinking about this." much of what is in this thread is less than a year old, compactions of my own work, work gleaned from discussions with others through e-mail or across a table. It's about as contemporary as it can be.But you are right and I must give a full credit to Jim Muecke for his huge contribution to my work and thinking, he is the clearest thinking human being I have ever encountered and his startling clarity needs to be fully acknowledged by me. A true genius in a world that uses the term flippantly.
If you think what I write here is somewhat hard to take, Jims view on energy (which I don't agree with) and what it might be a manifestation of would leave you incredulous.
R300will said:
So what powers the forces/fields and will it run out?
This sounds like a smart-alec answer but it's not.The forces are an attribute, a property, of their quotient of the energy account, they differ because they each have only these values, they are like they are because of that, their spin and their iso-spin etc.
Fields are again an account of energy and it's probabilities as the layers combine to interact to produce those force attributes.
The energy is there and is insoluble, it won't go away, it is a quotient or quantum sum, as it can go nowhere it can neither run out on us or disappear.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff