Robert Oerter, on page 83 of his book “The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics” said “Quantum mechanics has completely undermined the mechanistic view of the universe, by removing not one but two of its foundations. First, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is impossible, even in principle, to determine the exact position and velocity or momentum of each particle in your body. The best that can be done, even for a single particle, is to determine the quantum state of the particle, which necessarily leaves some uncertainty about its position, velocity or momentum. Second, the laws of physics are not deterministic but probabilistic: given the (quantum) state of your body, only the probabilities of different behaviors could be predicted.”

To a certain extent this is true however the same can be said for our inability to determine the exact position and momentum of many macroscopic objects in our environment.

For example in “reality” we can cannot determine or measure the exact position or momentum of the planets as they obit the sun because we do not have the ability, even with modern computers to calculate the gravitational effects all of the other objects in our universe, such as the planets or stars have on them.  In other words we can only determine their most probably macroscopic positions or momentum based on an incomplete set of initial conditions.  However we do not deny the mechanistic view of planetary science, in part because we can understand or determine the mechanism responsible for why they move the way they do and why we cannot determine their exact position or momentum though observations of the “reality” of our environment.  In others words because we define the measurements of their positions and momentum in terms of the “reality” or the ability to observe the conditions under which they interact we assume that they occupy a deterministic environment.

However the reason we view the quantum world as being non-mechanistic is in part because we cannot observe or understand a mechanism responsible for why the components of its environment interact the way they do.  Therefore we can only base its “reality” on our inability to measure the position or momentum of its components.  In others words we define it only in terms of measurements and not on observations of the conditions of responsible for those measurements.

Yet this is exactly how planetary scientists define the deterministic “reality” of planetary motion because as mentioned earlier, the influence other objects have on them makes it impossible to determine the exact position or momentum of a planet.

Some would say that this is not a valid comparison because we could at least, in theory refine our observations and computing power enough to be able to determine a planets initial conditions precisely enough to predict where it will be in the future.

But that still does not explain why modern science presently assumes that the motion of the planets is mechanistic on a microscopic scale when at the moment is it not.

As mentioned earlier the reason they feel justified in believing that it is, in part because they can define a mechanism in terms of a deterministic “reality” they can observed.

If it was not for this belief they would have to assume that environments the planets occupy fully agree with the non-mechanistic assumptions of quantum mechanics.

However one can define a mechanism in terms of the deterministic “reality” of our observable environment that would explain why the quantum mechanical world appears to be non-deterministic.

For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown it is possible to understand the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a deterministic three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave in four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its resonant or a harmonic of its resonant frequency

Therefore the discrete or quantized energy of resonant systems in a continuous form of energy/mass would be responsible for the discrete quantized quantum mechanical properties of particles.

However, that does not explain how the boundaries of a particleâ€s resonant structure are defined.

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space.

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the geometric boundaries of the “box” containing the resonant system the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a particle.

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle asserts that there a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known.

However, as mentioned earlier one can define a mechanistic “reality” for that environment in terms of the geometry of the four *spatial* dimensions because quantum mechanics mathematically defines the position and momentum of a particle in terms of one dimensional point.

Therefore according to the above concepts there would be an uncertainty in determining its exact position because that one dimensional point could be found any within the volume of the three-dimensional “box” mentioned above.

Similarly there would be an uncertainty in measuring its momentum, again because quantum mechanics defines it in terms of the movement of a one dimensional point.  Before one could determine a particle’s momentum one would have to know its exact position in the box at the “end” points were one measured its velocity.  However, as mentioned above that non-dimension point representing a particle could be found anywhere in the box containing the resonant structure that define a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“  Therefore one could not determine its exact velocity and therefore its momentum because there will always be an uncertainty as to where in the box the non-dimensional point that represents a particle is relative to the dimensions of the “box” when a measurement is taken.

This shows that one can define a deterministic mechanism in terms of the “reality” of our observable environment responsible for the non-deterministic measurements associated with quantum mechanics.

In other words it  define a classical mechanismsf or Heisenberg uncertainty principle or why it is impossible, even in principle, to determine the exact position and velocity of each particle in your body.

As mentioned earlier we can cannot determine or measure the exact position or momentum of the planets as they obit the sun because we do not have the ability even with modern computers to calculate the gravitational effects all of the other objects such planet or stars in our universe have on them.  However we assume that they occupy mechanistic environment because we can define the measurements of their positions and momentum in terms of the “reality” or the ability to observe the conditions under which they interact.

We can and may never be able precisely measure the momentum and position of particle in a quantum environment however if we assume that the above mechanism is valid then one also has to assume that that environment is mechanistic for the same reasons we assume that the motion of the planets is mechanistic.

What should determines if an environment is mechanistic is not the fact that we can precisely measure the position or momentum of its component because if it was we could not consider the motion of the planets mechanistic because presently we cannot.  What determines if an environment is mechanistic is if we can define a valid mechanism in terms of our observable “reality” that can explain and predict why we measure what we do even if we cannot observe all of its components.

If we let our inability to make precise measurements of the position or momentum of the planets or particles define “reality” then we must assume that they do not exist however if we can use our “reality” to define a mechanism responsible for why we cannot precisely make those measurements then must we assume that the environments we are measuring are “real” even though it may be impossible to precisely measure the positions and momentum of their components. 

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

The post Should measurement define "reality" appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

This question is very difficult to answer because current theories are only able to describe what happened after the beginning of our universe.  In other words how the universe came about and whether there is any meaning to a “before” or “after” is unknown and perhaps unknowable.  Therefore many believe it is not possible to determine if time began at the moment of its inception or if it had its beginnings in a previous epic.

The reason is because the most popular theories of its origin assume that it emerged from a singularity or one dimensional point and is expanding from the tremendously hot dense plasma environment associated with it.  This Big Bang theory, as this concept has come to be called assumes the momentum generated by the heat of that environment is sustaining the expansion.

Unfortunately for those looking for an answer to the question as to the eternity of time, the laws of physics cannot be applied to a singularity therefore it is impossible to use them to understand what may have happened in the period before the universe was formed.

However this may not be true because using the currently accepted laws of physics one can project observations made in our present time backwards to the show that it may not have had its beginning in a singularity.

For example observations in “our time” tell us when a star supernova explodes it expels hot gas.  However scientists know that a star existed before that event occurred because they can project the laws of physics governing the expanding hot gases backwards to define a period before it took place.  In other words they can determine what existed before an event occurred such as a supernova by projecting their understanding the process that happened after it backwards to the period before it took place.
Yet there are many observations like those associated with the expanding gases of supernova that suggest that our universes expansion did not begin form a one dimensional point or a singularity as the Big Bang models assumes but from an extended three-dimensional volume of space.

The difference between a theoretical model based on these “real time” observations and the mathematical model supporting the existence of a singularity is because, as mentioned earlier science cannot project the laws of physics beyond a mathematically predicted singularity but can through a three-dimensional volume.

Therefore using a theoretical model based on observations of a three-dimensional environment means that science could predict the existence of time before the beginning of our universe by projecting the currently accepted laws of physics beyond the three-dimensional volume that it suggests its expansion began from.

For example one of the most fundament and verifiable observations in science is that the total quantity of energy/mass in a closed system is conserved and that it cannot be created or destroyed.  Since, by definition our universe is a closed system according to its energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed in it.

Yet we know from observations the equation E=mc^2 defines the equivalence between mass and energy in an environment and since mass is associated with the attractive properties of gravity it also tells us the kinetic energy associated with the universe’s expansion also possess those attractive properties. Therefore the law of conservation of energy/mass tells us that in a closed system the creation of kinetic energy cannot exceed the gravitational energy associated with the total energy/mass in the universe.

However, not all of the energy of associated with the universeâ€s expansion is directed towards it because of the random motion of its energy/mass components.  For example, observations indicate that some stars and galaxies are moving towards not away us.  Therefore, not all of the energy present at the time of its origin is directed towards its expansion.

As mentioned earlier the law of conservation of energy/mass tells us that gravitational contractive properties of the universe’s energy/mass cannot exceed its kinetic energy equivalent at time the expansion of the universe began. However because some of the kinetic energy of its components is not directed towards its expansion the total gravitational contractive properties of its energy/mass must exceed the kinetic energy of its expansive components. Therefore, at some point in time the gravitation contractive potential of its energy/mass must exceed the kinetic energy of its expansion because as just mentioned not all of its kinetic energy is directed towards its expansion. Therefore at that point, in time the universe will have to enter a contractive phase.

Some may disagree by saying that as the universe expands its energy is spread out over a larger volume so after a while it just vanishes so to speak or as some like to say the universe experiences a heat death. However Einstein theories do not permit energy to just disappear or “die”. It unequivocally tells us that if the kinetic energy content in a closed environment decreases as it cools the mass content of that environment must increase irrespective of the volume of that environment. Therefore because by definition the universe is a closed system one must assume that any reduction in its overall energy content of the universe including its heat energy must be must be compensated for by an increase in its total attractive gravitational mass content.

Others would disagree because recent observations suggest that a force called Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe accelerate. Therefore they believe that its expansion will continue forever. However, as was shown in the article “Dark Energy and the evolution of the universe” if one assumes the law of conservation of mass/energy is valid, as we have done here than the gravitational contractive properties of its mass equivalent will eventually exceed its expansive energy associated with dark energy and therefore the universe must at some time in the future enter a contractive phase.

We also know from observations that heat is generated when we compress a gas and that this heat creates pressure that opposes further contractions.

Similarly the contraction of the universe will create heat which will oppose its further contractions.

Therefore the velocity of contraction of our universe will increase until the momentum of the galaxies, planets, components of the universe equals the radiation pressure generated by the heat of its contraction.

At this point in time the total kinetic energy of the collapsing universe would be equal to the radiation pressure associated with the heat of its collapse. From this point on its contraction will be maintained by the momentum associated with the remaining mass component of the universe.

However, after a certain point in time the radiation pressure generated by it will become great enough to ionize its mass component and to cause it to reexpand.

This will result in the universe entering an expansive phase and going through another age of recombination when the comic background radiation was emitted and the recreation of the particle mass that latter is responsible for the development of stars and galaxies.  This is because the expansive forces associated with the radiation pressure caused by its collapse will exceed the contractive forces associated with the remaining mass of the universe.  The reason it will experience an age of recombination as it passes through each cycle is because the heat of its collapse would be great enough to completely ionize all forms of matter.

However, at some point in time the contraction phase will begin again because as mentioned earlier its kinetic energy cannot exceed the gravitational energy associated with the total mass/energy in the universe.

Since the universe is a closed system, the amplitude of the expansions and contractions will remain constant because the law of conservation of mass/energy dictates the total mass and energy in a closed system remains constant.

This results in the universe experiencing in a never-ending cycle of expansions and contractions of equal magnitudes.

As mentioned earlier many cosmologists do not accept the cyclical scenario of expansion and contractions because they believe a collapsing universe would end in the formation of a singularity similar to the ones found in a black hole and therefore, it could not re-expand.

However, according to the first law of thermodynamic the universe would have to begin expanding before it reached a singularity because that law states that energy in an isolated system can neither be created nor destroyed

Therefore because the universe is by definition an isolated system; the energy generated by its gravitational collapse cannot be radiated to another volume but must remain within it.  This means the radiation pressure exerted by its collapse must eventually exceed momentum of its contraction and the universe would have to enter an expansion phase because its momentum will carry it beyond the equilibrium point were the radiation pressure is greater that the momentum of its mass.  This will cause the mass/energy of the universe to oscillate around a point in space. 

This would be analogous to the how momentum of a mass on a spring causes it spring to stretch beyond its equilibrium point resulting it osculating around it. 

There can be no other interoperation if one assumes the validity of the first law of thermodynamics which states that the total energy of the universe is defined of mass and the momentum of its components.  Therefore, when one decreases the other must increase and the universe must oscillate around a point in space if it does enter a contraction phase.

The reason a singularity can form in black hole is because it is not an isolate system therefore the thermal radiation associated with its collapse can be radiated into the surrounding space.  Therefore, its collapse can continue because momentum of its mass can exceed the radiation pressure cause by its collapse in the volume surrounding a black hole.

As mentioned earlier the heat generated by the collapse of the universe would raise the temperature to a point where electrons would be strip off all matter and it would become ionized, making it opaque to radiation.  It would remain that way until it entered the expansion phase and cooled enough to allow matter to recapture and hold on to them.  This Age of Recombination, as cosmologists like to call it is when the Cosmic Background Radiation was emitted.

One could quantify this scenario by using the first law of thermodynamics to calculate the temperature of the universe when the radiation pressure generated by the gravitational collapse of the universe exceeds the momentum of that collapse and see if it is great enough to cause another with the Age or Recombination as it must to account for the observed properties of the Cosmic back ground radiation.

As mentioned earlier using the above theoretical model scientists can predict the existence of time before the beginning and after the end of our present universe by projecting the currently accepted laws of physics beyond the three-dimensional volume that it suggests it began and will end in.

However this also tells us that the time we experienced is an integral part of our universe because one can trace its origins through the laws of physics to previous and future epics of universe creation. 

But it also tells us that that time does not exist eternally to our universe because the laws of physics we use to define how it progresses from the past to the future cannot be exported to an environment outside of it.

Therefore, one cannot ask when or at what time these cycles of expansions or contractions began or will end because, as just mentioned the time we experience only exists in our universe.

This means we must consider the time we experience as eternal because there is no meaning to asking when those cycles of expansion and contractions began or will end with respect to the existence of our universe because they are part of it.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2012 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post Is time eternal? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Presently it is defined in the terminology of quantum mechanics as when the wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. In other words it changes sign if the space and spin co-ordinates of any two particles are interchanged.

However it may be possible to derive a mechanism for this in terms of the laws of causality in a space-time or classical environment.

There are four quantum states or numbers.
The first, designated by the letter “n”, and it describes the electron shell, or energy level.  Its value ranges from 1 to “n”, where “n” is the shell containing the outermost electron of that atom.  The second, or â„“ quantum number, describes the subshell (0 = s orbital, 1 = p orbital, 2 = d orbital, 3 = f orbital, etc.).  Its value can range from 0 to n − 1.  The third, or m_â„“, describes the specific orbital within a subshell.  Finally fourth, quantum number with the designator “s” describes the spin of the electron within that orbital.  An electron can have a spin of ±½; m_s will be either, corresponding with “spin” and “opposite spin.”  Each electron in any individual orbital must have different spins; therefore, an orbital never contains more than two electrons.

Pauli’s exclusion principle is considered one of the most important principles in physics because if electrons could occupy the same quantum state they would all congregate in a single point corresponding to the lowest-energy state.  If this occurred atoms would have no volume.  However, Pauli’s exclusion principle tells us that each additional electron added to an atom must occupy higher energy level with respect to the lower-energy electrons the atom originally contained.  Therefore, they occupy an extended volume rather than a volume less one dimensional point.

As mentioned earlier it may be possible to derive a mechanism for this in terms of the laws of causality in a space-time or classical environment.

However because these quantum states address the spatial not the time components of electron orbitals we must first convert Einstein’s space-time geometry which define their energy in terms of time to one that define it in terms of their spatial properties to

He gave us the ability to do this when he defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because that provided a method of converting the displacement in space-time he associated with energy to its equivalent displacement in four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

One of the advantage to doing this is that it allows one as done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 to understand the physicality of quantum properties energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to  a fourth *spatial* dimension.

There are four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of three-dimensional space (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

Therefore, these bi-directional oscillations in a “surface” of a three dimensional space would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in space.

Observations of a three-dimensional environment show the energy associated with resonant system can only take on the incremental or discreet values associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

Similarly the energy associated with resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions could only take on the incremental or discreet values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

These resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the incremental or discreet energies associated with quantum mechanical systems.

Additionally it also tells us why in terms of the physical properties four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems. In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terms of a resonate system. Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a stable resonate system in either four dimensional space-time or four spatial dimension corresponds to the energy of an electron it becomes one of the fundamental energy units of the universe.

However it is also possible to explain in by extrapolating the laws of classical physics to a fourth spatial dimension why no two electrons can occupy the same state at the same time.

For example the article “Defining potential and kinetic energy?” showed all forms of energy including the angular momentum of particles can be defined in terms of the direction of a displacement in a “surface* of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 
In three-dimensional space the orientation of the angular momentum of a particle is determined by the right hand rule which says that its angular momentum of a counter clockwise spin would be directed “upward” with respect to the two-dimensional plane in which it is spinning while one with a clockwise spin would be “downwardly” directed. 

Therefore one can derive the fourth or spin quantum number in terms of the direction a “surface” of three-dimensional space is displaced with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  For example if one defines energy of an electron with a spin of -1/2 in terms of a downward directed displacement one would define a +1/2 spin as an upwardly directed one.

Using this concept one can theoretical derive Pauli’s Exclusion Principle or the reason why only two particle of opposite spins can occupy a quantum orbital by extrapolating the laws of a three-dimensional environment  to a fourth *spatial* dimension

In three-dimensional space the frequency or energy of a resonant system is defined by the vibrating medium and the boundaries of its environment.

For example the resonant frequency or energy of a stationary or standing wave generated when a violin string plucked is determined by its shape of the instrument sounding box and the length of its strings.

Similarly the resonant system that defines energy of atomic orbitals defined in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” would be defined by the size and shape of its orbital.

This means that atomic orbital will have a unique energy of the standing wave associated with its resonant frequency.

The reason no two identical fermions such as electrons can fill the same energy level or have the same four quantum numbers simultaneously can be understood comparing how those quantum numbers or orbitals is filled to the filling of a bucket of water.

There a two ways to fill a bucket.  One is by pushing it down and allowing the water to flow over its edge or by using a cup to raise it to the level of the buckets rim.

Similarly there would be two ways fill an atomic orbital according to the concepts presented in the article “Defining potential and kinetic energy?“.  One would be by forcing the “surface” of three-dimensional space “downward” with respect to a fourth *spatial* while the other would be raise it up to the energy level associated with an electron in that orbital.

However the energy required by each method will not be identical for the same reason that it requires slightly less energy to fill a bucket of water by pushing it down below its surface than using a cup to fill it because the one above the surface is at a higher gravitational potential

This explains why two elections in the same atomic orbital can have different quantum numbers.

However it also explains why no two quantum particles can have the same quantum number because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the energy resisting that displacement. 

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two quantum particles with similar quantum numbers would greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, two electrons that occupy the same orbital cannot have the same energy because the energy associated with that displacement would be greater that associated with a different one. Therefore it will seek the lower energy state associated with a different quantum number.

This shows how one can derive of Pauli’s exclusion principle or the fact that no two identical fermions such as electrons can have the same four quantum numbers simultaneously by extrapolating the laws of classical physics in a three-dimensional environment to a four *spatial* dimension.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post Pauli’s Exclusion Principal: a classical interpretation appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.