For example, there are some who believe the best way is to observe the environment and then extrapolate those observations to the unobservable.

Isaac Newton used this approach to derive the law of gravity by making the assumption that mass generates an attractive gravitational force on all objects based on physical observations he made on the earth.  The universality of its existence is based on the fact that one can determine the motion of all objects in the universe by assuming this force was responsible for it.

However, we cannot “see” a gravitational force.  How then can we be sure that it really exists?

The answer is we cannot.  We can only assume it does based on the fact it allows us to predict and explain the motion of objects that at the time were unobservable.

For example the position of Neptune was mathematically predicted using Newton’s concept of gravity before it was directly observed.

However, there are some who take the opposite approach.

Quantum mechanics assumes one can define the laws of nature only in terms of mathematics and not the environment that surrounds them.

For example it defines the position of a particle by mathematically defining their probability distribution but says nothing about how it got there.   

This differs from the Newtonian method in that it defines the solution to where an object was in terms of how it got there whereas quantum mechanics as motioned earlier defines it only in terms of where it is.

Both of these methods are valid because they give scientists the ability to make accurate predictions of future events.

However physics as the name implies is the science that deals with physical properties matter, energy, motion, and force and not with abstract mathematics. Therefore, physicists should look to their observable properties as the primary vehicle to guide their understanding instead of mathematics.

The trouble with modern physics is that many have got lazy in their pursuit of reality.  Instead of taking the time and effort to observe it many scientists make a few observations and turn to mathematics not observations of the environment they occupy to interconnect them.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 can understand the quantum properties energy/mass by extrapolating the observations of a 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 occur in one consisting of 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 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 space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

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

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.

This shows that one can contrary to what physicists tell us that one can understand why energy/mass is quantized by extrapolating observations of a three-dimension environment to the quantum mechanical world.

However this is not the only example because as we have shown throughout this blog there are many more. 

For example both the article “Is Quantum Mechanics a Fundamental or emergent property of space-time?” shows how one can integrate quantum mechanics with the classical properties of space-time and the article “The “reality” of the Higgs field“ explains why it is responsible for mass by extrapolating observations of a three-dimension world to their enviroments.

As mentioned earlier physics is the science that deals with physical properties matter, energy, motion, and force and not with abstract mathematics.  Therefore, the primary criteria for the acceptance or rejection of a theory should not be mathematical but observational.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011

The post The trouble with physics appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

One of them is that it would allow one to explain the” reality” of the probabilities associated with quantum mechanical wave function in terms of the classical laws of three-dimensional space.
Quantum mechanics assumes that one cannot define a particle in terms of its exact position or momentum but only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with its wave function.  This is in stark contrast to the Classical “Newtonian” assumption that one can assign precise values of future events based on the knowledge of their past. 

For example In a quantum system Schrödinger wave equation plays the role of Newtonian laws in that it predicts the future position or momentum of a particle in terms of a probability distribution by assuming that it simultaneously exists everywhere in three-dimensional space. 

This accentuates the fundamental difference between quantum and classical mechanics because the latter defines the reality of future events in terms of the effects of pervious events whereas quantum mechanics defines them based on the “non-classical” reality of the sum total of all possible events that can occur.  

However, as mentioned earlier one can define the classical “reality” of quantum probabilities by extrapolating the laws of a classical three-dimension environment to one consisting of four *spatial* dimensions.

In the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can define why energy/mass is quantized 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.

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 occur in one consisting of 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 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 space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

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

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.

This cannot be done in four-dimensional space-time because time or a space-time dimension is only observed to move in one direction forward therefore it cannot support the bidirectional movement require to define classical resonance.

(In the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009  the internal structure of quarks, a fundament component of particles was derived in terms of a resonant interaction between a continuous energy/mass component of space and the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.)

In an earlier article “Embedded dimensions” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown that one can derive all forms of energy including that of a quantum system in terms of displacement in a *surface* of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However assuming its energy is result of a displacement in four *spatial* dimension allows one to derive, as mentioned earlier the probability distribution associated with its wave function by extrapolating the laws of a three-dimensional environments to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Classical mechanics tell us that because of the continuous properties of waves the energy the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This would be analogous to what happens when one vibrates a rod on a rubber diaphragm.  The oscillations caused by the vibrations would be felt over its entire surface while their magnitudes would be greatest at the point of contact and decreases as one moves away from it.

However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must simultaneously exists everywhere in three-dimensional space.  This also means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment.

As mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” shown a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Yet Classical Wave Mechanics tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly a quantum system would most probably be found were the magnitude of the vibrations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

However as mentioned earlier this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can define a particle’s exact position or momentum only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function.

This shows how one can define the classical “reality” of the quantum mechanical probability functions by extrapolating the laws of classical mechanics to four *spatial* dimensions.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011

The post The *reality* of quantum probabilities appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.