For example he tells one reason he may have felt this way is because it defines the charge around a solitary electron as being caused by the spontaneous creation and evaporation of virtual electron-positron pairs which then instantaneously disappear.  In other words when a virtual electron-positron pair is created near the (real) electron, the (imaginary) virtual positron will be attracted toward the real electron, while the virtual electron is repelled. Therefore there should be a resulting separation of charge

I think most rational people would consider someone irrational if they tried to convince l us the reason why they were late for work was because a swam of virtual or imaginary cars were blocking the road and disappeared after we showed up.

Shouldn’t we hold our scientists to the same degree of rationality?

Most who have studied the history of science are aware that Einstein was vehemently opposed to many of the fundamental components of quantum mechanics such as the existence of virtual particle’s to explain an isolated charge. 

This was true even though he was able, in his General Theory of Relativity to derive the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of space and time while being unable to do the same for electromagnetism and charge, as was documented by the American Institute of Physics.

“From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his Theory of Relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation — for a “unified field” theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together — occupied more of Einstein’s years than any other activity”.

One reason why it was difficult of him to visualize electromagnetic fields including those around a single charge may have been because he chose to define the universe in terms of four dimensional space-time instead of four *spatial* dimensions because, as will be shown below it easier to visualize the properties of electrometric waves and charge in terms of their spatial rather time or space-time properties.

However he did provide a method of understanding them in terms of their common properties when he chose to define gravity in a space-time environment in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and constant velocity of light because that give him the ability to redefined it terms of the spatial properties of four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with gravity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forces can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

One of the advantages to using this technique is that it allows one to define the physicality of gravitational and electrical forces including those around a single electron in the same terms.

For example In the article “Gravity in four spatial dimensions” Dec. 15, 2007 it was shown one can derive gravitational forces in terms of curvature or physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in a four dimensional space-time environment.

However the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 showed one can also derive the forces associated with electromagnetism in terms of a similar displacement in the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly that article showed it is possible to derive the forces associated with an electromagnetic wave by extrapolating the laws of Classical Wave Mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated  to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other 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 force 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 similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it.  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

However, as was mentioned earlier gravity can also be explain in terms of a differential force caused by a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This shows how one can define a common mechanism for the causality of both electromagnetism and gravity in terms of a “unified field” consisting of four *spatial* dimension by extrapolating the laws of classical mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to four *spatial* dimensions. 

In other words one can visualize the fact that unlike charge attract each other while like ones repel in terms of the asymmetrical properties of space-time or four spatial dimensions.

Einstein was unable to accomplish this in terms of four-dimensional space-time because time is only observe to move in one direction forwards and therefore making it difficult to visualize the bi-directional movement of the spatial component of a matter wave moving on its “surface” that is responsible for electromagnetism . 

However it also give a more rational explanation of the charge around a solitary electron than the spontaneous creation and evaporation of virtual electron-positron pairs because it shows that it can be understood in terms of a physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to fourth spatial dimension.

In other words it shows that electric forces are related to a physical displacement in a surface of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a either a higher spatial or time dimension thereby eliminating the need to evoke the existence of virtual electron-positron pairs to understand the behavior of a charge around a solitary electron.

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose to define charge in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined that environment in terms mass energy and the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories thereby giving us a new perspective on the physicality of charge.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey Oâ€Callaghan 2016

The post Finally a logical explanation of the field around a solitary charge. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

He tells us the reason may have been because it defines the charge around a solitary electron as being caused by spontaneous creation of virtual electron-positron pairs which then magically disappear.  However being virtual means that they are very close to being something without actually being it.  In others words according to QED the force between two charged particles is something that it is not.

 I think most people would consider someone irrational if they tried to convince us the reason why they were late for work was because a swam of virtual or imaginary cars were blocking the road which disappeared after we showed up at work.

Shouldn’t we hold our scientists to the same degree of rationality?

Most who have studied the history of science are aware that Einstein was vehemently opposed to many of the fundamental components of quantum mechanics such as the existence of virtual particles.  Granted even though he was able, in his General Theory of Relativity to derive the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of space and time he was unable to describe or define electromagnetism or charge separation in the same terms, as was documented by the American Institute of Physics.

“From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his theory of relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation — for a “unified field” theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together — occupied more of Einstein’s years than any other activity.

However the symmetry of the mathematics he used to define his space-time environment may enable us to use his theories to bring them together and define the “reality” of charged particles without the existence of virtual ones.

For example the fact that he used the constant velocity of light and the geometric properties of space-time to define the energy provides a method of converting a unit of time he associated with it to a unit of space associated with position.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it allows for the defining of a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

This change in perspective allows one to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with gravity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions and is bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including gravitational and electrical can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However this would have allowed Einstein to define and understand the forces associated with electromagnetic charge in terms of their spatial instead of time properties.

For example as was shown as was shown in the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 one can derive the forces associated with the charge fluctuations in an electromagnetic wave in terms of the displacement caused by the “peaks” and “toughs” of a matter wave moving on the “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed it is possible to derive the properties of electromagnetism by extrapolating the laws of Classical Wave Mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on it

A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated  to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other 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 force 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 similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of the electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with the “peaks” and “troughs” of a matter wave that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it.  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

Einstein was unable to accomplish this in terms of four-dimensional space-time because time is only observe to move in one direction forwards and therefore could not support the bi-directional movement required to support the electromagnetic component of a matter wave moving on its “surface”. 

However, as was shown above it also defines the forces associated charges and their separation in terms of the physical properties of the spatial dimensions without the need of assuming the existence of virtual or imaginary particles.

In other words it shows that change particles and their associated forces can be explained and predicted in terms of their relative position with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 

Some would say that even if that were true it still cannot explain why those forces would be quantized.

However as was shown in the article in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 can also derive the quantum mechanical properties of charges by extrapolating the physical properties of resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving 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 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 would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially with respect to it 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 oscillations on a “surface” of 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.

In other words defining the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of physical properties of four *spatial* dimensions eliminates the need to make irrational assumptions like the interaction of virtual with real particles is responsible for charges and their separation.

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius and the fact that he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light allows us to choose to define our universe as either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories by making them applicable to both the spatial as well as the time properties of our universe giving us a new perspective on charges and their associated forces.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post Scientific irrationality: is it really necessary? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

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.