In the picture you linked, the dimensions of all apparatus involved were optimized to produce the best interference pattern possible. The picture I linked above of the red-laser interference pattern can be recreated in a high school science room using construction paper, a laser pointer, and a human hair.
And it doesn’t matter if there is a first slit before a double slit or just a double slit.
A rigid body, a point, is actually all particles are. The reason two particles repulse each other in close proximity is simply because two things can’t occupy the same location simultaneously, since all prospects of locations are determined by relations to other particles.
The picture that I “linked” is a picture that I created from the presumption of orbiting electrons in the materials. The interference pattern that such creates is identical to the interference pattern seen in the double-slit experiment. It isn’t proof by any means. I said that I have a “theory”, but I am still dubious that they even really get what they say in the single electron experiment.
The laser version is trivial.
If they were merely points, the distance between them would be zero. Hadrons have size.
As the geometrical entropy of the universe increases, so do things like “dark energy”, which, like all bosons, are just imaginary placeholders for certain geometric formations between particles.
Oh okay, I just assumed it was the results of an actual double slit experiment. Try to recreate it in reality.
Yeah well, that’s somebody’s ontology.
… not mine.
Even as points, they couldn’t all occupy the same location simultaneously. Whether they are points or a cloud of probability breaks down due to them being subatomic and things like distance and space itself breaking down - which goes back to relativity; you can’t measure time without distance and vice versa.
Particles could actually be thought of as blobs in a way; or points that take on a blob shape because they’re filling in the space between the other particles which surround them.
I think it is someone’s ontology that is “breaking down” such that they have to just say that “logic doesn’t work down there were we can’t prove that we have no idea of what we are talking about”.
But a lot of what you have said is appropriate.
Also, if you agree with that second image concerning quarks in a hadron then you pretty much agree that space & distance are illusory.
What are your propositions then for how space and time operate at that level? I’m at least offering some kind of an explanation without just saying everyone else is wrong.
With those kinds of people, in my experience, you have to encompass their entire argument so seeing where they’re wrong becomes inescapable; they’ll run in circles until they’re forced to break new ground.
I don’t think James is an idiot, but he falls back on criticizing other people’s concepts instead of sharing his own.
I propose:
- Gravitation does not fit in to the standard model because it is a macroscopic phenomenon resulting from forces already described in the standard model. A force carrier, like the proposed “graviton” fail to coalesce with standard model, because bosons are invented to describe subatomic forces, and gravitation is a macroscopic phenomenon resulting from those subatomic forces, and is not a subatomic force of its own.
- The current standard model explains Electromagnetism, the Strong Interaction, and Weak Interaction in terms of quantities and particles (the MeV of a particle, it’s ‘spin’, ‘flavor’, ‘charge’, etc.) instead of explaining them in geometric terms which is what would have to be done to unify them with gravitation.
This is how the standard model states it:
Strong interaction: Quarks stay bound together by a gluon, forming a hadron. Most of these are unstable, and keep decaying until they form Up quarks (+2/3 charge) and down quarks (-1/3 charge), which then form the more stable hadrons we commonly interact with (protons, neutrons).
Weak interaction: Explains interactions mediated by massive W and Z bosons which cause a numerous subatomic interactions involving particle decay and the changing of flavors.
Electromagnetic interaction: Mediated by photons and explains electromagnetic fields of charged subatomic particles.
In order for gravitation to be unified with the standard model, all those interactions must be described geometrically, rather than given placeholders to describe their interactions. Properties like “charge”, “spin”, and “flavor” must be illustrated as geometric phenomenon and not merely intrinsic properties of matter. In order for us to begin describing these geometrically, we have to understand that Euclidean space does not exist, that there is only interactions, and at the subatomic level kinetic interactions become extremely counter-intuitive.
Space has to consist of “something”, be it quantum foam, dark energy, or residual radiation. When two particles with mass approach each other, they push this ‘something’ between them, causing repulsion. On a macroscopic scale, this act of ‘pushing space’ causes space to dilate in the presence of mass, leading to gravitation. On the scale of quarks, this ‘pushing of space’ causes the quarks which make up hadrons to stay together. The manner in which space is being geometrically ‘pushed’ determines the particle and its properties.
I’m struggling to find a geometric explanation for the weak interaction though.
oh boy I was strung out on amphetamine again
“What does this tell us about space? Our preconceptions about the notion of ‘space’ are wrong; there are no locations, only relations. What is space then? There is no grid of space, no coordinate plane; there is no real “distance” between things.”
This was starting to get good, then you took the wrong road. this is the beginning of the concept of Information Relationship, this concept has been bugging me for quite a while, I can’t decompose it into something smaller or clearer, no reductionism here operating: a relationship is exactly what ? an interaction ? a point like interaction with no space or time involved ? an event ? an elementary particle of the Principle of Non Contradiction and Identity ? a bit ? Information as such has no “size”, no extension in space, it has no “time”, it is essentially out of time, out of any reference, it needs two to dance, it self defines itself reciprocally with another bit of information, but then you need a processor, a mind, a large ensemble to decode the bit, the simple monolithic slab of pure Information Relationships and assign them, connect them to interactions, to events that may then extend in space and time, but reductionism in this case reduces the atoms of existence to pure nothings, having no space and time and only existing the moment an observer - processor beholds such entities.
Information Relationships cannot be decomposed into something clearer, it will forever be undefined, irreducible complexity, it cannot be made up of smaller pieces, it is either all or nothing, without space or time or size and in fact this is what makes it so powerful, just like mathematics and the imagination, you can invent worlds infinitely more incredible and complex of what is available using simple logic and simple space and time: the square root of a negative number, the square root of space or time, concepts that have no sense but can be created with information alone, and so forth and so on, if 0 is time and 1 is space what is 43 or -6ty ? yes you can force incredible inventions that tease logic, use some logic and then use their impossibility to be clear and defined…
And I can go on forever trying to understand “Information Relationships” the basic “Interaction”, the basic “Event” of existence…
tard
.
Don’t forget “Misinformation Relationships”.
So guys,
I brought the idea behind this thread to a physics forum to see what they had to say about it:
scienceforums.net/topic/8484 … ntry822430
Basically, they told me “Sounds interesting. Now can you explain it mathematically? And will your math be consistent with observation?”
… anyone got a particle accelerator I can borrow? Or instruments which can measure universal background radiation?
Also, that thread got closed… It’s a good read I guess. I was coming to them for help with the math, and I ended up arguing with them when they told me to do it myself.