Stochastic Electrodynamics Theory, W.S.M. alert

[Aireal]

Major W.S.M. alert, we need to look at this work closely.

This theory arose out of research into the vacuum point energy, but has direct implacations for W.S.M. theory. This theory seeks to explain quantum effects with classical physics. SED is useful as a computational tool as it uses classical electrodynamics in place of more esoteric quantum methods. Their main discovery was that the so called zero-point field was in fact composed of a number of planer waves passing through space in every direction and random phases at any point.

So far its successes have been its derivation of the Planck blackbody function without assuming quantization and the method by which Bohr orbit of the electron in the hydrogen could arise without a quantum law. in their model the electron emits Lamor radiation, causing it to spiral inward, but it absorbs zero-point energy. The loss and gain balances at the distance of Bohr's orbit. Indeed the model even explains why the orbital angular momentum of the electron is zero in its quantum ground state.

Recent simulations have modeled the electron motion in the Coulomb potential of the hydrogen atom, and replicated the electrons probability density as predicted by the Schroedinger wave function. The "zitterbewegung" motion of the electon noticed by Schroedinger is caused by the electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations of this theory, which remember are waves in space by this theory. the model even suggests that the elctron is massless at one point, with the mass arising from some higher level of motion. Like Milo's description of the electron!

All of this suggests deep connections between the zero-point energy and the mass-energy relationships of matter. This could replace the Higgs field and the Higgs boson, rendering them obsolete. Besides the Higgs field only applies to the electro-weak sector of the standard model, no great loss as even my simple model of the atom shows it to be unnessary. Studies also show that a massless point-charge oscillator accelerating through such a zero-point field will experience a Lorentz force proportional to acceleration, thus F=ma can be dervived from such a model as can the proper four-vector relativistic equation of motion.

In short, what we describe as the wave density of space, they call the zero-point energy density of space which is made up of waves. Of course this unorthodox approach is not taken very seriously by the mainstream physics community, big surprise there, RIGHT. Anyhow it is a good theory which is in agreement with W.S.M. as far as I can tell, and some good math to back it up. I will have to investigate it farther

[nigel]

Hi Aireal

This is interesting, do you have a link?

I did quite well in statistical dynamics at Uni so if you have any questions about stochastic processes feel free to ask me.

As it uses classical statistics it will not be compatible with the operator theory in QM.

It will use a simpler particle model, as it needs a classical model of infinitely many indistinguishable particles for the time average and statistical limits.

It is no surprise to me that the statistical interpretation of matter will uncover the tuth when the correct statistical model is found (see notes below).

Physicists have always thought of the zero point energy in terms of wave functions, it existence first came about thru solutions of the Schrödinger equation using a harmonic (oscillator) potential for the Hamiltonian. It seems they have managed to unify a famous Quantum statistical result with classical statistics (correspondence).

I have seen evidence of this sort of thinking in chat rooms where they discuss the standard model interactions that explain the electromagnetic field.

Kindest Regards

Nigel.

Notes for the Interested Reader

1. Here is an accessible but rather technical discussion on Poppers (correct) statistical model and how it can be used today.
(http://suppes-corpus.stanford.edu/display_article.html?articleid=136)

2. In Poppers own words

Karl Popper. “The Propensity Interpretation of Probability.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (1959), 25–42.

Karl Popper. “Quantum Mechanics without ‘The Observer.’” In Mario Bunge, ed. Quantum Theory and Reality. New York: Springer-Verlag,
1967, 7–44.

3. More than any other thinker Popper saw the distinction and nature of Subjective versus Objective Probabilities, read a fascinating discussion here

(http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:ncH0VfQfvosJ:philosophy.ucsd.edu
/~callende/index_files/maxwell.doc+Popper+statistical+laws&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=21)

4. It was Poppers understanding of statistics that provided a mathematical foundation for realism as a path to ontology away from epistemology.
(http://tekhnema.free.fr/5Caygill.html)

5. If you want a simpler argument against an epistomological worlview just look at the wave diagrams on this site.

[Aireal]

Nigel

Thanks for the links. I ran across S.E.D. while I was doing research on wave mechanics. I was trying to calculate the energy of waves in space and needed to find out the density of space. I learned that the density of space varies a lot, but even the highest value seemed too low for wave propagation as we know it.

I have been unable to find details on Stochastic Electrodynamic Theory. I have found plenty of comments wrote by others, but have been unable to locate the originial work, despite staying up half the night looking. Searching the web for specific info can be aggravating at times.

From the comments I have read about it, the theory tries to do away with QM completly. All of the statistical models have been on the simple Hydrogen atom.

If I can find a decent link about it that actually has some of the math processes involved, I will post it here. Till we speak again, I will be fishing on the web for more information.

Kindest Reguards
Charles

[Aireal]

Nigel

Here is the best link I can find. http://www.calphysics.org/index.html The site belongs to one of the researchers into this and other theories.

Interestingly, they note that the main failing of Stochastic Electrodynamics Theory was in that they did not take QED into account by failing to define the spin of the electron from the onset. Milo's description of the electron is based on QED, and defines the origin of the spin. Thus these two theories seem to reinforce each other. Stochastic Electrodynamics Theory does a better job of explaining the math behind the "wave density of space" and how waves interact with "particles", but falls short in the other aspects of Milo's theory. So S.E.D. meshes well with W.S.M. and could advance our understanding of wave mechanics.

[Gil]

[haselhurst]

Hi all,
If you search in Google - milo wolff spin electron

Then this page comes up #3.

http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_spin.html

It does deduce electron spin mathematically. The interpretation of that maths based on spherical rotation of waves as they move through wave center needs to be confirmed. But the maths works and should not be ignored.
(I actually think it is due to oscillations in the spherical In waves themselves, given that they are out waves of electrons that themselves are in 'orbital' motions in atoms / molecules. Basically all matter's properties must come from its In waves that form the matter 'particles' that we see.)

Geoff

PS - Sorry I have been hiding away - very busy redesigning quantum theory pages (I get a bit obsessive!). Really appreciate your posts - will discuss them and things we can do to improve forum in another week (am away for 5 days for Karene's birthday).

PPS - Any thoughts on new design? (still a bit incomplete)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm

[nigel]

Hi Arieal

Thanks for the link, I will check it out

Hi Gill

As to electron spin, mathematically it came out of the Dirac formalism, that is basically a solution to a non linear PDE, with boundary conditions that related to 4 dim space-time(compatible with relativity), which meant finding an operator expressed as 4*4 complex matrices which related energy mass and momentum, the simplest of which contained 2*2 blocks called Pauli matrices. This operator is distinct from Schrödinger’s non-relativistic operator.

With the aplomb so typical of physicists Dirac then abandoned relativity and solved the PDE with the Hamiltonian for a charged particle as in classical electrodynamics, obtaining the Pauli equation for a non-relativistic spin-½ particle, the 2*2 blocks are now generators of rotation for the non-relativistic spin-½ particle. Now the physical state of the particle can be represented as two-component spinors.

This is interesting and relates directly to Arieals work in trying to establish the energy density of space. The spinor representation allowed for negative energy for the non-relativistic particle, this allowed for the possibility as interpreting the vacuum as a sea of these negative energy particles, however as the vacuum does not produce an electric field it is hard to sustain this argument, but what of the concept of this positive or negative energy in terms of the phase of a matter wave! And the field (an axiomatic construction at best) as a phase dependant wave interaction!!

Anyway back to the spin! What this means to me is that spin could be anything, what we do know is that it is conserved and obeys a bunch of symmetry rules, SU(2).

Mathematically we have these symmetry groups, many different objects will have the same symmetry group.

To me modern physics has fallen into an epistemic hole, see this link (http://tekhnema.free.fr/5Caygill.html)

I am rebuilding my worldview with foundations in science, mathematics, philosophy and religion. The glue that is holding the whole thing together is ontology. This is the basis of my attraction to WSM.

A wave is an ontological construct in the sense of its embedding in the past, present and future, its embedding in a medium as its energy, motion and time. A wave is experienced in terms of its movement, its history and its future.

The subjective particle, the “thing in itself” and its inherent epistemic nature is by its definition beyond the limits of measurement.

What is spin, a quantum construct, it has symmetry, it is conserved, can we measure it? You tell me.

An ontological construct is grounded in experience. The ontological characteristic of spin is to be found in entanglement. The action at a distance, experienced in terms of movement, its history and its future.

[Gil]

Thank you very much Nigel. You talk plain and deduce it to exactly what we do know, and don't know. You asked me, and I would just further state, we do know thermo-hydro-dynamic motion/matter energy is a true reality of classical infinite space-time___as can be deduced from the cesium atom's decay, cmbr, the laws of physics in relation to all our logics. That still leaves THD as a metaphysical/ontological and possibly teleological quest... Time to straighten out meta-physics... I say logic is emotional[existing from the instinct level of the reptilian brain___it just happens to be where quantum trickster lives___interesting, no?], and at the root of analyses' problems, most creating the illusion of mind[or brain]body separations...

sincerely,
Lloyd
A fellow high-rad drifter

[Aireal]

Nigel

I went to the links on Poppers work you gave and found it very interesting. While reading it the thought occured to me about how much probability has shaped my life, it even shaped my concept of God.

I started playing Dungens and Dragons back in the mid 70's when it first came out, and started being a Dungen Master and running games starting about 1980. The game is based on probabilities. What are the odds of encountering a monster? What kind of monster will it be, based of all the factors? What are the chances it will attack? What are the probabilities that you will survive the attack or should you run? Before long I found myself doing ad hoc probability calculations in my head, in real life.

But more importantly, it gave me a glimpse into the mind of God. As a Dungen Master, you are the god of your own little world you created, and people come to play in it. The problem is the players have free will. You might have some great storyline, like them fulfilling some ancient legend. However they may have their own agenda, like gaining levels, money, power, fame, ect. If you try to force them into doing what you want, they will not play in your world for long. The way around this was probability. They are going to do something. Some of those choices lead to what you want them to do, other don't. Let them choose, but stack the probabilities in the direction you want. Thus over time, reguardless of what an individual chooses over time, they will head in the direction you want eventually. They still have their free will, and they still fullfilled the ancient legend in your world. Probably not the way you intended though.

So I began to see how God could say something will happen in the future, and it come to pass, and free will is never violated.

[nigel]

Hi Arieal

I think of all those links "Non-Epistemic Chance: Karl Popper’s Ontology" (http://tekhnema.free.fr/5Caygill.html) is the best to understand Poppers great contribution to statistics based in his interpratation of the n-series.

A good practical example of this can be seen in prediction of cyclones (huricanes for you).

The probability can be high that you would get a cyclone, but will you get one?. The probability can be low and you could get heaps?. What use is;

(i) Probability
(ii) A probabilistic interpratation of the wavefunction
(iii) Prophecy?.

(i) Probability is subjectiive by definition, this is why casino's make so much money.

(ii) This was the attempt to marry an epistic particle conceptual framework with the eigen functions of Shrodingers operator.

(iii) A correct interprataion of the eigen functions is the task of ontology, we live in a connected reality, we exist in our past, present and future. God does not play dice.

Kindest Regards Nigel

[Aireal]

Nigel

I did not mean to imply that God played dice like some DM. Sorry about that. I know of no law of science where the results are a random roll of the dice. I was just musing on my misspent youth the ill effects and wasted hours I spent not only playing the game, but endlessly trying to "find the odds" before acting, and often doing nothing. Yet despite all that, I still find myself missing that old pastime from time to time. Silly ain't it. Emotions are wierd at times.

Best Reguards
Charles

[nigel]

Sorry Arieal

I did not mean that you meant ect..

That is a quote I love and use often in relation to the need for ontology

You are definitely not a sceptic which was what Einstein was speaking against.

Can you imagine the scepticism he must encountered not to mention the outright evil fascistic worldview dominating the world at that time in Europe.

did you know that at the time Einstein was developing relativity Karl Popper was working as a schoolteacher in a high school dominated by the Nazi worldview, this is where he originally developed his idea of an Open Society

May your mind always be open

[Harry Costas]

Hello Aireal

Smile, just by chance.

[haselhurst]

Hi Nigel,
I really appreciate you posting those links, so you do not need to put brackets around them - they are good and should be active.
I will try and read them at some stage! (You have knowledge that I am ignorant of so it will take me a while to understand all the points you are making - and this hopefully applies in both directions, that together we can learn from one another to improve our work / understanding).

And you may find our page on Popper interesting - more about Hume's Necessary Connection and Popper's negative solution to the Problem of Induction.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Karl-Popper.htm


And I think this discussion is very important (my thanks to Aireal).

"Their main discovery was that the so called zero-point field was in fact composed of a number of planer waves passing through space in every direction and random phases at any point."

This is right - exactly what you get with the WSM, given that at great distance the surface of a spherical wave tends to a plane.
I assume this is related also to 'Brane Theory' (which evolved from string theory I think).
Any thoughts?

But it is good to take existing knowledge and show how WSM simplifies / corrects it. Well done.
Geoff

[nigel]

Hi Geoff

I just posted a reply to a comment you made on the "Intro to David thread"
http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=479

In that response I tried to make clear my appreciation of the work you did in your page on Kant and relate it to my own philosophical growth, which has definitely accelerated since I stumbled on to your site.

It took me a while to work thru your ideas on Transcendental Idealism and your Direct Material Realism was like a glass of fresh water in the desert (which it certainly is in the alice at the moment)

I am sure I will find your page on Popper to be of great value, I have never had the time to engage Hume, but I know he is popular among my literary friends so It will also probably be a good entre to Hume

I really like the Non-Epistemic Chance: Karl Popper’s Ontology link, tekhnema is a philosophy of technology site but you can find some really good concepts there, if you are the moderator please feel free to make them active, I am following your posting guidelines.

I am going to post on the http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=480 thread and try to explain to Gil why you commented on the fallacy of the Big Bang, and try and explain to him the contradictions inherent in statements like “bounds of real physics laws and its science”, however I wont get round to that this evening.

I will continue to post replies to the ideas expressed on this site in terms of the mathematical formalism created by Einstein(and his natural allies like Popper) and Dirac.

However I will try and relate carefully my views to the context and spirit of this site namely the "Dynamic Unity of Reality" found in the metaphysical conceptual framework of WSM. As after all that is what this forum is setup for.

May the scientific revolution continue

Kindest Regards
Nigel

Added by Geoff - Nigel, you are proving to be a wonderful contributor here. I really do hope that we can do some revolutionary work as a group that will change the world for the better.
I have made the above links active, from now on please post them without brackets / active, as they are useful. Thanks.
PS - Please check spelling in posts - it is important to present a good image to our work (I corrected 4 mistakes with Google - and yes, I am a bit obsessive!).