0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A good post, but it won't lead to any new physics. The author of the post is too obsessed with Einstein.
I think Timey is proposing that spacetime is intrinsically dilated and that's what determines the location and movement of objects in space and time. It's an anthropic argument (i.e. chicken vs. egg) so it's really a matter of philosophy, not physics. The same could be said of string theory of course, but physics is supposed to be about the observables. It seeks to explain how one observable changes in relation to another. An explanation is worthless if it invokes undefined concepts like photon-to-electron ratio, electron cycle, electron travel distance, and oscillating mass. You might as well be talking about gnomes and fairies (or strings.)I expect you're eluding to wave-particle duality. If so, you are way off base because the amplitude of a matter wave is a distance in probability space, not conventional space. That is, matter wave power, which is proportional to amplitude squared, equates to a probability of finding a mass at a given location in space and time. GR and SR have nothing to say about any of that.At the risk of adding to your confusion, I should add that probability space is only one possible interpretation of QM. There is a respectable theory that the waves are actually electromagnetic in nature. It's incomplete and far from mainstream, though.
An explanation is worthless if it invokes undefined concepts like photon-to-electron ratio, electron cycle, electron travel distance, and oscillating mass. You might as well be talking about gnomes and fairies (or strings.)
I expect you're eluding to wave-particle duality. If so, you are way off base because the amplitude of a matter wave is a distance in probability space, not conventional space. That is, matter wave power, which is proportional to amplitude squared, equates to a probability of finding a mass at a given location in space and time. GR and SR have nothing to say about any of that.
OK, I stand corrected. You are proposing a new twist on the aether theory. I assume you are aware that aether was the prevailing view before Einstein. You should be intimidated by the fact that he was able to sway so many of the greatest minds of the modern era, but even if you are not, you should study his arguments. Chances are he has already debunked your theory. For starters, you need to account for the Michelson-Morley result.
Quote from: GoC on 27/03/2017 15:26:34Quote from: alancalverd on 27/03/2017 14:53:56There's no "electron cycle" involved in an atomic clock. We are looking for microwave absorption at an energy determined by the spin-spin interactions between electrons and nuclei.And yet you do not understand the absorption process. Your model determines your understanding. What causes your vibration?I never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences. Models are generally useless and often dangerously misleading. You have to describe what actually happens.
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/03/2017 14:53:56There's no "electron cycle" involved in an atomic clock. We are looking for microwave absorption at an energy determined by the spin-spin interactions between electrons and nuclei.And yet you do not understand the absorption process. Your model determines your understanding. What causes your vibration?
There's no "electron cycle" involved in an atomic clock. We are looking for microwave absorption at an energy determined by the spin-spin interactions between electrons and nuclei.
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/03/2017 09:19:15Here's where the "electron path " model breaks down. A simple clock consists of a quartz tuning fork. Quartz is anisotropic, which is why we can use its piezoelectric properties to excite and measure its vibrations. Vibration is a motion its just not clear what is causing motion.QuoteI never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences. Rotation and spin is definitely possible and the cause of vibration. A spin and rotation is what I believe to be the motion of the electron moving forward.Your understanding is only limited by your model.
Here's where the "electron path " model breaks down. A simple clock consists of a quartz tuning fork. Quartz is anisotropic, which is why we can use its piezoelectric properties to excite and measure its vibrations.
I never mentioned vibration or motion of any sort. Quantum "spin" isn't (indeed can't be) the same as rotation, it just happens to have similar consequences.