Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Virtual State on 03/12/2020 04:57:16
-
Do all possible paths provide the path that allows tunneling to happen? Is this what the non-zero past the barrier is? Uncertainty is the possible paths of the vector field. Is tunneling from a path of all possible paths with a phasor that didn't complete its cycle before the barrier?
-
In the quantum world, the location of a particle cannot be determined precisely.
- The probability of finding the particle in a particular location is indicated by the amplitude of the wave function
- The wavefunction will have some non-zero probability on the "other" side of a barrier, so there is a non-zero probability that the particle will appear on the other side of the barrier. We call this tunneling.
- The probability of tunneling decreases rapidly with the width of the barrier.
You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
-
Math is great, but I want to know what is actually happening.
-
:)
Two choices. Magic, or a logic. If there is a logic to it it should be possible to describe mathematically, if you can't describe it then it just as well becomes magic. So mathematics are very important to it. Without them you don't have anything more than hearsay.
spelling
=
As for how it works? It's not cogs and wheels. If you take a entanglement its correlation has nothing to do with distance or time, well, as I think anyway. Maybe its a structure that breaks down with decoherence coming into play. Something about the scale you use when describing it. Or you could probably stretch it to become a question of what time is too, as 'time' isn't involved in the correlation as far as I know.
-
If you think of it there is a sort of complementary to distance and time. Take away any of those and you reach a same state. One where something seems to become 'instant' to us.
-
Time is involved. I suspect all possible paths of interference are paths of causality. I don't think Vector uses the same type of Time as Scalar Relative Time. Maybe it is some type of cycle of alpha. I think we need to reexamine Lorentz Transformations.
-
Well, maybe in tunneling but not in a entanglement. If there was we would have disproved 'c'.
-
Neither are using relative time. You need quantum waves for either of those to happen.
-
A entanglement is not two parts, even though we can use a beam splitter to produce two individual photons. And the point there is that your measurement only can state that their spins will be opposite, but not in what direction. So you can't know the spin from try to try, but what you do know is that they 'instantly' are correlated ( once you measure one of 'them' ). If you could find a way to state this spin without measuring, entanglements no longer would belong under probability, and you would also be able to argue that those 'spins' was set through the beam splitter splitting one photon into two.
spelling
&syntax
-
And time is never relative.Not practically for you. Your clock never change its pace, it's those other clocks that starts to act weird as you gain mass or speed. You can only measure something from your own local setting, and we do so, and when our experiments agree with each other we call them 'repeatable experiments'.
=
You can define it as all those experiments must have been slightly different from yours, as their relative speed, mass, influence the time taken from your local definition. But again practically, if they really did there would be no repeatable experiments, that's what Lorentz transformations in different uniform motions is about. It's a logic, and it gave us repeatable experiments.
-
I'm saying what we use for t and x are not what we assume. c is the number of vectors light can use (Distance) in a "time" dictated by alpha.
-
I suspect you have something of a new theory there. We have a place for that if you want to expand on it further. In the mean time this might be relevant. Fermat's principle. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/7010/CM_03_FermatLeastTime.html
-
There are some technicalities to using a beam splitter to describe a entanglement. The most important is that the entanglement is not presumed to exist before the measurement. It's only if measured it 'falls out', before that the photon is thought to exist in a so called super position, consisting of all possible polarizations / spins it can take. So in one way it goes back to what a superposition is thought to be.
But it is a interesting thought wondering about if you can connect entanglements to tunnelings. Presuming it is possible you then would have a opportunity to measure the time taken for a flow through an array of Josephson junctions and compare it to a speed. If the 'tunneling' is instant you should be able to notice it, possibly :)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-josephson-juncti/
Let's add this one too. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/395710/quantum-tunneling-superposition-and-the-uncertainty-principle
And this one, very short, but interesting without mathematics.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bob_Copeland/publication/328913426_Superposition_Entanglement_Tunnelling/links/5beae3c74585150b2bb38fad/Superposition-Entanglement-Tunnelling.pdf
syntax
-
They are related, please check out my other threads. There is a reason both require to be quantum waves when they happen. A scalar volume isn't going to tunnel because physical matter is traveling a single path. I will check out your links.
-
we can use a beam splitter to produce two individual photons.
For conventional beam splitters, one photon coming in produces one photon of the same frequency coming out.
- It's just that there is a 50% chance that it will come out one port, and 50% chance it will come out the other port (other split ratios are available...)
- Back to the question in the original post: one common form of beam splitter uses a very thin layer of aluminium at 45° to the light beam.
- It actually works by quantum tunneling; when the photon hits the thin layer of aluminium, there is a 50% chance it will tunnel through the aluminium and continue on its merry way, and 50% chance it will remain on the original side, and get reflected by 90° to come out the other port.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_splitter
When you are talking about 1 photon coming into a passive device, and 2 photons coming out, the only way this can happen if the 2 photons coming out have half the frequency of the original photon. This frequency reduction is needed for conservation of energy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion
Well, maybe in tunneling but not in a entanglement. If there was we would have disproved 'c'.
Quantum events do not have to respect 'c'. But there are limits on how big a violation can occur.
- In every quantum event, there is an uncertainty of position. The particle may be on one side of a barrier, or it may be on the other side (due to tunneling).
- But the Uncertainty Principle constrains the amount of uncertainty.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
-
Evan, You know as well as I what I'm saying. If there was found to be a speed for a entanglement is wouldn't be instant and it would question 'c'. you have a whole mathematical foundation for how to look at it and it starts as far as I see in the idea of super positions.
As for the rest, I'm talking about " Parametric down-conversion (PDC) is a nonlinear process in which a photon from a strong pump laser is converted into two daughter photons under conservation of energy and momentum "
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/beamsplitter
-
Maybe we look at it differently? I look at it from information. If it is 'instant' I will call it a 'whole', not two singular photons down converted but one whole 'process', or whatever you would like to call it. If it isn't, if there was found to be some delay between you measuring one and the other giving you its opposite it would be 'information' flowing to me. It would no longer be a whole, or I would have to re-imagine what time should be seen as under a such scenario.
=
Or possibly space, or both. The main point for me though is the definition of no useful information over 'c'. So if I find information being able to take time over that (ftl), or action and reaction if you like, it would make me wonder, a lot. It would both please and threaten relativity, as you could argue that it no longer is 'spooky' although it at the same time would question 'c'.
'c' as a definition is purely local. You can't use some 'universal frame' for it. It's the local frame of reference that defines it, same for us all, by which I mean that your experiment can define it and so will mine no matter our different speeds at the moment of measurement. Just as it is the one that defines 'repeatable experiments'.
And that is the weird thing about quantum processes, they are not classical as you point out, neither are they relativistic. They are like another world. Which gives us three worlds.
-
There is nothing relative about entanglement or tunneling while they are happening. Not only am I saying they are the same thing, but so is interference ..which means superposition. c equates time for non-local waves. It is all vector(virtual). c is always the same speed because it is virtual.
-
Ahh :)
That one definitely belong in 'new theories' VS. And you will need to define each one of your words there so that it becomes clear how you think of it before combining it into a 'picture'. No slight to you, but idea of the main forum has changed from being a free for all to one in where your questions gets answered from a main scientific point of view. It's somewhat of a gray zone still, but your idea needs another place.
-
You get to say "another world", but I don't?
-
heh :)
I'm here so seldom, I stay in 'New theories'. Not a explanation, just an excuse.
-
I've been getting hostility (not from you) because people don't want potential answers to questions that currently have none.
-
It's not as much hostility as it is the idea behind the forum. It has become a sort of 'self help' to physics as it is thought to work today. And there are people putting a whole lot of time and thinking into what we call physics, and they are just as smart as you and me, or possibly smarter. So if you want to change or extend physics we have a place for that called 'New Theories'. It was more fun before, but it is what it is.
-
If speed is scalar, what is c in a vector quantity?
Can c be described in imaginary numbers?
-
Not sure that makes sense wondering if 'c' differ? https://byjus.com/physics/scalars-and-vectors/
'c' is a speed, no vector, a measurement you make in f.ex a two mirror experiment. A 'photon' is slightly different as it has a 'force', a momentum and a defined vector to it too depending on how you define it. But 'c' is more of a (local) value you get to, defining a lot of different things, like information flows in modern physics. It gets involved in everything, at least when I think of it, but it's still a abstract definition.
-
When it comes to using 'c' as a imaginary number we have this.
" ABSTRACT
The quest to find faster‐than‐light particles has intrigued physicists for decades, though it has yet to turn up any real candidates. Even if a superluminal universe does exist, we have no way to reach it given that we must go through the speed of light, which to the best of our knowledge is impossible. In this paper, I show that by making speed complex, we can go around the speed of light in a manner analogous to the way a car faced with an infinitely tall road block might leave the road to go around that barrier.
The treatment is a mathematical device; no known physical interpretation exists for the imaginary part of a complex speed. However, it can provide an entertaining problem in special relativity, one that may encourage students to think about the connections between equations and the physical universe. "
https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/12643-can-imaginary-numbers-solve-the-problem-of-faster-than-light-travel
and imaginary numbers do have their place in physics. https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html
-
If you want to see how she does it, download ' Aurora in Four Voices ' a science fiction by by Catherine Asaro. Tried to find a free access to that paper she wrote but it's unfortunately behind a paywall.
-
I've been getting hostility (not from you) because people don't want potential answers to questions that currently have none.
It’s not hostility (unless you wish to think of it that way), but the way we divide up the forum. The main objective of the forum is education and answering questions on established science. We have a section for new ideas and changes to existing ideas, see https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
There is still plenty of fun to be had in that section if your thinking is clear and well supported. There you can expound your ideas of scalar volume and universal wave etc.
-
If speed is scalar, what is c in a vector quantity?
Speed has a magnitude, but no direction; as you say, this is a scalar quantity.
- This speed can be c for massless photons and gravitons,
- but massive particles can't reach a speed of c as it would require an infinite amount of energy
- There are theoretical ways that a massive particle might exceed a speed of c and still have a real energy, but quantities like time or length become imaginary; we don't know if it is really possible, or how to do it.
Velocity has a magnitude and direction; this is a vector quantity, eg 1000km/sec towards Alpha Centauri.
- This velocity can be c for massless photons and gravitons,
- similarly, massive particles can't reach a velocity of c as it would require an infinite amount of energy
You can easily convert a velocity to a speed (just ignore the direction).
- But converting a speed to a velocity requires extra information about the direction.
c is always the same speed because it is virtual.
Please clarify what you mean by "virtual" in this context.
Does it have something to do with virtual particles?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
-
That paywall does make me sad as it is exactly what I want. I did find this https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128072/can-speed-be-defined-in-the-complex-plane which makes me wonder if Vector is the complex plane.
@evan_au can you pick a direction and give me some kind of number for velocity (magnitude and direction) for c?
Is this already one? "1000km/sec towards Alpha Centauri."
I say virtual because it is required for all paths of interference to be taken at the same time, virtually.
-
Force is a Vector property, maybe I should consider the Lorentz Force (it has velocity in it).
https://www.quora.com/How-does-electric-field-equal-the-product-of-speed-of-light-and-magnetic-field
-
which makes me wonder if Vector is the complex plane.
You have to ask which vector and which complex plane? You say 'the complex plane', why just one?
Most people think of some properties as 2 valued eg spin up or down, polarisation H or V, however, they are better described by complex numbers in QM, these also describe a vector representation of the property.
can you pick a direction and give me some kind of number for velocity (magnitude and direction) for c?
Is this already one? "1000km/sec towards Alpha Centauri."
Yes, that is one vector, another would be to point a laser from Berlin to the moon, that would give at least 2 vectors direction/distance and direction/speed (c).
Note that if we describe position by a coordinate system we automatically describe it as a vector relative to the implied origin.
I say virtual because it is required for all paths of interference to be taken at the same time, virtually.
As @alancalverd pointed out, try not to confuse the models models we use with an implied reality.
Put a stick vertically in a pond and then throw a pebble in the pond, the wave radiates out from the impact point and encounters the stick, it does not take all possible paths. However, if we calculate what would happen if it took all possible paths we would find that they all cancel out except the shortest time. We can perform similar calculatons with cannonballs, using least action.
-
You think there is a complex plane for each vertex property? That's fine with me, but I think scalar properties are only using real numbers when physical.
A tunneling wave might not have taken the path with the shortest time. Interference did not cancel out the possible paths, but maybe it does for a physical scalar volume particle. This thread is about how tunneling can happen and I don't think scalar can do it.
Are probabilities about which path had the shortest time?
-
You think there is a complex plane for each vertex property?
I didn’t say that
That's fine with me, but I think scalar properties are only using real numbers when physical.
That’s nonsensical. Spin is physical, polarisation is physical, we can measure them.
This thread is about how tunneling can happen and I don't think scalar can do it.
Then explain why not. Here in NewTheories you are free to do so.
Are probabilities about which path had the shortest time?
Which path do you think is most probable?
-
I meant "Vector" for "vertex"
Scalar has two problems for tunneling.
1. It is a scalar volume which means it is physical.
2. It has one path of all possible paths - and it is going to travel on it physically.
A physical volume can have spin. Polarization is EM which means it is vector. You are measuring a virtual/vector quantity.
I'm asking if time is involved in the landing position (path) of a particle on an interference pattern.
-
Causality isn't always the best starting point in quantum mechanics. You end up asking why stuff is quantised. Fact is that if it wasn't, the world would collapse into a singularity of infinite density, so you might as well begin with the observation that it just is.
Tunneling is observed, and is adequately modelled by probability functions. Modelling, however predictive, is not the same as explanation.
-
Causality is good for figuring out what Time is.
Tunneling is observed after it happens.
-
Discrete fixed values are what Scalar can handle because it is based off of Phi.
-
I meant "Vector" for "vertex"
Please explain how vertex applies in this discussion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex
Scalar has two problems for tunneling.
1. It is a scalar volume which means it is physical.
How are scalars a volume?
- Atmospheric pressure is a scalar, as is temperature. How are these a volume?
In the case of tunneling, an important parameter is the thickness of the barrier. This is a length, not a volume.
-
Vertex doesn't apply, I typed the wrong word.
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/vectors.jpg)
Vector waves can bypass length.
-
I say virtual because it is required for all paths of interference to be taken at the same time, virtually.
As @alancalverd pointed out, try not to confuse the models models we use with an implied reality.
Put a stick vertically in a pond and then throw a pebble in the pond, the wave radiates out from the impact point and encounters the stick, it does not take all possible paths. However, if we calculate what would happen if it took all possible paths we would find that they all cancel out except the shortest time. We can perform similar calculations with cannonballs, using least action.
That was very interesting.
Scalar Volumes have all possible paths available, but it uses the path with the shortest Time (Principle of Least Action). It has Uncertainty because all possible paths of Vector are available.
The larger the scalar volume, the less possible paths. The amount of Uncertainty goes down with the number of paths.
A non-local wave is going to have plenty of paths (Uncertainty) to tunnel.
-
Tunneling is observed after it happens.
Which makes it different from... what?
-
Scalar has two problems for tunneling.
1. It is a scalar volume which means it is physical.
What is a "scalar volume"?
What do you think "physical" means?
-
Observing a wave before tunneling is going to prevent it from doing so because it is now scalar.
I provided the list (image) of properties of scalar, "volume" is written under the list for a reason.
Physical matter is scalar. It has real properties of scalar.
-
Observing a wave before tunneling is going to prevent it from doing so because it is now scalar.
I provided the list (image) of properties of scalar, "volume" is written under the list for a reason.
Physical matter is scalar. It has real properties of scalar.
None of that makes any sense.
-
Is Time a Vector Force that Scalar describes as Local, Relative, and Cyclical Time?
Is the Speed of Light a Force from Vector that Scalar describes with a Scalar Speed?
-
The larger the scalar volume, the less possible paths.
The number of paths is always infinite otherwise the calculation doesn't work even for cannon balls.
It would help if you dropped the scalar, all volumes are scalar quantities so the qualifier is superflous and is why everyone is asking what you mean.
-
Is Time a Vector Force that Scalar describes
Stop pretending that "scalar" is a noun.
-
What says scalar volumes can't be self contained closed systems? Entropy requires it.
There is a difference between physical and virtual paths available.
-
Space and time are connected within inertial references. We call this symbiosis of distance and time, space-time. At the speed of light reference, space-time becomes discontinuous; division by zero, allowing space and time to act independently of each other. Things like tunneling require unattached time and/or distance, from the c reference, adding extra time or distance to space-time; time and distance potentials.
If you look at acceleration due to any force, acceleration is d/t/t or one part distance and two parts time. There are two time vectors, one from space-time and one from the c-reference.
There can also be extra distance potential within space-time; dd/t. This can create uncertainty in inertial position, at any point in space-time; Heisenberg.
Because space and time are disconnected in the speed of light reference, and time can act independently of distance; omniscience, and distance can act independently of time; omnipresence, a state is created in the c-reference that defines infinite entropy. This infinite entropy state of the c-reference is the potential behind the second law, which appears in inertial reference. Infinite entropy means zero free energy or the speed of light reference is at the lowest free energy potential in the universe. Inertial is heading toward lower potential via the second law.
Since entropy needs to absorb energy to increase within inertial reference, and since the speed of light reference is at lowest potential, the energy has to come from the inertial reference, Through interaction with the c-reference, the needed energy is extracted from inertial. This occurs through space-time interaction with dissociated distance and time; tweaks to wavelength and/or frequency and directed anomalies in position and/or time.
As a loose analogy, picture the zero potential of the c-reference, being a deep hole within inertial, but it is covered with layers of floors. Separated distance and time open up the floors to create an amplified potential, not expected in inertial, but consistent with the c-reference. There is an induced vacuum, in time and/or distance, that can suck up the needed energy.
The extracted energy, due to the entropy increase, then goes to the dead pool and is no longer net reusable by the inertial universe. The inertial universe is then one step closer to the c-reference; lower useable energy. While the dead pool energy has its own entropy potential, that is even more interactive with dissociated time and space; dead pool information is evolving.
-
What does Vector Displacement say about the landing positions of interference or the Principle of Least Action?
Is displacement a bridge between Vector and Scalar?
What is energy when it isn't being described/used by Scalar(local)? Is it coherent?
Omnipresence is on the Vector side, it is all possible paths.
Can "distance potential" be from the availability of all possible paths? How about a phasor that didn't complete its cycle?
All types of movement are from Vector. Scalar volumes(physical matter) would be frozen without it.
Spacetime is Scalar, Time from it is relative. It is what causes age. Waves are not using relative time to propagate.