Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can Quantum Fluctuations Occur without time?

Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:58:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 4:32:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was wondering if Quantum fluctuations can occur without space-time? If so, how?

That's a very interesting question. I could be wrong, but I believe quantum fluctuations require a very short amount of time to act, after all it is represented as a function of energy and time. However, I am not a phycist so don't take my word for it, I just have an interest in physics in the same way you seem to.

I also know that the guage bosons were created moments after the big bang (10^-49 sec or similar) so the gauge bosons, which are virtual particles, must have come into existence a finite time after spacetime came into existence. Again don't take my word for it.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 11:08:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, if anyone has more expertise feel free to correct me.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 10:11:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 4:32:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was wondering if Quantum fluctuations can occur without space-time? If so, how?

No.

1. The very nature of the word "fluctuate" requires a sense of time.
2. Quantum fluctuations are a necessary attribute of space-time; that is, it is space-time which is fluctuating.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 9:15:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 4:32:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was wondering if Quantum fluctuations can occur without space-time? If so, how?

As far as the way it's described in Physics, spacetime and quantum fluctuations occurred simultaneously. You can say that one derives from the other, or you can say that they are contingent on one another. In that sense, I'd say that the answer is no.

However, if you look at it from a different perspective, one perhaps could postulate that they can occur without spacetime, as they current occur despite spacetime. By this, I mean that although they must exist simultaneously, they don't necessarily interact. Quantum fluctuations occur close to and at the speed of light (for a moment, scientists at Cern even believed that some occurred faster, but I'm pretty sure that's since been debunked). This means that they operate at the point which spacetime has completely stopped (essentially outrunning it), thereby operating despite it. In this regard, if one were to, say, somehow remove spacetime in a given plane and place matter, which contains quantum fluctuations, within that arrangement, it can conceivably continue to exist, although it may not remain in such an arrangement as to present matter.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 9:16:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know what, on second thought, no -- for something to be "moving" at the "speed" of light, then it would need to be operating within the parameters of spacetime.

So, I take that back.

The answer is no.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:04:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have a feeling that this question is really leading to the ludicrous assertion that our universe was caused to come into existence "from nothing" by a quantum event. But just take a close look at what you would then be saying: a quantum event -- which only occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter -- caused space, time, energy and matter to come into existence. First, you simply have to ask to whomever is brave enough to defend this ludicrous position: (I'm looking at you, Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking) "Which is it? Did 'nothing' cause the universe to come into existence from non-existence, or was it a quantum event?" Both notions are gravely incoherent. Quantum fluctuations are events and observations that occur in the presence of the universe; they describe a process that occurs in the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. So what you really are saying is: "the universe caused its own self to come into existence." That is a patently incoherent assertion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:25:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:04:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I have a feeling that this question is really leading to the ludicrous assertion that our universe was caused to come into existence "from nothing" by a quantum event. But just take a close look at what you would then be saying: a quantum event -- which only occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter -- caused space, time, energy and matter to come into existence. First, you simply have to ask to whomever is brave enough to defend this ludicrous position: (I'm looking at you, Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking) "Which is it? Did 'nothing' cause the universe to come into existence from non-existence, or was it a quantum event?" Both notions are gravely incoherent. Quantum fluctuations are events and observations that occur in the presence of the universe; they describe a process that occurs in the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. So what you really are saying is: "the universe caused its own self to come into existence." That is a patently incoherent assertion.

I was asking a question, I wasn't making any assertions lol Calm down.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:59:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:04:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I have a feeling that this question is really leading to the ludicrous assertion that our universe was caused to come into existence "from nothing" by a quantum event. But just take a close look at what you would then be saying: a quantum event -- which only occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter -- caused space, time, energy and matter to come into existence. First, you simply have to ask to whomever is brave enough to defend this ludicrous position: (I'm looking at you, Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking) "Which is it? Did 'nothing' cause the universe to come into existence from non-existence, or was it a quantum event?" Both notions are gravely incoherent. Quantum fluctuations are events and observations that occur in the presence of the universe; they describe a process that occurs in the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. So what you really are saying is: "the universe caused its own self to come into existence." That is a patently incoherent assertion.

Its been his MO lately lolz
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 6:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:59:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:04:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I have a feeling that this question is really leading to the ludicrous assertion that our universe was caused to come into existence "from nothing" by a quantum event. But just take a close look at what you would then be saying: a quantum event -- which only occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter -- caused space, time, energy and matter to come into existence. First, you simply have to ask to whomever is brave enough to defend this ludicrous position: (I'm looking at you, Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking) "Which is it? Did 'nothing' cause the universe to come into existence from non-existence, or was it a quantum event?" Both notions are gravely incoherent. Quantum fluctuations are events and observations that occur in the presence of the universe; they describe a process that occurs in the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. So what you really are saying is: "the universe caused its own self to come into existence." That is a patently incoherent assertion.

Its been his MO lately lolz

Since when did asking questions become making assertions? Talk about the delusion on this site sometimes...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 6:52:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry. I didn't state, though, that you made that assertion. I merely pointed out that discussions regarding quantum events with naturalists typically devolve to -- well, what I stated in the post. And, well, I saw a debate of yours in which you argued that quantum events throw a wrench in the whole ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Didn't mean any harm by it. Have a cookie.

*gives cookie*
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 7:02:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know, quantum fluctuations really put things in perspective, don't they? I mean, they really present a theory for what actually happened during the Big Bang. Essentially, there was something, and it was, perhaps, at its most relaxed state. Asleep. Then, one day, it polarizes, engaging its most excited state (exploding). In this way, an innumerable amount of particles of itself were spread throughout the universe in a series of states, accelerations, speeds, and arrangements. These particles were moving in such a way that they caused energy fields to manifest from the forces that also resulted from this explosion. These energy fields coalesce to form progressively larger structures in kind, until we had the material universe as we know it today.

Isn't that something. We're in the midst of an explosion, and the energies released from that explosion as they interacted with the particles of the thing that exploded manifest you and I.

Isn't that a mindfuck?

I'm sure stimulated.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 7:08:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
...that is one fucking beautiful explosion...

...imagine, it produces a song, too?

I mean, try to close your eyes and see that from a hundred trillion lightyears away, a hundred trillion times slower.

An explosion of colors and rays of light that, instead of simply going "boom," produces a song. If you were to take a super ka-duper microscope and peer into this explosion as it's occurring, you would, in one area, zoomed in a five hundred trillion times, you would see humanity.

You would see humanity.

In another, area, you would see a pulsar.

In another area, you would see giant molecular clouds giving birth to stars.

O.O

I mean... damn.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 9:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can anything "occur" without time? The word itself seems to imply two states of physical entites (before and after fluctuation) bridged by some change. I don't see how you can have change without time.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 5:43:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 9:36:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can anything "occur" without time? The word itself seems to imply two states of physical entites (before and after fluctuation) bridged by some change. I don't see how you can have change without time.

You can't because time = change. Also, there is NO quantum event that throws a wrench into ex nihilo, nihil fit. Because nothingness does not exist: it is a contradiction. Not to mention the fact that QM does NOT claim that something comes from nothingness.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 8:34:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 9:36:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can anything "occur" without time? The word itself seems to imply two states of physical entites (before and after fluctuation) bridged by some change. I don't see how you can have change without time.

Yes.

Quantum fluctuations, for example, seem to happen at least despite time. That's why we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and also why we have virtual particles to fill holes in equations.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 8:46:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 6:52:00 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Sorry. I didn't state, though, that you made that assertion. I merely pointed out that discussions regarding quantum events with naturalists typically devolve to -- well, what I stated in the post. And, well, I saw a debate of yours in which you argued that quantum events throw a wrench in the whole ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Didn't mean any harm by it. Have a cookie.

*gives cookie*

When someone asks a question, don't assume you know where the discussion is going, is the moral of the story.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 8:46:26 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/27/2012 6:52:00 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Sorry. I didn't state, though, that you made that assertion. I merely pointed out that discussions regarding quantum events with naturalists typically devolve to -- well, what I stated in the post. And, well, I saw a debate of yours in which you argued that quantum events throw a wrench in the whole ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Didn't mean any harm by it. Have a cookie.

*gives cookie*

When someone asks a question, don't assume you know where the discussion is going, is the moral of the story.

*hands cookie*
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:34:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 8:34:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/27/2012 9:36:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can anything "occur" without time? The word itself seems to imply two states of physical entites (before and after fluctuation) bridged by some change. I don't see how you can have change without time.
Yes.
Uh, no. You cannot have change without time: they are mutual.

Quantum fluctuations, for example, seem to happen at least despite time.
Fluctuation is a temporal word; ergo, requires time.

That's why we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and also why we have virtual particles to fill holes in equations.
Virtual particles are just that: mathematical vestiges to fill holes in equations. And the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has to do with an inverse relationship of specific pairs of properties: ie the more you measure one the more you disturb the other and thus have less information about it.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 8:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 12:34:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/2/2012 8:34:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/27/2012 9:36:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can anything "occur" without time? The word itself seems to imply two states of physical entites (before and after fluctuation) bridged by some change. I don't see how you can have change without time.
Yes.
Uh, no. You cannot have change without time: they are mutual.

Quantum fluctuations, for example, seem to happen at least despite time.
Fluctuation is a temporal word; ergo, requires time.

That's why we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and also why we have virtual particles to fill holes in equations.
Virtual particles are just that: mathematical vestiges to fill holes in equations. And the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has to do with an inverse relationship of specific pairs of properties: ie the more you measure one the more you disturb the other and thus have less information about it.

Quantum Fluctuations have been verified in labs through indirect observation, there are not just mathematical.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:26:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 12:34:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/2/2012 8:34:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/27/2012 9:36:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can anything "occur" without time? The word itself seems to imply two states of physical entites (before and after fluctuation) bridged by some change. I don't see how you can have change without time.
Yes.
Uh, no. You cannot have change without time: they are mutual.

Well, we certainly believe that the Big Bag occurred, and given it manifested Spacetime, it couldn't occur within it...?

Quantum fluctuations, for example, seem to happen at least despite time.
Fluctuation is a temporal word; ergo, requires time.

Fluctuation indicates change. How can something change timelessly? I submit to you the conversion of a circulon to a photon.

That's why we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and also why we have virtual particles to fill holes in equations.
Virtual particles are just that: mathematical vestiges to fill holes in equations. And the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has to ith an inverse relationship of specific pairs of properties: ie the more you measure one the more you disturb the other and thus have less information about it.

Virtual particles are vestiges to fill holes in equations, because there are some processes that appear to occur timelessly, which in equations, translate as skipped inertial frames, requiring virtual particles to make sense of it.

That's one application, anyway.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle refers to a relationship whereby it does not require time to initiate change or apply an effect.

Time is not tantamount to change. It's more akin to vector movement through sections of this dimension divided into frames separated by the rate at which we detect these frames, and Planck's Constant, which places a limit on how many of those frames can exist with a given period.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:33:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 8:15:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/6/2012 12:34:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/2/2012 8:34:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/27/2012 9:36:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
Can anything "occur" without time? The word itself seems to imply two states of physical entites (before and after fluctuation) bridged by some change. I don't see how you can have change without time.
Yes.
Uh, no. You cannot have change without time: they are mutual.

Quantum fluctuations, for example, seem to happen at least despite time.
Fluctuation is a temporal word; ergo, requires time.

That's why we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and also why we have virtual particles to fill holes in equations.
Virtual particles are just that: mathematical vestiges to fill holes in equations. And the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has to do with an inverse relationship of specific pairs of properties: ie the more you measure one the more you disturb the other and thus have less information about it.

Quantum Fluctuations have been verified in labs through indirect observation, there are not just mathematical.

[Delta]E x [Delta]t (is generally/approximately equivalent to) h/2[pi].
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 1:02:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As I understand it, the answer is a resounding "yes." My understanding is far from expert, but I believe that fluctuations actually increase when time is slowed down. If one slows time to a halt, it doesn't look like a sci-fi movie (where the character walks around freely amongst the stopped bodies) - matter actually starts fluctuating wildly. The reason is the uncertainty principle. If time is halted, the uncertainty of what any particle can do becomes infinite. Therefore particles halted in time will fluctuate infinitely.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:38:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A better explanation - the better one knows the location of a particle, the less on can know about it's velocity. When time is zero, the location of the particle is infinitely defined. Therefore, the velocity of said particle must be infinitely undefined. Does that make sense?
Rob
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 4:38:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 8:15:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Quantum Fluctuations have been verified in labs through indirect observation, there are not just mathematical.
INDIRECT observation; call me when it's direct. They are mathematical.

********************************

At 4/8/2012 8:26:53 AM, Ren wrote:
Well, we certainly believe that the Big Bag occurred, and given it manifested Spacetime, it couldn't occur within it...?
I'm not sure I follow you? Time began once there was change not before.

Fluctuation indicates change. How can something change timelessly?
I agree, that is why I am saying that quantum fluctuations require time.

I submit to you the conversion of a circulon to a photon.
I don't see what cookware has to do with the subject at hand.

Virtual particles are vestiges to fill holes in equations, because there are some processes that appear to occur timelessly, which in equations, translate as skipped inertial frames, requiring virtual particles to make sense of it.
Occur & timeless is a contradiction.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle refers to a relationship whereby it does not require time to initiate change or apply an effect.
I don't think so. It is a relationship between the properties of a quantum system whereby the more you measure one property the more you disturb the other.

Time is not tantamount to change.
It is one in the same.

It's more akin to vector movement through sections of this dimension divided into frames separated by the rate at which we detect these frames, and Planck's Constant, which places a limit on how many of those frames can exist with a given period.
Ergo, change.

****************
At 4/8/2012 1:02:18 PM, Lasagna wrote:
If time is halted, the uncertainty of what any particle can do becomes infinite. Therefore particles halted in time will fluctuate infinitely.
Paradox in bold. Change can only occur when time is occurring.

When time is zero, the location of the particle is infinitely defined. Therefore, the velocity of said particle must be infinitely undefined. Does that make sense?
That's only so if when you supposedly "stopped time" you measured the location of the particle. had you measured the velocity then the location would be undefined.

Anyways, so long as the Universe consists of more than 1 thing, time will occur.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 7:48:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 4:38:37 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

When time is zero, the location of the particle is infinitely defined. Therefore, the velocity of said particle must be infinitely undefined. Does that make sense?
That's only so if when you supposedly "stopped time" you measured the location of the particle. had you measured the velocity then the location would be undefined.

Anyways, so long as the Universe consists of more than 1 thing, time will occur.

Whether you actually measure it or not is irrelevent; the uncertainty principle is much more powerful than you give it credit for. All that matters is that is can be measured. For instance, one could say that to look at a particle you need to bounce a particle off it, and you can either measure position of velocity for the obvious reasons. But it isn't just an incidental inconvenience for us that it just so happens that we don't have a better way of looking at them; it's a very fundamental aspect of matter itself. When position or velocity is able to be defined in any fashion, the other becomes undefined.
Rob
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 9:10:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 4:38:37 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:15:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Quantum Fluctuations have been verified in labs through indirect observation, there are not just mathematical.
INDIRECT observation; call me when it's direct. They are mathematical.

********************************

At 4/8/2012 8:26:53 AM, Ren wrote:

I submit to you the conversion of a circulon to a photon.
I don't see what cookware has to do with the subject at hand.

Something's happening, and I don't like it.

Somehow, I can't seem to find any information about how photons embed in an object's surface, sending electrons cascading through the object until it strikes the same surface again, thereby releasing embed photons, which are termed ciculons. There used to be a lot of information about this, but all of a sudden, it's all about pots and pans, wtf??!?!

Photons don't bounce. They embed in atoms in the form of circulons until that atom is struck by an electron.

It would have to be that way, because photons are not physical entities that can bounce. They are packets of electromagnetic energy. Think about it. If a photon could bounce, that would make it a physical entity that abides by Newton's laws of motion. That would mean that a photon can strike a point in an object and release enough energy to cause that object to release the same amount of energy in kind, propelling it from the object at the speed of light. So, where do colors, densities, conduction, diffusion, reflection, and other aspects of electromagnetic interaction come into play?

Circulons make more sense, because they're electron-dependent. Rather than photons simply striking and bouncing off an object, they embed as circulons, and send a cascade of electrons, depending on the availability of free electrons in an object, through the object. If the object is clear, like glass, then the electrons may very well travel completely through the object. As they reach the other side of the object, they will inevitably begin colliding with atoms that have circulons embed in them. The energy of the impact converts those circulons back into photons, which shoot from the object in the direction in which it was struck. Indeed, some photons will travel all the way through unmitigated, but those are few and far between.

As for objects that are more dense and opaquely colored, a much larger proportion of photons will strike atoms on the surface of the object, as they'd be much more densely populated. However, as for the amount of light that is reflected as opposed to absorbed -- this is the clincher. This is what makes circulons necessary.

You see, for those that didn't realize, color is actually the detection of electrons. Dark coloring means that there are much fewer electrons on the surface of an object than light coloring would indicate.

Shininess, on the other hand, is the detection of how many free electrons are on the surface of an object.

Remember, how in Chem 101 and 102, you would have to identify free electrons, given their ability to enable covalent bonding? That is what leads to so many chemical structures dependent on covalent bonding. Remember those chemical structures? They were almost always somewhere in the middle of the periodic table, weren't they? That's because they were metals, and they were shiny. They had a lot of free electrons on their surface. This is also what makes them conductors. You see, a lot of free electrons means that it is much easier for energy, or interaction between energy sources and an object's electrons, to travel through that object.

Well, free electrons also mean that when a photon strikes a shiny surface, there are a lot of electrons to respond and cascade through that object. However, if the object is also dense, that also means that not many electrons will be making it all the way through the object. Just about all of them will hit an atom relatively close to the surface and bounce back to hit an atom with a circulon embed in it at the surface. This means many more circulons convert back into photons, making the object appear shiny. When that surface is smooth, that means that the trajectory of the photons are not changed much when it's transferred to the electrons. Therefore, it comes back at you in almost exactly the same way it hit the object. This appears to us in the form of a reflection.

On the other hand, when atoms are arranged in complex geometric structures, then they always change direction when they move from an atom struck by a photon, but in accordance to that geometric structure, translating to us in the form of a prism.

Due to particle-wave duality, that prism often produces rainbows.

See how it all makes sense?

But, I can't find any info on it all of a sudden, and that both scares and infuriates me, because it suggests unsettling information control while making me look like a pretentious douche, when it's not the case.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 2:04:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:48:24 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Whether you actually measure it or not is irrelevent; the uncertainty principle is much more powerful than you give it credit for.
I disagree; I think that you are taking it too literally. Furthermore, you cannot prove what you are saying to be true because it is unfalsifiable.

All that matters is that is can be measured. For instance, one could say that to look at a particle you need to bounce a particle off it, and you can either measure position of velocity for the obvious reasons. But it isn't just an incidental inconvenience for us that it just so happens that we don't have a better way of looking at them; it's a very fundamental aspect of matter itself.
It's not necessarily an incidental inconvenience but a FACT that we don't have a better way of looking at them; we actually don't know of any way possible to "look" without "touch". Also, it's not just matter, but energy as well (ie photon) that exhibits such properties.

When position or velocity is able to be defined in any fashion, the other becomes undefined.
Yes, because it becomes disturbed.

*********************************
At 4/11/2012 9:10:40 AM, Ren wrote:
Somehow, I can't seem to find any information about how photons embed in an object's surface, sending electrons cascading through the object until it strikes the same surface again, thereby releasing embed photons, which are termed ciculons. There used to be a lot of information about this, but all of a sudden, it's all about pots and pans, wtf??!?!
Why bother, they're simply photons!

Photons don't bounce. They embed in atoms in the form of circulons until that atom is struck by an electron.
The electrons in the atom absorb the photon and then go into a higher energy state. When they return to a lower energy state they release a photon. That's all.

It would have to be that way, because photons are not physical entities that can bounce. Oh contraire mon frere, photons are quite physical indeed. What they are not is material. And whether photons bounce or not is more akin to semantics.

They are packets of electromagnetic energy. Think about it. If a photon could bounce, that would make it a physical entity that abides by Newton's laws of motion.
No, that is incorrect. Electrons are particles of matter and do NOT always obey Newton's laws of motion.

That would mean that a photon can strike a point in an object and release enough energy to cause that object to release the same amount of energy in kind, propelling it from the object at the speed of light.
Not so. A photon has a limited mass-energy equivalent which limits it's kinetic effect. Not to mention the fact that you would need an infinite amount of energy to propel anything with non-zero mass to c.

So, where do colors, densities, conduction, diffusion, reflection, and other aspects of electromagnetic interaction come into play?
Where did you study physics? What do these things have to do with what we are talking about?

Circulons make more sense, because they're electron-dependent. Rather than photons simply striking and bouncing off an object, they embed as circulons, and send a cascade of electrons, depending on the availability of free electrons in an object, through the object. If the object is clear, like glass, then the electrons may very well travel completely through the object. As they reach the other side of the object, they will inevitably begin colliding with atoms that have circulons embed in them. The energy of the impact converts those circulons back into photons, which shoot from the object in the direction in which it was struck. Indeed, some photons will travel all the way through unmitigated, but those are few and far between.

As for objects that are more dense and opaquely colored, a much larger proportion of photons will strike atoms on the surface of the object, as they'd be much more densely populated. However, as for the amount of light that is reflected as opposed to absorbed -- this is the clincher. This is what makes circulons necessary.
Not really necessary, existing theory explains it quite well: when selecting among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect is preferred.

You see, for those that didn't realize, color is actually the detection of electrons. Dark coloring means that there are much fewer electrons on the surface of an object than light coloring would indicate.
Semantics: it is the INDIRECT detection of photons. regardless, circulons are not necessary.

Shininess, on the other hand, is the detection of how many free electrons are on the surface of an object.
See above.

Remember, how in Chem 101 and 102, you would have to identify free electrons, given their ability to enable covalent bonding? That is what leads to so many chemical structures dependent on covalent bonding. Remember those chemical structures?
I hated Chemistry!! but I do so LOVE physics! And yes I do remember them shells.

They were almost always somewhere in the middle of the periodic table, weren't they? That's because they were metals, and they were shiny. They had a lot of free electrons on their surface. This is also what makes them conductors. You see, a lot of free electrons means that it is much easier for energy, or interaction between energy sources and an object's electrons, to travel through that object.
Wonderful, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand as none of this requires anything but electrons absorbing & releasing photons.

Well, free electrons also mean that when a photon strikes a shiny surface, there are a lot of electrons to respond and cascade through that object. However, if the object is also dense, that also means that not many electrons will be making it all the way through the object. Just about all of them will hit an atom relatively close to the surface and bounce back to hit an atom with a circulon embed in it at the surface. This means many more circulons convert back into photons, making the object appear shiny. When that surface is smooth, that means that the trajectory of the photons are not changed much when it's transferred to the electrons. Therefore, it comes back at you in almost exactly the same way it hit the object. This appears to us in the form of a reflection.
Not necessary; see above.

On the other hand, when atoms are arranged in complex geometric structures, then they always change direction when they move from an atom struck by a photon, but in accordance to that geometric structure, translating to us in the form of a prism.

Due to particle-wave duality, that prism often produces rainbows.
Due to diffraction and reflection, of course.

See how it all makes sense?
No. It is not necessary.

But, I can't find any info on it all of a sudden, and that both scares and infuriates me, because it suggests unsettling information control while making me look like a pretentious douche, when it's not the case.
Don't think you're a douche; you've always been respectful.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 3:59:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Correction
At 4/11/2012 7:48:24 AM, Lasagna wrote:
It would have to be that way, because photons are not physical entities that can bounce.
Oh contraire mon frere, photons are quite physical indeed. What they are not is material. And whether photons bounce or not is more akin to semantics.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 4:34:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 2:04:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Where did you study physics? What do these things have to do with what we are talking about?

Well, I was submitting that the change that occurs when a photon strikes an atom, which is what I understood to be the conversion of a photon to a circulon (which is indeed a change that occurs at the speed of light, and thus, timelessly), is a quantum fluctuation that occurs without time.

But, I became terribly distracted and distraught in response to the fact that I couldn't find anything about circulons; that, accordingly to Google, the only information about circulons in the physical sense is limited to what I wrote here on DDO. Wtf is that shit?

Well, anyway. So, there's that.