One finds action in photon emission and particle paths. What is it when its magnitude is expressed by a Planck Constant for emission versus when it may be expressed as a stationary integral value (least – saddle – greatest) along a path? The units match. Action is recognized as a valuable concept and I would like to appreciate its nature in Nature. (Struggling against the “energy is quantized” error has distracted me from the character of the above inquiry in the past.)
Brief aside: Max Planck and Albert Einstein emphasized energy as discrete amounts for their blackbody radiation and photoelectric studies, but they always added at a specific frequency! Energy without that secondary condition is not quantized! I emphasize this because it has been frustrating for decades and it interferes with the awareness that it is action that is quantized! Now, granted that it is irrelevant to “grind out useful results” activity, which also is valuable, it is relevant to comprehending the nature of Nature, thus this post.
The existence of The Planck Constant has been a mystery since Max Planck found it necessary to make emissions discrete in order to formulate blackbody radiation mathematically. He assumed discrete emission energy values for each frequency that made the action of radiated energy at each frequency equal to the Planck Constant value. (This can be said better – please, feel free to fix it.) Action had been being used to find the equations of motion for almost two centuries by then. Is a stationary integral of action along a path equal to an integral number of Planck Constants? Is the underlying nature in these several instances of mathematical physics the same? What is that nature; how can this be? If the natures are different, how is each?
Happy Trails, Len
P.S. My English gets weird and succinct sometimes trying to escape standard ruts in meanings: how is each? is a question that directs one to explain, i.e., to describe the processes as they occur – causes, interactions, events, etc., I hope.
Aristotle used the concept of “the unmoved mover” to describe the nature of the action in the universe. In line with Parmenides of Elea’s concept that observable reality is created by an underlying reality. That is why Parmenides argued that there exists no emptiness in the universe.
Nowadays we use the concept of quantum fields (QFT). The general concept is that phenomenological reality is created by the universal quantum fields. Expressed with the statement: “There are no particles, there are only fields”. (see: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf)
In the early universe there was a period that there was no matter around. The consequence is that the universal scalar field (Higgs field) was flat, everywhere in the universe. In this period only the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field were responsible for all the action in the universe. Action in the quality of electromagnetic amplitudes. The latter are not identical with electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves are a type of electromagnetic amplitudes related to the existence of matter.
So the origin of action in the universe is the electromagnetic field. However, we can only measure mutual relations between the phenomena thus the origin of the “power” of the electromagnetic field – “the stuff” our universe is made of – is still Parmenides’ mysterious underlying creating reality.
Because we can only detect mutual relations Planck’s constant is a fixed amount of energy (electromagnetic field) in relation to the other phenomena around. That means that it is the mutual relation that is quantized. From the viewpoint of the universe itself all the changes within the electromagnetic field are smooth. Just what we observe in daily reality.
The total amount of “action” in our universe is conserved – the law of conservation of energy – and the total amount of the direction of all the action is conserved too, the law of conservation of momentum. The consequence is that at the moment that matter emerged in the universe – local concentrations of energy – and the gravitational field came to existence as an influence between matter objects this new action was a transformation of a part of the energy and momentum of the electromagnetic field. I hope this is helpful.
With kind regards, Sydney
The point is that the current standard phrasing of the the problem requires a Kuhnian paradigm shift. Discreteness means a particle (not a de Broglie bunched frequency or a continuous field). This particle then must (anthropic principle) warp a continuous field field (a second component of the universe) which can direct the particle.
Howdy Sidney Ernest Grimm and John Hodge,
Good stuff, thank you both for your views. The quick response is: Of Course! we need a Kuhnian paradigm shift to comprehend action (formal term) in the universe! Howard Margolis' Paradigms and Barriers from 1993 provides an excellent treatment of the subject. When it emerges from the current efforts to discover it, the new paradigm will be clear, it will ring true, it will become a new awareness (limitation) in our understanding of Nature. We will end up postulating new things to bridge the gap between our still incomplete theories and our interpretation of our measurements. Science goes on.
Aristotle introduced a fifth essence to solve the problem of motion not action - earth, water, air, fire, aether. His quintessence was the "essence" of the environment of the spherical universe surrounding the shell of fire with the quality of providing motion as a "prime mover, unmoved." As a concept it is not worse than phlogiston or, perhaps, dark matter. That motion does not address the nature of action, however. That there was an underlying reality responsible for, or specifying details in, reality occurred many places in Greek philosophy. And Zeno produced his paradoxes to establish that Parmenides reality could have no parts, it was One.
“There are no particles, there are only fields”. Were you to explore ideas I have included on ResearchGate you would find thorough agreement with this quote, within the context of my view, and even find that the fields only "exist" in "the process of becoming during now." "Nowadays we use . . ." is why we are so desperate for comprehension and why I seek the nature of Nature. We need a Kuhnian paradigm shift.
NO!: "The total amount of “action” in our universe is conserved – the law of conservation of energy – and the total amount of the direction of all the action is conserved too, the law of conservation of momentum." and "Planck’s constant is a fixed amount of energy" NO! Please review my discussion of why this convenient error has entered and remained in science in my question post. Action is quantized, not energy. Planck's constant is a fixed amount of energy x interval,, not energy. (Please pardon my enthusiasm in trying to break these errors in the old paradigm. They distort the nature of Nature. We often read what we expect "into" a passage and miss what is there.)
Numerous other points in your posts express interesting possibilities and I appreciate the opportunity to consider them.
Happy Trails, Len
Leonard Hall
Try:
SUMMARY
Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU
Dear Leonard Hall
Action is local change, that means change in position and change in time. Where time is the change in relation to all the other observable changes around. However, there must be a causation - a power - behind every action.
Now the question is which aspect of the change is termed "energy". In my opinion it is not really helpful to pull everything apart. Because the detected change is an observation and the proposed existence of "the power" is a mental construct. While the term "action" envelopes the observation and the mental construct.
In phenomenological physics all the descriptions of physical reality are about the relations between the "tangible" phenomena (the scientific method) so the aspect "power" is hardly used (its origin is unknown). Only in classic physics it was a well known concept in relation to the theoretical framework around steam engines, etc.
So in my point of view there is no real difference between your opinion and my opinion about the quantization of energy/action. It is more or less about the meaning of (preferred) terms.
The work of the ancient philosophers is not always unequivocal. Just like the papers of modern theorists. Besides that there are also the problematic translations. Some years ago I read the paper of a translator who was upset that the ancient Greek word “atom” was translated as “indivisible” while (part of) the word also means “variable”. However, we cannot roll back the time so we have to live with all those non adequat interpretations of the past.
With kind regards, Sydney
Howdy Sydney,
Excellent! We're back on track toward understanding without the inaccurate wording that has frustrated me for decades.
I agree that pulling things apart is not necessarily helpful, but Aristotle's formal and final causes also lack value. There is a hint of each in my reading of your use of "power" and in Parmenides underlying reality creating observable reality. In fact, what I am seeking is a movie in my mind in which action is represented as a whole, a dynamic event like an eddy in a stream in which inertial affects are balanced by pressure field affects, etc. As for the ancients, I have enjoyed for years remembering Lucretius' defense of atomism by the example of a fish swimming in water, and Socrates is still a favorite as a person behind the biographers representations (there is pleasure in remaining young and innocent).
"Because the detected change is an observation and the proposed existence of "the power" is a mental construct." Well, yes and no. Let there be a child on a swing on a warm summer day in a pleasant yard: the swing is stopped at the top of its arc: it proceeds to swing earthward under a "power;" what is that power; whence is that power? I believe "a mental construct" does not answer those questions. "It moves." My phrase of focus after many decades is "the nature of Nature" despite the number of volumes it would take to define that phrase to others - it took Sir James Fraser 13 volumes of The Golden Bough to explain a ritual in The Grove of Nemi south of Rome. In the case of an emitted photon from an excited atom we are assured that the measure of action (energy x interval) during the occurrence (space-time volume) will be given by Planck's Constant. It even worked that way before humans "worded" it. That's what I want to see!
". . .the aspect "power" is hardly used (its origin is unknown)" Maybe not unknown, Albert Einstein's effort to extend his theory of the invariance of the measured speed of light to the invariance of Laws of Physics under all coordinate systems led to the Einstein Equation and the ability to calculate the response of objects to their environment anywhere. The accepted "wording" of space-time curvature as the "power" is poor in my view and I prefer that refractions in gradients of light speed are responsible for acceleration (actual gradients exist despite calculation of the same number for speed since both space and time are varied by fields). From your first post: " . . . thus the origin of the “power” of the electromagnetic field – “the stuff” our universe is made of – is still Parmenides’ mysterious underlying creating reality." Yes, but we may have learned about the power and even how it modifies reality through accelerations.
Elsewhere in Q&A I have noted that in Charles Ives' musical work, The Unanswered Question, the trumpet remains curious even after the question was answered by the woodwinds: What is the nature of action in Nature? Or, I would be very happy if anyone were to make me a mind movie so I may watch the emission of a photon and see how action is caused to have so precise a value while Parmenides reality is creating the observable event.
Happy Trails, Len
Dear Leonard Hall
Let’s face the grand theories in physics, because “times are changing” and the action of the quantum of energy is not the only problem.
In 2022 Jeremy Darling confirmed that the CMBR – actually the electromagnetic field – is a rest frame (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08). The consequence is that we can measure absolute motion (the absolute velocity of the solar system in relation to “space itself” is about 370 km/s). And… that there doesn’t exist perfect linear motion because every motion is some kind of a vortex in relation to the rest frame. But Einstein’s curved spacetime isn’t about vortexes, it is about a geometry that doesn’t exist in nature. A geometry that is a construct (model) because the point of reference is a star, a planet, a black hole and not the measured rest frame of the universe. If the point of reference is a galaxy the model of curved spacetime even fails.
The velocity of a quantum of energy is a constant (the speed of light). But the amount of change – Planck’s constant – is a constant too. The electromagnetic field is a rest frame with a metric. The consequence is that quantum time is also a constant (QFT). In line with the hidden metric of the Planck-Einstein equation. In other words, time isn’t relative, the rate of change of composite phenomena is relative. Because the constant speed of light (quanta transfer) is affecting the relation between the internal energy transfer of the phenomenon and the external velocity of the phenomenon. Thus if we accelerate a decaying particle its decay time will lengthen.
The recent Deep field observations of the JWST show that the proposed big-bang hypothesis cannot be true (https://aas.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/AAS241_Mon1_HaojingYan.pdf). It is impossible that rotating galaxies with a large black hole inside are created within only 150 – 200 million years. That is ridiculous, because the transfer 1 quantum over a short distance of only 1 AU will last about 8 minutes. And if vacuum space in the early universe was overloaded with Dark matter the same transfer of a quantum needs a multiple of 8 minutes. Thus the Standard Cosmological model (lambda-CDM) will be revised.
The existence of instantaneous change in the process of “tunneling” is confirmed (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2490-7). In line with the Noble prize physics 2022 (non-locality).
The existence of the amplitudes of the electromagnetic field in vacuum space is confirmed too (https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21024).
And last but not least: the quark/gluon plasma disappears at low energies (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.082301). In line with the annihilation experiments in the past. The consequence is that the supposed uud and udd quarks (proton; neutron) only “come to live” at high energies. And the Higgs boson too... That is not what the text books tell us.
With kind regards, Sydney
Howdy Sydney Grimm,
But, what is the nature of action in Nature?
None of your post addresses my question. That humanity has learned a little in the last few years is nice, but most of Nature remains unknown! Reality is not about this weeks discoveries and "proofs." I have thought the Big Bang, Inflation, Deflation, and now "rest frame" and "tunneling" were overdone press releases and large power or money oppressive slogans, rather than guiding principles for mutual discoveries, for a long time. Of course a "rest frame" exists(!), that present techniques have allowed some humans to identify it and prove motion relative to it is great. That they show that their past misinterpretation (misstatement) of great insights was too domineering is no surprise to me, and I expect it to continue without temperance.
Albert Einstein dealt with the invariance of the measured speed of light - the blather about "relativity" was not his fault and despite my admiration of Minkowski's exploration of the Geometry of Numbers and many other accomplishments, including deriving a geodesic equation of great value, his idea that space and time no longer exist independently was . . ., bosh. Mathematically, merging them in his equation is convenient, but he was not careful about judging the validity of his equation relative to the nature of Nature. (Sorry, sort of, you've touched another decades long frustration.)
Albert Einstein's Einstein Equation is not about curved space-time!! It is an expression for the response of various structures of energy in the environment of one another as far as that environment has influence. That he went along with efforts to communicate it to everyone but Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, who already comprehended it according to Sir Stanley, does not mean that any person of that measure of mind would squinch his insight into so tiny a phrase as warped space-time except as a compromise of a Jew in Europe in 1916 who had risen above all the others!
I feel too good about our exchanges to accept that you would think "now we have it" or anything similar. This new stuff gets us to a slighter higher ledge, but the mountain range is in a beautiful mist with fascinating turbulent structures and corona and iridescence displays as beautiful as you are willing to wait to see. Come back in 2323 and look around . . .
Happy Trails, Len
Dear Leonard Hall
If we go to the university we are told that physics theories are approximations and that we can only determine the mutual relations between all the observable and detectable phenomena. But that’s the start. Thereafter we have to learn the textbooks in detail and we communicate about physics like the properties are absolute. And at the end, when our heads are full of all the theories and “certainties”, they expect that we are ready for a successful scientific career. Because they seem to propose that a head full of approximations is the best suited position to start research.
In my previous comment I gave some examples about “mastering the textbooks” that show to be a handicap instead of an advance. Because the trusted approximations are absolutely not close to the nature of reality. So our personal opinions are (more or less) in line with each other. :)
In one of my previous comments I have mentioned that the nature of action – actually the underlying causation that can be described as the “power” behind every change – isn’t known in theoretical physics. Actually, it seems that no theorist is missing that insight or is searching for it. They use the concepts like expressed in the Standard model of elementary particles and forces.
Personally I have no problem with the topic but I am a bit outmoded. I do research in the field of quantized/discrete space (mathematical physics) in a way that shows some similarity with the approach of the ancient Greek philosophers. The “kernel” of reality – Parmenides’ underlying reality – is pure mathematics.
Thus if I give my opinion about the nature of action I am afraid that it is meaningless. Just because it doesn’t rhyme with our present phenomenological culture. Anyway, I will give a short description.
Suppose space is tessellated by units with identical basic properties. One property is that the volume of every unit is invariant. But the shape of every unit is determined by an internal scalar mechanism (spherical shape forming mechanism). That means that the volume of every unit is “build up” by 2 distinguishable shapes: an undistorted scalar (inscribed sphere) and a deformed scalar mechanism “around” the scalar (topological volume). But the internal scalar mechanism is a dynamical mechanism and there is no balance between the scalar and the deformed volume (geometrical relation is determined by pi and the square root of 2: irrational numbers).
That is why all the changes in the universe are “powered” by the spherical shape forming mechanism of the units that tessellate the volume of the universe (actually the units are the volume of the universe). The consequence is that our universe is some kind of a self generating fractal. Anyway, the description will not satisfy most theorists although it shows the basic quantum fields as we know in QFT: the Higgs field, the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field. The field of gravitation is an emergent force field in response on the creation of matter.
With kind regards, Sydney
Howdy Sidney Grimm,
Yes, our personal opinions are (more or less) in line with each other. :) Our different focus of disturbance with the current content of science in universities and the body politic does not diminish that accord.
I wrote in another Q&A thread: In Ray Bradbury's work "Medicine for Melancholy" he includes a prose movie of Pablo Picasso sketching a mural in the moist sand of a long beach as the tide is coming in - just like the "then current" theories in science presented by academics as truth, the foaming edges of the waves wash the mural away - new paradigms replace old and the human creation of science is adjusted. It is not "nature" even now. The "then current" theories in science presented by academics as truth" is a shared lament I do believe. And there is more accord later herein.
I read the ResearchGate self-description and was delighted to find a focus on exploration and events of triggering one another's insights without undue emphasis on "proven" during the process. Your ". . . – isn’t known in theoretical physics. . ." doesn't matter here, and I am happy about that! Those out-of-the-know think insight that enables a new paradigm is an increment extending what already is known - wrong. Incidentally, I don't "rhyme with our present phenomenological culture." either.
We do seem to have different phenomena in mind triggered by the word action. Your phrase ". . . the nature of action – actually the underlying causation . . ." treats a far larger concept, something like a natural power motivating activity, while I have sought the much smaller phenomena of a very constrained process during emission of a photon wherein a very precise ratio of photon energy to frequency is caused by the nature of the process. Such action may apply in a path integral and I want to know how it is so precisely controlled. That the value is dictated by the nature of the emitter rather than propagation characteristics of photons is probable, but how does that work, and why? That's my quest here, and comprehension of that very basic process of Nature will be valuable. It is very low on the concept chain and will have great impact on larger phenomena.
I have noted "discrete space" in your research titles and was immediately reminded of Harris Hancock's Development of the Minkowski Geometry of Numbers. Your tessellated space of invariant volumes containing an internal scalar mechanism (spherical shape forming mechanism) has fascinating similarities to my "tessellated space" of occupancies and occupants forming a fluid of oscillations/waveforms. In my case the fluids include the content of the universe, physical fluids, and the social fluids of many lifeforms.
Now, "But the internal scalar mechanism is a dynamical mechanism and there is no balance between the scalar and the deformed volume (geometrical relation is determined by pi and the square root of 2: irrational numbers)." In my space the occupant and the occupancy are both active in maintaining a structure by refraction in one another's gradients and they respond together to an environmental field in which they both refract. Certainly we cannot express either irrational number as a decimal but your scalar and containing volume "don't know about" decimal fractions and would be content to interact without worry whether some human could write about it. If for no other reason, any natural "sphere" would turn out so rough that application of pi would be a mistake, like for a many-sided polygon. Well, it is your space, I'm just observing.
"That is why all the changes in the universe are “powered” by the spherical shape forming mechanism of the units that tessellate the volume of the universe. . . ." Ahh, so the scalar mechanism does alter the volumes but without internal balance. Okay. Then an excited atom would be an expression of some association of volumes with their scalar mechanisms; the processes of photon emission and excited atom relaxation within the association of volumes would be an alteration that partitions that association into a pair of associations, one of which leaves as the photon (cell division yields daughter cells). The precise value of Planck's Constant as a measure of the action of that activity is a consequence of the possible states of the excited atom association and its two daughters that express the nature of Nature in this representation. Interesting! Is this a valid description in your space?
As to gravitation emerging on the formation of matter, I suggest you look into the idea that gravitation is of energy whatever its form. It is just most apparent near large accumulations of matter.
Happy Trails, Len
Dear Leonard Hall
“Such action may apply in a path integral and I want to know how it is so precisely controlled. That the value is dictated by the nature of the emitter rather than propagation characteristics of photons is probable, but how does that work, and why?”
Sorry, I misinterpreted your question about the action in relation to the quantum of energy. Unfortunately, the action you have in mind is a bit complicated. But that doesn’t mean it cannot be explained.
The Doppler effect – red shift/blue shift of the frequency of electromagnetic waves – is caused by the velocity of the emitter and the receiver. If the electromagnetic field isn’t a rest frame the Doppler effect is quit mysterious. But with the notion that it is a rest frame an emitter with a velocity of 1 m/s in relation to the rest frame creates a wave length of 1 m if the emitter “drops” 1 quantum every second. The same “logic” for the receiver. Unfortunately, this doesn’t explain why the electromagnetic wave is emitted.
If I move the mouse pointer over the LCD display the motion of the mouse pointer shows to be jerky. That is because the LCD pixels have a size. In theoretical physics there is a similar effect, the “zitter-bewegung”. But a point-like light source emits electromagnetic waves in every direction. A supposition that shows to be true because the visible light of distant galaxies doesn’t show irregularities in relation to the sequence of received photons. And that is “crazy” in relation to the existence of the zitter-bewegung. One should expect an irregular time of arrival of the photons.
The Noble prize physics 2022 was awarded for the discovery of non-locality. Non-locality means that everything in the universe influence everything at exactly the same moment. Like the experiments with entanglement have shown.
There are 2 universal conservation laws. The law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum. Momentum is a classic concept because it is a combination of energy and the direction of the energy. However, the conservation of energy is “secured” by the law of conservation of energy thus the law of conservation of momentum is about direction, actually the conservation of vectors. Of course this is 100% correct because energy is the universal electric field and every quantum of energy generates a corresponding vector within the magnetic field (and visa versa). Moreover, vectors act instantaneous because vectors are 1 dimensional (vectors are not bound to the speed of light).
The consequence is that our universe is pervaded by vectors (sometimes termed “vector space”). The resultant magnitudes of all these vectors together are equal to the whole amount of transferred quanta at every moment. Vectors have a linear range and the “point of equality” of 2 opposite vectors is determined by their distinct magnitudes. That is what we have termed “influence” and it determines the direction of the quanta transfer everywhere in the universe (the resultant vector in every “point” in space).
So why does an atom emits an electromagnetic wave? That is because it is forced to do that by the non-locality of our universe that keeps all the magnitudes of the vectors conserved. Thus the whole universe is searching for balance but that’s impossible (pi and the square root of 2 are part of the surface areas of the internal structure of every unit of discrete space).
The frequency of an electromagnetic wave that is emitted by a particle (annihilation) has a very short wave length and electrons in the atomic shells have a frequency in relation to the distance in between the electron shell and the nucleus. Thus the frequency has a relation with the geometrical properties within the atom because every quantum of energy has the speed of light. Thus the “drop” of a sequence of quanta is determined by the geometrical size of the emitter. Actually, the wave length represents duration in between the emission of 2 subsequent photons (Einstein’s term for quanta).
Of course there is a lot more – like the origin of the “shape” of the electromagnetic wave itself – but I hope that my explanation gives an impression why there is an emission of electromagnetic waves: keeping balance in the universe.
With kind regards, Sydney
Howdy Sydney Grimm,
Excellent exposition of an interesting world view. Some of it is new to me and welcome, although the one-dimensional vector with instantaneous effect and energy as the universal electric field of quanta need help in my world, or I do. "Of course this is 100% correct because energy is (my bold) the universal electric field and every quantum of energy generates a corresponding vector within the magnetic field (and visa versa). Moreover, vectors act instantaneous because vectors are 1 dimensional (vectors are not bound to the speed of light)." [You described the electric and magnetic fields universe in an earlier post, so I have seen that.]
This interesting world view is not unknown to me because I do have The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory by David Bohm and Basil Hiley around here somewhere after reading it. I raised a concern he had expressed in his 1932 book after a physics seminar and ended up with a Pudd'nhead Wilson reputation (Mark Twain short story). Life is interesting. Incidentally, I hope he got at least a footnote in the Nobel Prize work on non-locality.
Also, I did have "Photons do not exist separately themselves, they are ripples in the field of matter energy as it moves from one excited atom to another. Interesting thought. Hmm." opening my 3:13 AM 26 March 2022 piece in my ResearchGate Project, Whence Insight, but it got lost in the project shuffle. I'll put it in my ResearchGate Q&A Blossoms later today. A little further on in that piece you would find "The Condensed Universe image is behind these awake-in-the-night images of waves in interacting fields that still occupy "the whole volume" of the universe with their infinite fields of gravity, charge, etc. Adjustments are made by these waves resolving tensions, i.e., resolving instabilities. It's like adjusting your position in your favorite easy chair for the comfort of it." should you wish to check it out. It rambles some, and that doesn't belong here.
Well, insight comes from a shift in the waves of the mind triggered by the need to fit new elements into the wave structure and I expect the insight of someone is needed here; all this exploration, discussion, and learning will help someone to that insight, perhaps even one of us.
Happy Trails, Len
Dear Leonard Hall
The “quotes” are really interesting! It is in line with my own experience that everything is already known. Although I have done theoretical research for 50 years I always found out after a while that other scientists had done (nearly) the same before. I have always done field theory and I remember that I read an article of the late Martinus Veltman (Noble prize physics) about the Higgs field and the proposed origin of the rest mass of particles. I was flabbergasted because it was in line with my own search for the mathematical properties of fields. I never heard about Peter Higgs theory of a universal scalar field (it wasn’t main stream physics then). So I was highly relieved that my efforts were not in vain.
Maybe it is a bit disappointed but everything I have done is actually “known” (sorry :). Between 1930 – 1940 famous theorists like Werner Heisenberg, Möglich, Goudsmit, March, etc. did research to incorporate the minimal length scale (discrete space) into the existing conceptual framework of quantum theory. But suddenly there was a new approach to solve the problems so their research came to an end (they joined the band wagon). But now discrete space is at the frontier of theoretical physics again because the concept is essential to transform gravity into a quantum theory. So when I read a paper about the thoughts of Parmenides of Elea a couple of years ago I was surprised to discover that the concept of an underlying structure of the universe was already known for about 2500 years. Amazing!
Mainstream physics is like an enormous ship that sails on and on without changing course. About a decade ago an experiment made headlines in the newspapers about an experiment that showed that the vectors of the magnetic field act instantaneous. Recently confirmed by measuring the velocity of the tunneling of particles through a barrier (Nature magazine). But it seems that scientific facts are only fast accepted if we can use them. Thus the July 2022 confirmation of the observation that the electromagnetic field is a rest frame – known since 1977 – made no splash because of the enormous pile of papers that described the opposite.
So it is really nice to read that there are familiar foundational ideas/concepts published by others that I didn’t read.
With kind regards, Sydney
Howdy Sydney Grimm,
Very pleasant reading of a morning. My strong experiences along those lines were reading the length of the astronomical record of planet and star sightings available to Ptolemy in The Almagest, and finding the use of reflection in water to diminish the sun's brightness by both Socrates (Plato's Republic) and Sir Isaac Newton. There are footprints everywhere! The movie of Jane Goodall's chimpanzee studies includes a young chimpanzee studying a deceased armadillo. It's really great to be part of it all.
I have read, and do believe, that the Nobel Prize is awarded for usefulness not for some abstraction about discovery. ResearchGate affirms discovery with the same awareness of value for the benefit of lives. After all, the original money funding the Nobel Prize came from humanity being so happy that it was now safe for them to blow the face off the Earth - no malice, just benefit. That is a philosophical conundrum worthy of exploration which I answer by noting that we are in this together with a vast range in the distribution of humans in many measures, and like it says on the wall of the Physical Therapy room: "I better take care of my body or I won't have anywhere to live." So, also, the "body politic."
I read somewhere that the development of a mathematics with similar purpose and effect as calculus was accomplished in Japan in the same era as Newton's work. The author seemed surprised, but I was aware that Dutch ships had been trading in Japan for half a century by then. The distribution of brilliance is similar everywhere in humanity, and this is just another example of parallel developments that are natural wherever knowledge has spread. I like it.
So, we have trenchers to replace #2 shovels; we have myriad researchers exploring every nook and cranny of the present paradigm often overlapping in their efforts; we have new observations to explain; we have this enormous blob so confident that "it is known that . . .;" and we have persons seeking a new paradigm. Everyone has something to do appropriate to their self - it's not altogether bad.
A new paradigm may come from the explanation of instantaneous vector effects. Is that present yet, or has the human mind a-Ha! event not yet occurred? A soil scientist pointed out that a forest does not spread into a field. The fact is that an outlier, or a few outliers, grow up in the meadow out from the forest fringe, then the forest-like gap is filled in. Reading about the Bohr atom recently I find a host of predecessors emphasized in keeping with the modern "newspeak," namely "politically correct" or whatever it is this decade, washing out the value of insight versus increment. Well, perhaps. After all, Sir Isaac Newton just "stood on the shoulders of giants" and Hendrik Lorentz had done good work on relative motion. David Hilbert's publisher got the Einstein Equation into print five days before Albert Einstein's publisher, but of course the gentlemen had worked together on the idea more than once, including an invited seminar in which Albert Einstein discussed his research the preceding summer. Insight? Ask Hilbert about the math if you wish, but ask Einstein about physics and how different the approach was for physics!
Persons-in-the-know suffer from the mental malady of considering themselves in-the-know.
Happy Trails, Len
Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm,
At the risk of imposing on your time, which you already have so generously used here, I thought to add another example of parallel developments since you report that the "Big Bang" view is in trouble. These are quotes from my "313 Ruminations" in my "Wave-in-a-Well Model and Fields" offerings on ResearchGate. Incidentally, this view distributes matter and resulting galaxies randomly in "space" at their initiation with field associations of universe extent. Just excerpts that you may find interesting:
"The underlying concept of this thought is that matter (particles) is the consequence of condensation from some original state of the universe. That condensation produces a deficit in its vicinity resulting in gravitation. The matter and its surrounding deficit form a stable structure.
------
"Hypotheses: The present epoch began with a hot vapor filling the universe. Signal wavelength and period were very large in the hot vapor. Particles condensed from that hot vapor. Each particle Wave is condensate. Each particle Well is condensate void. Signal wavelength and period decreased as the hot vapor condensed.
"Process: One speculates that the universe hot vapor would supercool before condensation began, else some condensation nuclei would likely be involved making the ideas more complicated – but perhaps, more accurate. Before condensation a particle-to-be-portion of vapor would be of universe scale (model). Given supercool, hot vapor, condensation would begin everywhere and trigger further condensation in a rapid cascade to condensate. Initial condensate particles would also be of universe scale (model). The condensed Wave energy would diminish energy outside the particle Waves in most of the volume of the universe, and signal wavelength and period would drop. Everything would shrink and the universe would appear to expand. The condensed particle Wave and Well also would shrink to present sizes in the cooled, post-condensation period of the epoch.
"Graviton: A heuristic image of Well dynamics is that the Well is maintained as reaction impulses of shear stress spreading outward from Wave refraction incidents. These impulses could be gravitons, so I may have come to gravitons after all. The question would be whether refraction of a photon or matter wave in the gravitational field were mediated by one of these “impulses of shear stress” and whether they would each be a “Planck granule” manifesting one unit of action in their motion and mediation. They might well be, given they were generated in an incident of Wave refraction in the particle.
"[This last paragraph reflects the development of concept that unfolded during the writing of it. Comprehension, live, as you write – valid is another matter, but exciting it is!]
- - - - - - - - -
“The shear quadrupoles described in my email that propagate from a gravitating body ARE IT'S Gravitational Field!!
“They act locally where they are then to do gravity."
Actually, what I am looking for to express the nature of action is the character of the contents of the universe in which all these events may occur, including "The electromagnetic field is a rest frame with a metric." And "The velocity of a quantum of energy is a constant (the speed of light). But the amount of change – Planck’s constant – is a constant too." How? Well, we've been there already - the answer will come in its time.
Hope these quotes are also interesting,
Happy Trails, Len
P. S. Beware the word "ridiculous" in periods of discovery and preliminary explanation. It has been inappropriate too often to trust our use of it. lfh
Dear Leonard Hall
My last comment was meant to be some kind of an “introduction” of the idea that we humans can only reflect what is “inside” the system (the universe). Or to choose the opposite point of view: the description of the nature of reality is always available and “it is showing itself” through the way everyone express their intuition about the subject.
The consequence is that humans have ideas about reality – e.g. a period in the evolution of the universe when there was no matter around – that can be expressed in various ways. Some will use the conceptual framework of classic physics, some the mathematical approach, others modern field theory, etc. In science we are quarrelling about the “correct description” and it seems that the correct description is a description that is independent from human’s personal and cultural (inclusive religious) preferences. But this idea is a bit “too nice”.
In practise we experience that a lot of people make a mess of their opinion too. They sometimes connect different points of view within one description (creating paradoxes) and the consequence is that it is impossible to agree with other people about the subject. But this is not intentionally. Even if people have the opinion that they were “forced” by their own ego. So if we think about the possibility to reflect “the nature of reality” by the mysterious input of the whole universe it “smells” a bit unfair too.
Why have some people not so much trouble to come to a balanced opinion, in relation to other less fortunate people? In a culture that is ruled by the “game of competition” this is a frustrating topic for much scientists. Just because the only plausible answer is that “it is like it is”. At the other hand, if we know that we are some kind of a “radio” that is receiving the “broadcast of the universe” we can examine our own reproduction and think about the problem if it is a convincing reproduction or that we are influenced by something else that is affecting the interpretation.
Science is full of different points of view and it is difficult to believe that we personally are “in balance” in proportion to everyone else. So I read your last comment with more than one point of view to understand the connections with other ideas. I think it is in line with the general ideas about these topics.
With kind regards, Sydney
Howdy Folks,
"Undaunted by failure and unimpressed by experience" is a phrase preceding a weather forecast decades ago. In keeping with that difficult discipline so well phrased thereby, and also noting Charles Ives' "The Unanswered Question," I remain curious about action. However, the game and even the playing field have changed and the inquiry needs review with care.
Several statements reporting current "knowledge" based on recent observations and analysis are present in earlier posts here from a source that I consider, and shall treat as, reliable. I still seek the nature of action in Nature, but in the context of these results as well as consideration of past results. The statements with [[ . . . ]] observations are:
There are no particles, there are only fields. (see: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf) [[But, of course, there must be “ripples” on the fields that remind us of particles.]]
In 2022 Jeremy Darling confirmed that the CMBR – actually the electromagnetic field – is a rest frame (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08). [[There remain cases in which motion is best treated as relative, but now we do have a rest frame as well.]]
The recent Deep field observations of the JWST show that the proposed big-bang hypothesis cannot be true (https://aas.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/AAS241_Mon1_HaojingYan.pdf). [[A frequent fate in physics – “when I was a child I spake as a child” is not an insult, it is natural.]]
The existence of instantaneous change in the process of “tunneling” is confirmed (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2490-7). In line with the Noble prize physics 2022 (non-locality). [[There was a thin sheet of ice on a reservoir, open upwind with choppy, non-breaking waves and a hole in the ice beyond a 30 cm wide strip of ice. Only the long waves of the choppy wave set appeared in the hole. An atmosphere wave in tropical easterlies may trigger a new (?) wave in mid-latitude westerlies north of an atmospheric state that will not support either. Now, “The tunnelling of a particle through a potential barrier is a key feature of quantum mechanics that goes to the core of wave–particle duality. . . . Initial measurements7,8,9,10 confirmed the prevailing view that tunnelling is instantaneous, . . . .”]]
The existence of the amplitudes of the electromagnetic field in vacuum space is confirmed too (https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21024). ["In this period only the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field were responsible for all the action in the universe. Action in the quality of electromagnetic amplitudes. The latter are not identical with electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves are a type of electromagnetic amplitudes related to the existence of matter."]
And last but not least: the quark/gluon plasma disappears at low energies (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.082301).
A few additional quotes are offered:
Britannica: “Planck assumed that the sources of radiation are atoms in a state of oscillation and that the vibrational energy of each oscillator may have any of a series of discrete values but never any value between.”
Wikipedia: “In 1900, German physicist Max Planck heuristically derived a formula for the observed spectrum by assuming that a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black-body radiation could only change its energy in a minimal increment, E, that was proportional to the frequency of its associated electromagnetic wave.”
Wikipedia: “According to Thomas Kuhn, it was not till 1908 that Planck more or less accepted part of Einstein's arguments for physical as distinct from abstract mathematical discreteness in thermal radiation physics.”
Wikipedia: “It was not till 1919 that Planck in the third edition of his monograph more or less accepted his 'third theory', that both emission and absorption of light were quantal.[137]” [137] Kuhn, T. S.(1978). Black–Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-502383-1.
We are not alone in uncertainty as to the nature of action in Nature and now we are in a new game. None of the above, including my original inquiry, explain “why” and “how” Planck’s Constant is the right measure when it applies except that it is related to properties within the emitter, but how and why those properties? Our new orientation to the universe will not change that nature. “How and why” must be in the process of the event of a photon emission and any other event specified by that value. What nature assures that? I can imagine the kinetic energy thrust of a wave under ice to enable that tunneling. That a poorly defined state of a wave in the easterlies after swinging northward triggers a new wave in the westerlies may be visualized, like a compressed Low pressure system shortened and spread out over a mountain range may reform beyond the mountains to the terror of forecasters also is “easy to see.” That the wave state of a “particle” may span the volume of a barrier and details we do not measure cause it to “appear” beyond the barrier seem possible, if not probable. That location change would appear instantaneous in observer time but quite natural to the particle as what waves do.
An interesting conclusion is in a post in this thread, namely, “So why does an atom emits an electromagnetic wave? That is because it is forced to do that by the non-locality of our universe that keeps all the magnitudes of the vectors conserved.” In a sense, I see Aristotle’s Final Cause in this as governed by instantaneous effects in a connected universe. Perhaps. After all, he was more brilliant than most of us.
This post is too long, and yet, in my hope, it may evoke a key realization/insight/conclusion from a mind that really explains how we get from “ . . . energy is the universal electric field and every quantum of energy generates a corresponding vector within the magnetic field . . .” as an assertion, taken to be valid, to knowing what it means, i.e. the nature of action in Nature. To paraphrase a famous response in a similar case: If the insight is correct, one mind is enough.
Happy Trails, Len
Howdy Folks,
Well, few readers and faded discussion are pretty clear "handwriting on the wall." I'll add a note here so that an answer may have been provided, but others must judge that.
Round 2: It is not about momentum, it is about inertia!!
In this new game with non-locality, instantaneous affects, fields with ripples but no particles, etc., momentum as p = mv has gotten weird. Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion were phrased in momentum and its variation, but we need not use those terms. Getting to “inertia” in a moment we may say that p = mv is no longer in vogue, and acknowledge inertia as fundamental, changes of inertia as significant, and because our form is on a ground and the ground feels the change of inertia, we find action – reaction (not Planck’s Constant “action”). Just words to here, but what if inertia is the shape of an object as a balance between processes of the object in the now fixed rest frame of the electromagnetic field. If we acknowledge inertia in the special case of matter because we experience pain if we kick a brick, then the change of inertia would involve a change of the shape of an object.
The brick aside, inertia would be in the shape of waveforms and oscillations that comprise the brick, which shapes must change. Recognizing a certain locality in the motion of a brick, we posit here that the waveforms of the brick are local in the sense that they go together as the brick and must maintain their integrity during motion. Then, to both oscillate and translate they must shorten in motion, changing the shape of the objects of which they are the waveforms. That change will be experienced relative to the cause of the motion change as inertial reaction. When in motion, the enhanced inertia of the brick would be experienced if an attempt is made to stop it, and at a velocity of the whole that matches velocity of oscillation of the waveforms, the object would require zero length in the direction of motion to maintain waveform integrity and would appear to have infinite inertial resistance to acceleration since it could not shorten more.
Hmmm. In this view, using a change in the excited state of an emitter to a less excited state as the process of photon emission within the emitter, and the existence of a propagating waveform (photon) in the field surrounding the emitter we have two shape changes. The emitter is no longer occupying as much of the rest frame electric field, and the photon is propagating as an electromagnetic distortion of that field. But, Max von Laue writes about “The Inertia of Energy” in his “Inertia and Energy,” Chapter 19, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, and I choose to affirm that the photon energy has inertia. The gravitational field as a function of energy implies that the photon carries away a portion of the emitter’s gravitational field and delivers it to some point of absorption elsewhere in the universe.
There are oscillations in the emitter in keeping with the confidence that “There are no particles, there are only fields.” So we note the view expressed by others that interference between the waveforms of the two excited shapes of the emitter couple to the environment and leave as the photon. Leaving that as is, why is the change of inertia in the process equal to Planck’s Constant? We consider an exchange in earlier posts: “Suppose space is tessellated by units with identical basic properties. One property is that the volume of every unit is invariant. But the shape of every unit is determined by an internal scalar mechanism (spherical shape forming mechanism)” and my reply: “Your tessellated space of invariant volumes containing an internal scalar mechanism (spherical shape forming mechanism) has fascinating similarities to my "tessellated space" of occupancies and occupants forming a fluid of oscillations/waveforms. In my case the fluids include the content of the universe, physical fluids, and the social fluids of many lifeforms.”
If the tessellated spaces noted in this exchange are restricted to a minimum volume because “the CMBR – actually the electromagnetic field – is a rest frame -” is tessellated, then we could posit that the value of Planck’s Constant expresses that value of the discrete elements of the tessellated electromagnetic field. Were that the case, and were such discrete elements the actors in this drama, the nature of action in Nature would be the transformation of one such discrete element from participation in the excited atom to propagation as a photon. Waveforms in their oscillation between kinetic and potential energy forms refract, diffract, interfere, scatter, etc. quite regularly, why not here.
Happy Trails, Len
Howdy Folks,
I finally realized what was bugging me about the use of "action" for Planck's Constant while replying to Chian Fan"s question, 【NO.10】 Can different forms of energy be unified? Further details may be found there.
~ 0700 29 June 2024
Classical Action versus Quantum Action
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The units are NOT the same:
- Ca is a line integral along a path with mvr being momentum times distance, BUT the distance is parallel to the momentum vector.
- Qa is an angular momentum when used by Neils Bohr in his H atom, that is it is mvR, being momentum times distance, BUT the distance is normal to the momentum vector!
- Ca and Qa DO NOT have the same units!
Then, one finds that Planck's blackbody oscillators radiate momentum in a photon NORMAL to the radiating oscillator's oscillation direction. Similarly, Einstein's photoelectric absorbers would oscillate normal to the photon path.
* Ca is not equal to Qa in any way, neither units nor process!!
Len Hall
The body of literature on Classical Action is extensive, and the Principal of Least Action has been very valuable. It is misleading to use the word "action" for quanta. "Can do" and "can peas" do not cause such confusion. Explaining the physical dynamics of quanta as angular momentum is much clearer without the mistaken association with classical action. This may be well known, so this post is for the few of us who have been misled.
Happy Trails,
Len
P.S. I have reread the earlier answers to this question and have been delighted by the rich information they have provided. Hopefully others who have been confused by the very different messages in action "mvr" and angular momentum "mvR" will share my relief that the problem may have been answered. lfh
Howdy Folks,
The insight of the previous post needs help. I expect this thread is dead because it took so long for the insight to occur. Nevertheless this where it belongs and I offer New Thoughts on Planck's Constant as a basis of refreshed discussion. It will appear on my ResearchGate site in due time. It contains a satisfying mind movie for me.
Happy Trails,
Len
New Thoughts on Planck's Constant.
Well, new to me, and a great relief to me after decades of dissatisfaction with what I could find in seeking to know: “What is Plank’s Constant,” and “What physical process does it report in our theories.”
Planck’s Constant was introduced to enable his formula for blackbody radiation. Each photon emitted has that value. Many additional uses have been found. It’s symbol is h for use with 2 pi radian cycles, while h-slash = h/2 pi is used in exponential wave equations which require angles in radians. It’s units are mvr.
The units of classical action are also mvr. They are for the line integral of momentum along a path. I have invested years of study and thought in an attempt to explain the phenomena of Planck’s Constant as the measure of natural events using the mvr of classical action without success. As I read it, the literature insists that Planck’s Constant is a measure of one quantum of action in that classical sense, that v is parallel to r. I have sought a mind movie that uses that action. It is used that way in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty relations, for instance, especially ∆p∆lambda for momentum and wavelength. No movie had come to mind yet.
But, photons have circular polarization and angular momentum. In the Niels Bohr hydrogen model when an electron moves between orbits the change is one Plank’s Constant, which he used as a measure of change of the atom’s angular momentum in the process. He also used nh = 2 pi*nmvr to specify the orbits.
Descriptions I recall of the process of photon emission and absorption by an electron were treated as classical action with the caveat that the measure of the “action” is quantized with a value of +h or -h. The reduced or enhanced electron momentum is described as due to a reaction or push as a photon is emitted or absorbed, then the electron settles into a new orbit appropriate to its new momentum, and all is well. BUT, angular momentum has changed.
For me, an explanation of Planck’s Constant, h, lies here. Hopefully, someone more versed in details will be able to show it is an addition to understanding, not an attempt to replace theories that work now. Planck’s Constant is used as a simple value many places in theories as if it’s absolute value were enough, but is it?
In the atmosphere waves occur in the flow. In the special case of buoyancy waves (called gravity waves in early treatments) the wave propagates horizontally with vertical oscillation. In that case the wave energy flows upward often reaching the Menopause before breaking.
Lets consider a case in which a photon of the right frequency to excite an electron in an atom has left a blackbody. By what mechanism was it “ejected?” It is likely that the photon source is an atomic electron transition product, but what was the emitter oscillation orientation relative to the photon direction? I like the image that the photon path is normal to the oscillation.
Normal orientation would support a description that Planck’s constant is a measure of the transfer of oscillator energy to photon energy and vice versa with the source angular momentum passed on through. Now, if the photon is emitted by an electron in a blackbody atom normal to the emitting orbit then it is quite appropriate to find the angular momentum of that orbital change “in the photon.” This is supported by the observation of left or right polarization of photons which would be affected by the axial direction of the emitted photon relative to the orbital circulation.
So what? An opening exists to explain “What is Planck’s Constant, h, and what natural process does it report in our theories?” It specifies “how much mvr is always involved in quantum change?” But the r of mvr is now associated with angular momentum in the source, photon and sink.
So, what in Nature specifies h as the measure of angular momentum change during photon emission and photon absorption?
Draining water from an irrigation reservoir also drains the vorticity via the vortex at the drain. That vorticity is due to the water in the reservoir rotating with the earth. Similarly, given a change of orbit of an electron during emission of a photon from an atom, the photon would carry the change of angular momentum as well as the change of energy from the atom.
A revolving electron in an atom will have a revolving electric field distortion, which would become the circular polarization of an emitted photon’s electric field.
So, what dictates the magnitude of the angular momentum in EVERY transfer of angular momentum between an atom and a photon? One possibility is that the universe is tessellated and composed of granules of angular momentum. Then in every case, say in electron orbits or photons, each process involves one or more granules which happen to have a magnitude h in our universe. I call the chunks of the tessellation Planck Granules, and the collection of granules tessellating the universe a Dirac Fluid.
Why Planck Granules have the magnitude h is not explained by this development, like The Kinetic Theory of Gases and Liquids does not explain the internal structure of the atoms and molecules to which it applies. Another level of detail is involved in each case.
Note that no granule is “changed” during transfer between orbits and photons. We know about h because it is the minimum change of magnitude of the participants in the transfer.
That the measured speed of light is the same in all reference systems and that h is also invariable are probably connected, but this insight does not address that.
Len.
Preprint article New Thoughts on Planck's Constant
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26722.75203
Len
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Physiology
- Physiological Processes
- Stress