What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

MJV's a priori assumption is motion without primary cause, which he says MUST be ignored. I can buy that as an assumption, but not as "certain knowledge" since there is such a simple logical alternative.

and

My a priori assumption is that the "self-evident" holding force of the universe caused the original motions that are MJV's primary concern, and I choose to accept that science is self-limiting in its inability to extrapolate beyond this place to that fundamental cause.

I am in the unfortunate circumstance of having self-limited myself into the position of not understanding what the heck you are on about.This is my interpretation of the arguments contained in the above quotes:

I am suggesting that the universe is in motion and that it was set in motion at some time is the long distant past - let us for the sake of argument assume that it was an event or process that occurred 10^trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion years ago. You are are complaining that because I do not have an intimately detailed knowledge of that event or process, I therefore do not know the primary cause of the universe's motion, and therefore stating that the universe in actually in motion can only be taken as an assumption (although, if the universe is not in motion, the only alternative available is that it is at absolute rest, which is an idea that I would have a hard time defending).
So because that I don't have a detailed knowledge of the entirety of space and time, I am therefore unable to confirm the unknowable primary cause for what I assert is a universe in motion. But as a "simple logical" alternative you could suggest that all the unconfirmable motion of the universe could simply and logically be caused by "the holding force of the universe" - as in the "holding" force caused the "motion"?

To sum up so far: The statement that the universe is in motion can only be given as an assumption, because science can not know how the motion was originally caused at some unknowable distant time in the past.

Whenever MJV says "motion or acceleration", I will say "caused by what", and MJV will say, "by moving objects colliding", which avoids my question.

webolife question: why did the proton move?
Michael answer: because a quantum particle collided with it and transferred momentum.
I fail to see how this "avoids the question".

MJV will repeatedly simply say that it is self-evident that they touch, without admitting or exploring the possibility that at some level there simply are not any smaller particles [eg. his "quantums"] to mediate the contact, and that the action of "touch" occurs across a unit of space. Once this elementary/fundamental/ultimate non-mediated contact distance is accepted, an explanation for it [eg. an electric force of some kind] becomes an action at a distance,

So are you suggesting that at the most "elementary/fundamental/ultimate" level, contact does not occur, and that at this level there is action at a distance, with non-mediated "touch" across (a unit of) empty space - is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying?

it becomes possible to visualise and discuss the actions we observe to happen across larger distances of the universe in a unified field theory.

So we can only "visualise and discuss the actions we observe" once we accept action at a distance?

Michael

[webolife]

MJV,
OK, now you are a least admitting that I have asked a question, so let's see if you can answer it --
What happens when two objects touch? At your quantum level or any level you choose. Since you have postulated that this is the only possible cause of anything physically happening in the universe, you should at least be able to defend this, without [again] asserting that it is simply self-evident.

What are you trying to gain by implying that I don't think the universe is in motion? I am asking you to explain, here and on the "Gravity and Strong Force" thread, how all your moving particles are able to hold together. Can you do it? Since your list of certainties depends on it, it seems this is not an unreasonable question.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

I am afraid your method of enquiry is confusing to me. I need clarification of your statements and questions. For example "the holding force of the universe caused the original motions" is somewhat of an oxymoron.

I say the universe is in motion, you say that I can only put that forward as an assumption because I don't know the primary cause of the universe's motion, I say the motion originated a gazillion years ago so I cannot know, you say that the primary cause cannot be ignored (even though I have said it occurred so long in the past that it is unknowable) so therefore motion is an a priori assumption, and now you ask me what I am trying to gain by implying that you don't think the universe is in motion. Either the universe is in motion or the universe is at rest, which are you most happy with?.

Aha, I have just spotted another post on the "Gravity and Strong Force" thread.

So, you are asking about structural integrity (I think). In fact this question has several elements to it: what is the structure of aether particles? and what is the structure and origin of electrons and protons? and how do aether particles transfer momentum to the electrons and protons?

Firstly, as I have mentioned previously, I do not have all the answers in this regard, which is the very reason for this thread - to collate a list of rules around which to construct a more complete and robust theory. However, I will give my thoughts and concerns as it currently stands.

The origin of electrons and protons: I would for the most part assume that our present inventory of electrons and protons were supplied at the same unknowable time or period as the universe received its delivery of motion. That said, I am also wondering if electrons and protons are perhaps still being made, may be inside stars and planets. This thought has been further fuelled by the "Are the planets growing?" suggestion. My first reaction is to poo-poo such an idea, but lets just say that I am "cranking" it over in my mind.

Structure of quantums: I have, thus far, taken the stance that they are solid and immutable - not infinitely dense, but 5 to 10 orders of magnitude denser than protons, perhaps more. Presently, my theory assigns all force fields (gravity and E/M) to the motion of quantum particles. Gravity is the effect of the quantums colliding with electrons and protons and E/M is the effect of them being emitted or reflected/deflected by electrons and protons.
Why are you suggesting that a solid quantum particle would have to be "infinitely" dense?

Structure of electrons and protons: I was hoping that these would be built out of quantums, but I am aware of the problem to which you have eluded, that seemingly there are no forces to associate the quantums into the larger particles, i.e. why do quantums "stick" together to form electrons and protons.

Transfer of momentum: Ignoring for a moment the issue of structure and visualising say a proton to be a solid sphere, or at least to have a skin or shell, then a colliding quantum particle may transfer some or all of its momentum to the proton. This would then leave the quantum particle either at rest or with a reduced velocity. This implies that in the vicinity or wake of brute matter there will a proportion of the quantum field that is slower than the rest of the field. This may or may not be a problem.

As well as critiquing my theory, how do you overcome the same sort of issues?

... how all your moving particles are able to hold together. Can you do it? Since your list of certainties depends on it, it seems this is not an unreasonable question.

The bolded statement implies that because we cannot easily account for the operation of the universe the laws of motion are therefore unsafe. I beg to differ. I would say that the laws of motion are utterly safe and certain and that the onus is on us to ensure that any given theory does not violate those rules....discuss!

Yes, you admitted that mass is a measurement, a mathematical procedure, just as temperature is a measure of heat or volume is a measure of space. The actual material is another thing altogether. By the way, the mass of matter cannot be measured without reference to the space [ie 3-d system] that contains it [or that it contains], hence "density" is the better convention.

Perhaps we may also further discuss the nature of mass. I still maintain that mass is a measure of the amount of matter. I did not say that it was a measurement, only that it could be measured and that other effects could influence or skew the measurement. Why are you saying that mass cannot be measured without reference to volume, would you explain please?. Mass and density are obviously related, but I do not understand what you are saying here.

Michael

[Sparky]

Michael....

These people are certain that gamma rays are waves with no mass and no charge.

Gamma rays do not directly ionise other atoms, although they may cause atoms to emit other particles which will then cause ionisation.

We don't find pure gamma sources - gamma rays are emitted alongside alpha or beta particles. Strictly speaking, gamma emission isn't 'radioactive decay' because it doesn't change the state of the nucleus, it just carries away some energy.

But what do they know about ionization when they can't spell ionize???!!

[Goldminer]

Michael....

These people are certain that gamma rays are waves with no mass and no charge.

Gamma rays do not directly ionise other atoms, although they may cause atoms to emit other particles which will then cause ionisation.

We don't find pure gamma sources - gamma rays are emitted alongside alpha or beta particles. Strictly speaking, gamma emission isn't 'radioactive decay' because it doesn't change the state of the nucleus, it just carries away some energy.

But what do they know about ionization when they can't spell ionize???!!

The Brits don't seem to like "z's" and usually substitute an "s" instead of the American preference.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ionisation

ionisation
World English Dictionary
ionization or ionisation (ˌaɪənaɪˈzeɪʃən) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—n
a. the formation of ions as a result of a chemical reaction, high temperature, electrical discharge, particle collisions, or radiation
b. (as modifier): ionization temperature; ionization current

—n

An actual experiment that finds one gamma "particle" in two places at once! Link to .pdf here

.

[mjv1121]

Sparky, Goldminer,

Being an English speaker, I know the correct spelling of ionise. Ask nicely and I might tell you.

I don't have any truck with particle-wave duality - it's either one or the other. If it's a wave, you're gonna need a light aether for the light to wave about in. If it's a photon particle, you need to explain the wavelike behaviour - specifically diffraction.

And I don't have any truck with Superposition - the particle went through both slits and then interfered with itself - a likely story...not.

One problem with studying light, is that you are using what you studying to examine what you are studying.

All that said, the present explanations are flawed and so are all of the alternatives put forward so far, so it is difficult to make an argument for certain.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Sparky, Goldminer,

Being an English speaker, I know the correct spelling of ionise. Ask nicely and I might tell you.

There you go again with the "I know" attitude. Both spellings are accepted by most.

I don't have any truck with particle-wave duality - it's either one or the other. If it's a wave, you're gonna need a light aether for the light to wave about in. If it's a photon particle, you need to explain the wavelike behaviour - specifically diffraction.

Which is one reason I am inclined to the idea of the fundamental nature of the aether. Intense sound has particle like behavior.

And I don't have any truck with Superposition - the particle went through both slits and then interfered with itself - a likely story...not.

Keep meditating, soon you will find that waves do marvelous things.

One problem with studying light, is that you are using what you studying to examine what you are studying.

How is that a problem? All physical experiments involve using the actual "objects" that are being investigated.

Actually the problem is that the only way to "see" light is to detect it with some sort of matter. The actual emission of light has never been seen. When we "see" a source of light, we are actually witnessing the process of waves in the aether interacting with the matter in our eyes.

All that said, the present explanations are flawed and so are all of the alternatives put forward so far, so it is difficult to make an argument for certain. Michael

Which is why those that are truly curious will not take your list too seriously.

.

[Sparky]

so the "gamma ray" is an anomaly for particle fississts?

If this sucker has no mass, doesn't that point toward the existence of an aether?

btw, i am a terrible speller..just can't spell....if it weren't for firefox and google my posts would look like english was my second hand language...

[Goldminer]

webolife,
The origin of electrons and protons: I would for the most part assume that our present inventory of electrons and protons were supplied at the same unknowable time or period as the universe received its delivery of motion. That said, I am also wondering if electrons and protons are perhaps still being made, may be inside stars and planets. This thought has been further fuelled by the "Are the planets growing?" suggestion. My first reaction is to poo-poo such an idea, but lets just say that I am "cranking" it over in my mind.

Study Halton Arp's observations. There are many links to his work here on this forum. QUASARs are ejected from active galaxies and then expand into conventional galaxies. Is this "new matter" being formed within the nascent QUASAR? This and many more questions arise from his discoveries.

[quote="mjv1121] Structure of quantums: I have, thus far, taken the stance that they are solid and immutable - not infinitely dense, but 5 to 10 orders of magnitude denser than protons, perhaps more. Presently, my theory assigns all force fields (gravity and E/M) to the motion of quantum particles. Gravity is the effect of the quantums colliding with electrons and protons and E/M is the effect of them being emitted or reflected/deflected by electrons and protons. Michael[/quote]

.

"Presently, my theory" to quote mjv, (actually just my current understanding) is that electrons and protons are fundmantal particles. All the smashing matter and pontificating about the aftermath is just naming transient wave harmonics formed from the collision and claiming they are constituents of the original matter.

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

Gamma photons (or waves for those that are so inclined) are the same as all photons. Why is it that photons are considered to be massless? Apparently they exist in some form or other and apparently they have "energy", they travel at c, but they have no mass. Well you should know by now that I pin my allegiance to the flag of mechanical motion.
I cannot prove the aether wavers are wrong, but I do not feel at all comfortable with the convoluted complexity of such an explanation, any more than the "it's not science it really is magic" attitude of consensus theory.

Imagine a photon particle flying its way across space, it then collides with an electron and is absorbed - it becomes part of the electron. The electron, preferring to be small and svelte, emits a photon new photon, which goes off on its travels.
At what point would we have the opportunity to weigh the electron/photon combination to determine the mass of the photon?.

If the quantum aether field is feeding electrons to emit charge and photons, by what method can we measure the mass of photons? The simple answer is, we cannot. Even if photons and electromagnetic field emissions are affected by gravity, if that electromagnetic aether has mass and travels at c, there is no way by which its mass can be measured, because it is constantly replacing itself. Simply because we have no method by which photon mass can be measured, is no reason to reject the notion that photons have mass. If they have energy, then by E=1/2mv^2, they have mass.

Of course, we cannot know for certain.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Goldminer, webolife, Sparky, et al,

Regarding "matter" creation in extreme environments (inside planets, stars, quasars, ?):

In a Michael world of colliding discrete particles (only as a possible alternative to aether standing wave particles, obviously), a quantum aether particle in collision with say a proton, may lose most or all of its momentum and as such may be prey to a process that catches "tired" quantums and press gangs them into being new electrons or protons. This is purely a high level idea with no detail or mechanism. Wanted to seek your valued opinions.

Michael

[webolife]

Well, hey... I'm satisfied, MJV, you are openly stating that you believe that your quantum particles are solid balls or spheres and that they are indefinitely dense [you don't like my assertion that they must be infinite]. You then state that momentum is transferred by collisions of quantums with other particles. Is this transfer instantaneous [ideally elastic]? And if not, how and why not? How do they mediate, as they must, the straight line transference of photonic [gamma ray, radio or "color"] information from a distant star source to receiver? With all those collisions between what you say are [relatively] sparsely populated quantums in space, how can any image be thus transferred across any significant distance? Would not the "quantum" medium have to be solidly packed [and arrayed in a rectilinear fashion] from source to observer? This is important because you state that "motion" is the predominant observation in the universe, and of course such observations come only by means of light. And your immutable beliefs about the observations of motion [particularly about collisions, pun intended] are the basis of this thread. The more you try to answer these fundamental questions, the more credible [not that I agree with it ] your theory becomes. Regardless, these questions are a basis for my ongoing objection to your "certainty".

In a webolife world, there is no problem with a singular light action [I'm not preferential to "photon"] occurring simultaneously through both slits, because light exists simultaneously at the source and the observer's location and at all points between and beyond. The sensation/detection/measurement of this light simply requires a "line-of-sight" connection, and that the detector be "turned on". Double slit and other pin-hole/focusing so-called "diffraction" set-ups can be used to show that light neither waves nor particulately collides, as I've argued on several other threads.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

With all those collisions between what you say are [relatively] sparsely populated quantums in space, how can any image be thus transferred across any significant distance? Would not the "quantum" medium have to be solidly packed [and arrayed in a rectilinear fashion] from source to observer?

No, the aether quantum particles do very little in the way of colliding between each other. The collisionally dense regions are around matter (as traditionally defined), i.e. electrons and protons. The aether "vacuum" is a cold dull place - brute matter is where the action is.

Photons would need to pass through the vacuum almost unscathed and would need to be small within the field (aether).


What we know with absolute, self-evident confident certainty:

1) All effects must have a cause.
2) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality).
3) Everything that has or can have motion is physical (this is the natural implication of 2)
4) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
5) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
6) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
7) F = ma, thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity. This could also be stated that force is a transfer of momentum.
8) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
9) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
10) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
11) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
12) The universe is infinite. That is, whether or not, space is occupied by physical bodies.

Michael

[Sparky]

The universe is infinite. That is, whether or not, space is occupied by physical bodies.

ok, now you have gone too far!..just how too far depends on where i am willing to compromise at...usually i will agree to 1/2 infinity, but since you have equations, i will agree to 3/4 infinity, so that means you have gone 1/4 infinity too far!

I have been watching NOVA on our PBS station. "Fabric of the Universe'...they were talking about quantum theory...seems the belief has evolved to where the universe is inside an event horizon of a black hole, where all matter entering the black hole leaves all "it's information" in the form of digital data....

this theory must have a flaw, cause i am not completely dataless.

it also means we will never be able to leave our universe....black hole gravity and all that...

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

I think we all know what drops out of holes - the event horizon then forms depending on the amount and quality of the ventilation.

If you had a science fiction spaceship to hand and travelled to the place where the "edge", beyond which there were no more galaxies, just "empty" space. We might for the sake of a dictionary definition say that the universe is the subset volume of infinite space where the galaxies are. But surely the "empty space" must continue for infinity. That infinity is and always will be beyond our reach is simply a metaphysical vexation that we must come to terms with.

Michael