I've noticed that this shift has increasingly taken place over the last few years as QFT has retaken the center stage from String theory. Matt Strassler's book _Waves in an Impossible Sea_ takes this exact approach and is a very good read for the high-school reader from my experience.

@martinblank-cl7sv

27 күн бұрын

It is all Frequency there is nothing without it... Time and length is Frequency... Ouroboros is E=Mc2 The knowledge renamed by countless people throughout time . String theory is Frequency Theory. Nothing exists without it. Black body radiation/Hawking Radiation comes from Sun Worship; The eclipse is important because it shows the CROSSING of the Two opposites in the same Spectrum. Everything is divided down to quarks in Neutron/ Proton. Power comes from Crossing creating Lorentz Forces. Everything including time is a spectrum. Electromagnetic spectrum. The only way to leave a spectrum is IN, This is why time dilates why we have fusion, gravity and black holes. I want to add quantum tunneling can be explained with Coulomb's Law. Length contraction between proton neutrons and electrons... Matter and antimatter make light... Light can make matter.All chemical reactions can happen forward/backward depending on Frequency/Temp. Sound/Frequency can make Temp. Temp can make sound. Light can carry sound Sound and sound can carry light. Reply

For me, the concept of a particle is a place in space where the intensities of different kinds of fields are so high that they interact.

Are there fields if no particles exist? We can only determine the existence of fields from the fact that there are particles,and the way particles interact leads to the existence of those fields. On the other hand, there are no particles without the existence of fields. So the relationship between particles and fields is a dialectical one: both entities require each other for their existence and they are each others opposites, so they form a dialectical unity of opposites. Their combined truth is that neither fields nor particles exist (they don't exist as such or seperate from each other), but their mutual interactions and manifestations in the physical world.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

One argument that somehow breaks this dialectical relationship between field and particle that you mention (interesting way to put it by the way) is that the number of particles is not conserved. This can be explained quite satisfactorilly by adopting a field viewpoint whereby highly localised energy density can give rise to elementary excitations of many different fields at the same time that we observe in accelerators as particles of different kinds seemingly coming into existence from nothing.

@anywallsocket

29 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390the relationship is not 1:1, so counting particles and fields will not help. The person who posted this is obviously correct. It’s like arguing there is only material, nothing immaterial, by which argument one defeats one’s own point, for the semantic category is defined in contrast to its opposite - one without the other loses its meaning.

@fabienpaillusson7390

29 күн бұрын

@anywallsocket if taken purely semantically, then we may run into somewhat vacuous discussions on the existence of nothing. Fair enough, but that was not the point of the paper I presented. The point was that, when confronted with the field or particle models, the field one seems more in line with current theories and has way more explanatory power (according to the author). It's an ontological claim, not a semantic one.

@anywallsocket

29 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 I don’t think you know what ontology is. Science can only make epistemological claims, ontology is a metaphysic for philosophers to muse over. Physics is about what works, not what is. It is about models and the predictions they make. Moreover we knew about the wave nature of quantum theory since the double slit, since Maxwell even. The particle wave duality debate is lost if it thinks one is correct and the other is incorrect. They are mutually bound descriptions, obeying a conjugate dual relationship, hence the uncertainty principle. We have thus used wavepackets to span the spectrum between waves and particles ever since Bohr pointed out this complementarity relationship.

@wbeaty

5 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 as a non-physicist thinking about QED concepts for decades, suddenly I realized that the QED virtual particles which explore all allowed paths/histories ...they're just Huygens' Wavelet theory! QED is a modification of Huygens, where virtual particles of matter can interact or exchange with virtual particles of EM fields. An infinite number of virtual particles, spreading out from a point-location, is a Huygens' wavelet, a ripple of EM fields. Feyman adds "ripples" of electrons, quarks, etc.

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.

I am currently pursuing my undergraduate studies with a strong foundation in certain areas of physics. My aspiration is to delve into the realm of research. At present, I am primarily focused on honing my ability to comprehend literature within a specific field and its subfields, such as condensed matter physics. I seek guidance on how to attain a comprehensive understanding, including where to commence and which resources-both books and papers-to explore. Additionally, I aim to familiarize myself with the various subfields within a discipline and develop proficiency in a particular area of interest. Acquiring the skill to interpret academic literature is invaluable, and I believe it should be incorporated into educational curricula. I've noticed many individuals on platforms like KZread discussing research papers, a process which I find intimidating as an aspiring physicist. It's disconcerting to perceive the apparent intellectual prowess of individuals outside academia surpassing that of students like myself.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@motherisape That is a great and highly commendable objective that you want to achieve. I really want to reassure you that most people, however clever they may appear on a screen or in a lecture hall, can usually be stumped by very basic questions even in their own areas of expertise. There is a saying that I like very much that goes like this "you never understand X. You get used to X". Sometimes people replace X by "mathematics" or "physics" or whatever else, but I am afraid that what most professionals have become good at doing, is basically simply having familiarity with whatever is their expertise of study. As for condensed matter (understood here as solid state physics), it is in my opinion a very difficult subjects in physics, especially so for someone with the intention of underpinning its assumptions in rigorous mathematics and/or underlying models. Typical introductory textbooks are ones by Kittel or the one by Ashcroft & Mermin for example. In addition, you need a good knowledge of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics as well before even starting. My suggestion would then be to start by having a good understanding of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics and then look into reference textbooks and/or lecture notes online on the matter.

@motherisape

Ай бұрын

​@@fabienpaillusson7390Thank you, Professor, for your response. I am deeply honored to receive your guidance. After completing introductory courses in quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, I find myself at a crossroads regarding the next steps in my academic journey. I believe that delving into a specific topic such as solid-state physics will not only enhance my understanding of quantum and statistical mechanics but also broaden my overall knowledge. Once I have gone through the recommended books, what would be the logical progression for me? Are there established methodologies that researchers typically follow? Initially, I contemplated delving into primary sources rather than relying solely on textbooks. Does this approach seem imprudent to you? Please forgive me for any perceived inadequacies in my questions.

@motherisape

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Thank you, Professor, for your response. I am deeply honored to receive your guidance. After completing introductory courses in quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, I find myself at a crossroads regarding the next steps in my academic journey. I believe that delving into a specific topic such as solid-state physics will not only enhance my understanding of quantum and statistical mechanics but also broaden my overall knowledge. Once I have gone through the recommended books, what would be the logical progression for me? Are there established methodologies that researchers typically follow? Initially, I contemplated delving into primary sources rather than relying solely on textbooks. Does this approach seem imprudent to you? Please forgive me for any perceived inadequacies in my questions.

@shugucchi

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 I can fully agree here with Dr Paillusson, I would not call myself great at maths or even (all areas) physics but I have become good at very specific and niche topics that I even still make mistakes on. This tends to happen with all people.

@Solscapes.

Ай бұрын

Just remember, while the scientific method is one of the best things ever thought of, a LOT of "science" is nonsense that disregards the scientific method, either designed to fit a specific narrative or to sell a product. I worked in healthcare for years, and SO much of science is cherry-picked in medicine. The "chemical imballance theory" is the most glaring example, but it's far from the only one. It's not even a theory, as it doesn't fulfil the prerequisite of having actual evidence for it, beyond the cherry-picked data. Similarly, there is reason to question physics as we're told it is. A friend of mine has had his videos pulled for debunking the double slit experiment. I've seen numerous instances where obvious narcissists (aka liars for sport) are in high regard and high stature among physicists. Heck, the "photon splitting" experiment is LITERALLY smoke and mirrors. So much of it is just rote memorizing nonsense until you believe it. Personally, I think that the basis for a lot of this stuff in physics is to preserve the big bang model and the religious assumptions that so many make about an otherwise unexplainable creation event. For one, gravitational red-shifting is ignored when measuring distances outside the solar system. For two through n, they continuously find things that refute the big bang, and decide, "oh, if we tweak our theory or reinterpret our data, it'll be alright." Sure, some amount of tweaking is necessary as new info comes in, but they're going in with this massive assumption that we somehow mathemagically know a) how much stuff is in the universe, b) how big it is, c) how old it is, and d) that we knew all that decades before we ever even went into orbit. That is some kind of massive, egotistical assumptions that I would expect from the people involved in project paperclip (way, WAY too much of nasa and academia as a whole.) The fact that higher education is stereotypically left-wing, while the upper echelons in every single american college are right-wing, is another huge tell that something fishy is going on in academia. My suggestion, do not break your bank on a field of study that might well be nothing but an exercise in futility. The only people making real money in it anyway are the luckiest of science communicators and the heads of departments anyway. And I don't know if you've heard, but Tyson, Hawking, Sabine, and Kaku are all garbage people. The ones that aren't known predators are even more obviously shills. But, that's just my two cents.

I am not a physicist. We already know that Quantum physics is more orientated toward the math rather than the real physical world, so when we say "There are no particles" are we saying that "There are no particles in Quantum field theory" or "There are no physical particles in the actual material universe"? (Yes I know I entered an oxymoron by using material while asking if material exist in the first place, but if we consider a wave material but not a solid physical object then I hope you get what I mean) > If the universe is made up of non solid waves then this has serious implications to what we call the physical as well as the context of the std model as well as theories such as the Big bang and inflation. It kind of flips our perspective of the physical world in a 180deg mirrored way.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

I think that the claim is more "at the fundamental level, there are fields, not particles.". Of course, to agree with this claim, one needs to commit to the Standard Model of Particle physics, which is based on Quantum Field Theory. It's a proposal that views particles as emerging from preexisting fields instead of viewing them as the fundamental stuff of the universe. @axle.student

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Thank you. I appreciate your response. It fits very neatly for me to view the universe and all that we perceive within it as arising out of some sort of field potential. I guess in my naive way I would consider that what we call the "physical" universe to be an emergent expression from the non physical(solid); "The illusion of physical solids". > I guess I am attempting to differentiate between the classical "solid" ball atomic nucleus and the non solid wave function of modern physics (Forgive me if I used the incorrect definition there).

@anywallsocket

29 күн бұрын

@@axle.studentyou’re smart to question whether the paper is speaking ontologically or epistemology, and the mere fact that it doesn’t distinguish the map from the territory and be explicit about this is indicative of its lack of philosophical depth. You can take it therefore as an epistemological argument (about the map), from someone who naively thinks they are talking about the territory lol.

@axle.student

28 күн бұрын

@@anywallsocket @fabienpaillusson7390 This is still a little ambiguous. Both responses are correct, but I wasn't looking for (questioning) the emergence of particles, but if the emergent particles can be truly "solid" as per classical definition, or remain just a condensed region of soft/translucent fuzzy energy that gives the impression at the macro scale of being solid. I guess another way of asking is when we consider a photon as a wave it is not solid like a grain of sand in the common sense, and then when it behaves like what we call a particle does it just remain as a peak of the wave (energy), or does it become solid in the sense of the grain of sand. > If I read modern physics correctly there is such thing as a truly solid object at the particle scale ("There Are *No Particles* . Only Fields")?

@wbeaty

28 күн бұрын

We are saying that QUANTA ARE NOT PARTICLES, at least in the way the term "particle" is commonly understood by non-scientists. So, stop saying "particles," and instead say quanta. (Heh, problem solved!) Fields are quantized. Light can only vary in steps. But light is not made of little bitty billiard-balls whizzing through empty space ...even though it can seem that way (for example, with the gamma rays emitted when a positron annihilates an electron.)

Fields are mathematical tools describing the behaviour of particles.

Thanks for this. A field only universe makes sense. In the 19th century some thought that maybe matter was made of just electric fields. Maybe with todays mathematics, computing and knowledge we can make more headway. I feel a multidimensional soliton wave based theory may be the key.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

Yes, there are quite interesting stuff going on with solitons and non linear physics. It's very tough though. It's really in its infancy at the moment.

Particle theory is a mental construct to aid understanding of observations. Field theory, ditto. String theory, ditto. If you believe (and I really mean 'believe') a particular field theory, you may say there is no such thing as 'string', but that doesn't make it so. No physicist should 'believe' in that way. You can only argue that one theory better corresponds to observations than does another.

@fabienpaillusson7390

27 күн бұрын

I personally agree with you although I don't think that it is my place to tell what physicists (or whoever for that matter) should personally believe or in what way they should hold a belief relationship with a theory.

@rchas1023

27 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 I am criticising the discussion title "There is no X, only Y".

What is a field by the way ? It is mathematical representation to infer values of each points in space-time . Now that is why field is an abstract mathematical entity or rather entities which have no physical basis . The real thing whi h physics entirely missing out is that mathematcs should be a basis and a medium to convey things which must have a physical reality but unfortunately nowadays physics became abstract mathematics which does not represent any physical reality whatsoever . What physicists now calls a field or a quantum vacuum are actually the the derived ideas from the comcept of Ether ( Aether) which preeced realitivity , yes it is not the version of ether which Michleson Morley or Lorentz thought of , here the Ether is actually the version which Tesla and Maxwell and Especially Lord Kelvin imagined to be in their theories which is nothing but the physical substructure of the space itself being a phase of matter , or a special form of matter which those physicists at 19th century used to call an ideal fluid but nowadays known as superfluid . Now superfluid is a phase of matter which originates by virtue of self organization of matter at cold phases and becomes smooth and frictionless and the vaccum of space-time similarly has spectroscopic structurs similar to superfluids or cold phases of matter and people who study and research on space related things knows that in order to solve any peoblem in physics inclyding the gravity problem in order to reconcile the relativity with quantum mechanics they need to study the buliding blocks of space itself and all reasearches and experiments hinting that vacuum space is not empty but filled with 'stuff ' which stays hidden in ordinary low energy experimenrts giving the physicists the wrong perception of space being empty Newtonian nothingness but particle collider experiments which high energy collision experiments showd that vaccum of space is filleed with phase matter which interact very weakly with our world but no real physicists denies that vaccum being physically empty nowadays

@wbeaty

28 күн бұрын

"Fields" are real, but "lines of force" are merely abstract mathematical models. The same is true of planes of equipotential. The "Fields" themselves are not abstract entities. They're as real as rocks and stubbed toes. Whatever fields may be, they are not made out of vectors. (Or made of Quaternions, as JC Maxwell described.) Analogy: is iron actually real? Or is iron just some thermal characteristics and some kilograms hanging in empty space? Iron is really just a wad of numbers. Therefore iron is an abstract mathematical concept.

@Heaven351

28 күн бұрын

@@wbeaty can you elaborate ?

@wbeaty

26 күн бұрын

@@Heaven351 Elaborate in what way? Some people don't believe that objects are real. (Objects are merely illusory maya in some parts of Buddhism.) But in Classical physics at least, objects are real things ...and so are fields. In other words, those who don't believe that fields are real, are rejecting basic physics. You could ask the question "what are fields, really?" But also we could ask the question "what are objects, really?" Fields and objects are physical concepts, and where physics is concerned, insisting that fields aren't real, that's just as crazy as insisting that objects aren't real. (Heh, fields are invisible, therefore not real? But radio waves and IR light are also invisible. Radio waves are made of fields, so it's a bit hard to deny fields without also denying the existence of radio waves. On the other hand, "field lines" are something different. Field-lines are an abstract mathematical concept. Also, the measured shapes of objects, their absorption spectra (colors) are abstract mathematical concepts too. Anything involving numbers can be attacked by skeptics, and dismissed as "mere mathematics." A skeptic might hate the reflection-spectrum of an object, and say that it's only numbers, and not really real. But that's very different than denying the existence of objects! In a very similar way, the same skeptic might deny the existence of "magnetic lines of force." Yet the magnetic field is still real, whether it has force-lines inside it or not. The force-lines are made of numbers. They're a mathematical concept. The field itself is not made of numbers, any more than an object is made of numbers. (And, if we don't want our magnetic fields to remain invisible, we can see their shapes by sprinkling iron filings around our bar-magnet.)

The most accurate and accepted model of physics right now is the Standard Model, which is a perturbative low energy quantum field theory of physics. It is just a model (it is even in the name), thus it models particles as waves, just like string theory models particles as open/closed strings. This means it is NOT a fundamental theory for a fundamental theory would work at all energies non-perturbatively.

Newton is a special case of the more general special-relativity, which is a special case of the more general general-relativity. Thus, GR is always true, while Newton's-model is adequate for simple cases. Likewise, particle-model is sometimes adequate, while fields/waves are always true.

Thanks so much. Subscribed!

Waves in fields interact at points.

I am a math students. From what I know, a particle from quantum field theory point of view is an irreducible (projective) representation of some Lie groups (Poincare group and Gauge groups etc). But this is just one interpretation yes? Although nowadays hypes over string theory die down, it doesn't mean it is the only interpretation of what a particle is. And saying there are no particles doesn't sound accurate to me.

I have written a theory which unifies all forces and explains all phenomena with one law. Can you please read my paper?

@motherisape

Ай бұрын

Where ?

@user-ow4oj1wk2o

Ай бұрын

And when did you get your noble prize?

The core of reality is the ether, the ether can be defined as non Cartesian pure potential energy. All fields are defined as “ether perturbation modalities” ie all fields are the ether in a state other than rest. Light slows down when moving through glass, but it speeds back up upon leaving the medium of glass. This breaks the law of conservation. The only explanation is that light is not strictly a ball bearing wave/particle thats flying through the void but rather light or EM is a cyclical compression-rarefaction wave of ether that gets its existence beyond itself ie the omnipresent ether

There is particle. There must be particle. Model of " Fundamental Particle" on 4 foot rock nearing completion.

I've always wondered how some collections of fields (rocks, tables, people) are so persistent in their existence. Last time I looked, my dining table was not waving about.

@johs9000

Күн бұрын

Yeah, what about chaging your EV with electron fields?

Could we have a probabilistic future coming into existence with the absorption and emission of light waves? We could explain light waves 'fields' as a process over a ‘period of time’ with particle characteristics or photons as the future unfolds. A potential probabilistic uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds with potential photon ∆E=hf energy, of what might happen, exchanging into kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, of what is actually happening. Light photon energy cascades down forming greater degrees of freedom for entropy and the irreversible processes of Classical Physics with heat energy always flowing from hot to cold and friction always changing motion into heat forming the ‘Arrow of Time’ within each reference frame.

So if I toss a coin, does it land heads or tails or some mixture of the two? What about spin measurements?

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

A quantum coin could be both prepared and measured relative to a superposition of heads and tails outcomes (at least if we make a strong analogy with 1/2 spin particles). What is distinctive about the quantum version is the possibility of getting interference effects that would not arise in classical probability theory.

@david_porthouse

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 So you are just repeating a standard description of quantum mechanics. However a wave-only theory would have that coin landing in a superposition of states.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@david_porthouse I am not knowledgeable enough to know what a coin tossing would look like in quantum field theory. I think that even a hydrogen atom is problematic in QFT, so a whole coin...

@anywallsocket

29 күн бұрын

Particles are measured values they while waves are unmeasured. Hence why there are no particles in QFT: there are no measurements - and one would switch to QM if they had to include measurements, which of course collapse the wavefunction into a classical state.

@david_porthouse

28 күн бұрын

@@anywallsocketSo what’s a measurement? How does it differ from an interaction? This is a standard question, hardly original to me.

In high school and undergrad, I was taught that light is "really made of photons," and also that the fields/waves were only some sort of illusion. (This is exactly the problem that Hobson treats, where intro textbooks are misinforming their audience.) I eventually discovered one major consequence: universal refusal to explain lasers in terms of optical fields, with the end result being the claim that "coherent light" originates with the lasing material. This is utterly wrong. Yet it can be found in most textbooks at undergrad and below. They give hand-wavy descriptions of "in-phase photons," yet never clearly disclose the origin of the high optical coherence. In fact, laser coherence originates with the Fabry-Pérot cavity (the laser mirrors.) Laser media do not alter the coherence of the light. If we search for the cause of coherence, looking at the gain-medium is sending us up a dead end. Instead the medium simply amplifies light, and the gain-medium will happily make incoherent light much brighter. (The typical explanations are only explaining why the medium is transparent ...although this isn't mentioned in the explanations!) This being the case, why do lasers have such high spatial/temporal coherence? The books don't say. Their authors don't know. The answer is almost trivial: the cavity causes a single mode to persist, while all others die away, so that the output has enormous temporal coherence. And also, the cavity rejects all off-axis waves, so that only a near-perfect sphere-wave can persist within the resonator (or a plane-wave, in the parallel-mirrors example used in grade school.) Laser light is "point-source light," as if the source was a near-ideal point source. When I eventually found out about the above, I was stunned, because FINALLY I could actually understand lasers. I've only noticed this issue mentioned in the last five years. Are there any recent textbooks which *don't* teach us that the gain-medium is creating the coherent light? Heh, lasers are like those feedback-squeals from the PA in your school auditorium: the amplifier is broadband, so any feedback instabilities should sound like white noise. But the inherent interferometer only allows particular modes to "fit" between the microphone and the speaker(s). The oscillation should sound like a chord! But soon mode-competition lets just a single mode "win out." Same with lasers. Adjust the mirror-spacing of your classroom gas-laser, in order to place two modes on either side of the fluorescence peak, and you can cause your laser to produce some crazy "white noise" or even deterministic chaos. (After realizing this, I found that the effect had been known since the 1960s, but had been mysterious at the time!)

@fabienpaillusson7390

28 күн бұрын

That's a very good point you are making. I have had the same thoughts as you regarding the blanket statement that lasers are quantum objects while they can be well described by gaussian beams and their functioning can also be explained by an optical circuit with a portion having a positive gain. The claim people are making should be at most on the non-existence of positive gain media that do not rely on quantum mechanical notions such as population inversion via energy levels and stimulated emission.

@wbeaty

28 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Or another approach: ...what is the classical analogy of Stimulated Emission? It's the capacitor! If we discharge a capacitor via a resistor, it shows the analogy for a fluorescent material. We can also "charge up" a fluorescent material, via an external source, same as with capacitors. Stimulated emission then becomes obvious: take a pre-charged capacitor, and connect it to a (constant current) power supply, but connected backwards. In order to "charge" the capacitor with the new polarity, first it must be discharged. And the rate of discharge depends on the external power supply. In other words, the power supply will cause the capacitor to "dump" its stored energy. (And also, this "dumping" can take place at immense rates, if the power supply's voltage is high.) This unfortunately doesn't show metastable states. It's more like a 2-level system and Rabi oscillations, right? I bet we could construct an AC version, even a free-space microwave version. If we have a tiny microwave resonator in space, with decaying oscillations, and then hit it with a large microwave pulse at the resonant frequency, but where the phase is off by 180deg, this should force the little resonator to suddenly "dump" its store energy. It's genuine stimulated emission. We could even make it quantized, by using a superconducting microwave resonator down at few-K temperature, where incoming microwave photons (heh!) are causing the little resonator to dump out its wrong-phase photons. Perhaps an array of microwave resonators could even create high-wattage pulses, via the store-then-dump process. Like Q-switching, but triggered by any sudden phase-reversal in the "pump beam."

@fabienpaillusson7390

28 күн бұрын

@@wbeaty the capacitor analogy is very nice!

An advice, give an eyes to Aerts Sassoli conceptual interppretstions

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

Will do. Thank you.

I am an interested layman with no science education but have always found quantum physics very interesting. I have to admit though, that while fields are an important concept in this area, which no science or math training it is difficult to come to grips with the concept of fields. If anyone could suggest some readings at the level of the general reader that would give me some idea of what a field is, it would be appreciated.

@Michael_Barrett

Ай бұрын

Take a look at Introducing Quantum Theory by JP McEvoy.

@michaelchandler490

Ай бұрын

@@Michael_Barrett Thanks

@michaelchandler490

Ай бұрын

Found it on Amazon for my Kindle. Will read.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

There is also "QED: the strange theory of light and matter" by Richard Feynman. Manages to be very accessible to people with almost no training in physics and/or mathematics while remaining accurate.

@michaelchandler490

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Thank you.

Parler de particules ou de champ dépend uniquement du contexte. C'est parfois plus facile de parler de particules avec les diagrammes de Feynman et de champ électronique dans le cas de cristaux par exemple. Personne n'est capable de dire ce qu'est une particule quantique mais c'est pratique de mettre des images pour les calculs, c'est tout !

@pi4313

Ай бұрын

It doesn't matter what the context is. At the end of the day, there can only be fields or particles. The context might help with interpretation, but it's very important that we get this one right.

@johnm.v709

17 күн бұрын

Prototype of the "Smallest Particle" Already on KZread

-Cheers! I think, observer sees particles, because his mind is ready only for collapsed universe

What excite's the field ?

@fabienpaillusson7390

15 күн бұрын

Some pre-existing energy in the form of unstable deformation of the field itself or from excitations from other fields it is coupled with.

@johnm.v709

15 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 kzread.info/dash/bejne/pnphk8Z_YMiopNY.html (Basic state of the cosmos)

If particles were not truly particles, only fields, then CERN would not be able to store electrons and reintroduce them later. If an electron did not at a minimum have a base particle at the center of the ether field that surrounds them then electrons would dissipate in storage and not be able to be reintroduced to the ionized protons, ditto for positrons. No one has ever produced an electron from a field. No ionized proton has ever produced its own electron. If what you are saying is true, then batteries would not work because ionized atoms could just create their own electrons and neutralize the battery without the electrons flowing through a circuit to get to the ionized end of the battery. The best model of the atom from Eugene Wigner indicates that the dipoles of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus are packed in in a crystalline lattice structure. AKA the orbital or well model of the nucleus is fiction.

Check out Rupert Sheldrake and Wolfgang Smith work.

All of it: fields of waves turn particles. from 0 t 0. 010

Wonderful. Leads to awful problems in our language though - Ask a physicist what the fields consist of and you get blank stares. Our understanding of phenomena is based on nothing.

@fabienpaillusson7390

28 күн бұрын

There are clearly problems with the way we communicate about these things yes.

@johnm.v709

17 күн бұрын

Brother, It's high time we should call "Particle"- only indivisible thing

There are no fields, just an endless fractal of particles.

@JeffY-ri2nj

29 күн бұрын

Sounds like you have read Scale Relativity Theory.

@wbeaty

28 күн бұрын

@@JeffY-ri2nj Stochiastic Electrodynamics FTW

@johnm.v709

17 күн бұрын

Huge numbers of indivisible particles in empty space.

Where did these fields originate from?

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@claudiamanta1943 your guess is as good as mine on this :)

@claudiamanta1943

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Thank you for your reply. I don’t understand maths and physics, and I ask stupid questions such as- How come that quantum physics even passes as scientific theory when it cannot possibly be falsified?

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@claudiamanta1943 where did you hear/read/see that quantum physics cannot be falsified?

@claudiamanta1943

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 I don’t know whether to feel insulted or to take your question as a compliment 😃 I didn’t. It is obvious to me because of the observer’s effect. It’s like trying to verify ontological validity of a dictionary entry. It’s arbitrary. Even if you could come up with a coherent system, it still wouldn’t reveal anything else but the limits of human thinking. As that is the case, what’s the point of speculation? It’s an arrogant waste of time with very significant negative practical consequences. I told you I don’t understand physics. I don’t understand science in general, especially if it passes the threshold of human relevance into pure abstraction defined by circular arguments.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@@claudiamanta1943 I clearly didn't mean to insult you. The reason why I did not presume that it was a conclusion you had drawn yourself was simply because you had stated that you knew nothing about physics or mathematics. How could you make a valid conclusion about a theory that you do not know (note that your conclusion may be correct but not valid)? The observer effect that you mention is part of philosophical debates about how to interpret the theory, but very few physicists consider it a feature of quantum physics. For example, decoherence does essentially the same thing as a measurement, but it seems to happen without observer and is in fact a big issue in quantum computing.

You would think a particle physicist would know noun verb agreement. “IS no particles”?

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

Oh dear me

@knutholt3486

Ай бұрын

He had to make some room for his physics knowledge, and this was one of the things he threw out.

@idonotlikethismusic

Ай бұрын

OP Maybe English isn’t his first language? Did that ever occur before leaving your snide comment?

@yvonresplandy4217

Ай бұрын

The guy is French, give him a break. Language is not the focus of his discussion. 7:18

I'm not sure how you define a field other than as a map of particle orientations! LOL! Vacuums are pure theoretical constructs, by definition. They have never been directly observed. For that observation you need a little kick of energy, which arrives in quanta, apparently. If that's not what we're calling a particle, it's the next best thing. It's unfortunate the mathematics doesn't look like particles, but given the uncertainties involved in measurement that's to be expected.

@JAYMOAP

Ай бұрын

Vacuum only means the lowest energy state / ground state of the system. When you try to deform your ground state and you can not perform continuous transformation means you have multiple ground states and eventually symmetry breaking to find the lowest energy state. In regards to fields, it seems just as much problematic as particles such make no sense to have independent fields for each particles. Furthermore in condensed matter physics the Higgs mechanism is a magnetic moment, and similarly make no sense to call it a particle. It's rather certain energy level or threshold what they measure correspond to a transition. In my humble opinion those fields are rather bands corresponding to energy levels and energy /band gaps. The conventional particles are just charges and we organise or qualify them as fractional statistics. But hey, may be I am just as wrong :)

@ywtcc

Ай бұрын

@@JAYMOAP The vacuum in General Relativity has different properties than the vacuum in quantum mechanics. There's lots of different kinds of empty spaces in physics! The Casimir effect between two plates is the experimental evidence for the quantum vacuum. The observations of cosmological voids are the experimental evidence for an apparently much emptier vacuum. It turns out the universe produces voids emptier than quantum field theory predicts by a factor of 10^120! So, your quantum field conception of empty space is likely far too energetic to be applicable on intergalactic scales. You may be correct locally, but your case for universality isn't very good. The problem of empty space is a profound one for physics. It's not just about what's in the background of the theory. It's also about experimentally taking every physical thing out of a system and seeing what's left over. It's the ultimate test of how complete our theories are. It turns out there's 10^120 parts to go! Yikes! LOL!

@JAYMOAP

Ай бұрын

@@ywtcc seems we speak of different topics :)

@johnm.v709

17 күн бұрын

Vacuum is suction force, and that gives fundamental particle momentum. Yes there are indivisible particles.

Any smart theorist already knows this, what is a particle but an absurdity anyway? Probability waves aren’t much better but they generalize over experimental results. What this paper is missing is anything profoundly new, like the fact that spacetime emerges from entanglement.

@fabienpaillusson7390

28 күн бұрын

@anywallsocket where can I read about space-time emerging from entanglement?

@anywallsocket

28 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 emergent gravity is the umbrella term, you can find more from there. Actually Suskind has been talking about this for over a decade in the form of ER=EPR, but it isn’t the only angle, eg Verlinde’s thermodynamic approach. Neither of which are complete, but the ideas are compatible.

@johnm.v709

17 күн бұрын

Pure empty space - yes Time - Inward flow & outward flow of particles (entanglement)

@anywallsocket

17 күн бұрын

@@johnm.v709 go on?

6:21

Everything is field/waves of energy until we observe it into existence...

@wbeaty

28 күн бұрын

PHOTONS DON'T EXIST!!! (or more accurately, "photons" as commonly conceived in undergrad and grade-school textbooks, don't exist. Quantized fields exist, but little whizzing "sand grains" of light, do not.

@johnm.v709

17 күн бұрын

I believe even if we don't observe also it has to be. (Indivisible particles waving in pure empty space)

Particles ARE fields so to call them not particles is nonsense. They are just not what we intuitively think that it is, but they are particles, they are just not "stuff" they are made up of fields, which doesn't make them not particles.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@user-ow4oj1wk2o interesting. Where does this statement come from? Certainly photons are not the electromagnetic field no more so than waves at the surface of the sea are the sea itself.

@user-bv5gd5mh8u

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 can u explain what u mean

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@@user-bv5gd5mh8u well, in QFT particles have a very clear definition: they are elementary excitations of a field. From a semantic (and conceptual) standpoint, an excitation of a thing is not the thing itself. Ripples on the surface of a pond are not the pond itself no more than sound waves in air are the air itself. In all these cases, they are a pattern of excitations of an underlying field that has the ability to propagate under certain conditions. In QFT, not only do the wave patterns propagate but they are also quantised. Electrons for example require a minimum amount of energy mc^2 to be "brought into existence" as elementary excitations of the electronic field.

@user-bv5gd5mh8u

Ай бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 ok ill need to read more about it, but this brought some context. thanks a lot!!

@JAYMOAP

Ай бұрын

​@@fabienpaillusson7390if the particle associated specific field would be valid description, it would require the explanation why such specific field exist and not another :) the way I see it, even though QFT is a successful description is rather the success of understanding QM. The definitions could be anything. Fundamentally we only describe positive and negative charges and their properties in different circumstance based on the choice of measurement. On the other hand however topological order and phases seems more relevant as building blocks of physical system despite its constituents

You guys teaching us Physics. Why don't you first discover the basics before become teachers? For example - Would you please explain us what is the physical description of Energy? What is the physical description of Field? Please, don't show us mathematics before you know and understand the basic elements!

@fabienpaillusson7390

26 күн бұрын

Please have a cup of tea and clarify what exactly you are asking. Thank you 🙏

@valentinmalinov8424

25 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Thanks for the cup of tea. I am asking to consider careful the staff you are offering to your viewers and to be better that main stream scientists which is changing their story every year and is pumping out tons of nonsense. For example - Do you believe that in our space can co-exist "Positive and Negative " Gravity without cancelling each other? Do you want me to continue with this list? - So... explain to your viewers what actually is "Dark Light"? Have a cup of coffee and be happy.

@fabienpaillusson7390

25 күн бұрын

@@valentinmalinov8424 Thanks for the advice, but it is not for me to think for others or to tell them what to think. If this is what you expect from a scientific channel, please do not watch my channel. This channel is about sharing some opinions/studies/hypotheses from the scientific and higher education literature that are usually unknown by both the lay public and professionals. Not knowing about such works leads to a skewed representation of what is the state of the scientific literature on many subjects, and my channel aims at very modestly contributing to counter this state of affairs (and I must acknowledge that the scope I cover is fairly narrow too). The fact that I talk about some works does not mean that I have to endorse or believe what these papers say. I just need to find them convincing (upon accepting their premisses), interesting and, sometimes, even eye-opening or inspiring.

@johnm.v709

17 күн бұрын

There is certain value in your comment.

@valentinmalinov8424

16 күн бұрын

@@johnm.v709 I am protesting against the blind accepting of nonsense regardless of the academic position of its source. The people must have critical thinking and evaluate the credibility of the two fundamental theories which are "Describing" the World.I am protesting against the statement of QM in 1927 which state: "QM have complete description of the World and further study of the fundamental elements is not necessary"

FINALLY! Someone comes out and calls out the pink elephant in the room! Particle physics is all fiction. 3D Matter is made of Crystals, in different States. Crystals are made of Angles and Numbers. A Number is a Vector of Consciousness. Be sure to check out the vids on my channel regarding, sometime :D

Encore un papier qui ne sert a rien !

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@patrickguy8797 au delà du peu que j'en présente avez vous lu le papier en question ?

@patrickguy8797

Ай бұрын

Si vous m'affirmez que cela en vaut la peine je peux le lire.

@fabienpaillusson7390

Ай бұрын

@@patrickguy8797 c'est un article d'une trentaine de pages qui propose une liste non exhaustive des avantages conceptuels à parler en termes de champs plutôt que de particules. Nul n'est obligé d'être d'accord avec l'auteur, mais certains exemples présentés sont selon moi assez pertinents.

@patrickguy8797

Ай бұрын

J'ai lu rapidement le papier d'hobson. Il me semble qu'il a une vue des champs quantiques comme se rapprochant des champs classiques. Un champs quantiques est un champs de potentialitees qui décrivent uniquement ses possibilités d'interaction. Mais en pratique au niveau macroscopique une chaise reste une chaise, par contre les objets quantiques qui la composent peuvent se décrire comme des particules ou des ondes suivant le type de calcul que je veux ou peux faire.

@wbeaty

28 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Another very cool anti-particles paper dates from 1995, and was written by Nobelist W. Lamb, "Anti-photon," the DOI is 10.1007/BF01135846 (Just because your PMT has issued a single count, doesn't mean that its cathode had been struck by a little tiny sand-grain made of electromagnetic energy.)

This is a useless concept game rather than concrete physics.

@fabienpaillusson7390

29 күн бұрын

What would concrete physics be like then?

@user-cd4tl4zj1x

29 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Concrete physics refers to mainly describing physical phenomena and experiments as they are, while using abstract mathematics and concepts as supplements. Modern physics has become too much of a play on abstract mathematics and concepts. Although it is unavoidable when physics is at a downturn, it feels like things have gotten worse since physics created nuclear weapons. The reference to the stagnation period of physics refers to the period of creating different mathematics for the same physics, such as Lagrangian mechanics or Hamiltonian mechanics, from the emergence of Newtonian mechanics to the emergence of electromagnetism. Creating different mathematics for the same physics may not be completely meaningless, but the physical implications are not as great as they seem. Modern physics relies too much on such mathematical operations.

@wbeaty

28 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 But we can never know anything ...except for grasping some concepts. I've found that attack-on-concepts is a typical ploy used by undergrads for sowing confusion and looking smart during debates ...if not a tactic used by most physics-trolls. It's one part of the usual game of insult & one-upmanship. (Absurdity: iron and steel, they're really just a wad of numbers hanging in empty space, no? Mere mathematical abstractions. Heh, if I stub my toe on a steel doorstop, my pain was merely another concept, right? ) Or this: in physics, we try to perceive the Territory, but all we ever really see is the Map.

@user-cd4tl4zj1x

28 күн бұрын

@@fabienpaillusson7390 I have already said about the need for detailed descriptions of experiments and observations, and no concepts or understanding are needed to describe them as they are seen. Being able to understand everything is a hope and has not been proven.We are faced with many things that we cannot understand. That is a natural phenomenon in human existence. Understanding is not the goal of physics, and it has proven impossible in mathematics. What we actually experience and need is the territory, and the map is only a reference. The important thing is to face reallity as it is without distortion. There are many cases where hasty attempts at understanding have hindered this. Actually, I think understanding is just an illusion for self-satisfaction.

@fabienpaillusson7390

28 күн бұрын

@user-cd4tl4zj1x I would beg to differ with the view you describe here. You cannot describe any experimental observation without some sort of prior conception of what the experience pertains to. As von Weiszaker, who was a neo Kantian at heart, would put it (a theory of everything in) physics aims to provide the preconditions for (all) experiences.