How can it be smeared out? — EugeneW

Ha ha. I was hoping YOU could help ME understand that one.
From my recent reading and from what the physics professor said on Quora, an electron is more accurately described as a cloud and not a sphere. I have also read that the electron orbits a nucleus in a 'smeared' orbit. When looking at recent images or artist impressions of an atom, it looks like there is a lot of support for this 'cloud' or 'smeared' concept. So I assumed that this 'cloud' is a diffuse mass that orbits the nucleus of an atom and its 'smeared out' throughout the expanse of the orbit.

I think all of the specs together ARE THE ELECTRON. The electron is not a single sphere in orbit around the nucleus. Its a 'smear' or 'cloud' orbiting the sphere, but a cloud or smear of what? — universeness

Sorry I meant to type 'orbiting the nucleus' not orbiting the sphere.

Ah! The photograph of hydrogen. See all the specks? The electron hops constantly between all of them. Within the bounds of the wavefunction. QFT is difficult to use for a bound state. QFT only works for particles that are initially and finally free (asymptotically free). The position and velocity are well defined at all times in this picture of QM — EugeneW

I think all of the specs together ARE THE ELECTRON. The electron is not a single sphere in orbit around the nucleus. Its a 'smear' or 'cloud' orbiting the sphere, but a cloud or smear of what?

What quanta? — EugeneW

Click on the link in the OP, look at the image.

We were thinking of hydrogen at the same time! — EugeneW

Well, the hydrogen atom is in the link in the OP.

I appreciate that it would take time to answer all the questions I asked you but even yes or no responses would help me understand your position better and any other detail would be a bonus.

The particle hops around non-locally, instantaneously. — EugeneW

To me, 'non-locally' means globally, so do you mean that this particle just spontaneously appears and disappears at ransom positions in your 5D space and that no time passes between hops so time=0 during hops. Does this not suggest that the actual movement occurs within your suggested 4th spatial dimension? and this is why no relative time passes within our experiential 3D space and your particle can traverse 3D space 'instantly,' without breaking the law of c within 3D space?

Surely this makes one of your hidden variables, your 4th spatial dimension?

Again, what do you mean by 'couples to'?

Making a decision based on fear is a common and rational reaction — T Clark

I am sure Putin would agree with you!

When you view the image of the hydrogen atom, why do you think the 'electron/cloud orbit' looks like it is made up of many much smaller quanta? and why does some of this quanta seem to 'break into' the 'blue area' between these concentric circular areas?

Now if this were so then also real particles would be math. — EugeneW

So this is one of your main divergences from the thinking of the current majority of physicists, yes?

What is an excitation? A field is just a mathematical aid which consists of distributions assigned to all points of spacetime, and these distributions have operators as "value". These operators are creation and annihilation operators. These operators create or annihilate one particle states in so-called Fock-space, a direct product of single particle Hilbert spaces. A free particle field is just a particle with a single momentum state or, when localized, a normalized superposition of a spectrum. In a Feynman diagram, there is one line only and begin and end state have the same momentum. The particle is localized if it has a spectrum of momenta. If it has a well defined position though there are infinite associated momenta, due to uncertainty — EugeneW

But in 3D space is a 'field' not a 'volume,' in that it has 'cubic spacial-expansion?'
This is how I have always perceived the term 'field' as used in physics.
For 'excitation' I conceive the cuboid area as containing liquid like water and I see excitation as a disturbance within the water, like shaking a snow globe.
So not a mathematical aid but a real area of space. I see the 'mathematical aid' part as the conceptual breaking up of space into a 3D grid of contiguous cuboids. So all of space is in reality one big field.
What do you mean by "distributions assigned to all points of spacetime"? what specifically do you mean by 'assigned?' What/who performed such assignment? Do you use the term 'distributed,' as random or is the distribution based on a mathematical function? Are these 'operators' you mention variables/parameters/inputs for a mathematical process?

Ok, these matter/antimatter annihilations seem to me to produce a kind of 'all square' outcome.
The conservation of the total energy of the Universe seems to indicate that this creation/annihalation cycle is much less interesting than the fact that something else happened which created an imbalance within this process and that's why the Universe has galaxies, planets and us.

A free particle field is just a particle with a single momentum state or, when localized, a normalized superposition of a spectrum.

How can a particle BE a field?

The particle is localized if it has a spectrum of momenta. If it has a well defined position though there are infinite associated momenta, due to uncertainty

I think you are typing here, that a particle/quanta/disturbance which forms within a field can move in a particular direction but how fast it will move and exactly which direction it will take and the exact shape of the path (straight, curved etc) will take, is very hard to predict. Is this correct?

no creation and destruction of particles (only couplings) — EugeneW

What do you mean by 'coupling' here?

So, what is a particle? A particle is a tiny geometrical Planck-sized structure on which charge can safely reside, without leaking out. The extra space dimensions in which it exists are perpendicular to the 3D bulk and this ensures that the Planck length is Lorenz invariant (for which physics still has no answer...). The smallest measurable distance (the Planck length) follows naturally from the particles small extension in space. Within the bounds of the wavefunction (the temporal cross section of a field) the particle just hops around erratically if you propagate it in time. Which is to say it travels on tiny parts of all paths Feynman talks about, coupling to the timeless virtual field to reach others, and being itself a time extended virtual particle with its antiparticle component somewhere in space. — EugeneW

So you are saying that the structures that you are calling particles, exist 'outside' of the known 3D of space, yes?

Do You mean 'Perpendicular' to 3D space as in 90 degrees to it? So your 4th spatial dimension is not 'wrapped around' every point of 3D space but is 'perpendicular' to every point in 3D space.
Would this be mathematically represented as a 90 degree direction away from a set of three spatial coordinates (so, dimensionless) and one instant/coordinate of time?
So a position in your space would be (x,y,z,t,90)?

the particle just hops around erratically if you propagate it in time. Which is to say it travels on tiny parts of all paths Feynman talks about,
But what makes it 'hop'? and what do you mean by 'hop'? Are you relating this to the proposed motion of an electron in orbit around a nucleus? A jump from an outer orbit to an orbit closer to the nucleus?
Does your particle jump right or left, then move forward for a time and then jump left or right again?

:lol: but remember! shhhhhhhhhh!

That's a good one, universeness! Sometimes the duo-pact seems human even. What you paint? — EugeneW

Yeah, oil paintings are one of my hobbies since retirement. I have posted one of my allegorical offerings on a thread called 'get creative' or something like that but I've posted it again below for your 'giggle muscles.':

Satan as God's enforcer is a painting I have under consideration. Perhaps a handshake between a painted representation of each with a caption like "whosoever offends thee shall answer to me!"

Although the person will believe in God they are doing so because of fear and not because they believe in the values that God provides. — stressyandmessy

Yes, and I think they truly feel the former but try to promote the latter as the 'real reason' for their faith.
But this is something I can't prove unless it is admitted on a theist by theist basis. Admitting that your theism is purely fear-based is rare, as long as your theism perpetuates. The memory of Its fear-based origin can fade over time for the committed, life-invested theist.

quod erat demonstrandum

...to do things without offending/harming a single soul? — Agent Smith

No, the fact that humans are still breathing offends some misanthropic characters and some of the more extreme antinatalists.

World peace — Agent Smith

Yes, economic equality, sufficient political checks and balances which prevent totalitarianism/autocracies/plutocracies/aristocracies/unfettered capitalism/cuts of personality or celebrity and indifference to cultural or religious practice would go a long way towards achieving such.

end of hunger — Agent Smith

Could have been achieved years ago.

cure all diseases — Agent Smith

Unlikely as there will always be new ones.

save & protect the environmen — Agent Smith

Yes and should have progressed towards this much more than we have so far

can we abolish suffering in any way, — Agent Smith

No and wouldn't want to, we need the comparator. But could control/prevent extreme examples.

Is it only will that's lacking — Agent Smith

A united global human will, yes.

Nil volentibus arduum — Agent Smith

Why do we still quote Latin? I sometimes do it myself by why do we think this adds more force to our words?

You can't make everyone happy. Quit trying. — Some dude/gal

Nah! Keep trying, it's an honorable goal, probably unattainable in all cases but an honorable goal nonetheless!

I don't think I can offer you any more than I have already on this topic. I will leave it to those members who offer more detail than I can.
As always, thanks for the exchange of views EugeneW! :grin:

Humans will unite and will work together in common cause when they think they can win.
Their level of confidence will rise or fall depending on unfolding events as their campaign ensues.
A majority has struggled against a minority since the time we were emergent from the wilds.
If you study any insect or animal 'society,' the most successful and long lasting ones are those who show the best ability to 'work in common cause.'
The Lions would kill and consume all the young bison born if the adult bison had not figured out how to crowd around their young as a wall of horned protection that frustrated the Lions.
The original humans who became the first of the 'Rich' and 'Powerful' were simply those who were physically strongest and could intimidate a significant number of others.
If in those early days, all of those intimidated by the one or the few, could have been 'brave' and 'wise' enough to unite and kill those few who wished to impose their will on the majority, then we would not be facing threats from f***wit's like Putin today.

Everything that has happened to create the societal imbalance today between a powerful, sycophantic global elitist minority and an abused, cowed global majority has been possible because of this early inability of an intimidated majority to prevent a determined nefarious elite from imposing their will.

How do we fix this now before we are made extinct due to it?

Understand that what I have said above is true and help in any way you can to unite the majority of people globally.

The global, powerful elite, are fierce and will use every erg of energy and measure of power they have to stop such from happening because they are convinced that they can maintain their legacy of privilege without courting/causing their own destruction. They are most willing and indeed are actively seeking to significantly reduce the current number of the majority to a number that is easier for them to handle, will consume less resources and still number enough to be able to maintain and service them.

One great hope in our favor is that, just like us, they fight a lot amongst themselves. Individuals like Putin, Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Modi, Boris Johnstone and many other such individuals are all cut from the exact same nefarious lump of human shit, (as are all billionaires or multi-millionaires, in my personal opinion). I am surprised that they are not more successful at global unison as they absolutely have a common cause.

If we don't do better towards the idea put forward in the OP and we don't unite and take power away from the current nefarious minority who monopolise it then I don't think the Universe will miss us too much but it will take the Earth a long time to recover and try again with another species. Perhaps an evolution from the termites or ants.

But this is only for those who think that more than one universe is correct. Others like myself prefer to go with the idea that inflation/expansion is not 'into' anything as it is everything. I know issues like fine-tuning speak against this view but I for one await better or more convincing evidence for anything outside of this single Universe. Your position is every bit as valid as mine and you can add a lot more details in support of your viewpoint than I can for mine but overall, the search for the truth continues.

Why didn't he arrange it to begin at infinity, ending at the singularity? — EugeneW

Before cosmologists discovered that the expansion rate was accelerating, the big crunch was a front runner. I think however you are positing something akin to the fable of Merlin, who knew the future because his existence was in time-reversal from 'future to present.' I think that's why they presented him as a magical 'wizard' in the story. Would you like to live a reversed life from death point to fetus?

But how can space be infinite if it is expanding, It has no need to expand if it is already infinite.
If God arranged it, then why is it expanding?

I don't think the logic of the term infinite holds much value. That which is infinite cannot terminate (end), therefore it has to be eternal but then how did it become infinite? It seems to me, logically impossible to become infinite so infinite must have always existed if you throw the concept of linear time at it. Therefore that which is infinite cannot logically or physically exist within linear time, it is a metalogical concept. To me, it is just a convenient label for 'what we just don't understand yet.'
Picking a number between 1 and 2 seems to have an 'infinite' choice but within linear time, this is meaningless as you can choose a number between 1 and 2 and therefore satisfy the request to pick one.
I give the term the same cognisance as that of the god fable. 'Has its uses, but I see little value in it.'
In Science, the appearance of an infinity, normally indicates a flaw in the logic applied.

Forgot one of the most important ones. mass-energy-mass-energy
<-------------time

Yes. But... Why they don't radiate inwards? Why isn't the beginning of time situated at the end? I think I'm drifting off from reality a bit now Stephen, but still... I asked this on a physics site, but the question was closed for being a duplicate of a question about the Loschmidt paradox I didn't agree though — EugeneW

I had never heard of the 'Loschmidt paradox,' where do you come across this stuff?
I had a quick read using your link, its interesting that it was provoked by Boltzmann musings.
I wouldn't worry too much about 'drifting off from reality a bit.' If you can achieve such trips for free and they are good trips then you are a lucky sod. If they are not good trips then you need to work hard at manipulating them better. Take control of them more often and dictate their dierction. I do quite well with my attempts at 'lucid dreaming.'

There are many systems that 'oscillate' or 'reverse,' water-ice-water, solid-liquid-gas-liquid-solid, components available in the Universe - assembly-human-alive-dies-dissassembly-components available in the universe......
But heat radiate outwards - heat radiates inwards, just doesn't happen.
Can your personal conception of the attributes of God be reversed?

I think Italians always sound quite 'cool' when speaking their version of English.
But I feel the same about Spaniards, French, Americans, Africans, Australians, Scots(so me!) .......everyone who is not actually English....and even some of them who are....Liverpudlians, Mancunians, Geordies etc

So again: Why aren't all processes moving exactly opposite to their present direction? — EugeneW

Well, I will offer the most obvious and probably the most boring and non-progressive point in regards to the fluidity of the thread, 'Because it can't do that.' The Universe has no mechanism currently identified in physics, within which such action is demonstrable or possible. Heat and light radiate outwards,
'Them's da rools!'

OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. I don't think you're the best for trying to educate another. — noAxioms

I think this is ill-judged commentary and sounds rather bitter and somewhat presumptuous.
You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse? Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse?
Hopefully @EgeneW remembers the DIMP guys theory that I posted for him to peruse. That guy certainly had his own private physics, but based on accepted physics. He like many others are convinced they know exactly what the basic workings of the Universe are and they know what its basic structure is. Most of them feel that the currently established cosmology hierarchy will not (rightly or wrongly) give them an adequate public hearing.
If you want to encourage new thinking, you need to welcome any attempt at new physics.
As a teacher of 30 years, I fully endorse all 'true seekers.' Encouraging Original thinking is a very
sound approach when 'trying to educate another.'
A software engineer, who I am sure, is often tasked with creating ever more efficient algorithms should know that.

Well, I don't label them me, myself, and I — noAxioms

We all need our own little forms of personal whimsy!

I don't think humans are rational beings (rationalizing yes, rational no), simply animals with a rational tool at their disposal. I suspect an actual rational being would be unfit, and perhaps there lies an explanation for the Fermi paradox. — noAxioms

This is a more negative view of a human than the one I hold myself but I do respect your right to hold 'your own private humanism viewpoint now.'

I have a sister who is a fan of Jiddu Krishnamurti. I glaze over when she gives him plaudits. She despairs at my refusal to give him the credits she thinks he deserves. She even sent me a calendar which contains one of his inane statements under a pretty picture of nature for each month. It's in a drawer somewhere.
I personally put him with characters like the Maharishi, the mystic that managed to fog the brains of the Beatles or L Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame.
I just see such characters as engaging in pure sophistry as a means of earning a living.

It's a thin distinction, but an important one to me. I named myself 'noAxioms' precisely because there's nothing I refuse to question. I've a long list of things that pretty much everybody believes (including myself) which are nevertheless lacking in hard evidence. The result is a conflict: I believe some things that I know to be likely false, as if there are multiple entities in me with conflicting ideas, and only one of them can be in charge — noAxioms

I particularly like 'there's nothing I refuse to question.' I think Scientific rigor benefits from such an approach and such an attitude.

"as if there are multiple entities in me with conflicting ideas, and only one of them can be in charge"

I think we have three. The RComplex(me), The Limbic system(myself), and the Cerebral Cortex (I).
Combined, they are all my thoughts, my consciousness. That's of course only the result of my internal study of what I am. In a similar way to us trying to figure out what the Universe is from inside it.

Bohm was mocked "a hopeless fool", "aTrotskyte", a "communist conspiricist", "a traitor"... How can one not sympathize with his ideas?

Seems he is the modern Galilei. In a modern church — EugeneW

Yeah, but why did he turn to characters like Jiddu Krishnamurti?

https://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=919863 — EugeneW

Thanks! I downloaded the pdf and I will read and study its contents and see if it improves my understanding of what's happening in the double split experiment.

What about continued damage done by industrialization going forward? — ChatteringMonkey

This is a major, pressing concern in my opinion. Any true socialist must unite with all and any groups trying to immediately halt and reverse such on-going damage before it becomes too late.

There seems to be a tension in socialism, where on the one hand industrialization is the source of all evil and on other hand it's also the reason socialism exists to begin with (as a reaction to industrial capitalism). Does socialism need to keep it going, or assumes that it will, albeit with redistributions and/or changes in power relations?
What if choices need to be made between material wealth provided by industrialism and ecological damage done by it? Or maybe put another way, would a socialist support de-industrialisation or de-growth for ecological reasons, even if that would mean making people poorer?
I guess my question is about how these values actually relate to eachother in socialism? — ChatteringMonkey

Human Industry is defined as "economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories." As technology advances, the word 'automated' is being associated with 'industry,' more and more. Such human-based activity cannot 'soil/destroy' the very nest we live in. It's plain dumb to do that.

An example to consider, is a poor person/group living near that which is often called part of the 'lungs' of the Earth (The rainforests) decides to start chopping down trees and planting some crop to try to make some money to feed his family or improve his lot in life. Why does he need to do this?

I don't blame the poor person/group for this behavior, I blame the excesses of the global rich and powerful and the imbalanced use of the Earth's resources. We simply must find ways to be able to provide the basic needs for every human living on this planet without destroying the Earth.
So yes, we make people poorer BUT ONLY RICH PEOPLE. We dilute power and authority but only totalitarian/autocratic/aristocratic/plutocratic/celebrity/unfettered capitalistic power.
We develop systems to produce economic parity for all. UBI or Universal Baisc Income is an example of such an attempt. Give every citizen £2000 pounds a month, no questions asked. No citizen can then claim they are not treated fairly, economically.
True socialists continue the struggle to get the balance correct before it's too late and our species goes extinct.

Bohm was ridiculed for it. — EugeneW

Yeah, its hard to judge someone like Bohm but he suffered badly from depression and he was friends with some mystic called Jiddu something.

I assume he meant 'almost no passage of time,' so I assumed he was suggesting that in some cases the appearance on the other side may happen faster that c but I am just guessing. He said it during a discussion he was having with a large panel of cosmologists which included, krauss, carroll, guth and about 6 others. I watched it on youtube a few years ago but I cant remember its title.

So not all paths are taken at once but parts of paths — EugeneW

To me, this almost suggests that the electron has some kind of cognisant intent, almost 'deciding' when to jump and things get difficult and almost 'magical' when it gets to two slits and its only one electron.
I may be being a little anthropic here but your suggested behavior of these electrons sounds as if they have panpsychist aspects to them. Maybe some unknown or misunderstood conditions of the double-slit experiment causes an approaching electron to 'smear out' or 'stretch its expanse' so that it passes through both slits and under other conditions it only passes through one of them. Has the experiment been done, whereby the distance between the slits has been incrementally increased and the experiment repeated?

imagine you are that particle; you're here and the next on the other side of the slit, instantaneously, without delay!) — EugeneW

Brian Greene talks about this type of 'quantum weirdness' and 'quantum fluctuations.' A particle which is on one side of a barrier simply 'almost spontaneously' appears on the other side and he just says 'we don't know why or how, it just does. So I go back to a previous point I made. Thinking about and discussing QM with others will remain good practice and good fun, if somewhat frustrating, but I think we probably need another million years of science and scientists before we 'know.'

Thank you, I downloaded the two pdf's but the maths is quite advanced (at least for me) so I will attempt to understand it at some point.

Physics concerns what one expects to measure. Metaphysics concerns what is. — noAxioms

I don't agree with this interpretation. Physics makes predictions of the results of a particular experiment but it then accepts the actual results as what is.
Metaphysics is decribed as:

"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space."

and

"abstract theory with no basis in reality."

I prefer the scientific method employed by physics to the nonetheless interesting philosophical musings of metaphysics.

Hey, whatever floats your boat — noAxioms

Hey, Right back at you!

I don't think human consciousness is an assembly of components. More of a process that takes place, like combustion, involving not necessarily the same matter at any given time, just like a candle flame's atoms are almost completely different than the 'same flame' a minute later. — noAxioms

Hey, whatever floats your boat!

They've been measured, so they exist to us by that definition. They're galaxies, and separate galaxies might merge into bigger ones, but they hardly just cease being there after only several billion years — noAxioms

Well, it might have been more accurate for me to say that the print in my room of that area of space looks nothing like that anymore.

If you understand the wavefunction, then you should understand this. If you put cards parallel to the screen (in the double slit experiment) you would see the wavefunction (as on the screen). I don't think the particle travels on all paths at once. It rather jumps from one to the other, within the confines of the wavefunction the wavefunction accompanied the particle — EugeneW

An electron fired ONE AT A TIME from the source, through the slits forms an interference pattern on the screen, unless you put a detector behind the slits. Doing so, will 'collapse the wavefunction' and you will see two lines on the screen instead of the interference pattern. This is the 'measurement problem.' As far as I have read, further efforts have been made to show that it is not some 'affect of the detector' (such as the detection method used by the detector causing the electrons to change their path). So Feynmann suggested that each single electron passes through both slits and effectively 'interferes with itself'. His 'thought experiment' was that the single electron takes all known paths. You say it 'jumps from path to path.' This idea is just as confusing for me. How would 'jumping' allow a single electron to pass through both slits? The logic of 'jumping' would suggest passing through one slit, then stopping, changing direction, moving back, and onto another path and then moving through the second slit. Even as I type this, part of my conscience is telling me that my thinking of QM here is 'too conventional' but my brain fog continues for now on this topic. I get some relief from Feynman's comment of 'Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics. Sorry EugeneW, I appreciate your efforts so enlighten me on this topic but I must be too dense to fully grasp your logic. You seem quite convinced you understand exactly what's going on in the double-slit experiment. I am completely stumped by it for no. I defer to an old song by Toyah Willcox, 'Its a mystery,' (to me)

I did think of socialism as a 'progressive' ideology, as the progressive abolition of social and material limits for everybody. And construed as such that does kindof assumes material progress provided by industrialism and economic growth. And that seems hard to reconcile with living in harmony and within the limits of ecosystems... — ChatteringMonkey

But I suppose there are different blends of socialism — ChatteringMonkey

I am not sure that I understand all of your intended meaning based on the wording you typed above but I think it's true to suggest that there are different blends of people who claim the label of socialist and there are plenty of people who pretend to be socialist (from Hitler to Putin with many others in-between) when the label they have underneath the socialist label reads nefarious bas****. I subscribe to all of the basic tenets of 'traditional socialism' such as control over the means of production, distribution and exchange and from each according to their ability to each according to their need, nurture people not profit, etc.
But my socialism is completely democratic and socialism can never ever be imposed on any 'significantly sized group of dissenters,' great effort must be made to accommodate the main wishes of any large group of dissenters who live under a socialist system which has the consent and can maintain the consent of the majority of the population it represents.

We can only deal with the Earth's ecology from the reality of where it is right now rather than mull over exactly who is responsible for past damage done to the Earth due to industrialisation or past/current systemic desire for prioritising economic growth.
Any new/current technology developed/continued must now take ecological consideration to be a major factor when deciding whether or not a technology should be used or developed further.
This has to be a major tenet of 'true socialism.' All true socialisms must earn. learn and demonstrate 'Green credentials.' The SNP and the Green party in Scotland's attempt to find common ground is a good step in this direction.

10 000 tears... Very appropriate in this thread — EugeneW

Sorry, that was a wee typo. It should have been 10,000 YEARS but in the next sentence I state my opinion that these 10,000 years were mainly years of tears and slaughter. The past 10000 years is the period we humans have decided, just about covers the historical period of 'human civilisation', before that period we don't think there were human settlements that we could describe as civilised.