Probality and energy

Labarbapostiza

I'm confused about something....please correct my errors.

Take two photons. A 1 GHz and a 2 GHz photon. What we can say about the 2 GHz photon is that it has twice the energy of the 1GHz photon.

If the photon's wave is taken to be a probability density. And that the only difference between the more energetic photon and the less energetic is the higher energy photon has a greater probability of a collision over time or space. In the case of a collision with an electron. and the collision gives the electron momentum. Is this momentum simply a change in the shape of the electron's probability density?

To put what's puzzling me another way. If you kick a football, and the ball is given momentum. Then you kick the ball twice as hard, and it has greater momentum. Is the only difference between the two kicks, that the particles of the harder kick, have a greater probability of colliding over space and time, than the lighter kick?

When we transfer energy, like kicking a ball, is energy a thing at all, or are we in fact just altering probability densities?

Is energy, probability?

Morbert

The energy of a photon will affect the probability of it colliding with an electron, insofar as a photon is more likely to be absorbed if the photon's energy will excite the electron to an available energy level. But this doesn't mean more energy = more likely to be absorbed. X-rays, for example, are high energy photons that don't normally collide with our soft tissue, because the energy they would transfer to an electron is too large, and there is no corresponding excited state of the electron.

Labarbapostiza

Morbert wrote: »

The energy of a photon will affect the probability of it colliding with an electron, insofar as a photon is more likely to be absorbed if the photon's energy will excite the electron to an available energy level.

Well, if the wave of the photon represents the probability of finding that photon at a given point in space. If changing the frequency either decreases or increases the probability - as far as my fuzzy mind can tell me, the probability for a collision over a measure of unit distance is related to the root mean square of the wave over a single cycle.

Put this another way. A stationary detector will measure the energy of a 1 GHz photon as 1GHzh of energy. If you accelerate the detector, until the incoming photon is Doppler shifted to 2 GHz, that's what your detector will measure. But from all that I can see, all that's happened is from the perspective of the detector, all that is happened is the probability of the photon having a collision has been increased by a relative space time contraction.

Plus think, if the detector is stationary, and it measure a 2GHz photon. There isn't any difference between measuring a upshift 1 GHz photon.

If the energy is related to the frequency, and the frequency is a component of a probability density/wave.....where or what is the energy if it is not probability itself.

But this doesn't mean more energy = more likely to be absorbed. X-rays, for example, are high energy photons that don't normally collide with our soft tissue, because the energy they would transfer to an electron is too large, and there is no corresponding excited state of the electron.

No, that is not how an X-ray machine works. The hard tissue mostly stops the x-rays (some do pass through). The X-rays do collide with the soft tissue, but because of their high energy their deflection is slighter than lower energy photons.

Morbert

Well, if the wave of the photon represents the probability of finding that photon at a given point in space.

This is what it represents if you expand the wavefunction in a position basis and apply the Born rule. If you expand the wavefunction in an energy basis and apply the Born rule, it will report the probability of finding that photon with a given energy. In a momentum basis, it will report the probability of finding the photon with a given momentum. When you expand the wavefunction in an eigenbasis of an observable, it will report the probabilities associated with that observable.

Position, energy, momentum etc are all observables of the system. QM reports the probabilities associated with these observables, but the observables themselves aren't probability.

Accelerating your detector towards the photons will not simply mean the detector will detect more photons. The photons will also be blue-shifted.

No, that is not how an X-ray machine works

http://science.howstuffworks.com/x-ray1.htm

"The atoms that make up your body tissue absorb visible light photons very well. The energy level of the photon fits with various energy differences between electron positions. Radio waves don't have enough energy to move electrons between orbitals in larger atoms, so they pass through most stuff. X-ray photons also pass through most things, but for the opposite reason: They have too much energy."

Labarbapostiza

Morbert wrote: »

Position, energy, momentum etc are all observables of the system. QM reports the probabilities associated with these observables, but the observables themselves aren't probability.

Accelerating your detector towards the photons will not simply mean the detector will detect more photons. The photons will also be blue-shifted.

I was talking about blue shifting specifically. If you re-read what I've written. If you give the detector velocity, from the detector's perspective the photon has been blue shifted or red shifted.....or even laterally shifted.

Observables can be interpreted to be momentum, energy, position. But they are interpretations of the observation.

Something that really got me thinking about this. I watched a lecture recently where Hawking's black hole entropy was discussed. Gravity as entropy. So, I got thinking.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/x-ray1.htm

"The
atoms that make up your body tissue absorb visible light photons very well. The
energy level of the photon fits with various energy differences between electron
positions. Radio waves don't have enough energy to move electrons between
orbitals in larger atoms, so they pass through most stuff. X-ray photons also
pass through most things, but for the opposite reason: They have too much
energy."

I'm still right. You have it wrong headed. by your thinking all you'd need to do to get an x-ray from visible light is use bigger light bulbs. You'd cook the patient longer before you got anything like an x-ray image.

The X-ray photons have a greater probability of collision over space, and because of their higher energy, they're deflected less when they lose energy to the electrons they collide with.

Morbert

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I was talking about blue shifting specifically. If you re-read what I've written. If you give the detector velocity, from the detector's perspective the photon has been blue shifted or red shifted.....or even laterally shifted.

Observables can be interpreted to be momentum, energy, position. But they are interpretations of the observation.

Something that really got me thinking about this. I watched a lecture recently where Hawking's black hole entropy was discussed. Gravity as entropy. So, I got thinking.

These paragraphs are very disjointed. They don't seem to follow from your previous post, and they don't seem to be a response from my previous post.

You asked "what is the energy if it is not probability itself?". Energy is a property. When you expand the wavefunction in an energy eigenbasis, you will get probabilities associated with the possible energy states of the system. So energy is not probability. Probabilities are how we express information about the energy of the system.

It is true that each energy eigenstate, expanded in a position basis, will exhibit different probabilities for different position states, but that does not permit us to make a statement like energy is probability.

I'm still right. You have it wrong headed. by your thinking all you'd need to do to get an x-ray from visible light is use bigger light bulbs. You'd cook the patient longer before you got anything like an x-ray image.

The opposite follows from my thinking, which is also the thinking of radiologists. The reason your bones cast an X-Ray shadow is the difference in electron energy levels associated with their atoms more closely matches the energy of an X-Ray photon. Thus, X-Rays differentiate between bone and tissue. Visible light does not, and so a very large lightbulb would not give you an X-Ray image.

The X-ray photons have a greater probability of collision over space, and because of their higher energy, they're deflected less when they lose energy to the electrons they collide with.

You will have to be more explicit with what process you are referring to with "collision over space". Are you referring to a scattering process? Citing where you are getting your info would be preferable.

Labarbapostiza

Morbert wrote: »

These paragraphs are very disjointed. They don't seem to follow from your previous post, and they don't seem to be a response from my previous post.

Well the idea itself has me disjointed. I only really started thinking about it after watching a few different lectures, and it does sound immediately wrong.

You asked "what is the energy if it is not probability itself?". Energy is
a property. When you expand the wavefunction in an energy eigenbasis, you will
get probabilities associated with the possible energy states of the system. So
energy is not probability. Probabilities are how we express information about
the energy of the system.

It is true that each energy eigenstate,
expanded in a position basis, will exhibit different probabilities for different
position states, but that does not permit us to make a statement like energy is
probability.

Okay, I'm going to put it another way. For the sake of argument I'm going to say that a photon is a probability carrier. That on collision with an electron it can distort the electron's probability density.

Now, if you say a photon is an energy carrier, I can say "well how can you make photons", and you say "by shaking an electron", and I say "and how do you shake an electron"....and you say "with photons".....

The opposite follows from my thinking, which is also the thinking of
radiologists. The reason your bones cast an X-Ray shadow is the difference in
electron energy levels associated with their atoms more closely matches the
energy of an X-Ray photon. Thus, X-Rays differentiate between bone and tissue.
Visible light does not, and so a very large lightbulb would not give you an
X-Ray image.



You will have to be more explicit with what process
you are referring to with "collision over space". Are you referring to a
scattering process? Citing where you are getting your info would be preferable.

No, the x-ray imaging has nothing to do with spectral absorption, it's atomic scattering. The higher the energy the photon the smaller the scattering angle. The X-ray image is a very clear shadow. With the human body, soft tissue is more translucent than bone, when it comes to the x-rays. Some materials are translucent in visible light to greater or lesser extents, it's the same principle. Lower energy photons the scattering angle is much greater, it's too scattered to make an image, x-rays deviate little from their original path, so you can make an image.

X-rays that are spectrally absorbed by atoms will not contribute to the image they will blow the atom apart - they'll be part of the shadow.

papu

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Okay, I'm going to put it another way. For the sake of argument I'm going to say that a photon is a probability carrier. That on collision with an electron it can distort the electron's probability density.

Now, if you say a photon is an energy carrier, I can say "well how can you make photons", and you say "by shaking an electron", and I say "and how do you shake an electron"....and you say "with photons".....

You can "shake electrons" (Promote to higher energy levels) with other types of energy, not just photons.

I really don't understand the whole argument, yes particle wave duality, yes you can think about probability distributions, but the fact that there are Quantum fluctuations because of uncertainty does not mean that energy is probability.

Labarbapostiza

papu wrote: »

You can "shake electrons" (Promote to higher energy levels) with other types of energy, not just photons.

I really don't understand the whole argument, yes particle wave duality, yes you can think about probability distributions, but the fact that there are Quantum fluctuations because of uncertainty does not mean that energy is probability.

Okay, I'm quite tired and there's more to the whole thing.

Probability, as we understand it from maths, has no physicality. However, if you place it in space-time, does it become substantively physical.

Morbert

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Okay, I'm going to put it another way. For the sake of argument I'm going to say that a photon is a probability carrier. That on collision with an electron it can distort the electron's probability density.

Now, if you say a photon is an energy carrier, I can say "well how can you make photons", and you say "by shaking an electron", and I say "and how do you shake an electron"....and you say "with photons".....

In the context of a probability density, you can talk about how the density changes in different regions, and hence define a probability current, but a photon does not carry any electron probability density.

The relationship between photons and electrons is described by quantum electrodynamics. This is the theory you should reference when trying to understand electrons, photons, and their interactions.

No, the x-ray imaging has nothing to do with spectral absorption, it's atomic scattering. The higher the energy the photon the smaller the scattering angle. The X-ray image is a very clear shadow. With the human body, soft tissue is more translucent than bone, when it comes to the x-rays. Some materials are translucent in visible light to greater or lesser extents, it's the same principle. Lower energy photons the scattering angle is much greater, it's too scattered to make an image, x-rays deviate little from their original path, so you can make an image.

X-rays that are spectrally absorbed by atoms will not contribute to the image they will blow the atom apart - they'll be part of the shadow.

This is the second time you have made this claim without any references.

Hold a flashlight up to your thumb. You will see red light, pass through your thumb, but not blue light. The lower energy photons pass through your hand, while the higher energy photons scatter. You are claiming higher energy photons do not scatter as much, yet the opposite is the case.

soft tissue is more translucent than bone, when it comes to the x-rays

What, do you believe, is the reason for this? Could you also please explicitly reference the relevant scientific literature? Or is this your own theory?

Labarbapostiza

Morbert wrote: »

In the context of a probability density, you can talk about how the density changes in different regions, and hence define a probability current, but a photon does not carry any electron probability density.

There is no way you cannot tell that the photon is not a probability carrier. All we can witness is the movement of electrons, or a change in their probability density. The photon seems real to us, but essentially all it is, is a communication between electrons.

The reason the vacuum has a non zero energy, is due to probability. In a timeless space, the energy would be completely zero, as the fluctuations would be timeless. In a space with time, probability has a speed limit.

Apparently, using the techniques of QFT, the cosmological constant has been calculated to be in agreement with the 2011 Nobel prize winning observation (I haven't found out who did that - google is not friendly when it come to the words quantum). The quantum calculation gives a plus or minus answer, the observation is a plus value. Which could mean there is component space-time to our observable universe, where the cosmological constant is negative.

If the mass of the proton is mostly gluons, and if I say the gluons are probability carriers. The I might say, mass and gravity are the result of a probability entropy. If you take the vacuum to have a temperature due to quantum fluctuations. Then the various forces we see, could be the results of increasing or decreasing probability temperature.

Morbert

The probability of a glass of water being on my table now is 1. If I punch it off the table, the probability will change to 0. This does not mean my fist is a probability carrier.

Similarly, an electron can absorb/emit photons, but these photons aren't transporting probability. If you are careful, you can say they transport energy and are therefore an energy carrier, but they do not transport probability.

Labarbapostiza

Morbert wrote: »

The probability of a glass of water being on my table now is 1. If I punch it off the table, the probability will change to 0. This does not mean my fist is a probability carrier..

No, the probability of the glass being on the table is not 1. You can approximate it as being 1, but there is a probability it could be somewhere else in the universe. The force of your fist punching the glass will be photons. And those photons will change the probability of where you can find the glass in the universe. It will likely end up on the floor. Which we might say would be due to the probability altering effect of gravity.

We don't see quantum tunnelling of large objects, but it's readily observable with small masses like electrons. And the quantum tunnelling of photons was witnessed but not understood even before Newton.

Similarly, an electron can absorb/emit photons, but these photons aren't
transporting probability. If you are careful, you can say they transport energy and are therefore an energy carrier, but they do not transport probability

I have thought this one through. Take a person to be a Debroglie matter wave/particle. We know they're probably standing in a field in France. They take a flight to New York. We find this out through a communication system that relies on - say a photograph; atoms that have had their probability densities altered by photons. We know the French man is now in New York, or at least most of his probability density is. How did he get there? By manipulating photons to alter his probability density. Where actually is he? He's spread out across the entire universe.

Is this a very ugly idea? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Is it a testable hypothesis with measurable observables? It might be.

Morbert

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

No, the probability of the glass being on the table is not 1. You can approximate it as being 1, but there is a probability it could be somewhere else in the universe. The force of your fist punching the glass will be photons. And those photons will change the probability of where you can find the glass in the universe. It will likely end up on the floor. Which we might say would be due to the probability altering effect of gravity.

The probability is 1. After I knock it off the table, the probability is 0. My hand has not carried probability from one place to another, even though my hand has interacted with the glass. This is a simple point.

I have thought this one through. Take a person to be a Debroglie matter wave/particle. We know they're probably standing in a field in France. They take a flight to New York. We find this out through a communication system that relies on - say a photograph; atoms that have had their probability densities altered by photons. We know the French man is now in New York, or at least most of his probability density is. How did he get there? By manipulating photons to alter his probability density. Where actually is he? He's spread out across the entire universe.

Is this a very ugly idea? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Is it a testable hypothesis with measurable observables? It might be.

The problem isn't that the idea is ugly. It's just not correct to reduce fundamental particles like photons to probability carriers. The best theory we have of the photon and its interactions, QED, does not say photons are probability carriers.

Labarbapostiza

Morbert wrote: »

The probability is 1. After I knock it off the table, the probability is 0. My hand has not carried probability from one place to another, even though my hand has interacted with the glass. This is a simple point.

Simple, indeed.

Let's put it another way. There's an electron sitting on the table, and you knock it off with a photon. Is the probability of the electron being on the floor 1 or is there a probability that it's back on the table.

The problem isn't that the idea is ugly. It's just not correct to reduce
fundamental particles like photons to probability carriers. The best theory we have of the photon and its interactions, QED, does not say photons are
probability carriers.

There's no conflict between my hypothesis and QED. The quantum calculations that give space-time vacuums non-zero energies, use the same methods Feynman used for QED. The energy in the space-time vacuum; what is it. Can it really be called or thought of as energy. Getting the result that they seem to do, would appear to state that the non material abstract concept of probability, within the domain of space-time, is a material phenomenon. ....And if the vacuum fluctuation is the basis for all mater, then all mater originates from the same phenomena.

Labarbapostiza

Morbert........are you stumped?

SOL

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Simple, indeed.


There's no conflict between my hypothesis and QED. The quantum calculations that give space-time vacuums non-zero energies, use the same methods Feynman used for QED. The energy in the space-time vacuum; what is it. Can it really be called or thought of as energy. Getting the result that they seem to do, would appear to state that the non material abstract concept of probability, within the domain of space-time, is a material phenomenon. ....And if the vacuum fluctuation is the basis for all mater, then all mater originates from the same phenomena.

This thread seems to have descended into a bunch of words... it's not making a lot of sense to me.


Maybe, if you could provide us with a clear testable hypothesis?

Labarbapostiza

SOL wrote: »

This thread seems to have descended into a bunch of words... it's not making a lot of sense to me.

It's not word salad, but there are statements that appear to be nonsense. But, they may be true.

Today, the generally accepted theory of the universe is that it immerged from a vacuum fluctuation, or you could say it is a vacuum fluctuation. And this is what Lawrence Krauss' last book, A Universe from Nothing, is all about.

How you get a universe from nothing is due to probability.

Take a completely abstract timeless empty space. In classical probability for dealing with events within the world we're familiar with, you get a Gaussian distribution for random events. This is the bell shaped curve, with the most probable outcomes near the centre, and less probable events with diminishing probability to the sides. What happens to the Gaussian bell shape if you make time infinite or remove time. All events have infinite probability of occurring. What this would mean is empty space would be filled with infinite energy, this is obviously not the case. So, what we need is extended probability (extended by people like Dirac). In our extended probability we allow for negative probabilities. So, we now have positive infinite probabilities being cancelled by the negative infinite probabilities.

Notice how I switch between infinite energy and infinite probability. In our observable to everyone world, we see energy, masses, gravity, as real things. And, probability as an abstract mathematical concept. But is it?

Just to answer another question that might come up. If empty space has an infinite probability cancelling out a negative infinite probability, why does our universe exist at all? The reason is, our fluctuation has time. The cancelling fluctuation also has time; time that would cancel our time.

Maybe, if you could provide us with a clear testable hypothesis?

I just have a vague idea. Deriving the fine structure constant would be nice.

Anyway.....did I make myself clearer?

Morbert

Morbert........are you stumped?

What you are saying in your posts is contrary to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. I cannot do much more than repeat myself. Namely, you are contradicting the following two features of QM.

Observable properties are the point of contact between the theory of quantum mechanics and reality.

Probabilities quantify our knowledge of the likelihood of a system having an observable property.

It simply does not makes sense in the context of any physical theory to say probability itself is an observable property. Probability is how we describe properties.

If you want to build an alternative to quantum physics, go ahead. But unless your statements become grounded in current physics, there's not much I can contribute to the conversation.

Also

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

All events have infinite probability of occurring.

If the probability of an event occurring at least once, over the duration of a second, is P (where 0 < P < 1). The probability that an event occurs at least once over n seconds approaches 1 as n approaches infinity. Loosely speaking, if time stretches on to infinity, the probability of the event occurring would be 1, not infinite.

SOL

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

In classical probability for dealing with events within the world we're familiar with, you get a Gaussian distribution for random events. This is the bell shaped curve, with the most probable outcomes near the centre, and less probable events with diminishing probability to the sides. What happens to the Gaussian bell shape if you make time infinite or remove time. All events have infinite probability of occurring.

I think you should try and take one small part of this and produce one testable hypothesis... at the moment you have a bunch of words, which may mean something in your mind, but don't actually mean anything when you write them out.

Even the paragraph above, can you explain any of the statements you have made there?

Labarbapostiza

Morbert wrote: »

If you want to build an alternative to quantum physics, go ahead. But unless your statements become grounded in current physics, there's not much I can contribute to the conversation.

Are you in agreement or disagreement with the quantum fluctuation theory of the universe?

If the probability of an event occurring at least once, over the duration of a second, is P (where 0 < P < 1). The probability that an event occurs at least once over n seconds approaches 1 as n approaches infinity. Loosely speaking, if time stretches on to infinity, the probability of the event occurring would be 1, not infinite.

It was clear to you what I was saying.

I think I did a reasonable job of explaining the quantum fluctuation theory of the universe.

Labarbapostiza

SOL wrote: »

I think you should try and take one small part of this and produce one testable hypothesis... at the moment you have a bunch of words, which may mean something in your mind, but don't actually mean anything when you write them out.

Even the paragraph above, can you explain any of the statements you have made there?

I have made the point clear as I can make it. Morbert understands what I've said and disagrees with me.

You do not understand me, yet you disagree with me.

Labarbapostiza

SOL......Have you figured any of it out yet?......If not, read Krauss' book Universe from Nothing. I don't think he's anymore accessible than me, but if it's more important to you, who is saying something, than what is being said, than go with Dr Krauss.


I think Morbert is digging in their heels, but I believe the idea goes back as far as Dirac considering Heisenberg.

One of the big unsolved puzzles in science is gravity. General Relativity, the theory that mass/energy contracts space-time through observation appears to be correct, yet the idea is unfriendly to quantum theory for a number of reasons. Hawking's idea of gravity as quantum temperature, is an idea, but nothing on what the mechanism of this quantum temperature is. It's a good idea if you start thinking about it. And it's more parsimonious than the ideas that require gravitons acting on empty space or strings; that were once the great hope, but are now just tied up in knots. But it does mean something else, that GR is a little back to front. And the warping/contractions are not of space time, but of the masses/energies themselves.

If gravity is some kind of quantum temperature what is the mechanism for raising and lowering the temperature, we know it's something to do with proximity.

I don't have an easy graphics tool to make the point with, but imagine two masses at a distance in space......And we'll imagine these to be Debroglie Matter Waves. Think of them as wave shaped probability densities.

Imagine now, the quantum temperature of the Matter Waves on the proximate sides is higher than the QT on the distal sides. The two masses will be drawn together.....and you could think of repulsive forces as being a form of quantum cooling due to proximity.

Carawaystick

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Take a completely abstract timeless empty space. In classical probability for dealing with events within the world we're familiar with, you get a Gaussian distribution for random events. This is the bell shaped curve, with the most probable outcomes near the centre, and less probable events with diminishing probability to the sides. What happens to the Gaussian bell shape if you make time infinite or remove time. All events have infinite probability of occurring. What this would mean is empty space would be filled with infinite energy, this is obviously not the case. So, what we need is extended probability (extended by people like Dirac). In our extended probability we allow for negative probabilities. So, we now have positive infinite probabilities being cancelled by the negative infinite probabilities.

I think you've misunderstood the normal distribution.
The Normal Distribution curve is already an infinite curve, and the area under the curve is 1.

You start with a timeless space ( 1st sentence)
In sentence 4, you write about removing time, and in *this* timeless space you seem to think there's something different to the original timeless space.

Clarify this first.

Labarbapostiza

Carawaystick wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood the normal distribution.
The Normal Distribution curve is already an infinite curve, and the area under the curve is 1.

No, I have not misunderstood the Normal distribution. Take a normal distribution curve starting at 0, approaching a mean, and then diminishing to the limit of infinity. Normalise the area of the curve to 1. With that, if you do quantum fluctuations of a vacuum (of nothing), you approach infinite energy in every quanta of empty space.....This obviously is not happening. So, what you need is a reflection of the same normal distribution in the negative axis. Whose area you can normalise to -1. And if you sum both curves you get nothing. (In quantum calculations you get don't quite get nothing - you eventually reach a +/- value)

You start with a timeless space ( 1st sentence)
In sentence 4, you write
about removing time, and in *this* timeless space you seem to think there's
something different to the original timeless space.

Clarify this first.

A Euclidian geometry is timeless. Or a shape you can draw in Cartesian 3 dimensions, that represents a shape in the real world, is also timeless. Without time, the distance between a point A from a point B, is meaningless. The curve of the normal distribution is also time dependent. So in a timeless space, we could say the normal distribution has a rectangle in the positive axis, normalised to 1, and reflection in the negative axis, normalised to -1........You sum them and you get nothing.

The statements 0 = 0, is true, but it is more truer to say 0 = 0 +/-something - +/- something. Over time the instabilities in 0 sum to nothing. but that allows timeful universes to exist from absolutely nothing.