Cool Universe

mosii wrote: »

quantum superposition. This principle of quantum mechanics suggests that particles can exist in two separate locations at once.
The cat is dead and alive .

That's an inaccurate presentation of superposition present in popular books. Superposition is just that a particle has a chance to be detected in different places. Not that it is in two places at once. Quantum Theory doesn't say that a particle is in two places at once anywhere in its mathematics.

mosii wrote: »

Experts are Experts until some genius come along ,and re writes the text book written by experts.consciousness is connected somewhere,i believe this to be true

Quantum Theory is a well defined subject. It simply doesn't involve consciousness as one of its basic precepts. That isn't changed by imagining that in the future somebody might explain consciousness with quantum mechanics.

You could say this about anything.

"Geology doesn't involve ghosts"
"Well maybe someday in the future somebody will rewrite the textbooks and show it does"

Fourier wrote: »

Quantum Theory was created in the 1930s. After the Victorian period. Also why do you keep talking about astronomy? It isn't being mentioned here.

You crack me up, this is an astronomy forum and 20 years ago I would have loved nothing better than to dismantle the pretense but it is a waste of time unless the readers want to be tortured following empirical wordplays that mean nothing.

Astronomy is based on space as a background, motions and positions of celestial objects relative to each other and fixed points depending on what is being considered and cause and effect where the motions of the planet intersect with Earth sciences like geology, climate and biology.

Over the years I have watched theorists acquire such a contrived language that nobody effin cares any more unless you haven't noticed.

Fourier wrote: »

Why does General Relativity correctly predict the orbit of Mercury then if it's so "meaningless" and contrived?

The guys here have problems recognising the orbital motion of Mercury around the Sun for goodness sake ! -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

As for relativity, do you really want to go there as that is based on a Victorian science fiction novel found on any bookshelf in the late 19th century -

" ‘Scientific people,’ proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause required for the proper assimilation of this, ‘know very well that Time is only a kind of Space....‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space " The Time Machine 1898

All relativity did was ruin a perfectly good science fiction novel. On the other hand a really good fiction novel about the excesses of Victorian mathematicians which give rise to the early 20th century dummies is Alice in Wonderland -

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/


I give you a quick tip from an astronomer - don't mix up timekeeping with time itself.

Fourier wrote: »

Why does it match the orbit of Mercury though, even highly precise observations of Mercury?

Slow down, you first have to get through a load of stuff first such as Sir Isaac's attempt to make time look like a timekeeping facility called the 'Equation of Time' which converts variations in the natural noon cycle into the average 24 hour cycle -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

He was imitating the earlier work of Huygens and his use of the Aequation as a function of the 24 hour day and the Lat/Long system -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12 constellations or makes an entire revolution in the ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are versed in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equal to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly just and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation" Huygens

https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html


Do you see the problem with Huygen's description ?

Fourier wrote: »

So are you saying everybody's observations of Mercury are incorrect? That it's not following the path telescopes around the world think it is taking at the times they think, but that the entire set of observations are all wrong.

Do you have a link to somebody you think does make the correct observations and their data?

Are you not interested in what Sir Isaac was doing with the Equation of Time even though the entire topic of relativity is based on the mistaken belief that timekeeping is time. Didn't think so but sit back and enjoy the story.

I love this stuff as Huygens equates the motion of the Sun through the constellations with the Earth's orbital motion through the constellations as this was the original framework used by the first heliocentric astronomers derived from Ptolemy. The problem with Huygen's description is that the Equation of Time is an outrigger of the calendar system where a value is required for February 29th day/rotation, a value that eventually was given by John Harrison.

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12 constellations or makes an entire revolution in the ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are versed in Astronomy. " Huygens

Now the axiom for the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun is based on the observation that the Sun crosses the constellations in 365 1/4 days while the axiom for daily rotation is the Sun appears to travel around the Earth in a sunrise/noon/sunset cycle where there is a symmetry but sunrise/noon and noon/sunset as described by Huygens.

Would you look at what Sir Isaac did by mixing up an observation for orbital motion (Earth around the Sun) with an observation for daily rotation (Sun around the Earth ) !!!! -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now
received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and
the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves
about the earth, or the earth about the sun" Newton

Dear oh effin dear !! and poor Kepler who never said such a thing -

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler


I am sure the absolute/relative idiots wouldn't know that Kepler doesn't deal with individual orbits but just a loose correlation between planetary periods and distance from the Sun with the above translated into expanded form -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Is this too much for you or do you want to continue ?.

Fourier wrote: »

I already know all of it. And relativity doesn't assume timekeeping is time. Einstein explicitly doesn't assume that, as often pointed out by Heisenberg.

Aw, don't go all dull on me now as the best part has to come yet with Sir Isaac's absolute/relative space and motion using a butchered version of Kepler's correlation using orbital periods.

Something tells me you are not up to speed on the whole spectacle while this is just normal conversation that anyone can understand with a bit of effort. To be fair, that might be a bit understated but you have the benefit of the doubt.

Nowadays nobody gives two flying f**ks anyway yet for people who want to go back to genuine astronomy they have to disentangle the parasitic relationship the experimental theorists attached to astronomy via Newton in the late 17th century.

So now people know what the Equation of Time(keeping) does and how Newton attached his idiosyncratic description as absolute/relative time to the two components made up of the natural noon cycle and the 24 hour cycle anchored to noon. The whole thing was bluffing but at least it is recognisable bluffing that the Victorians mathematicians never understood -

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach

I get a great kick out of that one because I know how it all works although I don't even consider it an achievement. The reactions today are all boring and not worth my time as being productive and creative with astronomy puts academic forensics into the realm as an effin chore and nothing else.

Fourier wrote: »

Okay.

Again very simple, do you have a source that you trust/believe that has what you consider correct measurements of Mercury's orbit?

Ah, you are no fun but then again, everyone else here is coming to terms with the actual motion of Mercury and Venus as they run their course behind and in front of the Sun seen from a slower moving Earth. They have permanent solar eclipse conditions where the framework uses the change in positions of the stars from left to right of the central Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth thereby setting the Sun up as a stationary reference rather than the older framework where the Sun moves through the constellations. In short, before you even consider Mercury, you have to adopt the new approach where the Sun is a stationary reference but that is not a big stretch -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Now back to forensics.

The first heliocentric astronomers accounted for the orbital motions of the slower moving planets using a stationary framework of background stars -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

Doesn't make much sense until it is converted into time lapse which is a contemporary innovation -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif


So, Kepler concentrates on Mars and registers that planet's motion over a 16 year period as seen from a faster moving Earth using the stationary background stars to gauge its direct/retrograde motions -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#/media/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

Now, this diagram is not geocentric as poor Isaac and the Wikipedia crowd like to think as Kepler, in gauging the motion of Mar, doesn't go beyond the 'centre' -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils,leading
the individual planets into their respective orbits,quite bare and
very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram,
Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the
'garlands' you see looped towards the center, with one extra,
making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its
circle sixteen times " Kepler Astronomia Nova 1609

So, Sir Isaac sees the diagram and thinks it is geocentric (relative space and motion) and then imagines if you plonk the Sun in the centre of the diagram (absolute space and motion) that the retrogrades disappear hence -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,..." Newton

To be fair, it is not nice watching the works of the original heliocentric astronomers botched so Sir Isaac could have his absolute/relative or true/apparent space and motion up and running. Nowadays I get the guilty pleasure of the giggles watching a mathematician trying to pretend he is an astronomy like a brexit politician makes things up as he goes along to suit himself.

I may as well be explaining the working of a Saturn V rocket to people playing around with words, nevertheless, if one person goes back to genuine astronomy and sees the necessary modifications required to partition the perspectives between the faster and slower moving planets seen from a moving Earth then this forensic treatment will be served.

Everything else is boring or a waste of my time.

Fourier wrote: »

Okay. Do you have a worked example of observations of Mercury's orbit using the method you espouse?

People are so cool as they attempt to make sense of empirical crap and waste their imagination on that account. The fact is that they can now move on or back to astronomy as it was originally practiced by enjoying how we come to understand the faster moving Mercury and Venus as seen from a slower moving Earth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg


Forensics is a genuine chore but necessary at present to clear out the voodoo merchants.

The crown jewel of theorists is meant to be the inverse square law as they call it but it was an attempt to fit astronomical predictions into a celestial sphere framework that emerged with accurate clocks in the late 17th century. This 'clockwork solar system' is a timekeeping contrivance which allows observers to predict astronomical events like transits as exact times and dates within the 365/366 day calendar system and comes down to us today as RA/Dec. It is further away from heliocentricity as the geocentric system was as it puts the Sun in a wandering motion along with the planets -

http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.gif


Newton attempted to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions which is why none of his followers have the slightest idea how to interpret observations and motions in space and make nuisances of themselves with their 'no centre/no circumference' celestial sphere universe that even the geocentric astronomers hated -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
centre. Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For the Universe will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa, 15th century

What is people like to say ? - garbage in and garbage out which sums up astrophysics while genuine astronomy is there for everyone else. The whole purpose is that the shelf life of voodoo merchants has passed with too many images and time lapse observations to enjoy. I am sure you will have a die-hard audience but they also haven't shown much confidence or competence in the relevant areas.

oriel36 has no intention of answering your question. His only aim is to troll yet another thread with mad ideas about the planets, as he has done 43 times so far on this recent one and many hundreds of times elsewhere over a period of years. He will never answer a direct question, and seems incapable of analytical thought. No coherent conversation with him is possible as he will just write the same nonsense over and over no matter what he is asked. Attempts to engage with him are futile and can only result in another wrecked thread.

Fourier wrote: »

So the answer is no, you don't have detailed observations of Mercury using your method.

To be fair, people no longer have an interest in Royal Society voodoo but if they choose to pursue how society spent 100 years following 'The Time Machine' fiction novel as facts they are better off looking at a work of fiction which contained a commentary on the Victorian mathematicians and their excesses -

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/

Mathematicians today following these Victorian mathematicians pride themselves in their non-descriptions which is basically the chesire cat as Lewis Carroll saw them -

https://www.catster.com/lifestyle/cheshire-cat-lewis-carroll


Any value of forensics is back at the juncture where geocentricity and heliocentricity meet as some of the difficulties for genuine astronomers at that time were far too complex and intricate to deal with so they did their best. I can only go so far dealing with the forensics where experimental theorists that began with Newton hijacked astronomy but as a topic it is throwing good information after bad and ultimately counter-productive for today's world.

Nobody needs time,space and motion defined for them as Sir Isaac tried to do but if people choose to inspect how that icon was defining things to suit themselves they can go through the descriptions here and have a good old laugh at the attempted distortions he tried to impose on genuine astronomical methods and insights.

No offence, but conversing with a parrot ain't my idea of a conversation so it ends just as predicted.

ps200306 wrote: »

I've read that sandwich integrals are also used in QFT but that the quantum states are "operator valued". What does that mean?

There can be a bit of confusion in how this is explained in many places on the net, so what I say here might not match with some places online. That's simply because they're wrong. It will match textbooks on QFT like Peskin and Schroeder. The first thing to say is that the states are not operator valued but the fields.

So basically as I assume you know operators can act on states. In basic quantum mechanics the operators are things like momentum, position, Energy etc. Later you might encounter things called POVMs. These are observables that don't correspond to any classical quantities.

In classical field theory you have object like the electric field, the magnetic field and so on. Just like how position in classical mechanics become operators in quantum mechanics, so do the fields in Classical Field Theory become operators in Quantum Field Theory.

Where as the fields in the classical field case are number or vector etc valued at each point, the fields in quantum field theory are operator valued at each point. That operator representing observing the value of the field at that point.

I think Feynman was right, no one truly understands Quantum Mechanics or even Quantum field theory.I certainly dont, but i still think eventually there will be some sort of unified theory,which will go a long way to enlighten things, to me anyway,thanks for info guys.

Fourier wrote: »

In classical field theory you have object like the electric field, the magnetic field and so on. Just like how position in classical mechanics become operators in quantum mechanics, so do the fields in Classical Field Theory become operators in Quantum Field Theory.

Where as the fields in the classical field case are number or vector etc valued at each point, the fields in quantum field theory are operator valued at each point. That operator representing observing the value of the field at that point.

So is QFT an extension of wave mechanics to include fields, i.e. we still have the old operators plus additional ones for fields? I presume that means the fields themselves are quantised? But hang on, the Hamiltonian in wave mechanics includes a potential term which would be determined by a -- now quantised -- field value. How do we then find energy eigenvalues for a given state? Just had a light bulb moment, possible a very dim one -- is this where renormalisation comes in?