GR deals with what is Real.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 2019
58
1
Somewhere around 1 x 10-18g in a vacuum is a new constant.

The diffraction gets too small to identify fringes. It's a natural size for the object to be physical and to never be in superposition.

Uncollapsed(stateless | unphysical | virtual) Quantum Waves + State(Matter Field or wave collapse or decoherence) + zero Diffraction showing fringes = Physical Matter (Real)

If an object is too large to display fringes, it is automatically physical. The question now is if auto-physical objects have a physical state or maybe being naturally physical doesn't require it.

Do I need to claim there is a physical state in the first place for even quantum sized objects if it is the same thing as: wave collapse, decoherence, and zero diffraction?

There has to be something that causes a particle to be physical or not before it even starts moving. If it is to only be a wave in flight, duality doesn't apply. But if physical, duality is allowed. Maybe I need a different term for "physical state".

If I started using "Real" instead of "physical state" would that get physicists off my back about mass meaning a physical property?

GR deals with what is Real.
Wave Collapse, Decoherence, and Zero Diffraction cause something to be Real.

We just need GR to handle duality for Unification.
GR for reality
QM wave function for unreal (probabilities only)

Does this mean Diffraction is directly related to Superposition?
 
Last edited:

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
2,926
608
On the dance floor, baby!
Somewhere around 1 x 10-18g in a vacuum is a new constant.

The diffraction grating gets too small to identify fringes. It's a natural size for the object to be physical and to never be in superposition.

Uncollapsed(stateless | unphysical) Quantum Waves + State(Matter Field or wave collapse or decoherence) + zero Diffraction = Physical Matter (Real)

If an object is too large to display fringes, it is automatically physical. The question now is if auto-physical objects have a physical state or maybe being naturally physical doesn't require it.

Do I need to claim there is a physical state in the first place for even quantum sized objects if it is the same thing as: wave collapse, decoherence, and zero diffraction?

There has to be something that causes a particle to be physical or not before it even starts moving. If it is to only be a wave in flight, duality doesn't apply. But if physical, duality is allowed. Maybe I need a different term for "physical state".

If I started using "Real" instead of "physical state" would that get physicists off my back about mass meaning a physical property?

GR deals with what is Real.
Wave Collapse, Decoherence, and Zero Diffraction cause something to be Real.

We just need GR to handle duality for Unification.
GR for reality
QM wave function for unreal

Does this mean Diffraction is directly related to Superposition?
Where are you getting this stuff from?

Mass is a physical property and is going to remain categorized as such unless you have actual proof (not theory) that it is not. Even when we talk about the spontaneous symmetry breaking in Electroweak theory and we "relax" the definition of a mass and make it imaginary, the higgs still has a physical mass. The imaginary mass is simply an artifact of the phase change, so the mass is still real in the end.

Something that may interest you if you haven't run across it: We've been doing x-ray diffraction for decades using a crystal lattice as a diffraction grating. I don't know exactly what the spacing of the grating would be but I imagine it's in the ball park of a couple of Angstsroms. That would be about as small as we can get for the spacing in a diffracton grating and we can still get good patterns out of it.

You seem to be trying to "glue" a bunch of little bits of unrelated theory together into a whole. My recommendation would be to study these things separately and then come back to it later on.

Uncollapsed(stateless | unphysical) Quantum Waves + State(Matter Field or wave collapse or decoherence) + zero Diffraction = Physical Matter (Real)
Physical particles are physical particles and virtual particles are virtual particles. That's just the way it is. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

-Dan
 
Jun 2016
1,142
514
England
What is Real?

This is actually not an easy question.

I am having difficulty fully following your arguments,
but you seem to be suggesting that on very small scales the "reality" of physical objects is not 100%.

There is some sense in this argument as in QM "particles" are defined by probability functions.

Is this the sort of thrust of your argument?
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
58
1
Yes, you get it :)

I added probabilities to it, thanks
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
1,142
514
England
This opens up some awkward but interesting philosophical questions about the nature of "reality".

René Descartes showed that we have to conclude that there is something "real" with his <dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum> argument.
However on tiny scales this reality, in some form, appears somewhat blurry.

It is difficult to consider what being less than 100% real actually implies.

However, there are also free-will arguments that require a certain fluidity in reality to avoid a rigidly deterministic universe which does not allow for free-will.
 
Aug 2019
58
1
OP disappeared:

Somewhere around 1 x 10-18g in a vacuum is a new constant.

The diffraction gets too small to identify fringes. It's a natural size for the object to be physical and to never be in superposition.

Uncollapsed(stateless | unphysical | virtual) Quantum Waves + State(Matter Field or wave collapse or decoherence) + zero Diffraction = Physical Matter (Real)

If an object is too large to display fringes, it is automatically physical. The question now is if auto-physical objects have a physical state or maybe being naturally physical doesn't require it.

Do I need to claim there is a physical state in the first place for even quantum sized objects if it is the same thing as: wave collapse, decoherence, and zero diffraction?

There has to be something that causes a particle to be physical or not before it even starts moving. If it is to only be a wave in flight, duality doesn't apply. But if physical, duality is allowed. Maybe I need a different term for "physical state".

If I started using "Real" instead of "physical state" would that get physicists off my back about mass meaning a physical property?

GR deals with what is Real.
Wave Collapse, Decoherence, and Zero Diffraction cause something to be Real.

We just need GR to handle duality for Unification.
GR for reality
QM wave function for unreal (probabilities only)

Does this mean Diffraction is directly related to Superposition?
 
Jun 2016
1,142
514
England
Where did you go?

Hey SciFiMath,
Your original post has gone, leaving my answers hanging.
What happened?
 
Oct 2017
530
250
Glasgow
What is real?
That's a philosophy question to be honest. Physics is more concerned about measuring stuff and trying to explain those measurements. We can invent all sorts of mechanisms, mathematics and tricks to try and explain measurements, but verification does not necessarily mean that those mechanisms are "real".

Previous threads in this forum about EM fields also touched on this aspect. There's actually many different ways of modelling EM interactions, so how do we really try to understand how everything actually is? Physics doesn't really constrain different perspectives; only those perspectives or theories that misalign with real data are discarded (or at least left to remain as a teaching tool, like the Drude model).
 
Jun 2016
1,142
514
England
Should be Philosphy

Hi Benit, I agree...
Perhaps Topsquark could move it for us.

Note that there was originally another post before mine in this thread,
which has since disappeared,
Such that it looks as if I started the thread.

I wonder if this is another mysterious case of the new-members posts being lost.
 
Oct 2017
530
250
Glasgow
I wonder if this is another mysterious case of the new-members posts being lost.
Possibly. It's quite easy to delete posts after you've made them, so it really depends on whether SciFiMath decided to delete his own posts or whether it's something else. If it is something else, it's pretty serious!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.