Visualizations without space-time or light

[wawens]

Trying to 'visualize' phenomena at sub atomic sizes is imposssible because our idea of visualization relies on space time and light. Its similar to trying to put real meaning to imaginery numbers. Does 'i' exist or not. What does a photon 'look like' - has no meaning because we cannot bounce a photon off a photon and 'look' at it. Similarly, when we talk about sub atomic particles we think of a tiny silver ball or such. It is of course nonsense because a particle has a size, a color and a position in our mind. How can a ball have no position or size? Position and size are space-time dimensions which cease to have the same meaning at sub atomic sizes. Even a 'cloud' has a size and a location which in reality cannot be true because there is not the space-time to support that visualization.

My point is that this lack of ability to 'visualize' at the suba atomic level is not simply a trivial disadvantage to us (non mathematicians), rather its a huge disadvantage in a fundamental way. Thats why we do not 'understand' quantum phenomena in a visual simple way, yet the maths copes with it just fine. I mean can you visualize an Eigen value? Answer is no, yet the Universe has no problem with them.

What really fascinates me is what exists where there is no space-time at all. Like outside the Universe? Or am I falling into the same trap I mentioned above. Can there be a lot of 'activity' without dimension or time? If so what is it?


What do you think?

 

[Mentz114]

My point is that this lack of ability to 'visualize' at the suba atomic level is not simply a trivial disadvantage to us (non mathematicians), rather its a huge disadvantage in a fundamental way.

Not being able to 'visualise' quantum phenomena is par for the course. The equations are the important thing.

Even a 'cloud' has a size and a location which in reality cannot be true because there is not the space-time to support that visualization.

I don't understand this at all. Space-time is everywhere and everywhen , surely ?

What really fascinates me is what exists where there is no space-time at all. Like outside the Universe?

By definition, nothing can be outside the universe.

 

[wawens]

'Spacetime is everywhere' is odd logic, because everywhere implies a place in space time - it beggars the question.
'Where was the big bang' is an illogical question as there was no 'where' or 'was'.

So was a point floating around in nothingness that decided to explode forming a Universe. Well what about another point next to it?

I am saying that as length tends to zero our human spacetime visualizations are not appropriate.
Photons seem to arrive at various places from other places, but the journey between the two is thoroughly confusing if one tries to 'picture' it. For example, how 'long' is a fixed momentum photon that travels 100 miles? Which path did it take? Which slit did it go through (in Young's slits) etc. The math copes fine, but our imagination just fails utterly and that's what I find interesting because it means that we are not thinking in an appropriate way. Is it impossible for us because we are spacetime beings? Are there other beings that don't need spacetime? (if so what do they look like - lol).

 

[DaveC426913]

Lose the word visualize and use the word conceptualize.

Conceptualizing things is merely matter of throwing off our old, classical models of conceptualizing events and creating new ones.

We didn't used to be able to conceive of curved space-time or of time dilation but now we can, once we see the functions as cause-and-effect relationships (I put this initial value in, I get this out - do that across a lot of values simultaneously and you can conceptualize these new physics phenom).

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Dave's point about conceptualizing things is good, but I think that your notion it's impossible to visualize things that do not have any visual existence is incorrect. Take a magnetic field, for example; that has no physical reality that would bear light reflecting off of it, but it can be visualized with a simple line drawing or even with a 3D rendering of translucent or cut-away isosurfaces.

Or take an x-y plot of stellar mass to median frequency of radiation; that's a representation which has no relationship either to something visible or to anything with spatial extents resembling the shape or distribution you see in the plot; yet it's a visualization.

Also, I'm not sure if what you're saying in general about quantum stuff is true anyways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the lobes of the isosurface of an electron shell, for example, aren't purely conceptual but are related to actual x-y-z coordinates in space around the nucleus of an atom: "real" space and time extents whatever your opinion is of the reality of the quantum phenomena themselves is or what that isosurface may represent.

I think you may be confusing something that one could imagine as tangible, with something that could be visualized.

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

Or take an x-y plot of stellar mass to median frequency of radiation; that's a representation which has no relationship either to something visible or to anything with spatial extents resembling the shape or distribution you see in the plot; yet it's a visualization.

Yep. Any graph of a function is, by definition, cause and effect (input x always gives a unique output y). We can easily conceive of this relationship even when it gets quite complex.

 

[Mentz114]

Is it impossible for us because we are spacetime beings? Are there other beings that don't need spacetime? (if so what do they look like - lol).

Oh, come on. This is not physics. What is a 'space-time' being ?

 

[kenewbie]

iX certainly exists as much as any other number. It is no more special than a negative number (which is a relatively new invention) which in turn is just as real as a natural number.

And numbers are just as real as words, in fact they *are* words, just more precise quantifications of "normal" words. You might say that a tennis ball is too heavy, or that it is like hitting a bag of flour, or you may say that it is 1kg. It is the same, just a varying degree of specificity.

A word can have a meaning without a corresponding physical object, say -- "dragon", which is a theoretical construct -- yet the word has conceptual meaning. In the same way, numbers have meaning regardless of the actual physical reality. Both convey ideas.

And the same goes for visual representations. Visualizing something helps you think, regardless of how correct the visualization is. It is one of our main tools for understanding the world, and avoiding it just because something cannot be seen is erroneous.

On top of that, who says something we cannot measure with light cannot be seen? Perhaps we can reconstruct it's physical layout by measuring other properties? Certainly you can tell a ball from a square by feeling if you are put in a room without light? Or could you not put it in a shadowy corner, yet find the structure by rolling balls against it and checking their exit path? Or weigh the item and calculate its mass?

There are many ways to infer physical characteristics from an object without looking at it, some lend themselves "easier" to visualization than others, but even weight helps. Any object with a non-zero restmass consists of matter, no? You might have to reinvent how you interpret it later, but how bad can it really be if you visualize it as a gray ball?

k

 

[ZapperZ]

Trying to 'visualize' phenomena at sub atomic sizes is imposssible because our idea of visualization relies on space time and light. Its similar to trying to put real meaning to imaginery numbers. Does 'i' exist or not. What does a photon 'look like' - has no meaning because we cannot bounce a photon off a photon and 'look' at it. Similarly, when we talk about sub atomic particles we think of a tiny silver ball or such. It is of course nonsense because a particle has a size, a color and a position in our mind. How can a ball have no position or size? Position and size are space-time dimensions which cease to have the same meaning at sub atomic sizes. Even a 'cloud' has a size and a location which in reality cannot be true because there is not the space-time to support that visualization.

My point is that this lack of ability to 'visualize' at the suba atomic level is not simply a trivial disadvantage to us (non mathematicians), rather its a huge disadvantage in a fundamental way. Thats why we do not 'understand' quantum phenomena in a visual simple way, yet the maths copes with it just fine. I mean can you visualize an Eigen value? Answer is no, yet the Universe has no problem with them.

What really fascinates me is what exists where there is no space-time at all. Like outside the Universe? Or am I falling into the same trap I mentioned above. Can there be a lot of 'activity' without dimension or time? If so what is it? What do you think?

Can you describe for me how you were able to "visualize" the Principle of Least Action?

Zz.

 

[Werg22]

But your argument really extends to more than that. It's not only visualization, it's all of our senses. Any information that we gather has to be processed through our senses - hence, whenever we're trying to explain a phenomenon, we have to relate it to something we can sense (this ranging from analogies to equations on a piece of paper). I'm not sure whether or not this is a disadvantage. If our limited senses do not allow us to sense the effect of say, a 'hidden' particle, then so what? If it has no effect on what we observe, then surly science does not need it.

 

[wawens]

Some are missing the point...

I believe many of us are 'explaining away' a fundamental brick wall in understanding.
One 'particle' going through two 'apertures' at once -Youngs slits, for example- is not 'understandable' because we live in space-time. A tiny ball cannot go through two apertures at once, please don't say it can! So it cannot 'be' a tiny ball at all. Thats just a simple example of what we cannot visualize. Have you read some of the other quantum predictions - they are so very very bizarre. I'll dig some out if maybe.
Yet the math has no problem with it. Don't forget the entire Universe apparently arose from a 'point' or some say 'nothing'. Where was the point? What time did it go bang? Were/are there other points 'near' it? What does 'no thing- nothing' really mean? All these questions are posed in space time where we live (where, what time, near it, even a point must have a size). But entities could exist in other dimensions, if so, how can we start to think about them? Does 'exist' for us mean a size and time? What can 'exist' that has no size at all? No size at all means no thing - nothing.

Photons do not live in time, if I was a photon, I would set off from the big bang and arrive at the end of the Universe in no time at all. I would also believe the distance I had traveled was zero even though to us space-timers the photon was very old and had traveled for billions of years. Photons live 'below' our x,y,z world, so to speak. That is why we are hard pressed to visualize them correctly - if at all. How can we 'describe' something with no time or length?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

A tiny ball cannot go through two apertures at once, please don't say it can! So it cannot 'be' a tiny ball at all. Thats just a simple example of what we cannot visualize. Have you read some of the other quantum predictions - they are so very very bizarre. I'll dig some out if maybe.
Yet the math has no problem with it.

How can the same electrical current either flow through a serial circuit or a parallel circuit?

In a water-filled wave tank you can directly watch a macro-sized compression wave - which we know the quantum entities we call “particles” are to some extent equivalent to - go through two apertures at once.

Like I said, you aren't talking about whether these things can be visualized, but whether they can be imagined as tangible. If you're pointing out that quantum physics is really totally unlike the tangible world, you're correct. But so are many other things that we don't have any problem visualizing.

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

One 'particle' going through two 'apertures' at once -Youngs slits, for example- is not 'understandable' because we live in space-time. A tiny ball cannot go through two apertures at once, please don't say it can! So it cannot 'be' a tiny ball at all. Thats just a simple example of what we cannot visualize. Have you read some of the other quantum predictions - they are so very very bizarre.

I really don't think you're giving 'many of us' much credit at all.

You seem to be implying that we are incapable of thinking of an electron as anything other than a ... what did you call it? "A tiny ball".

Speaking only for myself, I haven't been that ignorant since I was ... well, I never was.

 

[ZapperZ]

I believe many of us are 'explaining away' a fundamental brick wall in understanding.
One 'particle' going through two 'apertures' at once -Youngs slits, for example- is not 'understandable' because we live in space-time. A tiny ball cannot go through two apertures at once, please don't say it can! So it cannot 'be' a tiny ball at all. Thats just a simple example of what we cannot visualize. Have you read some of the other quantum predictions - they are so very very bizarre. I'll dig some out if maybe.
Yet the math has no problem with it. Don't forget the entire Universe apparently arose from a 'point' or some say 'nothing'. Where was the point? What time did it go bang? Were/are there other points 'near' it? What does 'no thing- nothing' really mean? All these questions are posed in space time where we live (where, what time, near it, even a point must have a size). But entities could exist in other dimensions, if so, how can we start to think about them? Does 'exist' for us mean a size and time? What can 'exist' that has no size at all? No size at all means no thing - nothing.

Photons do not live in time, if I was a photon, I would set off from the big bang and arrive at the end of the Universe in no time at all. I would also believe the distance I had traveled was zero even though to us space-timers the photon was very old and had traveled for billions of years. Photons live 'below' our x,y,z world, so to speak. That is why we are hard pressed to visualize them correctly - if at all. How can we 'describe' something with no time or length?

But maybe you are trying to force something to behave in ways it isn't!

From very far, everything looks like a "sphere". If I'm far enough from you, you look like a dot. Suddenly, as I get closer to you, I complain that you don't look like a dot, and it makes no sense now why I should give up my description of you as a dot. Do I'm insisting that you no longer makes any sense because you are not a dot!

The quantum description makes the idea of "position", for example, to be VERY different than what we use in classical description. It isn't JUST that a particle as no definite position. It is the whole notion of what a measurement is that is being revamped. It has nothing to do with the particle. It has everything to do with us insisting that the notion of position, momentum, energy, time, etc. are still valid at that scale. You are trying to force a square object through a round hole, and just blaming the hole.

You also need to reexamine your yardstick of what you accept. Using "common sense" doesn't cut it, because we have seen already that what we think to not make any sense is in fact that is happening. Special Relativity is a prime example. Your object to QM is simply based on YOUR matter of tastes, which has never been a valid object to anything in physics. The fact that empirical evidence more and more are confirming the QM description is one very powerful aspect that simply can't be ignored. It certainly trumps any argument based on tastes.

I still want to know how you are able to visualize the principle of least action, so much so that you have complain against it.

Zz.

 

[wawens]

Thanks PF Mentor for valuable input.

I appear a dot from a distance? Yes but that begs the question
because you use the term 'distance' - space-time again. Photons
only interact and have no appearance at all. Also, we
speak about elementary particles - as if they are tiny balls. A neutrino,
a quark etc etc.

Do you rememeber when philosphers got hold
of a piece of physics (Copenhagen for eg)
and came up with the concept that a tree in
a forest does not exist if you are not looking
at it. Its referring to entangled particles that
only 'exist' when observed I believe.

Also, Prof Wheeler and his idea that we (the observer)
is participating in Young's slits simply by observing,
or what about, the Multiverse theorem to explain Young's slits
(there is a second particle that goes through the second
slit that is derived from a split Universe).

OK, OK the Math works great and predicts everything correctly.
But let's revisit visualization and at least define exactly why
we have problems. Perhaps it needs psychologists, philosophers
and biologist, even sociologists input because physicists seem
to lack ability in this area. We are always fobbed off with a
weakly stated 'we don't really know what it looks like, but
can predict...' Lecturers/Profs often look abashed and apologetic
about it, then quickly get on with the Math. Perhaps we don't have
the correct vocabulary?

What about a huge computer program - it has no size, could represent
reality in a 3D world, could have quantum physics built in, yet its
just a programme. Epistemology as something. see David Deutsch lecture.
Knowledge has no size or time, yet if its used in a piece of deep space
the size of the solar system a reasearch institute could be made. (there
are enough atoms to build it)

Not to mention evolution that seems to be proceeding in a direction as if
driven by a field of some sort.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks PF Mentor for valuable input.

I appear a dot from a distance? Yes but that begs the question
because you use the term 'distance' - space-time again. Photons
only interact and have no appearance at all. Also, we
speak about elementary particles - as if they are tiny balls. A neutrino,
a quark etc etc.

You missed the point!

The point here is that in one "scale" a system can adequately "seen" to be one thing, and in another scale, it looks completely different! You complained that at the quantum scale, all the rules that you know and love from the classical world doesn't apply! Well here's a simple analogy that you can wrap your head around!

Also, Prof Wheeler and his idea that we (the observer)
is participating in Young's slits simply by observing,
or what about, the Multiverse theorem to explain Young's slits
(there is a second particle that goes through the second
slit that is derived from a split Universe).

So? Again, you are hanging on dearly to your square object and blaming the round hole. How do you know that it is your square object that is at fault?

We physicists have been accused by many crackpots for trying to hang on to the status quo and not wanting to go "outside the box". Yet, here, it seems that we are the ones who clearly don't have a problem with abandoning the square object and realizing that the round hole isn't to be blamed.

OK, OK the Math works great and predicts everything correctly.
But let's revisit visualization and at least define exactly why
we have problems.

Not until you tell me how you are able to visualize the Principle of Least Action. You blame QM for not having things that you can visualize. So presumably, you are able to visualize things in classical physics. So show me how you visualize that principle, please. This, I believe, is the THIRD TIME I've asked you this.

Zz.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

But let's revisit visualization and at least define exactly why we have problems. Perhaps it needs psychologists, philosophers and biologist, even sociologists input because physicists seem to lack ability in this area. We are always fobbed off with a weakly stated 'we don't really know what it looks like, but can predict...' Lecturers/Profs often look abashed and apologetic about it, then quickly get on with the Math. Perhaps we don't have the correct vocabulary?

I think that rather it's because you don't understand or aren't interested in the vocabulary that's being used. There are tons of different visualizations of the things you've talked about, and there are all sorts of other non-visible non-space-and-time things that have been very successfully visualized in the field of physics.

At this point you're simply ignoring anything presented that doesn't fit with your thesis. You also keep saying “us” and talking about problems “we” have in a clumsy attempt to impute your conclusions. If this is the kind of input you're talking about from other fields into physics it definitely would not improve anything.

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

I confess wawens, I think you're projecting your beliefs onto us (Even while you categorize us as an "us").

I would prefer you stick to telling me what you believe you can't conceptualize. I reserve the right to be the final arbiter of what I can or can't conceptualize.

Now, I would be open to you convincing me that I am not properly conceptualing something. But you'll have to convince me explicitly; I'm not about to accept your blanket claim that "we", as a rule, are incapable of doing so.

 

[wawens]

Yes (in my opinion), its impossible to visually model a single photon of fixed momentum (hence frequency) that starts off from a point and spreads into a 3D space (just ONE example among millions). Its impossible because there is no 'dimension' associated with the photon therefore there is no visual represention possible.
It also does not in reality have a visual model. A conceptual model is possible, but that is a math model. Voila.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes (in my opinion), its impossible to visually model a single photon of fixed momentum (hence frequency) that starts off from a point and spreads into a 3D space (just ONE example among millions). Its impossible because there is no 'dimension' associated with the photon therefore there is no visual represention possible.

If there are no dimensions associated with a photon, how are we able to measure the speed of light?

Zz. (still waiting for your visualization of Least Action Principle)

 

[wawens]

Watch this very clever physicist skirt round the lack of ability to visualize
and then carry on as if nothing important happened!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbiQ61NScU0&feature=related

 

[ZapperZ]

Watch this very clever physicist skirt round the lack of ability to visualize
and then carry on as if nothing important happened!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbiQ61NScU0&feature=related

Don't sell yourself short. You are very good at skirting around as well. I've been trying to get you to tell me how you visualize the Least Action Principle, and you've avoided in answering that from the very beginning.

:)

Zz.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I have yet to see a QM theory that requires maths alone to visualise it. Even philosophy can create a new language from logic and maths. I see no reason why non mathematicians can at least grasp the concept if not the maths. Even though I have at least some maths skills myself. I first learned about GR,SR and wave particle duality before I learned about maths. I'm sure say field theory requires maths, but I'm also sure enough that someone could probably make a graphical representation which would enable the maths to be shown, and at least a glimpse of the concepts. If not then surely it means the language we have does not depict anything pictorial, and if that is the case we need new language, or better microscopes. Or maybe a new brain.

 

[wawens]

Don't sell yourself short. You are very good at skirting around as well. I've been trying to get you to tell me how you visualize the Least Action Principle, and you've avoided in answering that from the very beginning.

:)

Zz.

Zapper - Regarding the 'The Least Action Theory'. I am afraid I don't see how it relates
to our inability to visualize. It is a smart way of arriving at formulae. Also, I would
not expect the Universe to do anything else but take the least action, why would it?
But, please spend some time and educate me if you believe its crucial, I'd love to know.

 

[wawens]

I have yet to see a QM theory that requires maths alone to visualise it. Even philosophy can create a new language from logic and maths. I see no reason why non mathematicians can at least grasp the concept if not the maths. Even though I have at least some maths skills myself. I first learned about GR,SR and wave particle duality before I learned about maths. I'm sure say field theory requires maths, but I'm also sure enough that someone could probably make a graphical representation which would enable the maths to be shown, and at least a glimpse of the concepts. If not then surely it means the language we have does not depict anything pictorial, and if that is the case we need new language, or better microscopes. Or maybe a new brain.

I believe its time to re-examine why we are having problems visualizing photons. Its kind of crucial in my opinion. Penrose says that when the Universe exands and expands until matter has turned to light (protons radiate decaying), then there is no matter to 'make a clock' and the Universe loses track of time. AT this point we are back at the big bang - why? Because photons have no time and to them a huge Universe is the same as a point - or see for yourself at the reference below.

But again, if a quantum entity has no shape, size or time then what is it? IMHO we cannot say and don't understand. But the math is fine..


I have transcribed Penroses interview into text at:
http://www.ronsit.co.uk/PenroseYouTube.asp
Its a wonderful theory IMHO.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Thanks I'll take a look later. Bear in mind though just to be absolutely clear I wasn't disagreeing with anyone, thus my comments at the end of post #23.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper - Regarding the 'The Least Action Theory'. I am afraid I don't see how it relates
to our inability to visualize. It is a smart way of arriving at formulae. Also, I would
not expect the Universe to do anything else but take the least action, why would it?
But, please spend some time and educate me if you believe its crucial, I'd love to know.

Let me remind you of your original complain:

Trying to 'visualize' phenomena at sub atomic sizes is imposssible because our idea of visualization relies on space time and light. Its similar to trying to put real meaning to imaginery numbers. Does 'i' exist or not. What does a photon 'look like' - has no meaning because we cannot bounce a photon off a photon and 'look' at it. Similarly, when we talk about sub atomic particles we think of a tiny silver ball or such. It is of course nonsense because a particle has a size, a color and a position in our mind. How can a ball have no position or size? Position and size are space-time dimensions which cease to have the same meaning at sub atomic sizes. Even a 'cloud' has a size and a location which in reality cannot be true because there is not the space-time to support that visualization.

My point is that this lack of ability to 'visualize' at the suba atomic level is not simply a trivial disadvantage to us (non mathematicians), rather its a huge disadvantage in a fundamental way. Thats why we do not 'understand' quantum phenomena in a visual simple way, yet the maths copes with it just fine. I mean can you visualize an Eigen value? Answer is no, yet the Universe has no problem with them.

You complain that quantum mechanics has a "... huge disadvantage in a fundamental way..." because YOU cannot visualize it. I asked you how you are able to visualize a very classical principle such as Least Action principle, because I assume you can visualize that, or else you would be complaining about it as well. You haven't come up with an answer yet.

BTW, "eigenvalues" are also used in classical mechanics.

My point here is that you seem to be complaining about QM, yet there are similar difficulties in classical mechanics and E&M. Why aren't you complaining about those as well? Unless, of course, you can explain to me how you are able to "visualize" Least Action principle, how you are able to visualize the Green's function in classical E&M, how you are able to visualize conformal mapping, etc.. etc.

If you can't, then why are you only complaining about QM? Why aren't you complaining about classical mechanics and classical E&M, or all of physics for that matter? Do you see my point now?

Zz.

 

[wawens]

Let me remind you of your original complain:

My point here is that you seem to be complaining about QM, yet there are similar difficulties in classical mechanics and E&M. Why aren't you complaining about those as well? Unless, of course, you can explain to me how you are able to "visualize" Least Action principle, how you are able to visualize the Green's function in classical E&M, how you are able to visualize conformal mapping, etc.. etc.


Zz.

Isn't there a difference between a behaviour, a theorum, a computer program and an object in the Universe? An object has a size and a time associated with it,
but a math theorum or behaviour does not. A 3D program can mimic a real 3D world but has no weight, size or time and thus is not the real world, even though it can model it.
Its easy to visualize real objects that are above quantum thresholds, but below, its impossible to put a visualization on it. We end up saying 'they are weird' or 'welcome to the world of no one knows'. Photons are great examples. Even the name photon is not correct because that implies they are 'things'. The best we can do is predict what they do (sometimes), but we cannot say what they are.

I am not in a competition to prove myself correct, I am trying to unwrap some truth,
I am too old for jousting competitions unfortunately.

Please educate me - i am genuinely interested.

 

[ZapperZ]

In other words, you are not able, even after I've asked multiple times, to show me how you were able to "visualize" the Least Action principle.

This then clearly proves that your original complain rings hollow, and renders all your argument about quantum mechanics moot. You should have attempted to "educate" yourself first about physics before making such outlandish statement in your OP. Don't people do research first on what they wish to make statements on anymore nowadays?

Zz.

 

[wawens]

Visualizations

Yes, the visualization of principles, laws and theories is accomplished with
diagrams, graphs where necessary, but the visualization of small entities
such as photons is not possible at present.

One could for example put a story to a photon, saying "If you
were a photon, then you could travel for billions of years across
the Universe, but when 'you' stepped out at the other side then
no time at all would have passed for you". This picture arises
out of the fact that photons have no time dimension. It helps
us think about the Universe in a way that may supply answers,
but there is a problem because 'we' could not actually be a photon.

For example, a photon travels from the big bang to eternity in
no time at all (for it). A Universe that contained nothing but
photons can be said, in a sense, to have no size - a singularity.

I will return to this theme at a later date as I am sure it will gain
momentum especially as The Standard Theory has already accomplished
so much.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, the visualization of principles, laws and theories is accomplished with
diagrams, graphs where necessary, but the visualization of small entities
such as photons is not possible at present.

You have said nothing, when you cannot illustrate this with what I have requested. So show me (for the umpteenth time), how you visualize the Least Action principle.

If you continue to ignore this, then I would say that you have made a speculative, unverified statement that violates the PF guidelines.

One could for example put a story to a photon, saying "If you
were a photon, then you could travel for billions of years across
the Universe, but when 'you' stepped out at the other side then
no time at all would have passed for you". This picture arises
out of the fact that photons have no time dimension. It helps
us think about the Universe in a way that may supply answers,
but there is a problem because 'we' could not actually be a photon.

For example, a photon travels from the big bang to eternity in
no time at all (for it). A Universe that contained nothing but
photons can be said, in a sense, to have no size - a singularity.

You have confused "quantum physics" with "Special Relativity", the latter is an entirely classical physics. From this, it is clear that you have more of a problem with Special Relativity. You haven't even TOUCHED quantum mechanics at all in your complaint here, other than using the word "photon", which can easily be substituted with "light" and nothing would have changed.

There's a lot of misinformation being displayed here. I would not ask you to illustrate your understanding of either SR or QM. That would take forever to squeeze that out. All I want you to show is your visualization of the Least Action principle. And this will be the last time I will ask this.

Zz.

 

[Noone]

I was reading wawens comment's and thought's and it came very clear that those wernt really his...allthough my comment just there could be just speculation, i could point out what would make it correct-.-

ZapperZ-------(Least Action Principle), Could you post a link of a place where i can read up on that Principle

O and when he said (a universe that contained nothing but photons can be said, in a sense, to have no size- a singularity) LOL nothing is still somthing and that somthing would be it's size, so in a sense it has a size :D anywayZ please post a link for info on Least action principle, maybe i could do what he couldn't :/
Once so, I will most likly create it's concept of the Principle into a parable, once i understand in which way's it function's when used and applied within QM(and so much more :/)

 

[FlowerPUA]

In the 50's when LSD was legal, physicists used to take it as a tool to try and understand the concepts they had been researching…

I recall the story of one physicist who was working in electronics, he had been struggling with how to set up a circuit for a particular task, after taking LSD he was able to visualise the circuit and comprehend it all simultaneously… he went on to design the circuit and it worked.

Another biologist whilst on LSD found a way of inserting DNA into bacteria for creating things such as growth hormones etc. He won the Nobel Prize for his work.

Using such substances one is capable of comprehending things which a normal mind cannot.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Using such substances you are also capable of peeling yourself because you think you are an orange. I think it's a bit hit and miss to be honest. And it's called a trip because the effects can last 24 hours or more. I'd stick to the usual methods personally.

 

[FlowerPUA]

Using such substances you are also capable of peeling yourself because you think you are an orange. I think it's a bit hit and miss to be honest. And it's called a trip because the effects can last 24 hours or more. I'd stick to the usual methods personally.

HAHAHAHA!

I’ve never heard of the orange peeling stuff myself... it's more like 12/18 hours, and if you do it with a watcher then nothing bad can really happen... I’ve only tried LSA (the legal lysergic acid, closely related to LSD) and it does make you see things much more clearly, although admittedly I only took a low dosage (i.e. i wasn’t peeling my skin or experiencing hallucinations)