all 7 comments

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Assuming that the energy is transferred to an atom, there are hidden variables in the phase of the receiving atom. This may indeed relate to some rotation mechanism, like the orbit of an electron.

In quantum mechanics, it is clear that particles do not simply behave like physical bodies. We can for example use an electron microscope as if the electrons behave similar to light. If we make very small objects on chips, we can see wave-effects too.

It is as if the single particles behave more as one system.

Light itself does not really work well as particles, especially if we look the electric field. It is very easy to have a constant electric field, but this is impossible in a particle system. Feinmann assumed that there were infinite (virtual) particles, but I personally prefer to see it as a simple field. Works better. Feinmann can created very complex models of very simple things.

If you have trouble understanding it, maybe it is easier to see matter as a liquid that moves very fast at small scales. We are still trying to learn how it works exactly.

People like Feinmann and Dirac like to see particles as waves that are part of a sea (Dirac-sea or Quantum foam). Some others talk about superstrings, multiple worlds, etc. Sadly, most of these interpretations are mathematical solutions, and do not really reflect reality.

In this discussion about the simplest quantum interpretation, you may learn some new things.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

And how about that space ether, some kind of universal field?

It's all so abstract and theoretical that while it sounds nice I can't buy in all the way.

I know they're trying to unite the electro-magnetic, gravity, space-time, and thermo-dynamics into one thing.

I could only hope it's as simple as particles flipping on another axis for a weaker effect.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

There are different theories about some kind of universal field.

The official ones try define universal fields in different dimensions, likes the Higgs field, which somehow magically projects onto normal the 3D world. These dimensions are necessary to put both quantum mechanics and gravity in the same mathematical system. Generally the idea is that every dimension is responsible for a certain force or behaviour. Personally I think it is overcomplicated.

Old theories were about aether (static or dynamic), but I don't think they are correct either. Most scientists stopped testing all possible variants, and stayed with Einstein's relativity. I will make a post about that, so more people can join in that discussion.

In aether theories we see ideas about spin and/or vortices that are responsible for particles or similar things. Mainstream theories are more limited to spin or similar attributes. In superstring theory particles are more like vibrations of strings.

[–]Japantones 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think you understand QFT. It is one, if not the, most successful theories we have ever devised.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It is both the best and the worst theory, mostly based on statistics.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You're BOTH right, imo.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Forgot to post this about the rotation effect.
Reddit: Simulation of the Dzhanibekov Effect