Quantum 1/f Noise

thus what

.

ce

?s rather

ust have a

Hypotheses don't need to be peer-reviewed. They don't get promoted to the d ignity of being a theory until they have been peer-reviewed.

Neither hypotheses nor theories are "facts".

Special relativity rationalised the maximum speed of light being constant a nd a bunch of other related stuff (including e = m.c^2). That definitely qualified as theory.

m

d.

nt

at

Time is measured by real physical processes happening to real physical obje cts. You can't say anything much useful about a process that you can't observe, but your rationalisations aren't restricted in the same way. It isn't neces sarily as simple as Kevin Aylward likes to think, and Lee Smolin has at lea st as much right to be taken seriously.

n

Why?

n,

, n

But it will take an infinite time to do it, so it will still be around when you want to look at it.

If it's oscillating on an observable repetitive path it is limited to a fin ite velocity. Stability doesn't come into it.

Not early enough.

Forces between atoms decline rapidly was the distance between them increase s. Try again.

I suspect that most people are better at self-criticism than you are.

Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are theories, not facts.

Them - or something like them - do seem to be necessary. Newtonian gravitat ion looked to be similarly fundamental until Einstein came up with General Relativity. Now we are looking for something even more comprehensive - Eins tein's theory of everything.

d

Or we find ourselves inventing the neutrino. Dark matter is just another su ch an invention - though it's bit short on consilience so far. At least we can now detect neutrinos (or at least tolerably energetic ones).

ur,

rve

Obviously. The universes where conservation of momentum might not be true a re all unobservable, and thus supremely uninteresting, even as thought expe riments.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I think he meant translational (positional and kinetic) relativity. That is: that the forces between atoms in some given relative configuration, do not depend upon position or velocity with respect to some other reference.

An example where this might break down is in a divergent field, where the force of the field strains the atomic bonds differently, depending upon position within the field. We normally express this as a superposition of forces, so that the atomic forces remain independent of the external effect. Suppose we didn't know of this field: we might wonder if the force between atoms, in and of themselves, varied with position.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

An elite clique do not determine was is and is not in the real universe.

A theory is anything I agree it is.

Richard Dawkins.... "Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact".

In the real world, Bill, people get executed on "beyond all reasonable doubt".

In the real universe, it is theoretically impossible to have an absolute proof, its all inherently relative. QM and SR are as near to facts as makes no practical difference

What's your point?

Time *IS* a process happening to real objects. Its is physical objects doing something, i.e. moving, that *creates* time. This is trivially obvious.

Not on his view of time. Many other noted experts likewise trash his nonsense on time.

It is simple. Construct a true empty universe. Then try and figure out how time and space have to be defined for us to exist. Sprinkle a few objects about. Try and define time and distance. One is trivially left with the conclusion that there needs to be identical objects, that can form precise equal distance and precise equal motion.

Distance is recognition that real objects don't all sit on top of each other . Time is recognition that real objects change their position.

Dah.... Oh dear....also super, trivially obvious. It is pretty stunning that anyone can fail to understand this point, once they have actually made aware of it.

Change all the equations of physics to make t'-> t .(1+ at) and see what the orbits of the electrons of atoms do.

It gives the same effect as the "fine tuning problem". i.e. change a value, slightly, and the whole universe as we know it collapses.

Dah... again. Why will it take an infinite time? Nothing is specified as to the nature of any drift.

Dah.... again....again....

If an object is travelling at a maximum velocity, and always does, then it is stable in the time it take. Dah....

Ho hummm you have no idea what I am referring to do you? I suggest you read a QM book on the "derivation" of the Schrodinger equation, cos you are way out of your depth here.

Translational symmetry, i.e. the laws of physics don't change with a change in position, rotational symmetry and time symmetry i.e. t-> t+ s. To wit, examining the Generators of the Galilei Group leads to the SE.

To make it simple, so that even you can understand. If one translates an atom to a new position, the laws of physics cant change, otherwise, the atom will indeed dismantle itself. If one translates an atom to a new time point, the laws of physics cant change, otherwise, the atom will indeed dismantle itself.

I suspect that you are clueless on the points being made.

Not to this analog engineer. There are so damm near to facts as to make no difference.

It doesn't seen to be obvious to many, as I have never seen any reference to that idea. I have seen many references where people attempt to derive COM, or simply state that they have no idea why it is true.

The reality is, there *only* explanation for it all, that does not require another higher explanation, is that it is all fundamentally random. Randam needs no further explanation.

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

• Buy Consilience at Amazon! Free Shipping on Qualified Orders.

e n

nd thus

e,

ht.

t?s rather

must have a

e

They are influential in determining what gets taken seriously enough to be called a theory.

What is and is not "in the real universe" wasn't under discussion. You seem to be modelling your rhetorical technique on James Arthur's.

A subjective judgment. Few would take it seriously.

Richard Dawkins is indulging in a rhetorical device. In reality "facts" are manifestations of a particular - usually widely shared - theoretical model .

The theory of evolution is well established and any improved theory that re places it will have to explain the same facts about DNA sequences, but it i s the DNA sequences that appear to be fundamental, rather than the theory t hat explains them (pretty well, so far).

Some of them innocent. The law's idea of "beyond all reasonable doubt" isn' t as stringent as one would like it to be.

es

As was Newton's Law of Gravitation - for quite a while. Quantum Mechanics a nd Special Relativity are fundamentally incompatible, so they can't both be counted as any kind of "fact".

t

ely

That you are indulging in over-blown rhetoric?

time

l

is

time.

ing

"Time" is a theoretical construct that allows us to make sense of our obser vations.

The triviality of your observation is obvious.

e,

s

Sadly, Kevin isn't a "noted" expert, and he hasn't listed any the others.

her

s 18,

hat

are

The Greeks invented the "unmoved mover" and similar chunks of word salad se veral millenia ago. It was a waste of time back them too.

he

Cite?

e,

Cite?

ike

on't > >> cut it, n+1 can still drift to infinite values in discrete steps.

hen

to

Actually, it can't drift to an infinite value in a finite time if it is mov ing in discrete steps.

ck

Sure. Your word salad doesn't hack it.

t r

ey

ad

y

I'm afraid it is you who is out of your depth. Forces between atoms are wha t keep molecules together, and forces between molecules are what create sol ids and liquids - and when they aren't strong enough you end of with gas.

ge

Perhaps. But this doesn't say anything about the forces between actual disc rete atoms.

atom

nt,

e

If you want to "dismantle an atom" you have to play with the forces between the electrons and the nucleus. If you want to dismantle a nucleus you have to play with forces between quarks - it's turtles all the way down.

That's what any self-deluding physic nut will say. You haven't told us that Einstein was wrong yet, but you haven't expressed yourself with enough pre cision to make it worth taking you seriously.

ur

o

ve

we

e

to

,

quire

m

But it's not all that useful.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Doesn't 1/f noise mean that as the period (1/f) gets longer the noise amplitude gets larger? So when the period is 13.7billion years you'd be right to expect the noise to be huge? :)

piglet

e n

nd thus

e,

e

ght.

it?s rather

ne must have a

the

e.

be called a theory.

seem to be modelling your rhetorical technique on James Arthur's.

are manifestations of a particular - usually widely shared - theoretical m odel.

t replaces it will have to explain the same facts about DNA sequences, but it is the DNA sequences that appear to be fundamental, rather than the theo ry that explains them (pretty well, so far).

isn't as stringent as one would like it to be.

te

makes

cs and Special Relativity are fundamentally incompatible, so they can't bot h be counted as any kind of "fact".

tant

nitely

le time

all

al

s is

o time.

l

doing

.

bservations.

erve,

has

s.

other

or

res

0^18,

g that

aware

d several millenia ago. It was a waste of time back them too.

t the

alue,

like

don't > >> cut it, n+1 can still drift to infinite values in discrete step s.

d when

as to

moving in discrete steps.

um

lock

a

n it

or

they

read

way

what keep molecules together, and forces between molecules are what create solids and liquids - and when they aren't strong enough you end of with g as.

hange

it,

discrete atoms.

an

he atom

point,

ntle

ween the electrons and the nucleus. If you want to dismantle a nucleus you have to play with forces between quarks - it's turtles all the way down.

e

that Einstein was wrong yet, but you haven't expressed yourself with enough precision to make it worth taking you seriously.

our

e no

o

have

r, we

re

true

ht

nce to

COM,

require

ndom

Big as the universe?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mar 17, 2018, Piglet wrote (in article ):

Yep. One requirement for any correct theory of 1/f noise is a plausible way to escape this infinity. There must be some kind of limiting principle. This is an unsolved problem. Many people assume that 1/f noise on a carrier is an approximation to a Lorenzian lineshape:. This does not answer the question of baseband 1/f noise (where the ?carrier? is DC).

Joe Gwinn

Some of them innocent. The law's idea of "beyond all reasonable doubt" isn't as stringent as one would like it to be.

Ho hummm. You have simply no idea idea what you are blathering about. Again, way out of your depth.

You confuse GR with SR. There is no consensus in any way shape or form that there is any issue with the compatibility between SR and QM. Indeed, there is QED with is its inherent fusion of SR and standard QM. Of course, they are some arguments that claim that some parts of QM are "non-local", but even if this one of many views were true, there is a universal consensus that no transmission FTL is possible, hence no incompatibility.

Sure, General Relativity and QM does have a fundamental incompatibility, buts that's an entirely different matter, and one that I was not addressing.

Nonsense. Time is a result of a real, physical process. It is not "a social construct"

Which you show here that you don't understand.

Ho hummmmm.. If you don't understand that if time was nonlinear, everything all falls apart, you should be debating this as you, once again, are simply clueless on these matters.

Er... why? That's like asking to cite the meaning of "is". You're basically trolling.

Apparently, your mind is the one that is drifting. There is no claim that there is drift to infinite values, what matters is that an oscillator is drifting at all, in discrete steps or otherwise.

I have made a statement that if an oscillator oscillated on the basis that its active part travels at a maximum velocity, then it will be stable. Period.

A max velocity solves the stable time requirement of stable atoms.

And none of that is relevant to the points being made.

Dah... If an atom is translated in space, nothing changes. The fact that the forces between say, electrons and protons change with their separation is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Who the f'ck, other than you, is discussing forces between atoms?

But that's precisely *ONLY* because the universe has space and time symmetry (translations), i.e. conservation laws. Dah.... Which is the point I am making. If time or space were nonlinear, the symmetry would be broken, and atoms would dismantle themselves if moved about, or time was not stable/uniform.

and you are welcome to your opinion

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

n't

te

s h

in,

Only because you did.

Mainly because special relativity doesn't say much anything interesting.

f

Which is mere hand-waving.

ng.

So you set up a straw man and now proudly defend that?

le

all

al

s

s no

So obvious that there's no point in saying it.

al

"Time" is used to explain real physical processes. It's entirely a social c onstruct.

t

ng

ply

You are in effect claiming that differentiation and integration depends on having infinitely small differences, when mathematics defines both processe s as the limit carrying out finite difference processes with progressively smaller limits. I've used numerical integration, and checked the accuracy o f the result by using smaller differences.

Spice depends on this.

ly

This has nothing to do with the proposition that physical theory would fall apart if recast in term of small finite differences.

You are obviously trolling.

as

t

It's your mind that is drifting - to the point of having come unhinged. The claim is exactly the one you made.

" n+1 can still drift to infinite values in discrete steps."

t

One has to wonder why.

It might. That doesn't make it a proposition that it worth making.

it

or

u are

te

h

Since you haven't made any point worth making, relevance isn't really an is sue.

the

it,

You started it, with "forces between atoms and shit"

an

he

time

d

een

ve

try

d

Space and time are non-linear without dismantling any of the useful symmetr ies. You are engaged in mystical hand-waving, rather than any kind of useful exp osition.

no

o

rue

t

nce

ve

ndom.

As you are to yours - rabidly irrational as they may be.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney