Mordred

You might want to study preference under frames of reference. Quite frankly I can argue that a frame containing measurable observable quantities is preferred over some unmeasurable hidden frame.I would have the advantage of a distinct and determinate state. Where as A hidden field can have whatever arbitrary field value that would be unprovable. Ie I could slap whatever function I arbitrarily choose and there would be no way to determine it's accuracy or use it as a reference point.

Interpretations is no replacement for mathematically defining a preferred frame. A preferred frame isn't some arbitrary choice but needs to be mathematically shown to offer some mathematical advantage. How can you use a hidden frame that by definition of hidden you cannot measure and by definition of hidden has no measurable action. I'm positive you know what action is under physics definition. Have you never considered why GR or SR states there are no preferred frames ?

What makes it preferred considering the creation and annihilation operators already employ the harmonic oscillator ? What transformation rules allow a harmonic field become preferred over a macro field ?

No you have to prove such a frame is preferred under some form of basis as your dealing with vectors, covectors, spinors and bispinors. As applicable to how a particle state is described.

So post those equations. Show me a viable hidden preferred frame that is Lorentz invariant. How can I apply a hidden frame as a valid reference frame ? How do you mathematically prove that frame as a preferred frame ?

Really and how do you define under physics a hidden preferred frame ? Did you even bother to account for the entangled particle preparedness ? As well as to how the correlation functions arise due to the experimental apparatus

You do understand that the correlation functions for entangled particles has nothing to do with cause and effect from particle A to particle B ? For example in a beam splitter if you take a monochromatic light beam and split it you can derive a polarity correlation function of the two possible polarities. Then you factor in the position and polarity detection of your detectors. When you measure one particle you know the state of the other particle. No action is involved. No communication or influence from particle A to B is involved. Not really sure from your last post if you realize that or not.

How do you collapse a vacuum ? A vacuum can have a wide range of energy states however a true vacuum is impossible under QM.

Hrrm vacuum decay isn't a very accurate descriptive of a quantum vacuum. A more accurate descriptive would be a different vacuum state. A change in the fine structure can affect the vacuum impedance value. Through the equivalent relation [math]\alpha=\frac{e^2}{4\pi}\frac{Z_o}{\hbar}[/math] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

A large part from my experience with others I've helped in the past tends to revolve around discarding the billiard ball image of a particle. By focusing on wave mechanics and the subsequent vector and spinor relations one can learn to understand the bulk of QM and QFT. This applies to its tensor groups as well.

Let's try an analogy that might make it easier for the OP. Look at a waveform on a scope. You now have a 2d image, this can be described by a Hermitean space using 2 by 2 matrixes. (Just to include how extensive this analogy applies) What is the position of that waveform? What is its momentum ? What is its size ? Now consider all observable particle states are described by Operators and are wavefunctions.

Here is the related arxiv article https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10158 They give a few reasons in the article the most prominent being virial shocks preventing sufficient cooling of the plasma or the result of a dry merger between galaxies. No we would likely be able to detect such through spectography

Even with the propogation speed aside, the ramifications of a change in the fine structure constant should also affect spectrography measurements for example the 21 cm Hydrogen line. Something like that would be bigger news than the article itself I would think. Anyways here is the arxiv article for the above study. You will note that a changing fine structure constant is not on the list of possible causes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10158

Well I would question such a claim unless they could provide a decent peer review article on it. There have been numerous studies of a potential varying fine structure constant. However deep field studies show no variation outside error measurement bars.

Where did you hear that this is the result of a change in the fine structure constant ? A Hubble bubble due to change in vacuum would propogate at c and as a result we would get no warning.

It describes the probability wavefunctions. An oscillator isn't restricted to object motion but can also be used to describe any repeating varying value. A sinusoidal waveform in electronics is a good example.

Ah kk, I always found expansion more accurate. As it describes the homogeneous and isotropic nature of expansion better. An explosion has a directional component so you would be inhomogeneous (Ie have a point of origin and anistropic (preferred direction). This would result in angles changing between galaxies which is discounted by observational evidence. The angles are preserved as the distance between galaxies increase.

I believe your stated that wrong above lol. I believe you meant "rather than an expansion of space" for the latter.

With the uncertainty principle one cannot accurately measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. Measuring one observable P or Q will interfere with the other. Also the more accurately you measure one the less accurate you can determine the other. Both observable's will have a probability amplitude.

Likely a good idea, that way you can focus on specific applications. When you get into QM those applications can get rather complex.

Neither do I understand what this means. You have looked at numerous QM relations with regards to oscillator behavior under QM through the course of this thread but very little of this thread has dealt with classical. For example the uncertainty principle is quantum in nature. The statement above doesn't make sense how do you get classical only while discussing the quantum oscillator All physics apply time

Your still missing a vital point, you will never get one master oscillator equation to describe all particles and their interactions. Every particle and every interaction involves their own specific formulas. If you ignore the math you will miss that detail. For example invariant quantities are not ocsillating. All wavefunctions are also not oscillations.

In physics the goal is to accurately make concise predictions of all measurable physical properties in how they interact or alter. Those mathematics are required to do so. In anything dealing with particle physics you require waveforms and wavefunctions as every particle of the SM model is a field excitation. It isn't some abstract choice but an accurate description of all observational evidence. The probability functions isn't an arbitrary choice either. The uncertainty principle taught us that the uncertainty is a fact of nature. Though that's not the only reason the probability functions are a necessity. It's necessary when you do things like a Fourier transformation to describe their measurable wavefunctions described by their measurable states. Particles are not solid or corpuscular billiard balls. For example you can have an infinite number of bosons such as the photon exist in the same precise coordinate. They can overlap the same space without any interference or interaction. Neutrinos can pass through several light years of lead without any interaction or interference.

The problem with relying too much on graphs though they do serve as a good visual aid is that one can have identical graphs that have nothing to do with one another. With squeezed states your squeezing the probability amplitude of one operator while increasing the uncertainty in another. For example in that paper either the position or momentum operator. Both involve probability functions.

Let's use a generic description. The cross product of a vector is perdendicular while the dot product is parallel The magnetic field has a curl so what are the ramifications to the above in regards to a spinor ?