robinpike

When Alain Aspect in 1982 (and others since and before) performed quantum mechanical experiments (such as entanglement) to test Bell's inequality, the results were in agreement with quantum theory and not local hidden variables. And the same agreement with quantum theory was obtained even when the entangled states had become separated by kilometer sized distances. The fact that the results were not affected by distance, doesn't this, ironically, suggest that quantum theory is not the explanation? Rather than support quantum entanglement, shouldn't such results suggest that the explanation - by some means - is through 'local hidden variables'? Since a local hidden variable explanation would not be affected by distance. Despite the conclusion of Bell's inequalities that that explanation must be logically invalid.

The amount of deceleration needs to be considered in each case. In scenario 1), both cars are decelerated from 50 km/h to 0 km/h. Scenario 2), the car is decelerated from 50 km/h to 0 km/h. And in scenario 3), one car is accelerated from 0 km/h to 25 km/h and the other car is decelerated from 50 km/h to 25 km/h.

That assumes that it is possible to remember everything that you experience? I would say I forget far more than I remember.

The color cone sensitivities overlap across the visible spectrum of light. A person with non functioning red cone receptors can still detect light towards the yellow end of the spectrum by the proportion of blue to green receptor activation.

Another way of looking at this process could be to consider a condensing system where vanes in each box are chilled at the bottom and the box opened at the top, allowing water in the air at the top to condense onto the vanes and cause the box to increase in weight and drop. At the bottom, the water could be poured out before re-chilling the vanes, etc. So in this variation the question is: could enough energy be extracted from the falling boxes to drive the chilling of the vanes and leave some energy left over? And if so, would it grind to a halt anyway, ending up with a pool of cold water at the bottom and no evaporated water at the top?

I suppose most 'collisions' would be glancing rather than a specific head-on bouncing back collision. But even so, a glancing collision between two electrons would cause de-acceleration on approach due to the electrons having negative charge, and then acceleration as they pass the point of closest encounter and their negative charges push the electrons apart. So does even a glancing encounter cause two photons to be emitted?

Only sealed containers with a gas in them would have imploded - people trapped in air pockets inside the titanic would have been able to carry on breathing.

As Strange said, if the beam of light is aimed at an angle to the glass, some will be reflected from the front surface, and some will be reflected from the back surface. These two beams will be on separate paths, as the angle of the beam to the glass will cause the reflection from the back surface to not be below the point of reflection from the top surface. If a low intensity beam of individually spaced photons are used, wouldn't the photons from the back surface take a longer time to get to the detector(s) than those from the front surface? thus showing that they really went to the back surface.

Is there the possibility that there is an equal number of free electrons in the solar wind to the free protons, but electrons being lighter than the proton, they do not make it to our upper atmosphere because of greater deflection by the earth's magnetic field?

Thanks studiot, I did read all the posts but didn't pick up where some of the threads were going! Anyway, geordief understood them which is the main point - and for me, posting about the consequences of the constant speed of light is always good practice for clarity of thought!

Hi studiot, I don't understand - why mention a vacuum? Erm... but anyway a vacuum is what is between the earth and the moon!?. I understood the opening question as being concerned with measuring distances when different frames of reference are used by the measurers. How would a floating micrometer be used to measure a distance between objects if the micrometer is in a different frame of reference to the objects?

Hi geordief, you appear to be asking two questions (I’ve marked the question in bold above)… 1) Do distances exist if it is not possible to perform an experiment to measure the distance? 2) Do distances always require light to measure them? I will have a go at helping with the second part… The following example may help to expand on Strange’s point as well (I’ve marked that in bold too). Light takes just over a second to go from the earth to the moon. But this time is dependent on whether the observer is stationary in the earth and moon's frame of reference, or if the observer is moving relative to the earth and moon's frame of reference. However, light itself always measures that distance to be the same value. Indeed, it appears to be the only ‘measuring rod’ we have that behaves the same in all reference frames. For example, a pulse of light is sent from the earth to the moon... At that moment an astronaut, near to that point on the earth, is flying in a direction away from the moon and also sends a pulse of light to the moon (from the back of his spaceship). And another astronaut, again near to that point on the earth, is flying towards the moon and he too sends a pulse of light to the moon (from the front of his spaceship). The three pulses of light are moving alongside each other on their way to the moon, albeit at slightly different frequencies but nonetheless at the same speed as each other. All three observers agree that the three pulses were sent from the same point in space and at the same moment (for this discussion we will assume that this has been achieved). And all three observers agree that the three pulses of light reach the moon together. This means that the distance travelled by each pulse of light is the same distance. (Hopefully further discussion is not needed to agree to that conclusion.) So is the light measuring that distance? Well yes, that must be the case because it is a repeatable experiment that, regardless as to who creates the light, the light always agrees with the other pieces of light as to that distance. In this respect, there is no cunning conspiracy by the light to fool us as to what distance the light is measuring. But that does not mean that the observers are able to agree as to what that distance is. To see why, let’s look at how each observer sees the event. The earth observer sees the moon neither moving closer nor moving further away from him during the experiment. So the distance between the earth and the moon remains constant during the experiment. The observer on the spaceship that is moving away from the moon, says he is stationary, and it is the earth and the moon that are moving away from him during the experiment. So he considers the point in space that he released his pulse of light (and the other two pulses of light) is still right next to where he is in space. So the three pulses of light have a longer distance to travel to the moon, since the moon is moving away from that point in space during the time it takes the light to reach the moon. On the other hand, the observer on the spaceship that is moving towards the moon says he is stationary, and it is the earth and the moon that are moving towards him during the experiment. So he considers the point in space that he released his pulse of light (and the other two pulses of light) is still right next to where he is in space. So the three pulses of light have a shorter distance to travel to the moon, since the moon is moving towards that point in space during the time it takes the light to reach the moon. The three observers can calculate the distance each other measures as the distance of the earth to the moon, but it is not possible to say whose, if any, is the 'real distance'. The distance that the light has measured is a measurement that all particles of light agree on and therefore could be said to be the 'real distance', but we do not know what that value is, but as a value it does exist.

Thank you The answer as to whether time is needed to measure distance is not straight forward. I hope this reverse example helps everyone... Suppose we try to measure the length of a rod using a ruler when there is no time. Seems obvious that it can be done, doesn't it? So we bring the ruler up against the rod and then see if the ruler is shorter, exactly the same length, or longer than the rod. Either the ruler can be placed within the ends of the rod, or the lengths of the two exactly match, or the ruler will stick out beyond the rod. That can only have one single outcome. But remember there is no time.... How could removing time possibly change what is physically true? Let's see. So while we are trying to line up one end of the ruler with the rod, that light reaches our eyes at the same moment as the light when the ruler and rod have been aligned. Without time, those two events cannot be differentiated - it is not possible to know if the end of the ruler is extending beyond the end of the rod because we haven't aligned the two, or because the ruler is longer than the rod. The conclusion appears to be that to measure length, i.e. to have the concept of length present, is impossible without time.

A random outcome could still be driven by a precisely timed process. I could roll a dice precisely every second and give you the result only when a one appears.

Thinking this through, so if the muon decays without needing (or getting) outside influence, does this mean that the muon has a clock inside itself? If not, what determines when it decays?

Because then it would be clear cut if there was an example of change which only involved a single fundamental particle. When there are two or more particles involved, there is the possibility of motion between the two - even if that possibility is not the common view. And motion between particles requires a change in distance.

Not sure if you meant that to be taken as fact - or just a possible example - but the muon decaying into multiple particles suggests that it is not a fundamental particle. Are there any examples involving multiple particles that we can be sure do not involve distance / motion to measure time? Even Swansont's example of an electron's spin flip involves the electron and the nucleus.

Thanks, that is the point isn't it - I was thinking of the matter as a lump with space around it - and that is not the way to think of it.

So from the very small size of the universe, the space expanded - but how did the expanding space cause the very dense matter to move apart? Wouldn't gravity keep the matter in one lump while the space expanded?

Work has a very specific meaning with regards to energy - but the question was not whether the hook is doing work to stay up - but rather is the hook expending energy to stay up? What is the proof that the hook is NOT expending energy in order to stay put?

For Strange’s suggestion: the first thing to model is the effect of these particles bouncing off each other. First, general properties of the particles due to their internal movement… If the torus of a particle is in the horizontal position, then for the particle to move in any horizontal direction, it has to bunch its internal movement up on one side of the ring and stretch it out on the other side, and it will stay in that horizontal orientation while it is moving horizontally. Whereas for a horizontal torus to move vertically, the surface on the outside edge of the torus has to stretch and the surface on the inner edge of the hole has to compress (or vice versa). This is unlikely to occur equally around the ring, so the ring will tilt while it rises. When the tilt of the torus reaches the vertical plane, then the torus will move vertically by stretching and compressing opposite sides of the ring, and it will stay in the vertical orientation while it is moving vertically. This means that when a particle is in a particle accelerator, its shape will be elongated in the direction that the particle is moving. In addition, the particle’s electric field will not be emitted equally in all directions, but will escape more from the front and back of the particle than the sides. As described in the first post, the electron, positron and proton have inertia but no momentum, and so require an attached photon to push them along. Here is an extract on particle accelerators from CERN… link http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-accelerator-works Radiofrequency (RF) cavities – specially designed metallic chambers spaced at intervals along the accelerator – are shaped to resonate at specific frequencies, allowing radio waves to interact with passing particle bunches. Each time a beam passes the electric field in an RF cavity, some of the energy from the radio waves is transferred to the particles, nudging them forwards. Also described in the first post, the electric field from the neutral rings interacts with the photons that are pushing the particles along, and so interactions using protons will need to take this into account in any collision. As electrons and positrons do not have neutral rings in their makeup, their collision scenarios are simpler… Electrons and positrons collide in a direct manner. When they collide, being particle and antiparticle, they can convert into gamma rays. Because the two particles are elongated, their rings are most likely to break open at the front and back of the two rings, creating two gamma rays, each exactly equal to the rest mass of the electron and positron, leaving the collision site in opposite directions. In addition, the photons that were pushing the electron and positron are also released. If the collision does not result in the two changing into gamma rays, then the direction of the ‘bounce’ is complex and would need the particles to be watched in a 3D simulation. Each outcome would depend on the exact contact scenario between the two particles. When electrons and protons are used for the collisions… The electric field from the neutral rings in the proton can interact with the photon that is pushing the electron along, in which case the electron will be deflected from the proton without the electron touching the proton and the electron would keep all of its momentum. For the scenarios where the electron and proton collide, I am trying to analyse and will post something. Please bear in mind that before today I had never thought about outcomes of collisions between the particles, so this is not straightforward for me to analyse with care.

Yes I will try to do that - I will see if I can respond and describe how the particles would behave for electrons fired at the proton. Why?

Yes, the toroidal particles would have a very distinctive way of bouncing off each other. Let me have a think about this to see if anything can be predicted without first having the simulation. I can see why you have asked about bouncing off each other - for that is one method of experimental investigation. It is not particularly relevant though for normal behaviour of the particles and so I have not thought about it.

Thanks for your points raised. I now realise that the post is not so much a story as an epic - and there is too much in it for specific discussions. I am going to take a different approach. I will make specific arguments one at a time and describe them as best I can to allow them to be assessed challenged / corrected / dismissed etc. If nothing else, the initial post can be a point of reference for each point being discussed. I'm at work at the moment, and need time to prepare - I will start with what has been the main driver of this challenge to quantum mechanics. I need to keep it to specific statements that can be judged and challenged.

Hi Mordred, When I stated that the model does not include quarks, I was being honest upfront about that difference to the standard model. The difficulty I found with putting quarks into the model was finding a way to get fractional electric charge onto the quarks – as everybody knows it is 1⁄3 or 2⁄3 the ratio of the charge on the electron. If I could figure out a way of introducing quarks with fractional charge into the model - I would - and then use them with the electron and the electric force to see if the model could explain quantum mechanics. Because that is the purpose of the model: to see if quantum mechanics can be explained as the result of something lower level. I couldn't get quarks in, so all I had was the electron and the positron - and so a neutral particle was needed to get the extra mass for the proton. The model did not have to be forced to get that neutral particle in, so in it stayed. So if I am reading your concern correctly, it is not even worth considering if the conjecture can challenge quantum mechanics whille quarks are not in there. I respect that feedback, so I have a question for you to help me with your comment... "The model which doesn't include quarks does not match experimental evidence of nearly 40 years worth of data sets" How is it that it is so easy to tell that the model does not match those data sets? Obviously it does not match the concept of quarks - but what is it about the data that the model cannot match? An example would help me here. Thanks Hi Swansont, 'Model' seems to mean so many things - perhaps if I had used the word conjecture it would have been better. As I mentioned with my reply to Mordred, the purpose of the conjecture is to see if there could be an alternative mechanism to quantum mechanics. It is an epic challenge - as you must appreciate, it is not something that is completed with just a cursory set of thoughts. First task is to see if the atom structure could exist at all without quantum mechanics. But your question is one step further: how does the conjecture get to the energy level structure in hydrogen? The only method I can see of getting to that point, would to have the conjecture modeled on a computer using a 3D simulation of the fundamental particle - the strand of movement. The electron, proton and photon are all compound particles, what other way could there be to see if those energy levels are in there or not? I appreciate your input. Hi Klaynos, As everyone so far has mentioned, I agree it is not a model. Okay, so its not even a conjecture - it is a story, but even so, a story can have logic in it, a story can be checked to see if it is self-consistent or not? As mentioned in my reply to Swansont, the maths would be driven from modeling on a computer with a 3D simulation of the fundamental particle. I appreciate your input, your comment shows just how difficult it is to discuss a challenge to quantum mechanics.