Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

[studiot]

Well your lot won the cricket comfortably in the end, though 320 for a county side v a national one was respectable.

And you did pip us in the second rugger.

 

But what game are we playing in this thread?

 

The other side takes a shot at goal.

Then it is my turn, but the other side has not only moved the goalposts, it has removed them, only to replace them again when my turn is over.

 

I asked, and you averred and reconfirmed several times that elementary waves were not spherical waves, spreading out in all directions in a manner implied by the statements of sphericity.

 

Then you draw a picture and label it spherical waves.

 

One feature of wave motion is interference or diffraction and you start off by saying that the elementary waves interfere.

 

Then you tell me that it is the markers that interfere.

 

But you have already said (several times) that we do not know what the markers are, and certainly never introduced marker interference in your introduction.

 

You tell me and reconfirm several times, that the elementary waves pass straight through matter, unaffected or deflected except for the addition of a marker - the marker is stated not to be a wave.

 

Then you draw a picture of a spherical wave expanding as far as some material slits, and stopping there.

 

Why does the spherical wave not pass straight though the material parts and simply carry on as a spherical wave?

 

Saying that the markers interfere is not an answer.

 

We agree on the definition of a field in the physics sense and you describe elementary waves in such a way that they conform to this definition, yet you tell me they are not a field.

It seems to me that they form a pretty good field - Is that a negative thing?

Edited July 1, 2013 by studiot

[Eugene Morrow]

Everyone,

 

This site has had a few technical problems the last few days - me and Studiot have had posts duplicated by the software, and others have been cut short. Let's hope the software is stable again.

 

Popcorn Sutton,

 

Like Sheever, you are discussing something completely different to this thread, and not relevant. Please start your own thread and have your own discussion.

 

 

Kramer,

 

You wrote:

 

My suggestion was in support of your idea that if change position of detector.....etc..Only my idea is not for one point but for all point of detector giving him an adequate configuration..
Sorry if i attracted from your dispute with mr. Popcorn.
I too don't believe in "weirdness of quantum", but i am not sure about the wave of particle disconected with particle. I think that particle, let it be a mass particle or a photon, posses field which don't go further than 3.48181868*10^7 cm for unity charge.
Again if you see my interference a nuisance, disregard it.

 

I think the double slit experiment has been done with detectors that cover lots of points, so I think there is no problem with the results: we get an interference pattern for sure. That much is agreed by all sides. The problem is explaining how one particle at a time creates that pattern.

 

The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is a very new idea, and I think a lot of people find it hard to accept that the particle and the quantum wave are separate. The reason TEW claims this is because of the explanations of experiments. I find the TEW explanations much more convincing, because there is normal cause and effect. In quantum mechanics (qm) there is the idea of "non-locality" where distant things can affect each other instantaneously without a clear mechanism - for example in entanglement.

 

I guess both qm and TEW are weird in some way, so you have a choice of which weirdness you like more.

 

 

Studiot,

 

I am hoping our team at least make a worthy opponent. There is nothing wrong with losing as long as you play your best.

 

You wrote;

 

I asked, and you averred and reconfirmed several times that elementary waves were not spherical waves, spreading out in all directions in a manner implied by the statements of sphericity.

Then you draw a picture and label it spherical waves.

 

What TEW claims is that what looks like spherical waves coming out of the slits is the result of lots of random collisions by rays in the slit area. I am comfortable with that myself, and the claim in TEW that elementary waves are a flux in empty space, not a wave in a medium. I think you are not comfortable with the appearance of spherical waves. What conclusions are you thinking of?

 

Then you wrote:

 

Then you tell me that it is the markers that interfere.

But you have already said (several times) that we do not know what the markers are, and certainly never introduced marker interference in your introduction.

You tell me and reconfirm several times, that the elementary waves pass straight through matter, unaffected or deflected except for the addition of a marker - the marker is stated not to be a wave.

 

Here I am ready to grant I think I incorrectly described the TEW picture. Looking back at the TEW literature, I think it is saying that when two rays meet with the same marker, then the waves interfere, not the markers. So the elementary wave rays themselves interfere. So the elementary waves may cancel each other out when reaching the source, and that is why the source does not send a particle in response to that particular wave.

 

So I'll get it right this time - the if the markers are the same then the entire wave interferes. If the markers are different then the waves normally ignore each other.

 

You wrote:

 

Then you draw a picture of a spherical wave expanding as far as some material slits, and stopping there.

Why does the spherical wave not pass straight though the material parts and simply carry on as a spherical wave?

 

The waves do keep going - with a different marker from the last mass they went through. I only draw the elementary waves and markers that we are interested in - the ones that get a particle coming back to the detector. There are elementary waves and markers flying around everywhere. For example, there will be elementary waves coming out of the slit walls to the source and there will be particles going from the source to the slit walls. We don't care about those - the slit wall is not a detector and any particles reaching there are ignored.

 

TEW is saying we live in a universe of elementary waves and markers all over the place. We can't see the waves and markers, just like we can't see gravity. We only know they are there because of the effects. In the case of elementary waves, TEW claims that the success of explaining experiments is enough evidence that the waves exist and behave as described.

 

Your final words are very interesting:

 

We agree on the definition of a field in the physics sense and you describe elementary waves in such a way that they conform to this definition, yet you tell me they are not a field.

It seems to me that they form a pretty good field - Is that a negative thing?

 

I'll give you the quick answer, and then explain more. The quick answer is that TEW claims fields are something we measure (like measuring magnetic forces at a point) and that's all. For TEW there are no fields - there are just elementary waves and particles, so TEW does not use "fields" as a concept to explain why something happens.

 

Now for a bit more explanation.

 

TEW is clearly a rival to qm when describing quantum experiments like the double slit. What will surprise readers of the TEW book is that TEW covers the whole of physics, and all sorts of macro physics have a slightly different expalantion in the light of TEW.

 

For example, we believe in conservation of momentum because, well, it just seems to be that way when we measure it. It's always been conserved in experiments, so we believe it always is. In TEW, the collisions of elementary waves are the reason that momentum is conserved for individual particles. Large collections of particles conserve momentum because all the invididual components do. So one law of physics is related back to this fundamental bit of TEW.

 

Another example of this is electic and magnetic fields. For TEW it is all about elementary waves carrying photons. Chapter 10 of the TEW book deals with magnetism and has a fascinating explanation of Faraday's Law.

 

You get the idea. Whereas both classical and quantum physics talks about fields, for TEW there is no such thing as a field (except in the sense that you can describe the final effect of a force as though it was a field).

 

For TEW, this is a step forward. Using a field as an explanation implies a type of "non-locality" - distance things are affected. TEW likes to describe all of physics by clearly stating how one thing can affect a distant thing, and of course elementary waves are how it happens.

 

Please go ahead and talk about fields. I am just preparing you for my answers which will avoid discussing the field as though it actually is a thing in itself.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[uncool]

Eugene,

 

I apologize for not having appeared in the thread in the past week; I have been on vacation. I still have another week of vacation, so I can't promise anything much, but I will be examining the paper closely. For those following the thread, the link to the papers is here: and here:

 

I would like to note that even in the introduction, the authors have written the following: "The possibility of delayed erasure generated a discussion in respect to it’s legitimacy, with the argument that it would be possible, in this way, to alter the past [11,12]. This argument is founded on an erroneous interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics [13,14]". In other words, the authors are saying that no, there is no "reaching backwards in time" - no retrocausation - and hence, they are disputing your conclusion, Eugene. At the moment, I heavily lean towards their side rather than yours. I will be looking into those references (11-14) as well.

=Uncool-

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Sheever - Popcorn Sutton

Stop the offtopic hijacking please. If I have time tomorrow I have split those posts to a new thread. This is a well established thread with a defined topic - do not derail again.

Do not respond to this post and continue to take this thread off-topic.

[Eugene Morrow]

Uncool,

 

Hello - great to hear from you again.

 

Yes, I noticed the comment in Walborn et al 2002 denying backwards in time causality. I have not yet read the two references.

 

While they clearly deny that interpretaton, just what is the quantum mechanics (qm) explanation for the experiment? They offer none. On page 5, just before the Conclusion, they write:

 

We simply wish to show that the order of detection is not important, in concordance with the literature (13,14).

 

To me not attempting to explain what the experiment means is an admission that qm just doesn't really know what is going on. They are claiming that the "which path" information for Photon S was erased (hence the term quantum eraser). The question is - how does that work? Just how does entanglement actually happen, when the change to Photon P happens after Photon S no longer exists? There is a defeaning silence from qm about this.

 

You will see from my writeup, the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) does have an explanation - two elementary waves are combined at the BBO crystal. This explains why the polarizer in front of Photon P affects the behavior of Photon S, with everything happening in normal time.

 

I will be most interested to hear what you think is happening in this experiment.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[studiot]

 

and the claim in TEW that elementary waves are a flux in empty space, not a wave in a medium. I think you are not comfortable with the appearance of spherical waves. What conclusions are you thinking of?

 

There are just so many difficulties with the model of elementary waves as 3D spherical waves, subject to the other conditions you have laid down.

The issues really need some more sketches which I will have time to prepare tomorrow.

 

Meanwhile

 

Are EWs dispersive or non dispersive?

Do they follow the inverse square law?

 

The more we delve the more it becomes apparent to me that there are no essentially wave properties in this 'flux in empty space'.

It is interesting to note that you denied this flux model when I suggested it 50 odd posts backalong.

 

It is also interesting to note the similarity between the Little model and the Wilczek model, have you heard of it?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Before any replies, I would admit to checking the conclusions of qm. I would say, take a polarized sunglass lens, take half out the ray, put it through the lens, measure the other lens with polarization, see if they interact to your standards, if so.... Continue with whats being said, until then, counter intuition says that it won't happen that way (for me at least)

The way to check the opposite lens is by checking if that specific ray will pass through the other lens.

2 lenses, 1 camera, 1 block of wood

[Phi for All]

Before any replies, I would admit to checking the conclusions of qm. I would say, take a polarized sunglass lens, take half out the ray, put it through the lens, measure the other lens with polarization, see if they interact to your standards, if so.... Continue with whats being said, until then, counter intuition says that it won't happen that way (for me at least)

The way to check the opposite lens is by checking if that specific ray will pass through the other lens.

2 lenses, 1 camera, 1 block of wood

!

Moderator Note

Warning point issued for persistent thread hijacking after being warned.

[Eugene Morrow]

Phi for All,

Thanks for the assistance.

 

 

Studiot,

 

I do like your meticulous approach. You sound more and more like a physicist or at least a senior physics student at University. If you are, you are being very patient looking at a new idea - I generally encounter immediate dismissal when physics specialists hear about a new theory.

 

You asked:

 

Are EWs dispersive or non dispersive?

Do they follow the inverse square law?

 

No, elementary waves are not dispersive - all wavelengths and frequencies travel at the same speed - c.

 

No, elementary waves do not follow an inverse square law so far as documented. Lewis Little is still working on the details of how the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) works with general relativity, and obviously the inverse square law of Newtonian gravity will appear at some point. I'm waiting patiently to see what he writes.

 

You wrote:

 

The more we delve the more it becomes apparent to me that there are no essentially wave properties in this 'flux in empty space'.

It is interesting to note that you denied this flux model when I suggested it 50 odd posts backalong.

 

I must have missed your suggestion.

 

You wrote:

 

It is also interesting to note the similarity between the Little model and the Wilczek model, have you heard of it?

 

I assume we are talking about Frank Wilczek? I am not familiar with his model. Are we talking guage theory? Lewis Little has talked a bit about elementary particles and their waves, but not as far as that. Tell me about it.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[studiot]

 

You wrote:

 

Quote

The more we delve the more it becomes apparent to me that there are no essentially wave properties in this 'flux in empty space'.

It is interesting to note that you denied this flux model when I suggested it 50 odd posts backalong.

 

I must have missed your suggestion

 

Huh?

 

Extract from my post #160

 

 

This, in my view, presents a great difficulty for your theory. The transmission medium aspect could just as easily be accomplished by a stream or flux of ‘EM = elementary particles’, which has the advantage of not requiring external focusing agents.

 

Which you quoted and replied to in your post#161

 

 

I assume we are talking about Frank Wilczek? I am not familiar with his model. Are we talking guage theory? Lewis Little has talked a bit about elementary particles and their waves, but not as far as that. Tell me about it.

 

Yess the Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.

But it's not exactly a guage theory, however it's my turn to suggest a book!

 

The Lightness of Being by the above.

 

And thank you for your answers to my two questions.

I'm sorry my papers, referred in my previous post are as yet too rough to present, but I will get there.

[Eugene Morrow]

Studiot,

 

My credit card is being replaced after being lost, so I am unable to buy online at the moment - should be OK next week. I will buy Frank Wilczek's book when I can. I will also get some articles that me and Uncool are interested in - some discussion of the interpretations of entanglement and the quantum eraser experiment.

 

Looking at the abstracts online I suspect the Wilczek book is very different from the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). The really big revolution in TEW is the wave direction (the opposite of quantum mechanics), and if Frank agreed then it would definitely be mentioned in the abstracts.

 

The only similarity I can see is that the abstract suggested empty space somehow participates in mass, which I guess is true for TEW because what we measure as mass is an attribute of the elementary wave that the particle follows. When I get the Wilczek's book I will see if there is anymore similarity than that.

 

I can see your comment about elementary waves possibly being a stream of particles in Post 160, but I cannot see my comment on it in my Post 161.

 

Anyway, speculating that elementary waves are particles is much more of a quantum mechanics (qm) idea.

 

In TEW, waves are waves and particles are particles - there is no "wave-particle duality". A beam of light has both - the elementary waves coming out of the detector and the photons traveling in the reverse direction back to the detector. The things like frequency and wavelength are properties of the elementary waves. The energy that the photons give (such as the photoelectric effect) are a property of the particles arriving at a point. So in TEW there is a clear distinction between what is a wave and what is a particle.

 

So to speculate that elementary waves are a stream of particles is trying to re-introduce wave-particle duality again.

 

Eugene Morrow

[studiot]

I'm sorry that you are so hung up on bashing quantum mechanics.

 

I haven't employed it once.

 

All I said was that the qualities you required could be attributed to a stream or flux of 'something' that did not have to be waves (or particles). Turnips could very well 'go in the other direction', so could any 'flux'.

Much of the mechanics I deal with does not enquire as to the nature of the 'elements' it attributes certain properties and develops a model in terms of these. And these models ( eg fluid mechanics) are extremely successful at what they do.

 

I also observed that every time I asked about a property that was specific to waves and not shared with other entities you fell back on the 'flux' idea, as does Little.

 

Anyway I am still preparing my presentation.

 

go well

[Eugene Morrow]

Studiot,

 

Perhaps I am being too careful. I am trying to stick to Little's writings as best I can. Little is radical enough without me to make the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) more so !

 

I have also learned not to speculate any further than TEW itself. I fiddle around with ideas for unknown aspects of elementary waves and think "Why didn't he try this"? Then later I realise he had tried that idea and it just doesn't fit the behavior we observe. Little has thought of a lot of options, and many more than I have, so I assume now he has reasons for choosing things that I either haven't remembered or he hasn't mentioned yet.

 

I am critical of the explanations of quantum mechanics (qm)? I would say of course I am. The predictions are top quality, and yet the explanations involve competing interpretations with all sorts of strange ideas like a particle being a wave at the same time, multiple universes, effects backwards in time and so on.

 

For about 80 years, the physics community has thought "The predictions work and so we are forced to choose qm - there is no alternative". Now we have an alternative, and I believe that someday physics will realise TEW is the better theory. It's not such a big change - just reverse the direction of the quantum wave, that's all. Physics will then look back at the explanations of qm and wonder why it wasn't obvious that qm struggles to explain things.

 

Anyway, I am still very much interested in your criticisms and questions about TEW. What is obvious to one person is strange to another, and the differences fascinate me. I am still ready to read qm points of view too.

 

Eugene Morrow