The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How viable is my theory on quantum mechanics?  (Read 1217 times)

Offline thedoc

  • Forum Admin
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
How viable is my theory on quantum mechanics?
« on: 22/10/2015 20:50:02 »
David Jackson  asked the Naked Scientists:
   Dear Sirs  I am writing this email in the hope that  I can get some sensible feedback and constructive criticism on my ideas relating to quantum mechanics. Although I am a retired professional engineer with better than average maths I do in no way qualify as a 'peer' in physics terms. I have however found it exceedingly difficult to obtain access to the physics community, even for paid instruction or advice, let alone comment on any ideas crackpot or otherwise.  I have been studying QM as a retirement project and I believe I understand the basics and both the history and the controversies that still persist.  As a result I Have of course developed some ideas of my own (who doesn't) and I would set them out.  Physics has a process of a hunch, a hypothesis, a theory, and finally a law. My idea is somewhere between a hunch and a hypothesis and hopefully does not violate any experimental facts,.   My starting point is as always, relativity. Time dilatation has to accepted as fact, as does the value of C in a vacuum and in any direction . What I can't find anywhere is why. So what if the primary attractor is at sub atomic level. Supposing all the mass in the atom is moving, either rotating or orbiting at a tangential velocity of C. Isn't that the final piece of relativity? The plane, the man in the plane, the bug in the man, the atom in the bug, and the particle in the atom. In this way the velocity of the particle is the total vector speed  of each subsequent element, the  particle, the atom and so on when compared to any other moving object except light which has only its primary speed C. This idea has the benefit that the maths for time dilation calculation remains the same, but it is the velocity that changes rather than the space. This would have the advantage that everything in the universe would have the same elapsed time from the Big Bang and every particle would be located with reference to the origin of the Big Bang. Further more I don't see any feature of the standard model that would prevent it. So what about mass/energy equivalence? Well things work out just fine. The total kinetic energy of the particles in the atoms trying to escape equals the sum of mass times velocity squared over 2 for each particle which for particles travelling at C  = MC squared /2. If this is the energy of particles trying to escape then the energy required to lock the particles in to the atom must equal that, giving the total energy in the atom as Einstein's famous equation E = MCsquared.  So is it possible to create a geometrically acceptable model based on good physics principles to satisfy the above assumptions, the mathematics of the standard model, the various particles and forces of that model, and the weird and wonderful world of entanglement? Well it just might be on.   Consider a situation where Democritus may have been right and there does exist a smallest possible particle call it a bead to distinguish from any other particle. This will be very very small, maybe down on the Planck scale. If it exists we know two facts about it. One, it must be spherical as all its dimensions must be a minimum, and two, it must be inelastic for the same reason.  Now if we introduce energy the bead will either move in a straight line, spin about an axis or a combination of both. The important thing is that bead will now be described by, or have a dimension of time.  I believe that without movement and thus acquiring a time dimension the bead isn't real in our universe, our time frame. So where are they? Well everywhere, but inert awaiting for energy to awaken them. If, as I think is possible the bead spins, then a centrifugal force will be established  that will try to distort the bead into a doughnut shape. The bead is however inelastic so it cannot distort. The only way I can think of preserving symmetry is if a field is created to balance the centrifugal force . Now if that is the case then it is possible to build a geometric atom structure that, whist being ad hoc does not contradict the standard model and can be shown to at least have the potential to explain the Rydberg series and its mathematics. Beads spin and interchange to form different particles, but that is for a different discussion as to describe it in detail would take many pages of text.   So if these beads can be switched on and off in accordance with Rydberg, then excess energy would be emitted in quanta.  How does it transmit across space? Well convention is by the photon , which is both a wave and a particle and has no mass. Life would be much simpler if, as was once thought space was an ether, but  the Michelson Morley experiment disproved that as there is no ether drag. If however the energy is spun off by a bead finding another bead. It becomes real in our world until it passes the spinning energy to the next bead and immediately switches off. This process could go on and on across space automatically creating a wave function in a gravitational field with each successive bead becoming momentarily real providing a medium, an ether without drag. Now this concept is hard to grasp, but it suggests that energy always travels in a medium so that electromagnetic radiation is no different to sound in air or waves in water. It would also explain the double slit problem.   This idea may seem crackpot but it does have the potential to explain the Copenhagen Interpretation which I think has to be accepted as fact. Entanglement violates Einstein's assertion that C is absolute. The information if communicated between pairs of particles must go faster than light. I can find no explanation as to why that might be. Now consider the executive's favourite toy Newton's cradle. A line of steel spheres are suspended beneath a cradle and of  when the first sphere is swung away and released the momentum on impact with the line causes the last sphere to swing away. Now consider if the string had no friction and the spheres were inelastic i.e. their coefficient of restitution was one, then in order to satisfy Newton's first law the last sphere must move instantly regardless of how many spheres there are in the line. This is exactly the situation that would occur if these beads existed in the fabric of space and what is more, they would not appear to us because they would receive no time dimension. There is an added bonus in that it would neatly explain how energy reached the further reaches of the universe so quickly after the Big Bang doing away the need for expansion.  I have tried to critique the idea and considered decay, gravitational lensing, and  the Brookhaven experiment. The idea happily fits with those considerations. One obvious possibility is that with the amount of energy emitting from a star such as the sun, sufficient beads could be awaken to form a 'crust' around that star. In which case we would detect it. I believe however that as the smallest wavelength in the Rydberg series is still a trillion trillion times the likely size of a bead, this would not happen.   One area I did worry about was the concept of antimatter.  The mathematics requires it even if evidence is elusive, but I soon realised that two beads contra-rotating and coming together will behave exactly like matter and antimatter. They will both stop immediately, decay and disappear releasing  all the energy in both beads.  Now I know that I am attempting to send a whole herd of sacred cows to the abattoir particularly relating to relativity. Space doesn't curve, time is quite separate from space, things don't get smaller as they get faster, and mass doesn't get infinitely heavy as it attains the speed of light, but none of those effects can be measured so maybe that's OK.  The above is of course a very brief precis of the idea as I know a long and detailed explanation will rapidly create insomnia, but I do have much more detail  should anyone show interest.  If you have read this far and could advise me how I might get access to a physicist who could perhaps put me right as to whether any of this idea/ hypothesis has any merit and if not why not, I would be most grateful.    
   

What do you think?
« Last Edit: 22/10/2015 20:50:02 by _system »


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: How viable is my theory on quantum mechanics?
« Reply #1 on: 23/10/2015 06:39:30 »
Quote from: David Jackson
Dear Sirs  I am writing this email in the hope that  I can get some sensible feedback and constructive criticism on my ideas relating to quantum mechanics.
If this is a new theory then it should have been posted in the new theories forum. Otherwise I'll do what I can to help. :)

Quote from: David Jackson
Physics has a process of a hunch, a hypothesis, a theory, and finally a law.
That isn't quite right. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. A law is the same thing as a postulate or axiom.


Quote from: David Jackson
My idea is somewhere between a hunch and a hypothesis and hopefully does not violate any experimental facts,.   My starting point is as always, relativity. Time dilatation has to accepted as fact, as does the value of C in a vacuum and in any direction . What I can't find anywhere is why.
Time dilation can be derived as a consequence of the invariance of the speed of light. The invariance of the speed of light is an postulate and therefore we accept it as true without proof. All we need for that is experimental verification or reasoning.

Time dilation is derived on my website at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/time_dilation.htm

It's late at night now and I don't have the energy to read and respond to the rest. Maybe in the morning.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How viable is my theory on quantum mechanics?
« Reply #2 on: 23/10/2015 20:44:26 »

 If you have read this far and could advise me how I might get access to a physicist who could perhaps put me right as to whether any of this idea/ hypothesis has any merit and if not why not, I would be most grateful.   
   

What do you think?
I would suggest that you give PmbPhy an attentive ear. He stated in his response to your original post that he might read it through tomorrow and give you his opinions. He is a well respected Physicist here at TNS and should have some interesting thoughts to share with us all about your proposed "bead". If as you speculate, this "bead" produces no aether drag, it's hypothetical existence might also suggest a hypothetical cause for the gravitational effect. While I personally don't view an aether as a good scientific model,  whether or not this "bead" of yours can be experimentally observed, and shown to be, as you say, producing no aether drag, then the question about an existing aether might be due some more consideration.
« Last Edit: 23/10/2015 20:46:09 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: How viable is my theory on quantum mechanics?
« Reply #3 on: 23/10/2015 22:58:17 »
I would suggest that you give PmbPhy an attentive ear.
I would second that.
Pete runs a very good educational website, he gave you a link to one item. You say you have had problems accessing paid instruction and I know he would be willing to consider that for someone genuinely interested in learning and able to keep an open mind.
 

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: How viable is my theory on quantum mechanics?
« Reply #4 on: 25/10/2015 17:06:05 »
 I am David Jackson firstly I stand corrected as to the format of theories and I am happy to be put right. secondly I agree this is a theory albeit an embryonic one, but when I wrote to TNS I did not expect it to be posted in this form. In future any ideas will be posted in the form of questions. I must reiterate that I am just as happy to be proved wrong as right as either will advance my understanding.ππ
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How viable is my theory on quantum mechanics?
« Reply #4 on: 25/10/2015 17:06:05 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums