The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?  (Read 1009 times)

Offline alimac

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
As you will soon guess I am not a professional physicist but I can't find a theory like this having been published.   

I naively have what I believe to be a  theory of quantum paradoxes such as entanglement, double slits, Wheeler's delayed observation, quantum tunneling, quantum froth  even up to black holes that is more reasonable than multiverses or subjective universes.

Starting from the simplest case.

Consider entangled photons of light being simultaneously polarized.  As the light is (self evidently) at light speed it does not move through time.  This creates a difference in time resulting in a (Planck length sized) fissure/gradient in space time.  The fissure will extend until it hits something it does not have the energy to pass (the polarizor).  The photon hasn't yet moved but in our perceived space time, the deformation of space time caused by the time deficit of the photon, causes the space time of the detector to reach the photon.  After the meeting of the different times the space time equalizes.

The photons never moved but were polarized in correlation at distance.  (Relativity does say you can't be sure who is moving and each participant will see it differently).

In an electron double slit experiment the slits demonstrate  turbulence in the propagation of the fissure.  Imagine the fissure is   cyclone or tornado like : spinning and distorting material around it in the direction of the time deficit.  The existence of the double slits causes it to fracture and proceed towards space time beyond both slits.  When the fissure hits the detector the space time is drawn to the electron and then equalizes.  The result is that the detector shows two superimposed amplified versions of the wave function peaks.  The electron was found where it's wave function predicted hence the apparent paradox of one electron interfering with itself.

In Wheeler's delayed observation the observed separation of space time (slit)has already equalized time so it does not exert a pull on the space time of the detector.  Hence when the fissure hits the detector there is no time gradient other than through one slit so it appears as if the electron knew the slit would be closed.

Quantum tunneling simply gets enough energy to create a fissure through one barrier to be stopped at a subsequent barrier where it is detected.

From the double slit experiment the apparent turbulence caused by light speed radiation in space time is larger than the cross sectional size of the fissure.  Assuming the matter in black holes emits enormous amounts of  radiation at light speed it will create a huge time deficit resulting in high densities of turbulent fissures drawing space time towards the black hole.  However as the turbulent area created is greater than the outgoing radiation at high density the incoming space time log jams.  (Imagine raining sufficiently heavily that the gutter and down pipes can't cope).  The event horizon is actually where incoming space time log jams. (It does explain why black holes get bigger the more matter they contain)

All of this activity makes space time far more flexible, volatile and time influenced than we currently seem to imagine but does explain quantum froth.

All is explainable if light doesn't really travel (the apparent speed of light is the maximum speed of propagation of a fissure in space time), space time is uneven, granular and microscopically cracked.  (Imagine space time coming inwards towards a gravitational object like rain : could be a sunny day, misty, showery, torrential.  At a microscopic level are water molecules but at a macroscopic level is generalized % air humidity corresponding to felt gravity).

It does seem incredibly bizarre that this seems logical to me and no one else thought of it. (It seems to differ from pilot waves in that space time is turbulently pulled in the direction of the time deficit).  It is different way of looking at things but quantum behavior doesn't make sense using our traditional world view.  I may not have used the precise technical terms but I hope the gist of what I am trying to convey is intelligible.

What of the above directly contradicts known experimental results ?

I' d be grateful for any feed back though I'll understand if you feel I have wasted your time.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2015 20:42:45 by alimac »


 

Offline alimac

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?
« Reply #1 on: 26/11/2015 01:00:39 »
I posted this a week ago and nobody tore me a new one : don't know if that is kindness or disinterest ?

I think I can explain part of what I was trying to say in another way. 

We should not be able to encounter messenger particles (e.g. gravitons) as, due to their velocity, they are receding in our time from the moment they are created (us and anything that could detect them being large slow things).

When they hit something it is not just energy or force that is interacting but different times.  This to me seems a fairly obvious and a logical conclusion of relativity.

Any arguments with the above ?

As an extension to the above
  • I suspect " a graviton" would be like a positive charge : operationally useful but actually signifying a deficit (of time).
  • time, as we perceive it, is the predominant time in a location due to the relatively short distances traveled by most high speed entities, the low velocity of large objects and our inability to perceive very small disturbances. One hundred years ago Planck supposed that energy was not uniform : it seems strange, and illogical, that we assume that time is homogeneous in an area of space.

Any comment ?
« Last Edit: 26/11/2015 01:06:11 by alimac »
 

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?
« Reply #2 on: 26/11/2015 02:07:53 »
I largely do not understand your theory. Helpful would be diagrams attached to your post as images.  Also, your theory lacks quantitative precision, such as exactly how the fissures behave so as to produce fringes whose mathematical form is well known.  Also, a key test must be that it must mesh with the actual algebra of Einstein's relativistic equations.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?
« Reply #3 on: 26/11/2015 16:37:15 »
Atomic-s When you suggest an Aether most scientists follow the MMX as there not being a medium for a fissure to be produced.

Alimac  There is only the present. Motion in your present may be a different reaction times but you are always in the present.

 

Offline alimac

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?
« Reply #4 on: 27/11/2015 22:59:33 »
I'll try to explain this another way.  I understand it is not the conventional/accepted wisdom but the conventional/accepted wisdom does not explain various quantum paradoxes.

Imagine I am in my garden looking at a star whose light has traveled thirteen billion light years.  It has not traveled through time for thirteen billion years.

When a photon is a Planck length from hitting one of my particles if we created a boundary to isolate the photon and my particle : what is the present within the bounded system ? What time is it within the system ? 13 billion years ago as per the photon or our "now" as per my particle or a mixture ? (If we consider the photon and all of me then the predominant time is mine but it is not ubiquitous or universal).

What is the impact of two particles colliding in the same physical location each at a different point in time ?  The conventional/accepted wisdom would say that it makes no difference but in reverse engineering how time and space may behave in order to create postdictions of entanglement, single particle double slit interference and Wheeler's delayed observation a possible logical conclusion is that time is not inert.  If differences in time caused spacetime to distort or deform towards the space of the oldest time in the interaction then all the quantum paradoxes I am aware of would be logical conclusions of this model.

I believe we wouldn't perceive it because we only perceive our predominant time and the effects of such interactions are in our past. (I used the word photon above so as not to confuse but logically in this theory it is really a messenger that energy stopped travelling through time 13 billion years ago resulting in spacetime adjusting and the photon coming into my present).

It is a different way of looking at things but seems as reasonable, or more reasonable, than multiverses or a subjective universe.

Hopefully this time at least the gist of what I am trying to say is intelligible
« Last Edit: 27/11/2015 23:14:47 by alimac »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?
« Reply #5 on: 03/12/2015 16:13:33 »
Imagine I am in my garden looking at a star whose light has traveled thirteen billion light years.  It has not traveled through time for thirteen billion years.When a photon is a Planck length from hitting one of my particles if we created a boundary to isolate the photon and my particle : what is the present within the bounded system ? What time is it within the system ? 13 billion years ago as per the photon or our "now" as per my particle or a mixture ? (If we consider the photon and all of me then the predominant time is mine but it is not ubiquitous or universal).

The time is irrelevant. You simply have a transfer of information. Properties of the photon have been preserved across the intervening distance. The fact that photons behave this way is due to their nature, being massless and traveling at c. Since this is true the only thing that is going to give them a hard time is a black hole. Other sources of gravitation may have lensing effects and may modify the information content. (That I am unsure of.)
 

Offline alimac

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?
« Reply #6 on: 09/12/2015 01:02:45 »
The whole point of the theory is that time isn't irrelevant.  If time were irrelevant (at a minimum) Wheeler's delayed observation wouldn't occur.

Our current conception is inadequate and flawed : if time were, like mass and energy,  variable at particle level and capable of influencing space-time at particle level then a number of quantum paradoxes would no longer be seen as paradoxical.

Repeating the conventional (flawed) wisdom doesn't validate it and simply because this theory is different doesn't necessarily invalidate it.  That being said it is no more than a sketch of a theory but I can't think of any way that it's predictions  fundamentally transgress relativity or quantum theory.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?
« Reply #7 on: 12/12/2015 14:24:39 »
Our current conception is inadequate and flawed : if time were, like mass and energy,  variable at particle level and capable of influencing space-time at particle level then a number of quantum paradoxes would no longer be seen as paradoxical.

How we measure time is by energy. Energy is motion and measuring motion is time. So time is energy.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is this a reasonable explanation of quantum paradoxes ?
« Reply #8 on: 15/12/2015 11:00:55 »

 

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