The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there no process in the Universe that corresponds to what QM avers exists ?  (Read 1128 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
1) There is nothing in the Universe that we inhabit that corresponds to a circumstance where one object person or thing can be in two places simultaneously. The concept of one object occupying two different places in space simultaneously, is so out of the world that such a thing does not take place even in fairy tales.... One never hears of the fairy Godmother turning a pumpkin into a coach for Cinderella and at one and the same time casting another spell on someone else somewhere else.....

2) There is nothing in the Universe that we inhabit that corresponds to a circumstance where an, object person or thing starts off as an entity at one place, becomes disembodied and occupies the whole of space and is present everywhere during the period of its travel and then suddenly coalesces back into a corporate body at the moment of its detection...... This is such a weird concept and so totally unsupported by actual experience and observation that the very fact that such a theory has been put forward and accepted is extraordinary.

3) There is nothing in the Universe that we inhabit that corresponds to an object being one thing when viewed in one way or at one time  and completely another thing when viewed in another way or at another time. This means that the object has cognition and can sense when it being observed and change accordingly. Like it or not this is analogous to the theory maintained by the philosopher Berkeley that the existence of the external world actually consists in its being perceived. This leads to the [ridiculous ???] conclusion that when for example no-one is present in a room, the room and its contents are in fact non-existent: they fade and reappear with the absence or presence of the conscious observer. Such a conclusion is so manifestly opposed to "common sense " that Berkeley was later led to qualify his statement by stating that the existence of the external world is maintained by the fact of its being perceived in the mind of God. (No such qualification has been made by QM !). Incidentally if you think that Bishop Berkeley was an Ass for stating that the the world began in 4004 B.C then please apply the same logic to Bohr's complementarity theory that states that light can be either a wave or a particle but never possess wave and particle properties simultaneously, which incidentally is what is widely observed in nature to be the case. Wave can behave like a particle (i.e., possess both properties simultaneously.)

The above weird theories on the nature of light have been put forward by Quantum Mechanics and have gained wide-spread support for the past 100 years or  so. How is this possible. Nothing in our experience of the world or the Universe suggests that anything even vaguely resembling such phenomena is possible. What make the sub-atomic world so unique that a whole new set of rules apply. Or that such rules can be taken as gospel truth without a shred of evidence to support them.  True at the level of the extremely small it might not be possible to state exactly what is happening but this does not mean that these micro particles follow completely different criteria. In fact every observed fact seems to lead to exactly the opposite conclusion. For instance femto-second lasers have proved that electrons orbit the nucleus and that they possess particle like location attributes. The only plausible conclusion is  that sub-atomic particles follow exactly the same laws as the macro world.  This is not to rule out the existence of an aether like medium permeating the Universe, in fact physics would support the existence of such a medium. If such a medium did exist it would negate the hundred plus fields that are necessitated by Quantum Mechanics. It would also negate separate origins for EM fields and magnetism and many other such phenomena that are at present in a state of confusion. Most importantly it would exactly correspond to gravity as envisioned by Isaac Newton. It would also make the propagation of electro-magnetic waves a snap, same goes for super conductivity and propagation of electricity in a wire.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 04:31:14 by McQueen »


 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quantum mechanics really is that bizarre. You don't understand it is the problem.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
jeffreyH
Quote
Quantum mechanics really is that bizarre. You don't understand it is the problem.

What is really amazing is not that Quantum Mechanics really is that bizarre but the fact that you seem to revel in its being so bizarre. The idea of imagining such a weird and complicated Universe (even if it does not exist in the Macro world) is apparently so irresistible that one is compelled to create it in the micro world. There are several points to illustrate this:

(1)  Take the question of photons, there are trillions and trillions of possible photon energy values , wave-lengths and frequencies. The Quantum Mechanics point of view is that each of these trillions of possible energies, wavelengths and frequencies exist as individual wave/particle entities !! (Hahahahaha! -  hysterical laughter) As an extension of this proposition it follows that each electron must  somehow contain all of these individual entities known as photons and produce them as needed. Even Mary Poppins hand bag would have a tough time coping with such a situation. It would require at least time dilation or worm holes so that the place where these photons are stored can be easily accessed. But then again that would be right up the Quantum Mechanics alley, wouldn't it ?

By contrast the Gestalt Aether Theory (GAT) states that the situation is analogous to a store of energy, like a petrol tank. When more energy is needed as for instance to go faster, the pedal is depressed and more energy is dispensed, if  less energy is needed less pressure is applied and less fuel dispensed. In the same way the store of energy can be replenished as and when needed. In this way the matter of the trillions and trillions of wave-lengths, frequencies and energies becomes a trifling matter, almost inconsequential. It can easily be accounted for !

(2)  Next consider the Quantum Mechanics explanation for the manner in which  magnetism and electro-magnetism respectively are formed.  Electron spin as it orbits the atom ( and perhaps in some strange manner, even the rotation of the electron around the nucleus might contribute) is supposed to be the prime causative factor for magnetic fields. This is very strange when one considers the fact that when one speaks of spin, nothing is actually spinning ! The concept of spin is something that is necessitated by the theory of wave/particle duality, as such it is an indispensable attribute of every sub-atomic particle.  And, although magnetism and electromagnetism are indistinguishable, electromagnetism is thought (by Quantum Mechanics) to be formed by movement of electrons in a wire carrying a current. This explanation in itself (smells ??) . How can two explanations or prime causative factors be attributed to one and the same phenomena ?  Further while electrons in a conductor carrying direct current do move, they move at an incredibly slow rate   of about 10-3 cms/sec or 3.6 cms per hour.  Even more perplexing is the fact that in a conductor carrying an alternating current the electrons do not move at all. They appear to be frozen in place ! No matter this is only a minor glitch, let us carry on and see how it is possible for objects to disembody or be in two places at once. We can deal with this trifling matter later say the Quantum Mechanic scientists.

By contrast the Gestalt Aether theory states that electrons are not the primary charge carriers but that photons are. Who knows why Quantum Mechanics sticks to the stodgy view that electrons are the primary charge carriers, when in every recorded instance it is photons that are found to be the mediators of energy between electrons and everything else. It is really strange that this one ( and extremely important) exception, namely a current is made by Quantum Mechanics. NOW (with photons as charge carriers) everything makes sense, yes, photons move at the speed of light, yes, photons carry energy, yes photons can create near and far fields ( as explained elsewhere in Gestalt Aether Theory). Yes, this theory accounts for the creation of magnetic and electromagnetic fields AND does not require two separate causative factors to do so.  And yes very accurate calculations can be made using this theory that fully account for both magnitude of current AND magnitude of near and far fields.

(3)  Lastly there is the question of how electromagnetic fields are formed.  It is well known and an established fact that electromagnetic radiation possesses all the properties of a photon, it has no mass, is electrically neutral, always travels at the speed of light in a vacuum, possess wave-length, frequency and energy. The only point of difference is that radio waves can be massive. For instance a radio wave caused by a 60 Hz oscillation can be 5000 Kms in length. How can a tiny electron possibly produce such a massive wave-length (photon) ?  Quantum Mechanics decided that it can't. So what is the Quantum Mechanics explanation for radio waves. Radio waves are caused by vibrations of the crystal lattice in the conductor (which in turn are caused by electron  movement) , these vibrations create perturbations in the space surrounding the conductor, these perturbations cause photons to be arbitarily produced, the photons then undergo spontaneous annihilation giving rise to quantum entangled pairs of electrons and positrons that also undergo spontaneous annihilation giving rise to (voila) a photon of exactly the same energy as the one that first underwent spontaneous creation! It is a wonderful and mesmerising account, of creation, destruction and preservation, in the same manner that the God Shiva maintains in his divine dance. Still...... when one thinks of the trillions and trillions of wave-lengths frequencies and energies involved, how exactly is it all calculated.

Again by contrast the Gestalt Aether Theory explanation is startling in its simplicity, clarity and correspondence with observed fact.  The Gestalt Aether Theory states that radio waves are composite waves, made up of connected photons. The manner in which the photons are connected together decides whether it is a near field configuration or a far field configuration. Thus when (conduction) photons are connected in series, they form the near field and constitute an electrical current, when (conduction) photons are connected in parallel  they  form the far field and constitute radio waves. It is as simple and elegant as that. THAT is how the tiny electron can form radio waves thousands (or even tens of thousands of kilometres, bring it on) long.  Once again the mathematical calculations that this theory gives rise to are extraordinarily accurate.

It has been many years since I first realised that Quantum Mechanics was not all that it was held to be,  but it is only now that a fitting description occurs to me. Quantum Mechanics and the manner in which it is presented brings to mind nothing so much as it does cheap communist propaganda! It has the same lurid ( and  undeserving) self aggrandisement, it has the same absurd posturing, the same intolerance of the slightest intransigence or disagreement. How different from Newton or even Einstein, who both welcomed an open discussion.


« Last Edit: 05/03/2016 01:35:25 by McQueen »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Like it or not quantum mechanics has been confirmed by experiment. You can ignore that if you wish.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
jeffreyH
Quote
Like it or not quantum mechanics has been confirmed by experiment. You can ignore that if you wish.

I certainly do not wish to ignore experiments that if correctly interpreted will support what you say. But what exactly are these experiments ? I could make an educated guess and say that one of the experiments you refer to is probably  the 'Double Slit Experiment'?

At this point I would like to ask you a question and hope that you will answer it as honestly as you can.  The question is this. If a copper wire is connected into a circuit between the positive and negative terminals of a battery, what would you see ?  Would I be correct in saying that you would see absolutely nothing  ? There is nothing to see ! But in actual fact even though you can't see it you are well aware that an electromagnetic field surrounds that electrical conductor and if you had a handful of iron filings you would be able to observe that electromagnetic field. Now I put it to you ( shades of Perry Mason) isn't it possible that in the 'Double Slit Experiment' a similar invisible field exists that makes the particles be they neutrons, photons etc., to behave in the way they do? I say that it would indeed be very possible. Much more possible than the crazy quantum mechanics explanation that the particles can be in two places at once so that they can pass through both slits simultaneously and thus create an interference pattern OR that the sub-atomic particle in question has cognitive capabilities it knows when both the slits are opened and acts accordingly. These explanations are actually as crazy as they sound they have absolutely no basis in reality. The mathematics they lead to is equally disturbing.

Another experiment you might be referring to is the polariser experiment where a photon can pass (or not pass) through a series of polariser filters depending on the way in which they are arranged. The structure of the photon proposed by Gestalt Aether Theory would amply explain this phenomena.  So what is left ? Experiments that are just too vague or  too lame to be believed ?


« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 15:25:14 by McQueen »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Like it or not quantum mechanics has been confirmed by experiment. You can ignore that if you wish.
I too would like to know what experiments you refer to. I understand that we can use statistics to model the probabilistic behavior but that only points to our inability at the moment to calculate real physical qualities. But experiments that confirm QM? 
 

Offline sam7

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
I thoroughly believe that QM has not yet been confirmed by experiment. There are other systems that fit observations perfectly well and I believe it to be a matter of time before QM is relegated/ transformed.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3905
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I did a complete about face on quantum mechanics because I reached a point where I had studied enough to understand its implications. That took a lot of hard work. There is no shortcut. Whatever I say will not convince. Start by investigaing the history of the subject, its inventors and the controversies.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Like it or not quantum mechanics has been confirmed by experiment. You can ignore that if you wish.
I did a complete about face on quantum mechanics because I reached a point where I had studied enough to understand its implications. That took a lot of hard work. There is no shortcut. Whatever I say will not convince. Start by investigaing the history of the subject, its inventors and the controversies.
This is all very well and I too have investigated its history, its inventors and as you put it the controversies. 
None of that points me to the confirmation by experiment that you claimed. 
So again if there really is any truth to your claim, please post links to those experiments. That way we too can analyze them and maybe come to your conclusion that like it or not it (QM) is a fact and not just the ridiculous fantasy that it so far appears to be. 
Remember that just because something can be made to work does not mean it is real.  Ptolemy's circles on circles being a prime example.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Quote
I did a complete about face on quantum mechanics because I reached a point where I had studied enough to understand its implications. That took a lot of hard work. There is no shortcut. Whatever I say will not convince. Start by investigaing the history of the subject, its inventors and the controversies.

I have to agree with Space Flow, it might be true that you have put in a lot of hard work in trying to understand Quantum Mechanics, if so why is it so difficult to substantiate  your claims of having incontrovertible experimental proof that Quantum Mechanics has all the answers ?

Take the theory of disembodiment of light the Quantum Mechanics reasoning (taking a page from yor_on's post) is as follows:

"In quantum mechanics, the particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum, a measure of the velocity, is the wavelength. The position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined.

The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there are no states which describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The narrower the probability distribution is for the position, the wider it is in momentum."

Obviously looked at like this it appears to make sense, of course a wave would by definition have to spread out in space, it cannot remain localised. It is only when one realises that it is unnecessary to link the concept of a particle  to the concept of a wave that it becomes apparent that the bloated and fantastical theory that results with its multiple dimensions and strange theories of disembodiment and re-appearance at the point of observation are completely superfluous . Alternative theories are available that fit in much better with reality without the need of all the mumbo-jumbo entailed by the weird quantum mechanics solution. What are these alternate theories ? Take as an example the theory that I have put forward in the Gestalt Aether Theory that the photon has a solenoidal construction. This means that the photon is fundamentally a wave but at the same time it also means that unlike a wave it does not spread out! Again because of its solenoidal construction it means that it is electrically neutral, it has no mass, and because the solenoidal construction is the result of bursts of energy that have become polarised and resulted  in the solenoid formation, it also means that this interpretation of the photon can not only possess energy but that it can preserve that energy almost indefinitely and deliver it to an electron when it is absorbed.  Meaning that although fundamentally a wave it can perform the functions of a particle.

Obviously when I possess an idea like this that makes sense to me, there is no question of my trying to make sense of the justifications that Quantum Mechanics puts forward.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2016 02:00:38 by McQueen »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Does Gestalt Aether Theory also model electrons as solenoidal?

I ask because I have seen, first-hand, electrons diffracting and otherwise acting as waves. And yet, I have also see evidence of electrons behaving as single, discrete particles... While I haven't seen it first hand, I also believe reports of experiments that establish the wavelike properties of protons, molecules, and even small viruses!

How does GAT address this apparent dual nature?
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Quote
How does GAT address this apparent dual nature?
If it comes to that, why does water, which is apparently a solid made up of  atoms and molecules,  exhibit properties of interference and diffraction, when there is enough of it to form waves ? Is it because water is both particle and wave ? Just curious
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Quote
How does GAT address this apparent dual nature?
If it comes to that, why does water, which is apparently a solid made up of  atoms and molecules,  exhibit properties of interference and diffraction, when there is enough of it to form waves ? Is it because water is both particle and wave ? Just curious

I don't think that this is a good analogy. Just because waves can propagate through water (or any other medium) doesn't mean that the water (or other medium) is the wave. In the same way, if we accept that there is an aether, it would be distinct from the light waves which travel through it--the aether is not the wave, the light is.

On the other hand, a single electron appears to interact with itself as one would expect a wave to do. Collections of electrons appear to interact with each other as we would expect a collection of waves to do.

I don't think that there is anything magical or mystical about this apparent wave/particle duality--I think it just means that the types of things and physics we have direct knowledge and experience of don't translate well from our macroscopic view and experience to the microscopic world. Electrons are electrons. Calling it a wave or a particle won't change that. We can draw analogies to particles, waves, or even people in order to think about and talk about what is going on. (I spend a lot of time discussing with other PhDs what electrons or molecules "want to do" --we know that this is not likely an accurate description, but it is really easy to understand and discuss, so we continue to do it...)
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Quote
In the same way, if we accept that there is an aether, it would be distinct from the light waves which travel through it--the aether is not the wave, the light is.

That is where GAT differs from accepted theory. Consider the Big Bang, at some point during the process a lot of light was produced, in fact it would be no exaggeration to say that the Universe was filled with light. The question is , what happened to that light ? There wasn't enough matter (there still isn't) to absorb even a tiny fraction of the light produced. Light travels at approximately one billion ( 1,080,000,000 kms /hr) kilometres per hour while, matter even matter that has been super accelerated, would not travel more than a few thousands (30,000 km/hr) of kilometres per hour. To suppose that the light escaped from the bounds of the Universe is absolutely unrealistic, there was nothing to escape to, the only logical conclusion  is that the light remained within the Universe and that the same light exists within the Universe to this day.  How would this be possible ?

 Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as it relates to energy and time supposes that if something has a very minimal energy then it could exist for any length of time . The same is true of the converse situation, if the time for which an interaction exists is extremely small then the energy involved could be extremely large. Thus as light propagated through the nascent Universe, (it is possible that it propagated in exactly the same way in which it propagates to-day), gradually losing energy, until simultaneous with its arrival at the edge of the Universe, it acquired zero point energy ( or the equivalent) something on the order of 10 -50 Joules at which point its life time would be practically infinite, on the order of the life time of the electron or the proton. Yet the physical characteristics of the light remained unchanged, its structure is exactly the same as a photon that is produced from an electron today. These very low energy photons that permeate the entire Universe are known as the 'virtual photon aether' in GAT .

Contemplate for a moment the implications of such a 'virtual photon aether' the photons have such low energies that nothing in matter would interact with them, matter would be as permeable to these low energy photons as if it did not exist, it would be colourless, tasteless, odourless, electrically neutral, invisible and so on. In short an ideal example of the classical aether.

According to the GAT theory therefore, light propagates through light !

Consider for a moment how beautifully this fits in with the Conservation of energy, light becomes an integral part of the Big Bang process. Its energies, its life time, in short everything is closely related to the whole process.  When the photons of the 'virtual photon aether' sense the presence of a real photon, they line up along its path of propagation forming a line whose ends rest on the shoulders of infinity , the energy of the real photon travels along this line, gradually losing energy according to the inverse square law (an explanation follows) until at some point it attains zero point energy and becomes a part of the 'virtual photon aether'.  Thus the Universe is filled with light, we just can't see it. We can however observe this virtual photon aether every time we switch on a light or an appliance in the form of the 'lines of force' that form around the conductor.  I have already explained in a prior post, how the aether influences individual particles in the Double Slit Experiment.
Note: Incoherent light would propagate according to the inverse square law, while coherent light would lose less energy initially but finally end up propagating according to the inverse square law, the GAT explanation for this phenomenon is sound and makes sense.
chiralSPO
I must state that you seem to be side stepping the issue here. The reason for QM adopting the wave particle theory was that they did not try to explain observed phenomena in terms of new explanations or theories but tried to superimpose pre-existing ideas on observed phenomena, hence wave-particle duality.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2016 08:39:18 by McQueen »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length