Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: thebrain13 on 08/04/2011 03:05:45
-
A major question facing physics is how can particles appear as waves some of the time, and particles in another. Modern day theory suggests that matter is both particles and waves in something we call wave/particle duality.
This viewpoint, however, really just doesn't make sense. Things can't simultaneous be a wave and a particle, that just doesn't sit well with a lot of people. Thus a new option needs to be considered, one that doesn't require probability, duality, one that satisfies all the experiments, and one that is possible to picture, and not merely a mathematical concept designed only to satisfy the experiments computationally and not conceptually (thanks Heisenberg and Bohr [;)] )
The first thing to look at needs to be the twin slits experiment, the twin slits experiment shows that a single electron, or photon or rubidium atoms iirc. Can interfere with themselves, that merely giving a particle another option to choose can affect where it is likely to travel.
I think that the idea that an object can interact with itself is a little absurd, and we ought to use experiments and the many like this to pull the trigger on the next logical step, and that is: an electron and a photon AINT NO ONE THING!!! to avoid the complicated probability waves and nonsensical "pictures" so oft criticized in quantum mechanics, we can just pull the trigger and proclaim this: All particles, are systems of things, all following precise rules, that cause them to coagulate into chunks (particles) and to create quantized energies.
Take for example a dripping faucet, a drop will be created, of quantized size, and energy. The size and energy that is created is dependent upon, the height of the drop from a tub, the drops polarity, the surface tension, the atractive force and shape of the thing that it is dripping off of. the mass of the water etc. If we figure out all of these rules contributing to the qualities of the drop, we could figure out why the drop is quantized in size and energy.
A drop doesn't confuse anybody, we know where it is, we understand why it has quantized sizes and energys, and it wouldn't confuse anybody to see it "wave" as it falls through the air and then strike with quantized energy. This is what we need to bring to particle theory. We need to uncover the rules that make objects act all "quantized", then finally, things may not seem so discombobulated with normal thought.
I have, believe it or not, a whole system of rules to handle each question, but I can't possibly answer and make everybody understand them all at once. It would be way too long and nobody would listen to me!!! so let's just dive in, and I'll explain an overview.
So if particles don't "exist" but are divisible, why do they always appear in discrete quantities of mass and why cant we break them apart? Well my theory would say, there are four constants, density, speed, rotation, and direction. Density is the important one here. Density says, if you added up the locations of all the objects in every observers frame of reference, a constant would emerge. This means all objects have to be around the same amount of mass at all times. So if something moves towards another, something has to move away.
Mathematically speaking, it looks like this m/d^2+m/d^2+3+4......... = a constant. Basically every object has to be around the same density of things. This makes it impossible for a true indivisible form to show. You can break an electron in half, however this would require a lot of energy, and if you did, each half of the electron would just require something else to move towards it forming the other half. so if you broke the electron in half you wouldn't get two half electrons, you'd get two electrons!!! there are lots of little tiny things floating around in space that we can't measure(see dark matter) these little parts will fill in the gaps.
Also I would like to point out something else when explaining the density constant and how it contributes to quantized sizes. Consider what would happen if a group of protons was floating around in a confined container. We would describe this as a gas. If you condense the gas, that would require that the density constant increases, which I already told you cant happen. So in order for this to be the case, something has to be removed from the protons if the gas were condensed, or the protons would have to expand.
That effect, creates something that today we call, heat. Look at almost everything that creates heat, it is almost always due to things moving closer together, and almost everything that moves away "sucks up" the surrounding heat. So when you condense the gas, little parts of it move off and away. This is how heat is usually created. However the heat itself has a desire to be in a group of defined density as well, it can't really pack up and move, unless it has a significant amount of mass upon itself, if it doesn't it needs to stay very near other particles. What then happens, in order to balance out the sizes of each proton, the heat will move from particle to particle in little jumps, this adds to the kinetic motion of the surrounding gas. The greater the heat the greater the size of particles and the greater the push and frequency of the exchanging "heat particles".
When heat has enough energy that it leaves a particle, there is a different name for it. Its called a photon. One might notice that a photon has with it all different properties. A good next question becomes, why does a photon have quantized spin? The simple answer is because rotation is a constant!!! Each part of the new radiated matter that came off the particles has the desire to be around the same amount of rotation, which will ultimately create quantized spin, there's a lot more to it, but thats the beginning jist of it.
A much more complicated question is why do objects have quantized charge. There is no good way to scimp here, I wish I could explain it simpler, but I cant. For starters, I'm going to skip what charge actually is, its something that develops over time, and its a bit tricky. So let's move on to what charge does. According to a group of laws I call relativity laws, anything that creates a force, creates with it a difference in frame of reference. It does it in a simple way, If an object has a "difference" with you, in its frame of reference it will view you as being closer than a random aggregate frame of reference would. Basically a proton views an electron being closer to it in its own frame of reference, than would a frame of reference from the outside due to their differing charge. When you consider this frame of reference difference, combined with the density constant you can deduce why an electron cant barrel into a proton. And why a proton could. The reason is because two protons have more in common than do an electron and a proton. This is how electron orbitals get created and the underlying work horse for the pauli exclusion principle. Different qualities don't mix!
But to get back to why electrons and protons create quantized charges, one needs to consider that objects change their own frames of reference when they are pushed together to maintain whatever quantity they see fit. so in conclusion two things are responsible for creating quantized force. That is, only objects of identical quantities may become very very close, thus little parts of positive particle can not make its way into an electron or vis a vis. The second part, is that even if a "lot" of material is in one object; if its super close, because of the distance squared function of my density constant equation (m/d^2) and the fact that it has to equal a constant, an asymptote is created. If you doubled the amount of negative material in an already dense electron particle, both new parts of the electron would adjust their reference points, and view the whole universe as being further away, cutting down the amount of charge each could create per mass by very near half. just like a man near a black hole views the universe as being bigger, condensed parts of particle do the same thing. This effect quantizes the forces created by particles.
Welp, there you have it, this is how I make sense of things!!! Unfortunately, I'm the only one who knows how to use this logic, I hope I'm not crazy!!!
-
Things are quantized because the universe is chaotic, and chaos is all about strange attractors. Each species of particle is a strange attractor in a sea of waves. I can't get much more specific without "evangelizing".
-
thebrain13, you make some good points, but I think the crux of the matter is that although a lot of quantum mechanics is weird and counter to our everyday intuition, you can't argue with the experimental results. There are a handful of interpretations, with which you're probably familiar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics), but they all agree that the mathematics of the theory remains the same. Reading up on the pilot wave theory might be interesting for you, since it treats particles at particles, not waves (but at a cost of introducing another kind of wave.)
But back to your theory: offering logic is useful in some areas, but as far as a scientific theory of quantum mechanics goes, it doesn't have much use. A lot of things can seem logically correct, especially in such a strange theory as quantum mechanics, and yet completely disagree with observed results. Can you offer mathematical results based on your theory and show that they agree with the other theories? If not in general, then at least for the simple case of the two slit experiment?
-
Things are quantized because the universe is chaotic, and chaos is all about strange attractors. Each species of particle is a strange attractor in a sea of waves. I can't get much more specific without "evangelizing".
Phracticality, you're more than welcome to start a thread on a non-mainstream theory on the New Theories section of the forum so long as it contains at least a bit of science and you aren't just copy/pasting from another website. It might get criticized if it doesn't really offer any new scientific content, but it generally won't be locked.
-
Oddly enough JP, I've been asked that very question about the twin slits experiment before, by a physics prof. My knee jerk response at the time was somewhat defensive. I said, "well if it's anything besides what Feynman said, it would just be wrong".
I could go online, and look up the math, or I could just give it a shot off the top of my head, using trig. I could say, if the wavelength was this many nanometers than the peaks of the probability wave should be here and here, but it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other. Einstein didn't supplant Lorentz using math. The only thing I can really do is try to match my conceptual to Feynmans. But would the math match exactly? I don't know. I know that it looks busch league to just write a bunch of words, that doesn't impress anybody, but I'm not above admitting what I don't know. Deriving answers exactly out of my fundamental laws to explain the twin slits experiment without "cheaping out" is super complicated.
It's like this. If I asked you, do you understand water waves? I'm sure you would think yes. But if I then said, okay, this 75kg kid just jumped into the pool at this location, where are all the waves after 10 seconds? I took a picture so I already know where they are.
You would not know "exactly", you would just be reduced to making sweeping generalizations, like crests and troughs add to each other, the waves propagate at a certain speed, the strength of the waves is determined by the kids jump and his weight etc. etc. but whatever picture you drew, would only be vaguely accurate, because like my theory, there are tons of variables moving all over the place. If I write something mathematically, It's because I have some special way of narrowing it down, but for the most part, that's not going to stop me from being able to establish correlations and generalizations.
With that being said, in my specific opinion, the twin slits experiment is the most important experiment of our time. It's probably had the greatest impact of any I can think of, and I've certainly spent a lot of time on it. It requires a lot of new logic, you're gonna have to pay close attention.
The first thing to get a grip on is how I handle entanglement, and locality. The way I would interpret entanglement in a stern-gerlach apparatus is that, the two entangled particles view each other as being close while the rest of the objects view them as being apart. That way two separate particles can affect each others spin from a distance spookily!
I think a different concept of locality is necessary for, entanglement, the twin slits experiment and for explaining how "wavefunctions collapse". Here's how it works, imagine you got shrunk down into a little miniature particle sized spaceship, just to help you picture what's going on. If you drove in a way that you never became "close" to any other particles, you would find that your motion was a little disconnected with your typical reality.
so lets say you wanted to drive towards the sun, if you did this while making sure that you avoided contact with any particles on the way you would find that it took way more energy to move than you would of thought. You could burn and burn your engines and you wouldn't move hardly at all, and then all of a sudden zap! You would zip right over to the sun immediately and burn.
What happens here is something I refer to as the "consensus frame of reference". What this suggests is that each object has a "voucher" which determines its qualities. Like location. Each individual object has a "say" on every other that is based upon its mass divided by its distance squared, just like my other equation. So, the only way for the voucher (and most other things featuring equations with a d^2 in its denominator) to become significant is to become super close. Extreme closeness is a very important concept for me, its one of my simplification tools [:)]. So, what happened here was, the spaceship only considered itself as being near the sun when it approached something on the sun. As macroscopic beings, we don't notice this because we are constantly being bombarded by objects in our location, and our whole body is pretty much connected, keeping everything on the same page. It's really important to understand that just because most things view an object as being somewhere, that doesn't mean everything has to.
This is important to the twin slits experiment, because the constituents of particles view themselves as being further away than do most other objects. Part of photons and electrons make it through both slits as the particle naturally will spread out, but as soon as any part of it interacts with something in a specific location, the rest of the particle will just beam right over, since in the particles frame of reference everything is connected.
The next thing that needs to be addressed is the frequency of particles....but Im tired I'll write about it tomorrow I hope you guys can follow.
-
Oddly enough JP, I've been asked that very question about the twin slits experiment before, by a physics prof. My knee jerk response at the time was somewhat defensive. I said, "well if it's anything besides what Feynman said, it would just be wrong".
I could go online, and look up the math, or I could just give it a shot off the top of my head, using trig. I could say, if the wavelength was this many nanometers than the peaks of the probability wave should be here and here, but it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other. Einstein didn't supplant Lorentz using math. The only thing I can really do is try to match my conceptual to Feynmans. But would the math match exactly? I don't know. I know that it looks busch league to just write a bunch of words, that doesn't impress anybody, but I'm not above admitting what I don't know. Deriving answers exactly out of my fundamental laws to explain the twin slits experiment without "cheaping out" is super complicated.
It's like this. If I asked you, do you understand water waves? I'm sure you would think yes. But if I then said, okay, this 75kg kid just jumped into the pool at this location, where are all the waves after 10 seconds? I took a picture so I already know where they are.
You would not know "exactly", you would just be reduced to making sweeping generalizations, like crests and troughs add to each other, the waves propagate at a certain speed, the strength of the waves is determined by the kids jump and his weight etc. etc. but whatever picture you drew, would only be vaguely accurate, because like my theory, there are tons of variables moving all over the place. If I write something mathematically, It's because I have some special way of narrowing it down, but for the most part, that's not going to stop me from being able to establish correlations and generalizations.
With that being said, in my specific opinion, the twin slits experiment is the most important experiment of our time. It's probably had the greatest impact of any I can think of, and I've certainly spent a lot of time on it. It requires a lot of new logic, you're gonna have to pay close attention.
The first thing to get a grip on is how I handle entanglement, and locality. The way I would interpret entanglement in a stern-gerlach apparatus is that, the two entangled particles view each other as being close while the rest of the objects view them as being apart. That way two separate particles can affect each others spin from a distance spookily!
I think a different concept of locality is necessary for, entanglement, the twin slits experiment and for explaining how "wavefunctions collapse". Here's how it works, imagine you got shrunk down into a little miniature particle sized spaceship, just to help you picture what's going on. If you drove in a way that you never became "close" to any other particles, you would find that your motion was a little disconnected with your typical reality.
so lets say you wanted to drive towards the sun, if you did this while making sure that you avoided contact with any particles on the way you would find that it took way more energy to move than you would of thought. You could burn and burn your engines and you wouldn't move hardly at all, and then all of a sudden zap! You would zip right over to the sun immediately and burn.
What happens here is something I refer to as the "consensus frame of reference". What this suggests is that each object has a "voucher" which determines its qualities. Like location. Each individual object has a "say" on every other that is based upon its mass divided by its distance squared, just like my other equation. So, the only way for the voucher (and most other things featuring equations with a d^2 in its denominator) to become significant is to become super close. Extreme closeness is a very important concept for me, its one of my simplification tools [:)]. So, what happened here was, the spaceship only considered itself as being near the sun when it approached something on the sun. As macroscopic beings, we don't notice this because we are constantly being bombarded by objects in our location, and our whole body is pretty much connected, keeping everything on the same page. It's really important to understand that just because most things view an object as being somewhere, that doesn't mean everything has to.
This is important to the twin slits experiment, because the constituents of particles view themselves as being further away than do most other objects. Part of photons and electrons make it through both slits as the particle naturally will spread out, but as soon as any part of it interacts with something in a specific location, the rest of the particle will just beam right over, since in the particles frame of reference everything is connected.
The next thing that needs to be addressed is the frequency of particles....but Im tired I'll write about it tomorrow I hope you guys can follow.
Maybe you should just run a few experiments and publish the results instead.
-
Maybe you should just run a few experiments and publish the results instead.
Or better yet, make a prediction that you or someone else can test experimentally. It doesn't have to be as complicated at the two slit experiment, but it does have to show something that your theory can predict that others can't. Otherwise, your theory is just words, not science. No one would have taken Einstein seriously either, if he had said that the math of his theory was difficult, so he wasn't going to do it: he actually told people what to look for to verify his theory, and when they did the experiments they found that he, not Newton, was right.