Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

An impossible quantum theory of everything?

  1. Jul 7, 2005 #1
    No existing quantum mechanics or theory need be thought to sufficiently explain how it is that the subatomic of matter or photons of radiation can be detected and described as possessing their properties of behaviour called wave and spin or as being entangled in composite or singlet states, none of this behaviour being describable as effects caused by the known properties of any force.

    Although from no experimental findings of radiation, atoms, molecules or their subatomic components of any kind can any cause be definitely shown to act in addition to the known forces - or at least, not from any of this evidence alone.

    Also, it can be easily argued that no cause that can only be described from its effects acts in addition to the forces. So, for one thing, no properties of any such cause could be described by measurement, calculation or mathematical formula to clearly show that or how it affects matter or energy.

    Yet many carefully controlled experiments have been carried out where effects in terms of invariable correlations could be measured at large scale distances between entangled nuclear components and between photons at distances of up to 10.9 kilometres. So that such correlations cannot be thought of as effects resulting from any force-like cause.

    Also, given the forces acting just as their properties could be measured and described as they surrounding the subatomic components of matter, the atomic and molecular organisation of these components would, somehow, need to persist despite these forces. Su given a cause acting in addition to these forces we could describe such causation as possessing the universal property just of maintaining or conserving the natural organisation of matter.

    Such would be a cause that would neither attract or repel objects and so would act at a distance with no strength that could measured to reduce or cease with increasing distance. While composite quantum states could be described because the cause acts so as to conserve the correlations of behaviour that are measurable between the subatomic components nd between photons.

    It need not be supposed, however, that there could ever be any sufficient explanation of any such forms of behaviour that can be uniquely measured and described of any quantum objects. Unless, perhaps, a seemingly impossible theory could be developed.

    So, first of all, the thought could be that if a further cause does act upon matter and radiation its action could be represented by diagrams rather than described by measurement, calculation or mathematical formulae

    Thus an essential key to a hypothesis that explain the quantum behaviour would be a method of clearly representing the way in which a cause could relate in space so as to produce its effects upon matter and radiation.

    Then reasons would be found to consider that and how such a cause could act in the natural world on the large and directly observable scale, and by using the diagrammatic methods devised for the quantum hypothesis.

    This large scale evidence would thus serve to support the initial quantum hypothesis and justify a description in terms of quantum objects in motion of the quantum behaviour that could only be described from indirect experimental results.

    Then by considering a wide range of other natural evidence it would be found that a detailed explanatory theory could be developed of how a cause that can only be described from its effects could act upon matter and energy in addition to the forces.

    While in relation to certain of the natural evidence considered, the theory could then be supported by measurement and calculation.

    Thus would be developed a general theory of all natural organisation of matter and radiation where this can be described as persisting despite the action of all the forces. Such organisation would include that of living organisms as well as atoms and molecules, and also spiral galaxies, galaxy clusters and cosmic voids. So that all these phenomena would require that a cause acts non-locally or invariably at any distance, and so as to conserve or maintain their organised forms as they can thus resist the effects all the forces.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 8, 2005 #2
    I'm trying to translate your post in English. Language aside:

    The wave like nature of quantum particles is a simple solution of Schrodinger's Wave Equation, an un-derivable wave equation which encompasses the De Broglie relations and non-relativistic energy / momentum relations.

    Spin appears mathematically as a result of making Schrodinger's Equation Lorentz invarient (i.e. theoretically in line with Special Relativity).

    No problems mathematically there.

    Correlations can be measured, and indeed have been, over non-negligable differences. Who said 'forces' were the result of these correlations? I suggest you read David Deutsch's paper 'Information Flow in Quantum Entangled Systems' to see there need not be some magic force producing correlation effects.

    The rest is basically undecypherable.
  4. Jul 9, 2005 #3
    See: http://uk.geocities.com/cosmicmind2003 for an early attempt at such a quantum theory as above.

    email me for an updated version with an improved cosmological theory.
  5. Jul 9, 2005 #4
    That's not a theory.
  6. Jul 9, 2005 #5
    What's a theory?
  7. Jul 9, 2005 #6
    ..and mere mathematical description certainly isn't.
    e.g. hwo does the Shrodiger equation how it is that the wave function can be described.

    Also the Copenhagen and many worlds interpretations are philosopical mumbo jumbo.

    Prove me wrong.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: An impossible quantum theory of everything?
  1. Theory of everything (Replies: 0)

  2. Theory of Everything (Replies: 4)

  3. Theory Of Everything (Replies: 2)