Oops, I accidentally figured out quantum uncertainty.

  • Thread starter exeric
  • Start date
  • #1
exeric
39
0
Oops, I accidentally solved quantum uncertainty.

I've been studying and reading about quantum uncertainty. I've also been learning about the quantum vacuum (zero point field) by reading this paper:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205086

Now I unfortunately have opened Pandora's box. In short, I've figured out the two slit experiment. What will my parents say to their friends. "Yes, little Eric's doing OK. He got a job at McDonald's. You know the economy isn't what it used to be. Oh, and he just figured out quantum uncertainty. How's your Billy doing?"

Actually I'm a little older than I've let on but I actually do feel like I have an answer to the Heisenberg Uncertainty riddle. That a person could actually think that is a little bit frightening in itself. But I've chosen to expose myself so I will.

First, I'd like to say this paper about "Connectivity", by L.J.Nickisch and Jules Mollere, is brilliant. To me it opens up new possibilities to reexamine famous conundrums in physics. While I don't understand much of the math I do understand the concept and how it adds another level of abstraction about inertia and spin that is much needed. Perhaps one day connectivity will explain magnetic fields emanating from charges moving in a conductor rather than just through the quantum vacuum. I'm sure they are very closely related.

Connectivity has started me thinking about one of the oldest conundrums in physics - the two slit electron thought experiment that originated the quantum uncertainty principle. Just to refresh: the experiment has a source of electrons shot out one at a time going in a spread path to a plate with two slits in it. There is a detector on a wall behind this that registers the place the electron hits on the wall after coming through one of the slits. With both slits open, even though only one electron comes out at a time, the detector registers an interference pattern that would happen if the electrons exhibited a wave like pattern. With one slit closed the detector exhibits a normal probability pattern with no interference. One more thing to note: the detector makes a "click" whenever it detects an electron. So the electron is exhibiting both particle and wave properties. Finally, if a light source illuminates which slit the electron came through then the detector exhibits a particle like probability exactly like combining the effects of blocking off one slit at a time. I don't need to reiterate the uncertainty principle except to say that it says what we are observing is related to Planck's constant.

Obviously an electron can be singled out to be an individual particle, so how can an electron exhibit wavelike properties as well as particle properties and why would electromagnetic radiation cause wavelike properties to revert to particle characteristics? I think Connectivity has the answer.

In the case where the electrons come through both slits and exhibits interference pattern on the detector:

When an electron comes from the source at an undetermined angle it moves at a finite velocity in the direction toward the wall. While it does this it also has Zitterbewegung lateral movement at the speed of light. This is its spin at one level lower of abstraction. This Zitterbewegung wander causes the particle to exchange energy continuously with the ZPF. Just as any mass (in the classical sense) distorts the ZPF because of energy interchange the electron distorts the ZPF. But in this particular case, because the electron is just a point charge, the effect on the ZPF is non-random and homogeneous along the path. There is a ZPF path taken by the electron that now has lower energy density on exactly the path taken by an individual electron. This can be interpreted as an energy gradient to either side along this path. There is a trough of energy left behind in the path and a higher energy ridge on either side in the ZPF. After enough electrons have carved out separate individual paths going through one or the other slit an interference pattern develops where the two slit paths intersect. Because watching single electrons is the rare event where one is watching interactions on the quantum level with the ZPF it means the quantum level of the ZPF is important and has an effect we can see. The disturbance remains in the ZPF at the quantum level.

In the case where the electrons come through just one slit there is no interference pattern because there are none of the intersections of path observed as when two slits are open.

In the case where illuminating the electrons cause them to act as particles rather than waves: In this particular case a bath of radiation is randomizing the ZPF so that the quantum level paths are no longer discernable to the electron and there is no longer the effect of compression and rarefaction in energy that the ZPF had previously.

I'd be interested in any comments.

Eric Habegger
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,253
63
I was not aware that the double slit was a conundrum. Thought it was pertty well explained at all levels. If, in your theory it is conundrum, then you belong in this forum.
 
  • #3
Tyger
398
0
You only need Quantum mechanics at its simplest level to understand the two slit experiment. And QM and Relativity easily explain inertia. So I don't think there is anything new here.
 
  • #4
exeric
39
0
I guess it depends on what you mean by "explained". If one decides that there are laws that explain behaviour but don't have any logic in themselves then I suppose that one could call that "explained". I tend to think that laws should make some kind of intuitive sense before one call them explained. I think quantum uncertainty has been in existance so long that scientists are now conditioned to thinking of it as explained. But it would good if you could go back in time and realize the grief and unhappiness quantum experiments caused to scientists. Finally people just thrown up their hands and said "this is all we'll ever know. We'll work with what we have. There will never be an intuitive explanation for it."

I think "Connectivity" may explain it intuitively and at a much deeper level. For some people it is harder to accept the ZPF than that quantum uncertainty will ever be be solved. We just haven't been able to work at the proper level of abstraction until now. We haven't had the tools. The ZPF and Connectivity provides that.

And don't think I'm providing a theory in the sense of a mathematical proof or laboratory results. What I'm saying is more in the nature of an intuitive thought experiment that I'll leave to others with more physics/math ability that I have to prove.

Eric
 
  • #5
Tyger
398
0
Originally posted by exeric
I guess it depends on what you mean by "explained". If one decides that there are laws that explain behaviour but don't have any logic in themselves then I suppose that one could call that "explained". I tend to think that laws should make some kind of intuitive sense before one call them explained. I think quantum uncertainty has been in existance so long that scientists are now conditioned to thinking of it as explained. But it would good if you could go back in time and realize the grief and unhappiness quantum experiments caused to scientists. Finally people just thrown up their hands and said "this is all we'll ever know. We'll work with what we have. There will never be an intuitive explanation for it."

I think "Connectivity" may explain it intuitively and at a much deeper level. For some people it is harder to accept the ZPF than that quantum uncertainty will ever be be solved. We just haven't been able to work at the proper level of abstraction until now. We haven't had the tools. The ZPF and Connectivity provides that.

And don't think I'm providing a theory in the sense of a mathematical proof or laboratory results. What I'm saying is more in the nature of an intuitive thought experiment that I'll leave to others with more physics/math ability that I have to prove.

Eric

The most important laws tend to be ones that people make an intelligent "guess" at and they often have little logical justification in the ordinary sense. It was several months after Planck wrote the equation for blackbody radiation that he suggested the quantum interpretation of it. It had little justification but the quantum idea turned out to be far more powerful than the blackbody formula.

The laws that we can derive tend to be of secondary importance. After all, they are just derivative!
 
  • #6
jeff
Science Advisor
658
1
Originally posted by exeric
I've figured out the two slit experiment. What will my parents say to their friends. "Yes, little Eric's doing OK. He got a job at McDonald's.

Mmmm, McDonald's.

Must..go.....to.......McDonald's. Must compute de broglie wavelength of quarter pounder...with and without cheese. Must whip fries at diffraction grating to see what happens.
 
  • #7
exeric
39
0
"The most important laws tend to be ones that people make an intelligent "guess" at and they often have little logical justification in the ordinary sense. It was several months after Planck wrote the equation for blackbody radiation that he suggested the quantum interpretation of it. It had little justification but the quantum idea turned out to be far more powerful than the blackbody formula.

The laws that we can derive tend to be of secondary importance. After all, they are just derivative!"




The more I think about what you've just said the sillier it seems. If the best laws are ones that we make an intelligent "guess" about then I suppose it's eloquent of me to say that I predict the sun will come up in the East tomorrow and go down in the West.

Yes, the quantum uncertainty principle has been able to predict many things. Why those things happen we don't know. We don't know because the theory says we CAN'T know both momentum and position of a particle. I can tell you right now I believe Connectivity and the ZPF together explain the reason for a particles behavior much better than anything else. And when someone better than me develops the mathematics from that intuition I believe it may actually be possible to know both a particles momentum and position to a much higher degree than we now can. I would say that's progress. The knowledge that will provide will lead to still more startling discoveries.

One more thing: Learn about Connectivity and the ZPF before making snap decisions.

Eric
 
  • #8
exeric
39
0
Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough in my first post.

There is a radial movement of the electron normal to the path to and from the slit. This is caused by the speed of light Zitterbewegung reaction of the electron to the ZPF. See this article.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205086

This radial movement is just like concentric ripples emanating from the electron source and also from the other side of each slit. It looks just like waves in water.

Because the electron is exchanging energy with the ZPF every time it changes direction in its Zitterbewegung wander it means there would be low energy concentric radial paths where the ZPF has contributed energy. These low energy concentric rings exist on the other side of the slit as well but redirected after movement through each slit. These rings can be interpreted as concentric energy gradients of higher and lower energy levels in the ZPF. Electrons leaving in close velocity (direction and angle) to a previous electron will tend to follow the same low energy rings. After enough electrons have carved out separate individual wave like radial paths going through one or the other slit an interference pattern develops where the two radial paths intersect. This causes electrons to be resistant to going where the energy is highest in the ZPF and they will be denser where the concentric rings both have low energy levels. Because watching single electrons is the rare event where one sees a single particle we see the effects as the ZPF contribution. When we see the wave character of a particle we are seeing the Zitterbewegung reaction to the ZPF. It means the
disturbance in the ZPF from previous electrons exist for a definite and finite time. The disturbance remains in the ZPF at the quantum level.

In the case where the electrons come through just one slit there is no interference pattern because there are none of the intersections of path observed as when two slits are open. The disturbance in the ZPF is there but is not seen.

In the case where illuminating the electrons cause them to act as particles rather than waves: In this particular case the light is a bath of radiation randomizing the ZPF so that the quantum level paths in the ZPF are no longer seen by the electron and there is no longer the radial effect of compression and rarefaction in energy that the ZPF had previously.

I hope that is clearer.

Eric
 
  • #9
I guess it depends on what you mean by "explained". If one decides that there are laws that explain behaviour but don't have any logic in themselves then I suppose that one could call that "explained". I tend to think that laws should make some kind of intuitive sense before one call them explained."



I have some comments about your quote.

First, and this is only one opinion, intuition in physics is a dangerous tool. When I studied, I remember how wrong was my intuition many times in something so naive as classical dynamic problems.

The intuition is acquired when you affront similar situations several times. And, why do you think our natural intuition, which is proved only with our classical world, should works at the quantum mechanical level?.

Second. Why do you think QM is not logical in themselves?. QM is perfectly (mathematically) logical in themselves. Developing the theory from their postulates you obtain a logical construction that explains all the experimental results in which it is involved.

Normally the physic theories are changed or adapted when an experimental result contradicts the conclusions of the theory. And, at the moment, QM works perfectly and permits us to understand phenomena sufficiently well to make technology: electronic (semiconductors, transistors, ..), magnets (rare-earth magnets ...), light emission systems (lasers ....), patterns of measurement (quantum hall effect ...) and thousands of other technological devices.
 
  • #10
exeric
39
0
Originally posted by curro_jimenez
I have some comments about your quote.

First, and this is only one opinion, intuition in physics is a dangerous tool. When I studied, I remember how wrong was my intuition many times in something so naive as classical dynamic problems.

The intuition is acquired when you affront similar situations several times. And, why do you think our natural intuition, which is proved only with our classical world, should works at the quantum mechanical level?.

Second. Why do you think QM is not logical in themselves?. QM is perfectly (mathematically) logical in themselves. Developing the theory from their postulates you obtain a logical construction that explains all the experimental results in which it is involved.

Normally the physic theories are changed or adapted when an experimental result contradicts the conclusions of the theory. And, at the moment, QM works perfectly and permits us to understand phenomena sufficiently well to make technology: electronic (semiconductors, transistors, ..), magnets (rare-earth magnets ...), light emission systems (lasers ....), patterns of measurement (quantum hall effect ...) and thousands of other technological devices.

What I'm saying is that there is a level of abstraction that is smaller scale than what we see in the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. The reason there are so many restrictions about how to think about quantum behavior, (if you are too accurate about momentum then you can't be too accurate about position),is because we haven't known this smaller scale explanation. That is really what most progress in theoretical physics is about. Yes, we've learned to live with the restriction and the current physics explains things reasonably well.

But most improvements in theoretical physics have come about by learning about a smaller scale action that improves the accuracy of the larger scale theoretical tools that were used previously.
If the deeper abstraction is real and true it provides better answers and it provides new answers to questions that have not been solved yet. And yes, that deeper abstraction usually has the side effect of being more intuitive in explaining a blockage in the previous theory. NOT INTUITIVE IN TOTAL BUT INTUITIVE IN EXPLAINING A PREVIOUS LIMITATION IN THE PHYSICS. But that is a side effect. That is not the main effect.

What I'm finally saying is that if someone develops the math to go along with the idea I've presented it has a higher likelyhood of solving problems because of the intuitive nature of the original idea. We should be able to accept this premise shouldn't we? After all, we've been able to accept uncertainty in quantum physics for about 80 years. There is an element of uncertainty here also. But there is no proof of the validity of my idea until the math is worked out.

Eric
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Zantra
781
3
That's excellent but the question that plagues me is- will you get my order right at the drive through #@(#$(#$# fast food places!:wink:
 
  • #12
exeric
39
0
Originally posted by Zantra
That's excellent but the question that plagues me is- will you get my order right at the drive through #@(#$(#$# fast food places!:wink:

Sure, I can do that. "Yes sir, here are your fries, quantum sized. You can't see them? That's not my problem sir. Have a nice day."
 
  • #13
Sonty
108
0
Can you tell me a book where I can read about ZPF and this quiet movement?
 
  • #14
exeric
39
0
Unfortunately I haven't found a good book on ZPF that travels the middle ground of maintaining a grounding in physics that doesn't also include many esoteric formulas that are over my head. That doesn't mean they aren't out there. Most ZPF books are working on a level of speculation and concentrate on tapping zero point energy (ZPE). I will make this generalization: I find material that concentrates on the Zero Point FIELD (ZPF) to generally be more believable than books on ZPE. That may just be my prejudice.

Having said that, there is plenty of good information on the internet and is more up to date also. I would start with Hal Puthoff's work, the grandfather of "serious" ZPF research. His work and others can be found at this site. For what its worth, to me the info on this site is pure candy. If that doesn't get you then nothing will.

http://extraterrestrial-life.net/Puthoff.htm [Broken]

After that the most recent work is pretty much found here

http://www.calphysics.org/index.html

I would start with the popular level articles there and as you get more comfortable migrate to the scientific articles. They will be a challenge - they are to me. I hope this helps.

Eric
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
exeric
39
0
Here's another link that should be good - It's Hal Puthoff's think tank site.

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/index.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Creator
566
6
Originally posted by exeric
Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough in my first post.



Eric,
You are thinking like a good physicist, not a hamburger flipper.

Correctly, you understand that the source of inertia is an unresolved issue, and probably, as I've been preaching for some years on these threads, lack of progress is due to the assumption (being taught from grade school) that inetial mass is an "intrinsic"(innate) property of the particle. In reality it is most probably of "extrinsic" origin, derived locally in the vacuum fields, as many recently (Haisch, Ruda, and Puthoff and the like) have surmissed.

Thanks for the recent report, which by the way, is an excellent extension of the former conceptualization. These papers are wonderful in the sense of providing a heuristically different and sometimes simplier way of approaching fundemantal issues, and as you have done, can be a spring board to broader applications.

Your gleaning of key eliments (like Zittterbewegung interactions) from these reports and transposing the application is not only proper method of learning but also reveals thinking far beyond most in regards to thinking like a physicist.

Nevertheless, having said that, lets look at a few points and statements in using Zitterbewegung to account for interference patterns:

"Because the electron is exchanging energy with the ZPF every time it changes direction in its Zitterbewegung wander it means there would be low energy concentric radial paths where the ZPF has contributed energy."

First, I believe it is not exactly established in QED that the electron exchanges energy with vacuum fields.
I like the idea, but in the first post you envisioned a "trough" apparently in the linear path of the charge; so which one is it? (A higher energy ahead of the path and lower behind doesn't seem resonable since it implies a deceleration of charge).

2ndly, the implication is either: 1.) that the ZPE waves propogate , or 2.) that they are temporal, or both.... so that the virtual energy difference is a physical observable. I have a tendency to agree with such; however, supplying solid verification for that possibility, as unique as it is, which is independent of the production of interference, would go a long way to promote the hypothesis. Do you have any?

There are a number of other possible inconsistancies with QM which would need to be addressed.... Maybe later.

Creator :wink:
 
  • #17
exeric
39
0
Originally posted by Creator
Nevertheless, having said that, lets look at a few points and statements in using Zitterbewegung to account for interference patterns:

"Because the electron is exchanging energy with the ZPF every time it changes direction in its Zitterbewegung wander it means there would be low energy concentric radial paths where the ZPF has contributed energy."

First, I believe it is not exactly established in QED that the electron exchanges energy with vacuum fields.
I like the idea, but in the first post you envisioned a "trough" apparently in the linear path of the charge; so which one is it? (A higher energy ahead of the path and lower behind doesn't seem resonable since it implies a deceleration of charge).

2ndly, the implication is either: 1.) that the ZPE waves propogate , or 2.) that they are temporal, or both.... so that the virtual energy difference is a physical observable. I have a tendency to agree with such; however, supplying solid verification for that possibility, as unique as it is, which is independent of the production of interference, would go a long way to promote the hypothesis. Do you have any?

There are a number of other possible inconsistancies with QM which would need to be addressed.... Maybe later.

Creator :wink: [/B]

Thanks for the good questions Creator. Its always hard to make logical the visualization in my head. But I'll try.

First lets change the slits to holes. Thats what I meant to say in the first place. We'll assume that the source of electrons is kicking out electrons at random direction and identical speed. We'll place the hole at a position HORIZONTALL to the The electron gun. The electrons will be moving HORIZONTALLY at a finite sub-light speed to get to the hole. While it moves horizontally every so often it makes a LATERAL Zitterbewegung movement at the speed of light. This lateral movement will continue until it hits a quantum of energy with the right frequency to exchange with the electron. Because in Connectivity the electron is a massless charge this lateral Zitterbewegung light speed movement is legal. When the electron gets zapped by this energy it changes direction and goes off again in a new light-speed direction lateral to the horizontal component that continues in its sub-light velocity. Changing direction is the only way a massless charge traveling at the speed of light can change its energy level. (Think about it)

We'll leave that electron and go to the next electron. This electron sees the path of least energy through the ZPF and because its energy level is very close to the previous electron it follows the same path. But it continues on past the point where the previous electron changed direction because that frequency component in the ZPF no longer exists at that point. Each successive electron lengthens the path LATERAL to the main horizontal component. In this way low energy paths get reinforced and lengthened in a way that will look like a record with its center axis horizontal. Because there is continuous HORIZONTAL movement while the Zitterbewegung LATERAL movement is happening these records get larger and larger the farther away the electron is in it HORIZONTAL movement. The final appearance will approximate a cone with the pointed end at the source of electrons. I think this models dispersion in space the way it normally occurs. But at any rate it looks and acts like a series of waves with the waves extending horizontally at a sub-light finite frequency.

The rest is standard physics with interference and all that jazz. BUT!!! if a light shines on any of the electrons path it randomizes the ZPF and the low energy lateral paths will be destroyed. Then electrons will act just like particles, still having Zitterbewegung action but not finding a low energy paths from previous electrons.
The dispersion of electrons will change also when there are no previoius paths to follow. Each elecron will have a Zitterbewegung movement that no longer has a net bias away from the center in the lateral direction. The net LATERAL bias now is zero and the electron acts just like a particle with its Zitterbewegung movement averaging to zero.


Eric
 
Last edited:
  • #18
exeric
39
0
Originally posted by Creator
I like the idea, but in the first post you envisioned a "trough" apparently in the linear path of the charge; so which one is it? (A higher energy ahead of the path and lower behind doesn't seem resonable since it implies a deceleration of charge).

2ndly, the implication is either: 1.) that the ZPE waves propogate , or 2.) that they are temporal, or both.... so that the virtual energy difference is a physical observable. I have a tendency to agree with such; however, supplying solid verification for that possibility, as unique as it is, which is independent of the production of interference, would go a long way to promote the hypothesis. Do you have any?


Creator :wink: [/B]

I looked at your questions more closely and realized I didn't really answer them. I think I may have answered your first question in my post before this but obviously there's some holes left in the theory. The lowest average energy levels in the ZPF begin at the center and work laterally out. Closest to the gun the center path has almost no quantum energy levels compatible with the electrons. They are cleaned out. But as each electron travels farther horizontally there is more and more likelyhood it will find a compatible quantum charge that will jolt it laterally. This is because there will be more and more electrons that will have left the center path. Each electron that leaves the center path leaves a compatible quantum charge 1 Planck distance past that. So there is a gradient of lower to higher energy levels at the compatible freqencies along the path from gun to hole. And there is a similar gradient laterally from center to widest dispertion point for the dispersion at any given distance fron the hole. Like I said a cone best defines the outside shape with an infinite number of smaller cones inside where each cone represents equal average energy densities of compatible quantum energy. But each smaller cone represents a lower energy density. Think of them like those Russian dolls with one inside the other.

As far as the wave nature: There is obviously a relation between the velocity of the electrons (the energy level) and the ZPF coarseness You could call it the chunkiness of the compatible ZPF conponents. I don't yet have an intuitive feeling for that. But it will end up being a frequency related to how often an electron gets zapped during its horizontal movement. It may end up being something as simple as the classical definition transposed to work at this quantum level.

Eric
 
  • #19
Brad_Ad23
502
1
In reply to the thread in general: That all may sound like it works, but it has one crucial shortcoming. It cannot cope with delayed choice. I'm sure you've read up on it. One decides after the electron has passed through whether or not to have the observer on or off (to simplify it grossly).


And Integral, the double slit experiment is still a central mystery of quantum physics. How can a beam of electrons fired one at a time possibly create a traditional interference patter as though they were all waves and fired in a continuous beam like light. There is yet a satisfactory answer to that.
 
  • #20
Sonty
108
0
I spent my entire afternoon reading on this. It captivated me with that "you might be able to travel through space" thing.
Coming to your 2-slit experiment I think you should take into account one more thing: the speed the right frequency (probably the Compton frequency) fill the room again. Otherwise if you keep the experiment running for a while interference would dissappear and you would just get a spot. Now if that speed is the speed of light then the ZPF will get randomized in the point where the first electron moved before the second one gets there. Am I wrong?
 
  • #21
Brad_Ad23
502
1
Yes you are wrong. 1)the whole concept is conceptually flawed as I stated by the lack of incorperating or even allowing delayed choice.

2)What would cause the interference to just simply vanish?
 
  • #22
exeric
39
0
Originally posted by Sonty
I spent my entire afternoon reading on this. It captivated me with that "you might be able to travel through space" thing.
Coming to your 2-slit experiment I think you should take into account one more thing: the speed the right frequency (probably the Compton frequency) fill the room again. Otherwise if you keep the experiment running for a while interference would dissappear and you would just get a spot. Now if that speed is the speed of light then the ZPF will get randomized in the point where the first electron moved before the second one gets there. Am I wrong?

Sonty, you're absolutely right. There is a natural randomizing constant of some kind that mixes things up without having to have external radiation shining on it. And it happens slower than the speed of light. Otherwise it would be just like you said. Perhaps its the conflict between this and the opposing external non-randomizing force that creates the frequency compentent.Dunno. You're definitely getting ahead of me with whether it would have to do with the Compton frequency.

Eric
 
  • #23
Brad_Ad23
502
1
You'd think people would actually listen to people actually learning this stuff in university. I guess that's why there are two theoretical forums.
 
  • #24
exeric
39
0
Brad, did you forget to take your meds today. You seem pretty upset.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
You'd think people would actually listen to people actually learning this stuff in university. I guess that's why there are two theoretical forums.

I'm listening to you. Some people seem so caught up selling their point that they don't care to listen to anyone that actually HAS experience in this. Physics is made up of math. Not a long paragraph of technobabble of someone trying to sound smart. Brad has always come through in showing the flaws in a theory, with math and without, and I applaud that. I think people need to listen more to the ones who know what they are talking about, and not concentrate on breaking theories that have gotten us so far in only a few hundred years.
 
  • #26
exeric
39
0
Originally posted by neutroncount
I'm listening to you. Some people seem so caught up selling their point that they don't care to listen to anyone that actually HAS experience in this. Physics is made up of math. Not a long paragraph of technobabble of someone trying to sound smart. Brad has always come through in showing the flaws in a theory, with math and without, and I applaud that. I think people need to listen more to the ones who know what they are talking about, and not concentrate on breaking theories that have gotten us so far in only a few hundred years.

I think you, and some others like Brad are mistaking my enthusiasm for trying to sound smart. How I come off to people has a lot to do with both what I'm saying and the lister's (readers) attitude. They are inescapably mixed together. I may share some blame for trying to "sell my point". Others may share some blame for being overly invested in the status quo to the point that they feel threatened.

Eric
 
  • #27
Brad_Ad23
502
1
Brad, did you forget to take your meds today. You seem pretty upset.

ad hobinem tactics get you nowhere in debate. I am upset because people like you just waltz in and claim to have solved the big mysteries of science and that the professionals haven't because they are trying to maintain some secret order. If people did that to a profession you have busted your ass off for many years to work for and done the actual stuff, you might be a little angry when people just come storming in.


I think you, and some others like Brad are mistaking my enthusiasm for trying to sound smart. How I come off to people has a lot to do with both what I'm saying and the lister's (readers) attitude. They are inescapably mixed together. I may share some blame for trying to "sell my point". Others may share some blame for being overly invested in the status quo to the point that they feel threatened.

Eric

Again, see about the status quo thing. Science is about continual revision. But when you sell a theory, you need to support it with coherent physical concepts and mathematics. Math is the language of nature.
 
  • #28
exeric
39
0
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
ad hobinem tactics get you nowhere in debate. I am upset because people like you just waltz in and claim to have solved the big mysteries of science and that the professionals haven't because they are trying to maintain some secret order. If people did that to a profession you have busted your ass off for many years to work for and done the actual stuff, you might be a little angry when people just come storming in.

Again, see about the status quo thing. Science is about continual revision. But when you sell a theory, you need to support it with coherent physical concepts and mathematics. Math is the language of nature.

I can see we're not going to have a meeting of the minds. This is what I wrote in about the 3rd or 4th in this series


"...And don't think I'm providing a theory in the sense of a mathematical proof or laboratory results. What I'm saying is more in the nature of an intuitive thought experiment that I'll leave to others with more physics/math ability that I have to prove."

Did you even bother to start from the beginning on this topic so you could get a feel for what type of person I am. I don't think so. You are just too heavily invested in this subject and are a person who had benefited too much from the system to be open. You take things personally when it isn't about you.

Eric
 
  • #29
Sonty
108
0
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Yes you are wrong. 1)the whole concept is conceptually flawed as I stated by the lack of incorperating or even allowing delayed choice.

2)What would cause the interference to just simply vanish?

1) stop simplifying and give more details about that delayed choice.
2) because in exeric's theory after some ammount of time all the electrons will just go straight into the wall between the two splitings.
 
  • #30
Brad_Ad23
502
1
I don't care what kind of person you are. That is irrelevant to the nature of the proposed idea. It just is not physically sound!


1)If one came up or understands this idea, then I really shouldn't have to explain delayed choice. However, if my chemistry class goes well, I will post a follow up explaining it, or perhaps provide a link that will explain it as well.


2)Again, why would this happen?
 
  • #31
exeric
39
0
Brad, to me delayed choice is a more distasteful theory than almost any that have come before. It impies we are God-like in deeming the validity and reality of everything. Our simply looking at a thing determines whether it took shape ions in the past. To me its the ultimate cosmic cop-out. But I can see why you'd like something that makes you feel like God.

As long as we're talking now about Physics delving into the philosophy of existance I believe that the universe in total may be God. We are like a cell in the body of God. But I don't think that I, as one cell, is the brain of the behemoth and cam make it do what I want it to. It would be like the Hindu tale of creating a world by dreaming of it.

Eric
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Originally posted by exeric
Brad, to me delayed choice is a more distasteful theory than almost any that have come before. It impies we are God-like in deeming the validity and reality of everything. Our simply looking at a thing determines whether it took shape ions in the past. To me its the ultimate cosmic cop-out. But I can see why you'd like something that makes you feel like God.

As long as we're talking now about Physics delving into the philosophy of existance I believe that the universe in total may be God. We are like a cell in the body of God. But I don't think that I, as one cell, is the brain of the behemoth and cam make it do what I want it to. It would be like the Hindu tale of creating a world by dreaming of it.

Eric

Delayed choice is an experimental fact. Unlike your theory.
 
  • #33
exeric
39
0
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I don't care what kind of person you are. That is irrelevant to the nature of the proposed idea. It just is not physically sound!


Hey all and Brad, I've been thinking about my original idea about the 2 slit experiment. It doesn't work the way I proposed. Creator asked a couple of question. While trying to answer them I came up with this.

"I looked at your questions more closely and realized I didn't really answer them. I think I may have answered your first question in my post before this but obviously there's some holes left in the theory. The lowest average energy levels in the ZPF begin at the center and work laterally out. Closest to the gun the center path has almost no quantum energy levels compatible with the electrons. They are cleaned out. But as each electron travels farther horizontally there is more and more likelyhood it will find a compatible quantum charge that will jolt it laterally. This is because there will be more and more electrons that will have left the center path. Each electron that leaves the center path leaves a compatible quantum charge 1 Planck distance past that. So there is a gradient of lower to higher energy levels at the compatible freqencies along the path from gun to hole. And there is a similar gradient laterally from center to widest dispertion point for the dispersion at any given distance fron the hole. Like I said a cone best defines the outside shape with an infinite number of smaller cones inside where each cone represents equal average energy densities of compatible quantum energy. But each smaller cone represents a lower energy density. Think of them like those Russian dolls with one inside the other.

As far as the wave nature: There is obviously a relation between the velocity of the electrons (the energy level) and the ZPF coarseness You could call it the chunkiness of the compatible ZPF conponents. I don't yet have an intuitive feeling for that. But it will end up being a frequency related to how often an electron gets zapped during its horizontal movement. It may end up being something as simple as the classical definition transposed to work at this quantum level."


To make a long story what I just said above doesn't work. I don't think it models dispersion right, either as particles or a waves. And it doesn't address the frequency problem either. Sometimes one just has to plod along until you get to the bad result and then you realize.

But let me address the quarrel between me and Brad. There are right ways to get people to come to the correct conclusion and there are wrong ways. Creator asked some really good questions and made it clear that he wasn't biased again me. The fact that I knew he wasn't biased against me made me take them seriously. And when I tried to answer them I couldn't. Way to go Creator!

On the other hand the first remark I got from Brad was a disparaging one. And I'm sure this isn't news to you Brad - I tuned you out. When I start thinking about a new theory I don't think. "I'll rework this mathematical formula so that its right." No, you think about the results of a theory that don't make sense to you. Then you try to think about about what may be missing. Along the way you try diffent conceptual ideas that may be missing. You don't start with the original formula and try to rework it from a mathematical viewpoint. Once you settle on a promising concept - in my case it is the idea of introducing memory into the ZPF - then you try to go to the logical end to see if it makes sense. In my case it didn't. But if it had - THEN you apply the mathematical rigour. You do numerical modeling at THAT point - not at the beginning - like Brad would have you do.

Just my opinion.

Eric
 
  • #34
Brad_Ad23
502
1
Had I had more time I would have replied with questions as well. And if you note, I did indeed ask questions. But the fact is, all I had to do was bring up delayed choice to invalidate your idea. Then I got back to the mounds of differntial equations and physics homework I had. Anyways, I'm glad you realized you were mistaken. Anyways, you're method you had for creating a theory has some real steps in it, albiet not in that order necessarily. Generally there is a sure-fire way to create a theory, which is different than a concept. The concept is the first part, and you can make one of those anyway you wish. After you have a concept, you do extensive research to make sure it doesn't violate any laws. If it does, unfortunately the concept is gone. If it doesn't violate any laws, you then check to see if it contradicts any strong theories (like QED or GR). Now, if it does, you can do one of two things. Develop a mathematical framework, see if it makes more precise predictions, newer ones that the old ones can't explain, or if you can derive the strong theories it contradicts in some way. That is a key feature. GR can derive newton's laws. And then see if it contradicts any weaker theories. Once you get past the theory checkpoint, you then develop the mathematics. Notice before you were just making sure it was physically sensible. That is, it didn't say mass can be created or destroyed. But the math is what can kill a theory dead center. It must be both externally and internally consistent mathematically. Once you have that, if one gets that far, then you make predictions with it to be tested. That is what a theory is made of. What you did was come up with a losely organized concept. Nothign wrong there, but you have to remember to develop it and make sure it makes physical sense.

I would suggest getting a few more years of mathematics and physics courses, and come back again. We do love new ideas and theories contrary to what the crack pots seem to think. All of science is debate. But it is not just a "Thor say this right. All others wrong / No, we are the only right way" debate. It is an educated debate that is based off of certain frameworks. Learn them, and you'll see that it is not only much easier to see new connections and make new ideas, but people will actually love to hear them and recognize you have something there.


Hope that helps some.
 
  • #35
Sonty
108
0
1) I'm waiting for that explination and/or link
2) Because his ZPF will be full of holes and no electron will move sideways.
You see, Brad, I'm kind of destroying his theory from the inside. This ZPF is practically made of radiation which in normal conditions I don't think will move slower than c. If he hadn't retracted his theory after that my next question would have been weather or not most of the electrons would go away from the center line and there would be no more center maximum, etc.
 
Top