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

Virtual particles and sorce theory

  1. Jul 14, 2003 #1
    Ok so if you can't see it then how do you really know anything about the effect or behavior on the unmeasured side?

    Isn't this dependent on the particular interpretation used, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation for instance?

    I mean what really is the "collapse of the wave function"?

    Ah I sense that you are not completely satisfied with this codified evasion of a deeper causal answer. If so, you have good reason.

    Quantum mechanics simply says that the particle "flavor" was indeterminate before it was measured. We must simply take this interpretation (as empty of causality as it is) as an article of faith.

    The Sorce Theory interpretation is quite different. The states of the particles are NOT indeterminate at any time whatsoever. They are perfectly determinate systems, fluctuations or disturbances in the so-called "quantum vacuum" which can be described mathematically as a zero-energy superfluid. Such a "particle" is a structured positive or negative density/pressure gradient--a soliton or vortex with complex and specific properties due to harmonic equilibration of the input energies within the immediate environment. When the particles are created in the confluence of the engaging energy systems, a determined complex fluid-dynamic interaction takes place in which the two emergent measurable products (particles) possess distinct properties relating to each other which are entirely dependent on the interaction process itself and not the measurement process which happens later. The "entanglement" happens in the "creation" event and not in the measurement or the subsequent collapse.

    In the positron and electron pair production, for instance, the "photon" of the required energy simply splits its charge-balanced wave-system into its equal and oppositely charged components which, in a photon of the proper energy, are the positron and electron. The electron charge and the positron charge were already present in the wave (photon) in the first place, they had simply balanced each-other out previous to being split (because a photon has no net charge).


    Now how do you know the other side would show a different behavior without doing the two different measurements simultaneously? And how do you know that the act of measurement itself hasn't influenced the particle to measure the property in question thus making it incompatable with the different measurement selection??
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 14, 2003 #2

    ahrkron

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I said "directly". But none of this is seen directly anyway.

    I called it "unmeasured side" because it hasn't been measured at the time you get the flavor information from the other side, but we do measure many things from both sides.

    And the decay time (and all other) distributions found on both sides agree to the last digit with the QM description. QM not only says "collapse"; from the description, it follows logically that the frequency distributions for decay times, momenta, angles, etc. will have certain shapes, and once you measure them they do agree.

    On the other hand, if you assume, as you say, that the particles have predetermined -yet unknonwn- flavor and other properties, the expected distributions are different, and do not agree with experimental results.

    I'll try to be more specific later.
     
  4. Jul 14, 2003 #3


    But this is only from within the QM framework which contains quantum uncertainty, wave-particle duality and point-particles, all of which are non-existent in Sorce Theory.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2003
  5. Jul 14, 2003 #4

    ahrkron

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    No. As I said, it is the experimental results that are incompatible with a well-defined state for the particles.

    Actually, John Bell was originally a skeptic regarding the famous "collapse" and, in trying to find ways to understand what "really happened", he came up with his theorems.

    Also, why do you think that QM contains uncertainty, duality and point particles? It was not made up out of thin air. The experimental evidence forced the formalism to be what it is.
     
  6. Jul 15, 2003 #5
    But that is onlt because they are looking for the "particle" to be in a single point. The particle simply is not a point. It is a gradient.

    There are other interpretations of the evidence. I have given you my reasoning in the "Squashed Star Flattens Solar Theory" thread.
     
  7. Jul 15, 2003 #6

    ahrkron

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    That does not cut it. Entanglement also happens among spin states, which have nothing to do with position.

    Can you please repost it here? I don't remember having seen any workable argument for this yet.
     
  8. Jul 15, 2003 #7


    I did not give a position exclusive explanation.


    The workable argument is in the book which i doubt you can read because you would have to reformat your physics module from the ground up in order to understand it.
     
  9. Jul 15, 2003 #8

    ahrkron

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Of course you did. I said:
    to which you replied:
    ------------------------------
    On a different matter, you posted:
    But I was refering to the post you just made, saying that:
    ------------------------------
    I would be glad to find a different way to look at nature, as long as it is well supported and logically sound.

    I'll give it a shot and will try to post a detailed report in the forums some time later.
     
  10. Jul 15, 2003 #9


    There is some confusion here. I was not intending to explain the collapse of the wave-function with the point-particle stuff. That is an explanation of the uncertainty and the w/p duality.

    I figured you were talking about the proper demonstration such as that found in the book when you say "workable model". I can repeat anything I have said in any thread of course, but I felt that that simply would not satisfy as it didn't seem to in the past.

    Excellent and thanks for being so civil to a mere "crackpot" !
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2003
  11. Jul 16, 2003 #10
    Here is the simple explanation of the collapse:

    The "collapse of the wave function" is a mathematical interpretation of a measurement process which uses wave-functions to simplify the problem and then gets confused by interpretations of the simplified mathematics itself. The main problem is that the complex "entanglement" process is simplified to a single wave-function to crudely (yet efficiently) "describe" all of the entangled particles. When one particle is measured then the obtained information naturally describes all the other "entangled" particles because they share correlating properties due to the mechanisms of the "entanglement" process itself. The actual entanglement is a complex fluid-dynamic process in which the properties of the individual particles naturally acquire a specific correlation. The specifics of these processes and correlations are different for each "event", but the basic mechanisms are the same. The specific resonance patterns (particles) generated depend on many variables such as, input energy, structural configurations of the input "matter", "collision" energies and trajectories, magnetic fields, and other environmental variables.

    [ In Sorce Theory these particle-physics processes have been worked out in detail only for the electron-positron pair production. These details should readily be applicable to the other events as well. ]



    Can you show in detail how the collapse is independent of the measurement/description process?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2003
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Virtual particles and sorce theory
  1. Virtual particles (Replies: 0)

  2. Virtual particles (Replies: 9)

  3. Sorce Theory (Replies: 2)

Loading...