Virtual particles and sorce theory

  • Thread starter subtillioN
  • Start date

subtillioN

Originally posted by ahrkron
It is not something you can "see" directly, especially because we are talking about the effect on the unmeasured side. However, the behavior you find is just as predicted by QM, with its "collapse" and all.
Ok so if you can't see it then how do you really know anything about the effect or behavior on the unmeasured side?

The moment you measure the flavor of one, the other collapses into the opposite flavor. It is not just a matter of our knowledge.
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"?

Because QM says so :)
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).


No, really. Because if we decided to measure something else, then the other side would show a different behavior, which is incompatible with that of a different measurement selection.
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:

ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
735
1
Originally posted by subtillioN
Ok so if you can't see it then how do you really know anything about the effect or behavior on the unmeasured side?
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.
 

subtillioN

Originally posted by ahrkron
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.


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:

ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
735
1
Originally posted by subtillioN
But this is only from within the QM framework which contains quantum uncertainty, wave-particle duality and point-particles
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.
 

subtillioN

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

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.
There are other interpretations of the evidence. I have given you my reasoning in the "Squashed Star Flattens Solar Theory" thread.
 

ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
735
1
Originally posted by subtillioN
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.
That does not cut it. Entanglement also happens among spin states, which have nothing to do with position.

There are other interpretations of the evidence. I have given you my reasoning in the "Squashed Star Flattens Solar Theory" thread. [/B]
Can you please repost it here? I don't remember having seen any workable argument for this yet.
 

subtillioN

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


I did not give a position exclusive explanation.


Can you please repost it here? I don't remember having seen any workable argument for this yet.
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.
 

ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
735
1
Originally posted by subtillioN
I did not give a position exclusive explanation.
Of course you did. I said:
it is the experimental results that are incompatible with a well-defined state for the particles.
to which you replied:
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.
------------------------------
On a different matter, you posted:
The workable argument is in the book
But I was refering to the post you just made, saying that:
I have given you my reasoning in the "Squashed Star Flattens Solar Theory" thread.
------------------------------
which i doubt you can read because you would have to reformat your physics module from the ground up in order to understand it.
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.
 

subtillioN

Originally posted by ahrkron
Of course you did.


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.

------------------------------
On a different matter, you posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The workable argument is in the book
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But I was refering to the post you just made, saying that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have given you my reasoning in the "Squashed Star Flattens Solar Theory" thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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.
Excellent and thanks for being so civil to a mere "crackpot" !
 
Last edited by a moderator:

subtillioN

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:

Related Threads for: Virtual particles and sorce theory

  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
846

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top