Understanding Quantum Mechanics

My paper, Understanding Quantum Mechanics, has been submitted to the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays. A preprint of my paper is now available on viXra by clicking this link: Understanding Quantum Mechanics, and then clicking on the PDF link that appears on that page.

Highlights: 1) if we set relativity aside for an aetherial theory we can understand faster-than-light collapse. 2) Wave/particle duality can be set aside in favor of wave-packets collapsing to other wave-packets. 3) Quantum collapse is caused by impulses upon the wavefunction, changing the spatial and momentum spreads within the wavefunction. 4) By slightly modifying the de Broglie and Planck equations we can obtain a realistic subquantum modeling for matter waves that no longer have superluminal phase velocities. 5) The electron two slit experiment can be understood from all frames. 6) The subquantum modeling is that of a wave-packet: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle follows from the Fourier uncertainty principle. 7) The physical model underlying the photon subquantum is an underlying undulating aether described by Maxwell's Equations. 8) The physical model underlying matter waves is matter moving at v < c, while the waves are coupled to the aether and move at speed c, not superluminally as in present theory. Matter waves are waves upon the matter, they do not move at the same speed as the matter. 9) The modifications of the Planck and de Broglie relations lead to a modification of the Shrodinger Equation, but the spatial portion for time-independent potentials remains unchanged.

These advances remove the most significant problems we have in understanding quantum mechanics. However, some questions do of course remain.

Have a look. I look forward to your comments.

Excellent!

You took the time to write a nice review. Are you interested in QM as a reader or you have studied QM as part of your studies?

Thank you for submitting this for peer review 👍

Your a beautiful scientist D Larson.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

a reply to: delbertlarson2

There have been experiments preformed that demonstrate faster than light communication via quantum tunneling.

My understanding is that there can be a signal with a near infinite frequency, that travels close to next to no amount of time.

Are these concepts related to your research?

Also, does your research allow for the possibility of matter to travel at faster than light-speed speeds?

a reply to: delbertlarson2

Have you any idea when Arxiv will publish your paper?

a reply to: IndieA

I am unfamiliar with any faster than light communication, but yes, an absolute aetherial theory can in principle allow for it. Certainly a key issue involving faster than light phenomena lies in the area of Bell's theorem tests. The collapse of the wavefunction in a faster than light way allows us to understand these results, as mentioned in the paper.

Faster than light matter motion is allowed in principle, but in practice my aetherial theory (and that of Lorentz) still has the limits imposed by E = gamma m c^2, where gamma = [1-(v/c)^2]^(-1/2). As v ->c, gamma goes to infinity, and that would make it very difficult (impossible, really) to achieve faster than light matter motion. Of course this limit is for mass moving through the aether. If we could move the aether out of the way (forming an aetherial tunnel) then faster than light motion may be possible.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

I don't understand QM but it does fascinate me.

I failed a Physics exam.

The question was:

'If a lightbulb was turned on on Alpha Centauri how long would it be before the light from it reached Earth"?

My answer: "It wouldn't ".

I still think I was right.

I should add, my reasoning was because it would not reach us because interstellar space dust, planets, Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud, asteroid belt all in the way.

a reply to: Astyanax

My work won't be published in ArXiv anytime soon.

ArXiv requires one to be registered, and for that you need endorsements. I understand that an endorser may have their own registration revoked if they endorse someone who posts something considered to be in error. I recall that when I looked through ArXiv to submit my aetherial work they said something along the lines that they don't want papers that make excessive claims. And since my works do that, and since I don't want to get anyone else's registration revoked, I stopped looking into ArXiv at that time.

After a successful half career, publishing in top journals, I turned to alternative ideas. Since then it has been tough to get past the censors. ATS, Physics Essays, viXra and X are letting my work get out. So that is where I am.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: delbertlarson2

I don't understand QM but it does fascinate me.

I failed a Physics exam.

The question was:

'If a lightbulb was turned on on Alpha Centauri how long would it be before the light from it reached Earth"?

My answer: "It wouldn't ".

I still think I was right.

I should add, my reasoning was because it would not reach us because interstellar space dust, planets, Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud, asteroid belt all in the way.

That's a rather brilliant deduction (though the planets, asteroids, Kuiper belt, and Oort cloud aren't that dense and could be discounted) -- I'd have done it with the inverse square law, personally.

a reply to: Byrd

Ah. Of course. I still think I was the victim of soulless minions of orthodoxy...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

It would need to be rather a large lightbulb to be detected back here on Earth.

So your answer is just as correct as the 4.3 years they were after i should imagine.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yep. B@stards.

a reply to: IndieA

They were breaking records in building bigger and bigger entangled particles some years ago, no idea where they are now...

Now I want a quantum walkytalky for birthday...

a reply to: delbertlarson2



Here's the thread about quantum tunneling communication:

Contact! A 25 year UN disclosure plan is now in year 5

And here's one of the more interesting experiments:

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: delbertlarson2



Here's the thread about quantum tunneling communication:

Contact! A 25 year UN disclosure plan is now in year 5

And here's one of the more interesting experiments:

To understand quantum mechanics you need to understand the maths involved. Every course given in QM is highly mathematical and less emphasis is given on physical interpretations of the concepts involved.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

Thank you for your reply. I studied physics myself, so I understanding what you mean by 'excessive claims'. You are attempting a field theory of quantum mechanics.

The obvious question would be, 'What is understood by the term "quanta" in a field theory?' Quantum mechanics is a way of explaining how energy propagates in the absence of a field, and I'm guessing your 'aether' is analogous to a field, so how does that work?

a reply to: IndieA

From what I've read, an incoming wave packet has a spread in size, and if the part that tunnels through is from the leading edge then there is no FTL (faster than light) velocity. The part that goes through is on average so small that if you have many such packets the amount that gets through is less than the amount that you'd have if you didn't tunnel at all and just took the front edge portion of the incoming packets. The reason the FTL claim is made is because the center of the packets moves FTL, but that's not really a proof of FTL, as it could be that only the front edge is getting through. The interesting question is why only the front edge portion of the packet appears in the tunneling. I don't know if there is an explanation of that or not.

a reply to: Astyanax

Click on this link to see how the aether works. The link goes to a quite lengthy paper. But the essence of things for a photon quanta is that the aether is a solid substance that can support waves. Those waves can be in the form of wave packets. The paper discussed in the OP describes how quantum mechanics for light can be understood from that footing.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

The part that goes through is on average so small...

In the case of sending a signal, the size of the receiving portion doesn't matter so much, so long as the signal can be interpreted.

1.7 times the speed of light, is what one of the skeptic scientists admitted was possible, but he denied that information could be sent at that speed, which is demonstrated as false when Mozart is sent and received via quantum tunneling.

If a signal can be sent a 1.7 times the speed of light with a simple small scale experiment, I would think that instantaneous, or near instantaneous communication is at least plausible.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: delbertlarson2

Thank you for your reply. I studied physics myself, so I understanding what you mean by 'excessive claims'. You are attempting a field theory of quantum mechanics.

The obvious question would be, 'What is understood by the term "quanta" in a field theory?' Quantum mechanics is a way of explaining how energy propagates in the absence of a field, and I'm guessing your 'aether' is analogous to a field, so how does that work?

These two have already been married to a Quantum Field Theory which is a very important part of modern physics.