Understanding Quantum Mechanics

originally posted by: delbertlarson2
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.

What are the aether equations? Do you have a link?
You do know that aether has been dismissed by the modern physicists although ancient philosophy and the science of that time did accept aether as a medium.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Click on this link for a paper on the aether.

Yes, I am keenly and somewhat painfully aware of the present scientific consensus regarding the aether. In my previous career I was an accelerator physicist at the SSC. I've designed and built two working accelerators, one of them relativistic. But I came to the conclusion that relativity was wrong and that colliding beam fusion was superior to the tokokak. I could not find a paying position to work on those ideas so I went into IT for a living. But I kept working on my ideas. The above link is the result of many years of effort. I hope some will have the time and inclination to study it. Please have a look. It answers many open questions.

a reply to: Venkuish1

By the way, blue text of a slightly large font indicates a link you can click on. The link was in the post you replied to asking for a link, so you might not have known this. I didn't know it for months. I thought the poster was just trying to emphasize some words. Arbitrageur would express frustration, not knowing that I was simply unaware I was supposed to click on the blue larger font text.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

I read Part A of your aether paper, and some of Part B, which appears to be an attempt to extract some of the basic laws of modern physics from your 'aetherial hypothesis' as you call it.

The number of prior assumptions you propose is quite impressive. The idea that the vacuum of space is really 'a solid under tension' in which waves can propagate is quite remarkable, yet it is only the first of many such claims.

A problem seems to arise, however, when we seek to verify these assumptions. It's one thing to formulate a hypothesis and show that the fundamental laws and relations can be derived from it mathematically; quite another to devise a rigorous experimental confirmation of the assumptions. It's not enough to say, 'Look how well my hypothesis fits observed reality!' Current physics, as you concede in your opening argument, does the same quite well, despite the well-known theoretical incompatibility between relativity and QM. If you wish to make your 'excessive claim' stick – effectively, to replace the entire current scientific model of reality with your own – you'll have to show that it models reality better than relativity does.

To do that, you would have to devise an experiment, or show from direct observation of some ongoing, measurable physical phenomenon, that your theory works better than Einstein's. That, in some situations, your theory more accurately predicts observational data than his does.

But here, it seems, we have a problem. It arises out of your Fundamental Postulate, a partially observable reality exists – or, as you also put it, reality cannot be fully observed. In particular, if I understand you correctly, this aether you speak of – this 'solid under tension' – is in fact invisible and impalpable: undetectable, that is, to any human sense or instrument. It cannot be shown to exist by direct observation. Thus being the case, I believe your prospects of devising an experiment to show that your aether-based physics is superior to relativity are effectively nil.

What your Fundamental Postulate really implies is that all scientific experiments are invalid; we can say nothing about the nature of reality based on observation or experiment because there may always be something going on behind the scenes that we cannot detect, and which might invalidate our results entirely if we knew about it. You have, in fact, come up with the mother of all hidden-variable theories. You could hide a Creationist Jehovah or a thunderbolt-hurling Zeus behind it as just as easily as you conceal a hypothesized 'aether'.

Indeed, it seems to me that your Fundamental Postulate invalidates empiricism and the scientific method; in which case, of course, it invalidates itself, for it too is, after all, derived from scientific observation.

No doubt you view all this very differently. I should be interested to know how you deal with the difficulty.

a reply to: Astyanax

Excellent points.

The Fundamental Axiom relates to quantum uncertainty. This is dealt with today through Heisenberg, and it doesn't invalidate the scientific method. Presently we hypothesize up to the quantum limit. The Fundamental Axiom asserts we can do better: we can assert into the subquantum; we just can't measure it directly. We can, however measure things that result from our subquantum hypotheses, and that is where the scientific method comes back.

As for being better than relativity: the aether theory is consistent with, and allows for understanding of, quantum mechanics; it does not have singularities or other infinities; and it needs no cosmological constant (presently 80 orders of magnitude away from expectations). And significantly and measurably, the aether model leads to a direct prediction of what dark matter is, and exactly where it will be found. These dark matter predictions can be tested against observations, and are outside of what relativity predicts. Basically, mass leads to aetherial displacements. The displacements lead to field energies. The equivalent mass of the field energies is a large part of dark matter. Another part is from large neutron stars, which in turn, create field energies. (The aether model does not have a black hole singularity. It models observations now attributed to black holes as instead being caused by enormous neutron stars.)

Also, the aether can be broken apart. When enough energy is put into it, pairs of oppositely charge particles can be formed. The charge within these particles is aether freed from the solid state. In principle, one might be able to also free a solid block from the ambient, and this would have very important practical ramifications. However it may be that the energy and precision required are far beyond present capabilities. Unfortunately, the theory doesn't predict how much energy would be needed for block separation.

The aether paper is quite long. But so was GRT. I hope you have time to consider it in more detail. I'll be happy to respond to any further serious discussion on anything that appears unclear.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

Thank you again.

These dark matter predictions can be tested against observations, and are outside of what relativity predicts. Basically, mass leads to aetherial displacements

Would you be possible to direct me to the relevant section(s) of the paper regarding testable hypotheses?

Also, is this you?

I found this regarding quantum tunneling speed:

Full experimental determination of tunneling time with attosecond-scale streaking method

We demonstrate that the tunneling time of an electron from an atom is close to zero within our experimental accuracy. Our study represents a straightforward approach toward attosecond time-resolved imaging of electron motion in atoms and molecules.

a reply to: Astyanax

ly to: Astyanax

Yes, the paper you linked to had me as one of the authors.

Section D in my paper is on gravity. Section D.3 gives results of the field energies caused by mass. The full calculation of the field energies is quite tedious and can be found in the really long paper on my website. Then section D.4 derives Newtonian gravity. Section D.5 derives the field masses. (The field masses are derived from the field energies along with a convention of how each one contributes.) For the important case of m much less than M, Eq. (275) is derived. Within a spiral galaxy, stars in the arms will have a mass m much less than that of the core of mass M. It is easy to see how the field mass leads to a condition where the rotational velocity is nearly constant near the outer regions, and section D.6 discusses that situation.

The whole work took years. I try to be as clear as I can, but I can understand that there may be a bit of a learning curve as my thinking on these matters is not in step with present dogmas. Yet in the end everything comes together quite nicely. E&M and gravity are unified as aetherial phenomena and all equations are rigorously derived from the starting postulates and assumptions. The derivation of Maxwell's Eqs. alone was something many tried to achieve and failed to do. Then relativity came around and everyone stopped even trying. I think the reason the greats didn't get Maxwell derived was because they were working with the fields. The vector potential is one of the physical things, and once you work with that the derivations come.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

When I get the time I will make a better reply but if we start with the singularities (i suppose you referred to black holes).

This singularity is mathematical and doesn't correspond to a physical reality.A change of coordinates is needed and you can avoid it.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Relativity as originally written was a point-like theory in a four dimensional, curved, space time continuum. It has to be point-like due to the problem one has with relative simultaneity and ramifications on causality. Points of course lead to infinities. I understand that this is a problem that people have become inventive with, in order to find a work around, and look forward to your explanation. For me, I believe it was best just to toss relativity out completely and build anew.

originally posted by: delbertlarson2
a reply to: Venkuish1

Relativity as originally written was a point-like theory in a four dimensional, curved, space time continuum. It has to be point-like due to the problem one has with relative simultaneity and ramifications on causality. Points of course lead to infinities. I understand that this is a problem that people have become inventive with, in order to find a work around, and look forward to your explanation. For me, I believe it was best just to toss relativity out completely and build anew.

The problem with singularities was always a mathematical problem as there are no physical singularities. When I was studying General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Field Theory, among many other courses, I was always interested in the mathematical part and never cared so much about the physical interpretations. That's why I did very well.

I can't remember where I ve seen this before but you re not the only who has gone against the flow. There are many other papers but unfortunately they don't get to be peer reviewed but sometimes they can go in a good database of pre-prints like the arXiv

a reply to: delbertlarson2

I’m sure it all works out theoretically, but I was asking whether you had proposed, in your aether paper, some empirical experiment or prediction that would demonstrate the superiority of your model; I mean, of course, an experiment in which the Larson hypothesis fits the observed results better than the theory of relativity does.

An experiment demonstrating conclusively the existence of the aether would be ideal.

I don’t want to engage in a long argument, but the problem I have with your theory ⎻ which I admit I am not competent to criticize in mathematical detail ⎻ is philosophical rather than scientific. If you introduce the concept of physical variables that are not just hidden but by their very nature unobservable, you raise the possibility that such variables may exist in relation to any and all physical events and processes. This negates empiricism as a way of knowing anything definite about the world; thus it effectively invalidates all science. That does not trouble me but I think it ought to worry you, since, after all, your model is one you have derived from empirical observations (made by others), and is itself a scientific theory.

A quick search on Google Scholar appears to confirm that your field is magnetohydrodynamics. Your aetherial theory is consonant with that background, since in MHD all events are treated as occurring in a single continuous medium, which your aetherial physics also demands (though with caveats). I regard this, too, as significant, and am rather uncomfortably reminded of the electric-universe ‘theories’ that were popular on this site ten or fifteen years ago. There was a member here, mnemeth1, who believed he had disproved relativity and held fast to an ‘electric’ model of reality. We had some energetic debates (to coin an appropriate phrase) before he finally left ⎻ angered, I believe, at the scepticism with which he was treated by me and some other members ⎻ in 2012. But I’m done with all that now and, moreover, a lot busier than I used to be back then, so fear not.

a reply to: Astyanax

My dark matter prediction is amenable to empirical testing. But perhaps you want another.

It is possible that placing an atomic clock in a large RF field would result in it slowing down. Since light is a wave upon the aether, the RF would move the aether back and forth over the atoms, and provided that it is the relative velocity against the aether that slows things down, we might see an effect. There are many details, but that is a second line of empirical testing.

I don't think there are too many physicists who will disagree that Heisenberg tells us we can't know both the momentum and the position to an arbitrary accuracy. That is what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is. So right now all of physics has the seed of doubt that concerns you. My step is to propose that we can nonetheless hypothesize within the Heisenberg limit concerning something that nonetheless exists, and then logically derive tests from our hypotheses that are testable outside those limits. I just don't see a problem here.

Philosophically I am asserting that a reality can exist that we cannot perfectly observe. Once we accept that assertion we can propose further hypotheses and build up our theory to enable tests on that which we can observe. We can always eventually test our hypotheses with observations. We just can't test inside an individual quantum without disturbing it in a way that affects what we are trying to measure.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

I noted in another thread of yours that you speak about the difficult environment academia is. I agree with you on this. You said that they won't publish your work or discourage you from publishing certain ideas. Perhaps you can create a thread discussing your experiences.

On the other hand you may want to consider that many scientists and academics (the majority as the matter of fact) don't work in academia but elsewhere including the private sector. Have you considered discussing your ideas with people in the private sector. For example let's say there is a very wealthy man called Melon Busk and he is interested in other ideas. I don't see any problem knocking his door. Make sure you are very convincing in case you decide to do it.

Double Post

Here's a pretty good article on quantum encryption that I came across today:

How Quantum Cryptography Works

Quantum Encryption is said to be unhackable, because any attempts to intercept the signal not only changes it, but also alerts the sender and the receiver.

1. The sender transmits photons through a filter (or polarizer) which randomly gives them one of four possible polarizations and bit designations: Vertical (One bit), Horizontal (Zero bit), 45 degree right (One bit), or 45 degree left (Zero bit).
2. The photons travel to a receiver, which uses two beam splitters (horizontal/vertical and diagonal) to “read” the polarization of each photon. The receiver does not know which beam splitter to use for each photon and has to guess which one to use.
3. Once the stream of photons has been sent, the receiver tells the sender which beam splitter was used for each of the photons in the sequence they were sent, and the sender compares that information with the sequence of polarizers used to send the key. The photons that were read using the wrong beam splitter are discarded, and the resulting sequence of bits becomes the key.

If the photon is read or copied in any way by an eavesdropper, the photon’s state will change. The change will be detected by the endpoints. In other words, this means you cannot read the photon and forward it on or make a copy of it without being detected.

Imagine you have two people, Alice and Bob, who want to send a secret to each other that no one else can intercept. With QKD, Alice sends Bob a series of polarized photons over a fiber optic cable. This cable doesn’t need to be secured because the photons have a randomized quantum state.

If an eavesdropper, named Eve, tries to listen in on the conversation, she has to read each photon to read the secret. Then she must pass that photon on to Bob. By reading the photon, Eve alters the photon’s quantum state, which introduces errors into the quantum key. This alerts Alice and Bob that someone is listening and the key has been compromised, so they discard the key. Alice has to send Bob a new key that isn’t compromised, and then Bob can use that key to read the secret.

a reply to: IndieA

That's pretty neat, but unhackable is a big word we've heard once too many, just to have somone come around and hack the unhackable...
Right now, not exactly understanding how observing collapses the wave function, it's easy to say you can't compromise the process.
once we understand the mechanics behind, that might change. Till then this sounds promising.

I think cloud flare encrypts their stuff with a wall full of lava lamps and the pattern that's recorded by a cam is translated into an encryption key. Pretty creative way of setting up an analog random numbers generator...

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: delbertlarson2

I noted in another thread of yours that you speak about the difficult environment academia is. I agree with you on this. You said that they won't publish your work or discourage you from publishing certain ideas. Perhaps you can create a thread discussing your experiences.

On the other hand you may want to consider that many scientists and academics (the majority as the matter of fact) don't work in academia but elsewhere including the private sector. Have you considered discussing your ideas with people in the private sector. For example let's say there is a very wealthy man called Melon Busk and he is interested in other ideas. I don't see any problem knocking his door. Make sure you are very convincing in case you decide to do it.

Thank you for the suggestion. Upon reading your comment, I reflected upon the question of what my goal is, and what really matters.

Personally, my goal has always been to understand the universe I live in. Whenever I hit something I do not understand, I become obsessed with making it make sense. Only then do I regain an inner peace. At the moment, things make sense to me. Even quantum mechanics. There will always be further boundaries to push up against, but my theories don't have the fundamental incomprehensibility that the present status quo has. So for now, my personal driving goal has been met.

Once my personal goal of understanding is met, I wish to share my understanding with others. There are two main reasons to do this. The first is validation or invalidation. Everyone can make mistakes. I know, as I made many mistakes to get things to where they are today. I am extremely careful (and hence find mistakes as I go) but it would be greatly beneficial if others would carefully scrutinize my work. If problems are found, I or others can work to correct them. If no problems are found, others can use my work as a foundation for future efforts. The second main reason to share my work is that it could lead to some rather significant progress for humanity. Especially ECOFusion in the near term, but the aetherial and quantum work likely have even more potential upside in the long term. So my inability to even get reviews or audiences in academe has been frustrating. I am thankful for ATS, Physics Essays, and now X, as there are at least a few venues where one can express different points of view. And those venues do attract some members outside of academe, as per your recommendation.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

Is your aetherial akin to the tachyonic field?

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: delbertlarson2

Is your aetherial akin to the tachyonic field?

No. The aether is made up of two solids, one positive, one negative, and each solid is made up of quanta. Each quantum has a positive mass. I assume properties not very different from normal solids, although there are a few (very few) wrinkles. Once evaluated, the model leads to all the equations for electromagnetism and gravity while not having the serious problems that exist in today's status quo.

For more information, a good overview is available online by clicking here.