quantum wave theory

Yours and mine. This is where you can gas on about how you think the universe works. To a point, after that we'll expect you to actually test your stuff and report.

quantum wave theory

Postby ScottMc » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:42 pm

Ok, I'm posting here to see if anyone has covered or is aware of the 'other side'.

I've been doing loads of reading and research over the yrs and one nagging thing has always been there. The concept of a physical matter being made up of particles. As science has delved deeper into the quantum world it gets stranger as we try and hold on to the particle theory. Over time and across many different fields it would seem that there is no particle at all. Duality should not be accepted as IS, there is no real way of understanding it and to just accept this duality and move on with an assumption of particles is stopping short of reality.

I came across an interesting site unquantum.net and found his research and information to have actual basis and so far his interpretation makes sense, he's even done testing and experiments to backup his theory. Anyone here familiar with his work? I found it as I'm trying to develop a set of equations that are based on wave functions to describe and predict quantum behavior that is also hopefully scalable.

here's an interesting thing, biologically the human brain is said to contain and hold who we are yet our bodies are constantly undergoing cellular replacement. If we are particles with probabilities how is the bit information conserved in this process if it is being reduced? by reducing down who we are to mere particles we have to loose the interconnected nature that is each individual, recall electrons are electrons no matter where they came from so by reducing them to a particle we have removed a bit of information and that violates the conservation. If it is taken as a wave function then there is no reduction and more information is gained back from the particle loss view. It sounds kooky I know.

more later, the day job needs attending....
ScottMc
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: quantum wave theory

Postby Doug Coulter » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:30 pm

Yes, the issue for any purveyor of "new physics" is that nasty back-test against all existing actual observations that has to be done. Lots of people come up with stuff that looks good at first, in their own field or a couple of related ones, but which fails miserably against "All known data" which was adequately described by what most call "the standard model". Or winds up looking like a curve fitting exercise that only fixes one thing (like MOND). Personally, I'm not yet convinced that either the "dark energy" or "dark matter" proposed by cosmologists is anything but that. For one thing, their own "data" needs real scrutiny as it tends to be circular in derivation - we think all such supernovas are such brightness, which implies it's this far away, which ignores a lot of things (like dust, Doppler shifts from other causes etc). The truth is, no one's radar-ranged any of that or been there and all such circular arguments have "problems" in my view.

When doing my own very amateur analysis of Schroedinger's wave function, I noted with interest that at the end of this fairly wild flight (much has to be just assumed along the way) that he took only the magnitude of a complex number pair, and ditched the angle. Anyone who has done an FFT knows that this is tossing out information, rendering the data not transformable back to the original domain to get the waveform back. And then quantum physicists argue we can't predict where in the probability wave we find our particle. Well, when you do this to an FFT, you lose that information there too - math is math, no matter to what applied. Doh! Maybe it was Schroedinger playing dice?

For fusion, most of that probably doesn't apply, other than at the very last instant when the reactants "tunnel" into fusion, even though they lack the energy to climb the Coulomb barrier. Getting things to that point is most of the problem, then you can presumably let the quantum magic take over.

Or not. I'm investigating the other conservation laws -- things that say net spin into a reaction has to equal the net spin of all the products for one important example. I could prove that this is operating in deciding which of the 3 possible DD fusion pathways by pre-preparing the reactant spins before the reaction, to see if I can alter the ratios of the resulting reactions from the random-thermal book values, and that's what I'm up to at present. You can argue all day whether there's really something spinning or not - but there is a magnetic dipole there that takes on orientation under quantum laws (odd enough as is -- why just up and down?) -- and we can select by orientation and show that there is a difference. So that would be an experimental test.

I tend to put theory under the Feynman microscope -- it's got to predict something new I can test, else it and 25c will get a cup of coffee (well these days, you need a couple bucks). And it can't imply that tons of existing observations are wrong. When they disagree, I tend to go with what comes repeatably out of some lab.

But since we've not completely mastered the universe empirically yet - we obviously need new theoretical insights to get where we want to be. But along the way I think we have to realize that there will be very many new theories tried for each one that actually turns out to be useful in describing what we see, and predicting what we might see and do.

My issue with most of the standard stuff is none of it is "feedforward". The old 3 body gravitational problem comes to mind, as does anything else fractal, where the next input to the system is its last output. A closed form solution to one of these would be pretty neat to come up with, rather than having to time-space quantize to arbitrary (never infinite and errors do accumulate at less than that) precision and just run things in little steps till you get to an answer of "where is Jupiter in 30 years". You can't say, I need some material with these properties, and go back to wavefunctions and design it from scratch either. You have to just try stuff, then try to explain why diamonds are hard and transparent to some wavelengths from the theory. Not very satisfying intellectually, but it's what we have so far.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2935
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: quantum wave theory

Postby ScottMc » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:06 pm

I found Mr Unquantums take to be original in that he's not saying that the particle notion is a complete loss but that if we look at it from a wave function it can open new doors. I'm going to try and do some experimentation in that regard and see what I find, it's a new direction and maybe it'll provide some new information.

As to the spin, the dipole movement etc.. I think that the observed results are being forced into a model based on the math being somewhat flawed and the result is this odd notion of up, down and addition of the g constant to tweak the magnetic movement. Plasma physics is full of so many variables as you know it tends to be easier to model the single system rather than the field, not to say we don't but it's still a smoothed field equation to describe a very chaotic field. any movement of the e-field in-homogeneously shows an observable b-field change in closed loops, if the fundamental why and a way to control and moderate that is found that will open up lots of possibilities. I may be wrong but a instantaneous collapse of the e-field without resistance would generate equal current without respect to time and a tension in 4th dimension that may be also tied to the quantum entanglement observable. Just spitting out ghostly perceived connections here.

I'd like to find out if there is a way to tap the well and draw electrons purely based on the load needed. The field wants to maintain a net zero charge, so if a 'load' or imbalance is feed into the system state it may be possible to keep the electron movement going based on the load applied. lot of variables though.

Hey I like the unknown, it's fun to try and solve puzzles.

OK a little more poking around then I've got to get back to work.
ScottMc
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: quantum wave theory

Postby Doug Coulter » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:37 pm

OK, I went and took a very quick look at that site - seems there are issues. Time co-incidence (within his resolution) isn't enough of a test. But I could do a real one fairly easily soon, as we're building a MCA to be a product for DJs.

It's quite common for a gamma ray photon to Compton-scatter (or make a positron electron pair - several ways to get more than one out for one in) in a medium and produce two photons. Since he didn't mention measuring the energy of the two after a beam splitter (which btw is quite a trick itself for gammas at anything more than very glancing incidence - see gamma ray telescope design) - that's the flaw, if any. Turns out we happen to have two very good identical gallon jug NaI heads...So I could in theory test that assertion at some point fairly soon.

While I don't exactly "like" quanta - they sure do solve a lot of problems, from the whole thing with either the UV or IR catastrophe, to the fact that yes, you can count single photons (and neutrons and protons and electrons), and charge is in fact quantized in any experiment where you can actually measure it (which does not include the supposed fractional charges of supposed quarks, which is only theorized, but never actually seen). I'd have to read more to have anything more intelligent to say about his stuff.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2935
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: quantum wave theory

Postby ScottMc » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:33 pm

It's an interesting read, and for what ever reason he doesn't post all his info on the site. I had to go dig up the experiment data off google patents; http://www.google.com/patents?id=WtfXAA ... CDMQ6AEwAQ

I recall the discussion over his stance on the PF (physcis forums) great group however highly rigid now, keeps it in focus I think. worth a read thru when one has the time.

Honestly it's hard for me to say one way or the other, sure the equations can point in any direction you want but i don't have the field experience to defend any position. working on changing that though. I've sent him msg but have never received a response so I can't get any further info on where is experiments have gone to, would love to know though.
ScottMc
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: quantum wave theory

Postby JonathanH13 » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:05 am

Quantum wave theory aside -just a quick note about cellular replacement:

Biology operates at a higher (molecular) level – ‘who we are’ is contained within the human brain by specific connections between the brain cells. The contact surfaces of the neuronal projections (axons and dendrites) are covered with spines. Where these spines meet a synaptic junction is created, and it is the presence or absence of these junctions that encode all memory/information/experience that makes us who we are. The contact surface is made of a bi-lipid membrane, which is continually renewed and maintained by processes internal to the cell. This is like slowly replacing individual bricks in a wall, without changing the overall structure or shape of the wall, or the building.

If spines, dendrites or entire neurons are lost then we do lose the information - unless it is retained by additional networks (redundancy). An interesting consequence of this system is that because the cells have a finite surface area, and can only sustain a finite number of connections, there is a limit to how much we can learn and remember. New knowledge is learnt and retained at the expense of less utilised memory - new spine growth and new synaptic connections are often created on a dendrite by using the internal cell scaffolding of a nearby less-used spine (because neuronal maintenance is metabolically expensive). There are rumours that if your brain is not provided with sufficient Omega-3 EFA’s (to maintain the bi-lipid layer), then it will attempted to repair the cell wall using other oils, like chip fat :D which doesn’t work so well!
User avatar
JonathanH13
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: quantum wave theory

Postby Starfire » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:00 am

Ahh! - that explains it - A brain full off chips. :lol:
Starfire
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: North Ireland


Return to Theories and speculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest