Aether Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Mazulu, May 3, 2012.

  1. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    The mathematics and experimental data of QM and GR is sound and reliable. However, without a succinct and simple interpretation that unifies QM & GR, scientific and technological advancement has no where to go, which inevitably results in technological stagnation. The interpretation of the Michelson&Morley experiment was hasty and lacked wisdom. M&M only proved that the aether-medium is not a point-particle medium that the earth can travel through. But M&M failed to disprove the existence of other kinds of mediums; for example, a relativistic medium or a quantum-wave medium.

    I will grant you that an aether-medium, by its very terminology, sounds metaphysical; I acknowledge that physicists don't like to deal with such open ended terminology. But there is an Occam's razor way to interpret QM and GR that simplifies everything. Allow me two assumptions.

    1. An aether medium has to reproduce ALL experimental results (which seems reasonable).
    2. Gravity, GR, the Standard Model (and whatever else exists) must be explainable with ONLY the aether medium interpretation.

    What evidence is there that an aether medium exists at all? Answer: nature exists; that's easy to prove: punch a tree and see what happens. It takes more than a mathematical model to make particles and energy exist. Something has to transmit light and to make forces exist. Something has to transmit action-at-a-distance forces such as gravity and E&M.

    An aether-medium has characteristics. First of all, it is a light bearing medium. GR and SR are derived from the observation that the speed of light is invariant for ALL observers. If the laws of motion were Galilean up to unlimited speeds, then the light (speed of light) would have no special significance. In fact, relativity should raise suspicions that some kind of medium exists; otherwise, Galilean motion would be observed.

    Light is transmitted as waves of various frequencies. Coincidentally, quantum mechanics has waves (wave-functions) just as light has waves (electromagnetic energy). A quantum aether should be made out of waves.

    Any takers?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    We've had quantum mechanics and GR for a century now, despite being unable to unite them properly and yet the rate of technological advancement is ever increasing!

    The unification is only an issue for technology if we were trying to build machines which work in regimes where they need to be united, such as micro black hole mechanics. Even if we don't ever understand that there'll always be other directions for technology to develop.

    By that logic the argument "God exists because existence exists and existence is only possible with God" would be sound. Which it isn't. Other than trying to define aether into existence can you actually provide a replacement for mainstream models which works?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I don't want to talk about God or metaphysics. I want to talk about the building blocks of space and time. Speed of light is the same for photon emitters and detectors (observers) alike. It looks like the building blocks of space-time are a set of waves between emitter and observer, which can produce both photon/light/E&M transmission AND time dilation/length contraction effects.

    I work on some of the fastest/most accurate oscilloscopes in the world. Intel will buy some of them to make the fastest IC chips in the world. Moore's law will apply until the challenges of quantum mechanics become technically insurmountable. What I'm trying to get to is gravitational redshift can be duplicated with opto-electronics in a way that reproduces a gravity field. That is my idea of technological advancement.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    My interpretation of the aether-medium is that it MUST reproduce quantum mechanics, GR, and Maxwell's equations (light/virtual photons/etc). So I say, let the building blocks look like quantum waves (wave amplitudes) with length contraction/time dilation properties. Let these waves interconnect with all quantum systems, all particles. Let the wave amplitudes be waves of the aether medium. So excitations of the aether-medium look like photons, light even virtual particles. Particles, which are described as quantum systems, are kinks in the aether-medium with some amount of trapped energy (rest mass). In a particle-anti-particle annihilation event, the kink and anti-kink cancel out, and release waves in the aether-medium (called gamma rays or photons).

    Important point. Using this interpretation, all the experimental work that physicists have done, to date, remains. This interpretation adds value. It allows you to think up experiments to test it. Without this interpretation of a QM/relativistic aether medium, there is no reason to think up any possible experiments.

    One experiment: the gravitational blueshift of a photon as it falls along the radii into a black hole can be decomposed into a Fourier series. You can reproduce that Fourier series, with many different frequencies of light to try to get back the gravity field that caused it.

    Potentially, you can have the benefits of gravity field generators now. Or you can have the benefits in a thousand years. Questions?
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    To be able to make such things you'd have to be an expert in quantum mechanics already and access to some serious lab equipment, as well as having considerable research to your name. Do you? It's just such people rarely then put forth the sort of arm waving you are, they realise the vital importance of being clear and precise when it comes to such things.

    Unless you have a reason to think you can do that, either a working model of related phenomena you've come up with and which suggests you can make gravitational fields or you have experimental justification. Do you? If you don't then you're essentially stabbing in the dark.

    Simply saying that doesn't make your notions true. Have you any models? Presently you're just asserting that some hypothetical model you haven't provided can do anything you require of it.

    Beyond wishful thinking and assumption piles on a mound of assumption do you have anything to actually say?

    That's like saying that because I can pick up a brick, in counter to gravity, then I have antigravity. You're claiming that using a laser to modify the behaviour of light then you'll be altering the gravitational field.

    Firstly that obviously isn't a certainty or even justified. Secondly your approach is flawed. Fourier series indeed add together waves to form any sort of function one can want (given certain restrictions about continuity and differentiability) but light doesn't work like that. If you have a photon of some particular frequency and fire another one at it (ie you time it so they will meet) they don't add in the manner of a Fourier series. Photons don't interact with one another except in highly rare loop processes (the U(1) gauge field is non-self interacting) and even then they don't combine as a sum, as in a Fourier series. Besides, you don't control the amplitude of a photon, the energy determines the frequency. Of course if you view the EM field classically then you can consider linear superpositions to make complex wave forms but that is only an effective theory for the underlying particle interactions. This is something I'd have thought someone well versed in transistor technology would know, because transistors require good quantum mechanics understanding to design, as they rely on quantum level processes.
     
  9. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    You're right, a Fourier series is not the right way to reproduce a gravitational frequency shift. Nevertheless, you would have to generate a frequency shift of the form: f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0, to get back a gravity field.

    You may call it: "a stab in the dark", I call it: "solve the puzzle". Galilean motion doesn't work at high velocities, so relativity had to be invented. But relativity is about what happens when particles approach the speed of light. Likewise, the simplest wave function that can be derived from the Schrodinger equation is: Psi = e^{i*omega*t}, which is a plane wave of light.

    I wish you could see what I see. I wish I could articulate it better. Many have tried to find a connection between quantum mechanics & relativity. Some theorists thought the connection was string theory, but string theory is untestable. But the answer is much simpler than that. The answer to "the puzzle" is light. Photons.

    If light is what connects QM to GR, then what does light have to do with gravity? Answer: frequency shift. If you generate a frequency shift similar to the equation above, you should get back gravity.

    Once again, I am sorry that I can't articulate it any better. I am sorry that you don't see the connection between frequency shift and gravity. Yes, I admit that I have made more than a few assumptions. But I stand by my convictions that this is how you create a gravity drive propulsion system.
     
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    As I recall, you claimed on physforum that god had told you how to create a 'gravity drive'. You also stated that the alien's knew but wouldn't reveal their knowledge.
     
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Firstly, what makes you think that formula is valid? Where did you get it? Secondly how does altering a photon generate a gravitational field?

    The fact two different phemomena can produce similar changes in a photon doesn't mean one produces the other. The equivalence principle in GR says you cannot tell the difference between the accelerating effect a rocket has on an astronaut in deep space and the accelerating effect a gravitational field has on another astronaut. If you're in a window-less rocket and experiencing 9.8m/s^2 you cannot tell whether the rocket is stationary on the launch pad or you're in deep space firing the thrusters at a particular level. In the latter case there's no gravitational field but there's no way for the astronaut to tell the difference.

    Actually no one had any evidence against high velocity Galilean transforms when Fitzgerald transforms, Lorentz transforms, Poincare transforms and SR were developed. They were, however, all motivated by things like electromagnetism, which does have Lorentz symmetry within it. This was their motivation and guide. You, on the other hand, don't have anything. Hence you're just picking something at random, something you find intellectually appealing, rather than objectively justified.

    Actually it's about everything, it just happens to only be really obvious, when compared to Galilean transforms, at high speeds.

    Actually you'd need to include a spatial component in there in order to get a moving wave, ie \(\psi = \psi(x-ct,x+ct)\).

    I've asked you to provide some equations, but you seem unable to do so. If you haven't got anything concrete then I don't need to see what you see, as you see nothing.

    No, it's predictions can be tested in a few instances. For example, it predicts the behaviour of gravity, giving the Einstein field equations plus string corrections. If gravity didn't behave like GR says it does on large scales then string theory would be falsified.

    I really hope you can expand on that because if you think that counts as somehow an answer to the problem of modelling quantum gravity processes you're extremely naive about physics and the requirements models must meet.

    No, you don't.

    Consider 2 objects in space, each with an identical laser, a camera and some thrusters. Each shines the laser at the other. Each knows the frequency of the laser light which it leaving it's emitter. If they are stationary with respect to one another they will see the light from the other as having the same frequency as their laser's light. If they fire their thrusts for a few seconds to move away from one another, along their line of sight, then they will see a frequency shift and that shift will remain even after they turn their thrusters off. No gravity is in existence or even any accelerating forces once they turn the thrusters off. The relative motion induces a Doppler shift.

    I know that there can be a connection but it isn't always there. Frequency shifts can occur when gravitational fields are involved but they can also occur when they aren't. This isn't some lack of knowledge or understanding on my part, it's an obvious and demonstrable fact.

    And I stand by my convictions that invisible elves sneak into my room at night and steal my dreams, use my toothbrush and paint my walls with invisible pink paint.

    It's easy to assert vapid and false things. What if I were to say that the answer isn't photons but neutrinos? That photon frequency shifts are neutrino flavour oscillations? Thus far I've presented just as rational and justified argument as you have.

    And is Alex correct, did you say those things? If you did then I can now see why you think your 'answer' of 'It's light' is somehow viable, you have absolutely no comprehension of what a rational, evidence based argument is. I suggest you get a firm grip on reality before trying to tell people how it works.
     
  12. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    AlphaNumeric,
    You asked where I got the equation: f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0. The is a frequency shift equation. It is an equation for a line, Y = mx + b, where Y = f(t), m = df/dt and b = f_0. This is the electromagnetic frequency shift that you have to generate for a gravity drive experiment.
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I know what a linear equation is, I have some experience with maths. My point, which I've said numerous times and which you still don't get, is that you haven't shown a derivation of that. Why would a photon frequency linear in time be needed for a gravity drive? Why isn't it \(f(t) = f_{0} + f_{1}t - f_{2}\sin \omega t + \ln(\sqrt{t^{2}+1})\)? You've just pulling equations out of your backside without any justification. Throwing out an equation so basic 14 year olds can understand might seem elaborate to you but physicists and mathematicians expect a bit more than remedial maths assertions.

    Besides, why does it have anything to do with gravity? I've already explained to you how a photon can shift in frequency and gravity have nothing to do with it.
     
  14. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    From wiki, the Einstein Equivalence Principle,
    In the physics of general relativity, the equivalence principle is any of several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.​
    The equivalence principle tells us that the mechanism for gravity is the same as the mechanism for the pseud force of an accelerated frame. The wave functions that create the geometry of space-time are also the same wave functions that create the difference in velocity between two inertial reference frames. Between two inertial frames with different velocities, there are wave-functions between them that cause light to frequency shift. So I ask, if I emit that linear frequency shift that I told you about, can I energize/activate those same wave-functions, along with the gravity (and/or acceleration field) that comes with it. I only expect to be able to recover a tiny fraction (0.000000001) of the gravity/acceleration through frequency shift because we cannot duplicate the wave-function perfectly. Doppler shift is caused by both gravity (acceleration) and difference in velocity. A generated frequency shift should recover a small fraction of both acceleration and velocity. Do you understand now? The whole point of this exercise is to determine if this could lead to a opto-electronic acceleration field generators. The linear equation that I used is a starting point, a way to test proof of concept. If it works, then the linear frequency shift equation will inevitably have other frequency shift terms that make the field the field stronger. It will also have to include geometry in the designs as well.

    I'm sorry I have to go finish cleaning the apartment I'm moving out of. I have to move a heavy desk. Want to come along and help?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 9, 2012
  15. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    There are articles that prove that wave-functions are real.
     
  16. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    And I will show you those links as soon as I have posted 20 times.
     
  17. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    And I hate to have to post one sentence comments.
     
  18. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    And I apologize to the moderator for reaching 20 posts one sentence at a time.
     
  19. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    But I do have links that show that wave-functions are being measured by physicists.
     
  20. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    And if wave -functions are a real phenomena of nature, then new breakthroughs can be made in physics.
     
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    The honest answer you should have given is "No, I cannot justify what I said.". Your replies are nothing but attempts at smoke screens to avoid admitting that,
     
  22. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    These are the two articles I found that support the opinion that wave-functions exist as a natural phenomena.

    [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
    [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    So all we need are articles to prove things are real? Think how much money will be saved since we don't need to run anymore experiments. We can just write an article.
     

Share This Page