3 Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2024
- The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics embraces the idea that there are no deterministic hidden variables that give rise to the probabilities of the quantum world. This means that it is not generally possible to predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty and the there is no deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics which could predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty.
But there are other theories that embrace determinism and that seek out these hidden variables.
Please consider supporting this channel through:
Patreon: / seethepattern
PayPal: www.paypal.me/seethepattern
Merch: shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/see-th...
or CRYPTO Donations:
Bitcoin: bc1q5cctzkc9tt6hmqueddfk5dlvcpr6y45gx7td04
Ethereum: 0x2df869b96d4b42c461635B2955fAF72C79eA445D
Dogcoin: DRUEVXavwhbavuhgYJV2AXo8N6tC2zB5za
Other Videos Relating to Quantum Mechanics:
Quantum Electrodynamics is rotten at the core: • Quantum Electrodynamic...
Quantum Mechanics: A Theory in Search of an Interpretation: • Quantum Mechanics: A T...
3 Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: • 3 Different Interpreta...
Follow me on:
/ seethepattern
/ patternseethe
References:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_par...
www.friesian.com/space-2.htm
plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm...
www.quantamagazine.org/why-th...
iopscience.iop.org/article/10...
www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8853/...
web.math.princeton.edu/~nelso...
sites.rutgers.edu/barry-loewe...
www.quantamagazine.org/fluid-...
people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser...
www.quantamagazine.org/fluid-...
blog.espci.fr/aeddi/files/201...
julientaylor.com/DUALWALKERS/P...
journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/...
web.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec...
hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-...
00:00 Introduction
00:52 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen padadox
02:56 Bohm's variation of the paradox
05:06 Bell's Theorem
06:40 Many Worlds Interpretation
10:50 Stochastic Mechanics
11:59 Pilot-wave Theory
16:34 Fluid Experiments showing Pilot-wave
![Moneybagg Yo - WHISKEY WHISKEY [feat. Morgan Wallen] (Official Audio)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kJamyq0WplE/mqdefault.jpg)
Yay for De Brogli-Bohm.
“Unperformed experiments have no results”
I like that approach to explaining things 😄
I’ve always said that “thought experiments” involve too little of both.
That last bit was extremely enlightening!!
In another universe I wrote the real answer to this conundrum. You are unable to see it here. Sorry about that.
I see what you did here……with my third eye😜
If anyone finds the answer to life, the universe and everything that instance of the universe promptly collapses. It’s actually quite a simple problem but survivorship bias will always prevent us solving it.
@@Tailspin80maybe an outside observer has already observed and collapsed the wave function into what we observe within it… us….
@@stevenwhite8937well, given that relativity means different observers have different timeframes this kind of hints that the wave function never really collapses or we would have time paradoxes all over
@@daanschone1548 we have time paradoxes all over. No one can agree whose clock is correct…..
16:34 Fluid Experiments showing Pilot-wave
Absolutely beautiful.
A balanced review of the catalog of theories with the added plus that you didn't try to sell me nutritional supplements.
No, he didn't sell you anything nutritious. Bullshit rarely is... unless you are a dung beetle, I guess. ;-)
Wow. Well done. This video hit me in ways very few do anymore. I've heard all of this before but the way you presented everything lit up my brain in ways I yearn for. Great stuff.
Best video on this I've seen. Thank you.
Very nicely done!
Like usual.
Outstanding presentation! Well paced, great visuals, concise summaries.
I'll be back... Bringing others.
If there weren’t any Copenhagen Interpreters to shut up and calculate,
would it be more probable that there woud be less uncertainty.
I wish everyone who likes quantum mechanics would watch this video.
I have never heard Bell's words on Bohm's interpretation untill now (I'm rly into quantum mechanics)
This is so very typical of the public education system: We're taught only what someone else has already decided is true, and rarely anything of any competing ideas.
@@marcusrhodes1318 We were able to build out our entire world of electronics in the past 100 years and all other technology from QM. There wasn't a need to understand Bohemian Mech until we hit the edge cases at the limits of the description/model called QM.
@@nias2631 That's not certain. There were a number of things we just didn't understand. And who knows where we'd be now if we had. We work wonders with magnetism, and yet we don't really understand it. And we have no idea what we'll be able to do once we do finally understand it.
@@nias2631 People could still have worked at all the current science even if some scientists explored this. It's not the choice of an interpretation that is the problem - the problem is the choice to only consider one possiblity at the time
They'd only sigh. Much of what is discussed here is based on incorrect definitions/fundamental misunderstanding of certain technical terms and theories based on misdefined/misunderstood terms are the hallmark of pseudoscience. For example, when he talks about the axis of spin of electrons, he's talking gibberish. As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, electrons do not and cannot spin (were they to do so, such spin would have to be faster than the speed of light.) They merely have a property that causes them to behave/interact as if they had spin in certain (but not all) circumstances. Said property only exists in two possible states. "Up" and "down" are just placeholder terms to differentiate those states. As such, there is no axis involved.
Also, many (possibly a majority) of modern physicists don't subscribe to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation these days anyway. It doesn't really matter which interpretation one subscribes to (assuming it's based on the proper usage and understanding of the technical aspects involved and not simply pulled from one's backside.) Quantum mechanics is ultimately the result of the limitations of what is possible for us to know. Whether or not things are determinate or superposition is actually a thing, we can never know. Observing a particular property of something requires direct interaction of some sort with that object and direct interaction alters the properties of said object. As far as we're concerned, superposition etc. might as well be a thing as it's the best we can do unless someone figures out how to determine properties of things without said things interacting in any way with any other things. Everything we observe is the result of things interacting with other things and thus altering each others properties so...
Wavefunctions, superposition, entanglement, and everything else involved with quantum mechanics are simply the best tools we have for making sense of things given the physical limitations of our reality.
Edit: long story short concerning interprerations, which one you subscribe to is ultimately philosophical. The nuts and bolts under the hood of quantum mechanics are what they are regardless.
12:05
*THANK YOU* !!!
for given us the correct pronunciation of de Broglie 's name.
See the Pattern,
Have you ever covered Roger Joseph Boscovich and his book A Theory of Natural Philosophy? Tesla' favourite book.
It's nice to see the critique aspects of each of the formulations and how the alternate proposals respond.
In some ways it depends on one's philosophy of how/if/when 'science' (maths?) can be applied to the real (perceived) world and which parts are treated theologically (e.g. the predictability of 'simple' mathematics, or the dice throwing god, or postulates of some apostle).
Much of the measurements we make are already determined by the 'calibrations' of the instruments that depend on the underlying theories and assumptions that are part of the predictions we are trying to test. Just like high school experiments of ohms law that use moving coil voltmeters and ammeters, or electronic meters, calibrated with ohms laws, and a test article that has been selected to follow the law (who measures the resistivity of a garden plant in a pot???).
Nice...I learned something... thank you!
What I learned is that I need to retain my valued subscription to “See The Pattern” to prevent brain cell death as I circle the event horizon draining into a non-existent black hole.
Among approx. 72367257645387 YT videos "explaining" QM, this one is the only worth to be seen. Exceptionnal.
Thank you 😊
I feel you on that no. Of searched
If one measures the exact number YT videos on QM interpretations, what complementary variable are we giving up all hope of knowing?
Really cool video. Would be great if you could also add the challenges that DeBroglie-Bohm faces at the moment. I have heard that there are some compatibility problems with SR and GR, but I am not certain.
None of the interpretations are compatible with GR. As for SR, it's not exclusive to pilot wave theory but any theory that actually tries to go "deeper" than quantum mechanics rather than just explaining away our observations like Copenhagen and MWI do struggle with compatibility with SR. Bell's theorem shows us that the universe has an appearance of nonlocality, so any attempt to explain the fundamental underlying mechanism to how this nonlocality behaves using not just vague philosophy but mathematical rigor and crossing into a whole new theory, it then becomes very difficult to square it with SR. There is actually no reason to think such a problem could not be mathematically solved, but not only is solving it difficult, but there are potentially many valid solutions, and we currently have no way of testing one from the other to know which one is true. So there isn't that much interest in the physics community of trying to devote the immense effort needed to solve this problem for a particular theory (like pilot wave) when we don't even know if it's correct or not. Personally I think the statistical interpretation, which is similar to pilot wave but leaves the question of the solution to this problem open rather than positing a very specific solution like pilot waves, is a more tenable viewpoint at this stage, and pilot wave theory should be seen as more of a mathematical curiosity like string theory.
Well done video 👍
you should make video on toroid ring model of particles as alternative to quantum mechanics
I've just spent the last 2 solid weeks in quantumland. I've reproduced important experiments like the double slit at home, simulated counterfactual quantum computations and the bomb test in virtual quantum physics labs - and this video was the most amazing thing I've seen yet, simply because it includes so many groundbreaking experiments that I've never even heard of. The part about the silicon oil bath was just mind-blowing - in spite of it just being vibrating oil, it replicated the action seen in quantum mechanics in amazing ways. Seeing a wave interact with a "particle" that way helps me visualize what that might look like at the subatomic level, and I've honestly been struggling to visualize anything about the wave function up to this point.
hate to break it too you bud but gell-man fucked up particle physics.... the existence of a particle is a misconception based on the experiment itself and measuring device.... particles are just broken bits of the wave which look like particles... when a wave crashes into matter, the collision breaks apart of the wave off (particle) which is measurable....
It's the same reason that the framework of sub-atoms, etc. is wrong.... search cloud electron model as its more right than what's currently thought.
And if you love experiments you should check out the 'bucket experiment' between newton v mach.... and then imagine the same experiment outside of earth's gravity... (absolute rest doesn't exist) mach was centuries ahead of his time and his principle applies to QM and everything else in the universe.
@@jaydenwilson9522 for sure that make sense as well. we are all moving in relation to something, even the cosmos is oscillating.
If you have really duplicated the double slit experiment, then you well have seen that electromagnetic radiation is waves and all frequencies, never particles.
@@dreamdiction might want to google definitions for particles and sphericals
If you want a good visualisation study Energy Wave Theory, its super simple and does everything QM can and more... no wave functions, just real waves.
I have seen the pilot wave double slit experiment done with ping pong balls. It seems rather convincing that we should consider re-looking at the notion of an aether. I also find the similarly of LIGO and the Michelson-Morley experiment to be astounding. Not seeing black holes falling into each other, but rater seeing the aether.
@Henrik Kowalski it hasn't, that was an untested auxiliary hypothesis. They also didn't account for the variables of the motion of the mirror.
Don't mention that word "aether". Never.
Instead call it "the modulations of space-time", or something like that. Beware contentiousness of labels ! ;-)
There is an "aether" but it's not what you think, it's called "quantum field(s)".
The ether is very much alive and kicking. Just its name is different. Its called a FIELD in physics. Its the Field and the properties of it that help guide energy (don't ask me what energy is - I've never really heard anyone define it, its just an supposed to be an objective property of the universe). Particles are said to be localized energy movements on the substrate of the Field. In 1880s they said the ether was a substance. Today we call it the Field but just say its not a substance? What is it then. Both Field and Ether are carriers and modulators of something called energy.
@@philipoakley5498 The narcissism of small differences and the language associated with it is most manifest in theoretical physics, which is really the Priesthood of Scientism. It really comes off as an intellectualized marketing campaign based on Einstein's Cool Story. The hardest concept to grasp is that of counterspace. That's why it has been left to the fringe and ignored by the mainstream.
i find it interesting that The French originally called Quantum Mecanics by a more accurate term: Oscillatory Mecanics, very in line with Aether and UniversIon theory.
Kinematic Viscosity has always been an odd but interesting unit to me. You can always find it embedded in electric units and can make physical analogies with it. The oil droplet experiment always makes me think of this unit.
Denying the pilot wave is the same as denying the ether. We always return to the existence of the ether, no matter how much physicists may dislike it.
Yep, well said. They dislike it because the logic that the M&M experiment disproved an aether was pathetic, all it disproved was a flawed model of the aether.... It's such a rudimentary error that it's embarrassing for them. Notice how Einsteins slips an aether back into GR with space time after dismissing it in SR.
When computing the probability of the cat in the box being dead,
remember that a cat has 9 lives, so your results will be skewed
toward "ALIVE" 8 out of 9 times.
These history-of-physics segments are so very useful. 99.9% of lay folk, and MOST scientists are ignorant of the very history of Science.
Gotta say Alice and Bob must be fed up of performing quantum entanglement experiments by now.
My only complaint is that Von Neumann has never claimed he ruled out all hidden variable theories. He was misquoted by his peers and thus later by Bell as well. He said hidden variables can not be part of quantum mechanincs as it was understood at the time, and that any viable hidden variable theories should deviate in mathematical structure from "classic" QM.
It seems with languages that a Rosetta Stone here or there can truly help you out. There is no Rosetta Stone for hidden variables.
@@brendawilliams8062 He certainly didn't believe in them. The fact that he emphasised that in his work is one of the reasons why people think he thought he ruled them all out.
@@davidkiss3556 maybe foo fighters come in all sizes
But Bohmian mechanics has the same mathematical structure (well, except for the guiding equation, which is just another equation on top which is decoupled from Schrödinger's equation). Von Neumann actually used a hidden assumption in his proof, which he probably took for granted: that QM was local
@@Gabriel-mf7wh Gabriel, I can not truly comment on that. I admire that you are knowledgeable of it. I follow Penrose strictly by the actual numbers. I can’t advance past that without studying quantum. I have chosen not to. I am comfortable being involved with better education but also am completely comfortable in my own studies.
1. You missed to mention concepts of superdeterminism.
2. The experiments with the silicone oil are impressive, but these drops and waves are macroscopic objects, without quantum properties. So it's not more than an analogy, a quite neat one.
A brilliant piece. Thank you. I get a real sense progress is on the horizon.
That's the human condition.
One day someone will prove that we can never really understand it. That would put a lot of physicists out of a job.
I saw a docu on Bohm being effectively stonewalled from insider elitist science for the original pilot wave paper. (Oppenheimered!)
If you don't induce the 'ways in which we are thinking' then you encounter the suppressive 'wavelength' that spits out any who don't jibe to the tune. But Bohm did not cease from active curiosity in seeds of service for a world yet to come
Very well done. There must be a guiding wave, which does away with the mysticism of the Copenhagen interpretation.
the mysticism? create infinite worlds? yea. for sure.
I agree that Copenhagen is voodoo, but the pilot wave is hopelessly non-local. Once you truly understand Everett (i.e. you don't think any new universes are created), it is a much cleaner, more elegant interpretation.
@@davidhand9721 The Everett interpretation is not "clean" but has a problem equivalent to the "collapse" in the Copenhagen interpretation. It reproduces its own measurement problem. The wave function describes the shape of an infinitely branching multiverse, but the observer only at any particular time finds themselves on a particular branch. In the same way the Copenhagenists have failed to explain how the wave function can "collapse" to a specific measured outcome, the MWIsts have failed to explain how the observer gets kicked off into one branch and not another, and therefore only measures one possible outcome and not another. I'm not sure what "hopelessly nonlocal" even means. It seems like you just dislike the results of the Bell tests because you think it's icky or something so you're inventing a fantasy of a grand multiverse to explain it away lol
@@amihart9269 There is no collapse in MW. The observer is not an independent entity; they, too, are subject to the same phase correlation requirements. When a measurement is made, the observer sees _all_ outcomes, but the wavefunction of the observer itself is partitioned by decoherence and each cannot meaningfully interact with the others. This is what "clean" means. Every object is subject to the Schrodinger equation only. There are no special observers that suspend the Schrodinger equation and replace it with the contradictory Born rule. There is a total economy of ideas.
"I'm not even sure what 'hopelessly non-local' even means" is likely why we are having this conversation. The Bell inequality has nothing to do with it, but I should clarify that under MW, there is absolutely nothing spooky or non-local about the experimental results, and it is the only interpretation that can make such a claim. Pilot wave, on the other hand, is non-local because the "guiding wave" field is influenced by every object in the universe instantaneously. It doesn't respect the finite speed of light; that is what non-local means. Given the weight of evidence behind relativity, non-local behavior is all but ruled out.
@@amihart9269 In addition, the terms "branching" and "multiverse" are highly misleading when applied to MW. There is exactly one wavefunction and that never changes. Each state and eigenfunction, however, can only interact meaningfully with other states that are coherent to it. Everything else washes to zero. Thus, "functional partitioning" is probably the best way to describe it.
I want to thank you for clarifying that Bell's Theorem did NOT disprove a hidden variables theory.
"local" hidden variable theories have been ruled out. Only " non-local " ( like Bohm/ pilot wave) are still viable.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 Well no, because we can't "rule out" a theory that potentially doesn't even apply to entangled particles.
For all we know, it's a combination of local and non local effects, or neither. It is possible that Bell's observation was completely useless.
The point is that Bell's Theorem only disproves what it's own assumption. An assumption of locality has nothing to do with whether or not variables exist.
Bell's Theorem only disproves an assumption, in which case that's easy to do with observation.
@@Sloppyjoey1 The last loopholes ( for local h.v. theories) have already been closed since '17-'19. After these experiments ( from the nobelist Zeilinger and his team and others) nobody ( except for a few people with "fringe" ideas) doubts that local h.variables are not a thing...
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 You're saying "loopholes" as if it's even possible to prove a negative without a complete accounting of the events (which we do not have).. Seems intellectually dishonest.
Bell's theorem does not address hidden variables, it addresses the assumption of locality made by EPR. EPR believed that "spooky action" was impossible.
We do not even understand when "non-local" becomes "local". We can only generalize, and even then we do not fully understand locality, "locality" doesn't even have a quantified definition.
I think you're overlooking a key component. Bell's Theorem may be correct, but irrelevant... If we have a non-local event, and unknown variables, the odds of an unknown variable are still the same.
Also, this is all besides the point, I was only commenting that Bell's Theorem did not disprove hidden variables, it only disproved that the observation is local in nature - which is something we already knew due to.. well, observation lol
I mean, you can only disprove theories we have conceived of so far, so it could be plausible that a hidden variable with some alternative or complex facets could be conceived .
To me General Relativity was something to lateral in understanding but entirely derived from its premises and testable (unlike some QM interpretations), so possibly in such a way none of US will conceive it except a single extraordinary mind?.
PicoPhysics is another theory that embrace determinism. The reality exists irrespective of observer. However; it agrees with the statement "This means that it is not generally possible to predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty". Uncertainty principle is derivative of Unary Law of PicoPhysics "Space contains Kenergy".
How many have heard of the wave equivalent of the double-slit experiment? Laser-> beam splitter-> 2 beam splitters-> pairs of beams into 2 interferometers. Establish interference patterns. Block 1 of 4 beams (not allowing one pair to interact as waves).
Interference patterns disappear from BOTH interferometers. Superluminal transfer of information.
Isn't that just the delayed choice experiment? There is no superluminal transfer of information. The interference pattern only appears when you add up the data from all beams, on the screens themselves there's never an interference pattern.
@@FunkyDexter No, there were interference patterns on both interferometers. The blocking of one beam into one interferometer caused both interference patterns to disappear. If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, how did the two beams in the second interferometer know they could not interact as waves, since those photons were emitted simultaneously with the photons to the first? I would venture to say that if the two beams to the second one were diverted into a path of one light second length before entering, the interference pattern would STILL disappear instantaneously as soon as one of the first beams was blocked, not one second later.
@@fredfarquar8301 do you have any papers to link to?
@@FunkyDexter At one time I had the reference, because I found and read the article. All I remember now is that it was performed by a graduate student and was reported in 1991; it MAY have appeared in Physics Letters, but I’m not positive that is the correct journal.
I just watched for the 2nd time. Well done!
Thanks, very interesting!
Excellent information
To me, quantum mechanics is solely about science done on the margin of error in measuring. Once you hit the limit of your ruler, then you can only generate what-if possibilities as more precision beyond the capability of your measurement is theoretical.
It science done with guess work, mistaking results of measurements and reaching foolish conclusions because you don't ahem a clear model. Get the real physical model right and it all resolves to classical wave mechanics in a relativistic super fluid aether medium.
That's the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (sometimes called the ensemble interpretation or the stochastic interpretation). It's actually the least popular explanation because it implies we don't know something and most physicists do not like saying "I don't know." There was a poll done asking experts their opinion and the statistical interpretation was supported by 0% of the respondents. Most physicists prefer an explanation that claims the wave function represents an exhaustive description of everything there is to know about the system without any uncertainty, without anything left that we do not know that could be known. Claiming otherwise makes quantum mechanics seem like an incomplete theory, and incompleteness is unacceptable to most physicists.
Thee refusal of many physicists to allow for the possibility of not knowing what they are supposed to be trying to learn about seems to be a logical fallacy of huge proportions. It would explain why so much of what they propose is incomprehensible, has zero real world meaning and must be expressed in mathematics so complex very few can follow. Is there any point to this?
There any videos of the actual process of this "particle measuring and observation" phenomena. Especially displaying entanglement.
excellent -thanks
Thanks!
There’s a Rutgers paper that’s salient here: Diagnosing the Trouble With Quantum Mechanics
Jean Bricmont, Sheldon Goldstein (I’d post the link but my comment keeps getting taken down and I’m guessing the link is the reason). The paper concludes that both the Copenhagen and many worlds models are mathematically flawed. They did not evaluate the Stochastic model but did determine pilot wave theory was, at least, mathematically sound (that doesn’t make it correct just sound). I’ve been a pilot wave proponent for years. If we understand the intractable number of vibrations driving the media (dare I say “æther”?), that moves the “particles” (not convinced of particles; if phonons work for sound maybe all particles are pseudo-particles) the vibration of the media seems a likely candidate for producing the stochastic motion of particles (Brownian motion).
Hello Kevin, I thought you may be interested in the following.
I have responded to this chanel before, and this video very much accords with what I am proposing in two hypotheses that I have been working on, in which I propose that the main problem with Quantum Mechanics is the ' Schrodinger Wave function ', and the uncertainty principal.
I believe that the standard model of the atom, is fundamentally flawed, and that the electron, as described in the standard model, is not a fundamental solid particle, but a cluster of very much smaller negatively charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons ' which, in a cloud, fill every available empty space between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, and also every available empty space throughout the universe.
This negatively charged cloud is the 'Dark Matter', and the force of repulsion it produces is the dark energy, and also one of the two components of ' Gravity ', which I believe is a force of both attraction and repulsion. This cloud also provides a medium through which electromagnetic radiation and shockwaves can travel.
I further contend that all electromagnetic radiation does not travel in waves, but as a ray consisting of discrete pulses or packages, at various frequencies, depending on the energy it contains. I further contend that there exists a corresponding positively charged monopole particle called a ' Dannytron ', which in combination with the ' Harveytron ' make up all of the nuclei, and thus all of the nuclear matter throughout the universe.
I propose that these two particles make up everything that exists in the universe, and all of the so-called particles making up the standard model's table of particles, are composites of these two particles. below is an extract from my hypotheses, which you may find interesting. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
Electron.
It is proposed that the accepted view, that an electron is an elementary solid particle, is incorrect, and that it is in fact a collection of the much smaller negatively charged monopole particles that I have just described as ‘ Harveytrons ‘. I believe that these particles would be the finitely smallest particles in the universe, and would constitute everything that exists in the universe, with the exception of the positively charge component contained in every nucleus that exists. Also I propose that these particles would form a cloud ‘, the ‘ Harveytron ‘ cloud, that fills every available empty space within the atom and the universe.
Just to emphasize the point, I believe that the electron, as a solid particle does not exist.
It is proposed that the electron as it is described in the standard model, is in fact a parcel of the much smaller negatively charged monopole ’ Harveytron ‘ particles described in my hypothesis, and is the quantity of negatively charged particles to be contained together, before the charge they contain is released as a Photon, or as a pulse of energy outside the spectrum of visible light. This quantity of charge is a constant, throughout the whole of the universe, and is the quantity of charge contained in a quanta of light or electromagnetic radiation, when the threshold quantity of charge able to be held within the boundary of the atom is reached.
This is analogous to an electrical circuit, containing a power source, a capacitor, and an SCR, whereby, when power is applied to the circuit, the capacitor begins to charge, until the trigger voltage of the SCR is reached and it fires, at which point the capacitor discharges in a pulse.
The way that these clusters form, is due to the interaction between the opposing positive and negative forces in the nucleus and any external force applied to the atom pushing the negative particles up to the point where the pressure cannot be contained by the atom, and the energy contained in these bunched particles is released to the adjoining atom. The quantity of negative charge surrounding each nucleus, is strongest nearest the nucleus, and gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus. At the point where the force of attraction to this charge from the nucleus reaches equilibrium with the force of repulsion between the negatively charged monopoles is reached, this is the boundary of the atom. This is also the boundary that the positive charge forming the strong nuclear force extends to. From this point out, there only exists the negative force of repulsion in every direction in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘.
I contend that the whole of the available empty space within the boundary of the atom, as described in the standard model, is filled with these particles, and the amount of negative electrical charge equal and opposite to the positive charge carried by the nucleus, attributed to the electrons, as described in the standard model, is distributed throughout the mass of these particles.
The negative electrical charge that would be carried by the electron in the standard model is in fact, just a small proportion of these particles, and of the negative charge within the area surrounding the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. I also hypothesize that these particles do not fly around at speed, but are at rest unless exited by an external force, other than trying to get closer to the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus, and contributing to the strong nuclear force.
Beyond the last layer of the positively charged monopole ‘ Dannytron ‘ particles forming the nucleus, as I will describe later, there are only the negatively charged monopole ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles in a cloud that encompasses every space within the universe. This cloud is negatively charged, and forms a negative force of repulsion exerting a repulsive force in every direction.
As these negatively charged particles cluster around the nucleus, they are held very strongly by the positively charged particles making up the nucleus. As the positive and negative particles are monopoles that do not give up their force of attraction and repulsion, there exists a complex interaction between these particles in the nucleus. The attractive and repulsive force of each particle, extends through adjoining particles. Although the negatively charged particles are trying to repel each other, this repulsion is a standard pressure in the ‘ Harvetron Cloud ‘. However, because the positively charged particles are trying to attract the negative particles from every direction, and their force of attraction extends beyond the boundary of their neighbouring oppositely charged particle , there is in effect, a double force pulling and pushing the nucleus extremely tightly together. This is the ‘ Strong Nuclear Force ‘.
As more negatively charged particles try to get to the nucleus, a dense shell of the negatively charged particles forms due to the very strong attraction of the positive particles in the nucleus. As these negatively charged monopole particles can’t get any closer to the nucleus, this is the boundary of the atom. From this point out, there exists only the negative force of repulsion, and equilibrium is reached in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘.
The negative force of attraction to the nucleus gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus until the force reaches equilibrium within the cloud, to become the weak force, and a constituent of gravity.
At the point where the boundary of the atom would be defined, it is possible that the negatively charged monopole particles, might bunch up, as they are being pulled by the positive particles in the nucleus, but also being repelled by the negative particles already in this region. This could be what is visualized as an electron. Any applied force would then cause the energy contained in these bunches, to be released as a photon.
@@tonymarshharveytron1970 I congratulate you for having thought so much about it that you have develloped your own interpretasion. I personally also believe that there is something missing in the so called standard model. I have printed it out so that I can study it a bit better.
Personally I think that your Harvey and Danny trons could possibly be Photons. I have not made a mental picture of it yet but in my thoughts Photons (of any size) are the smallest form of energy possible and I believe everything is made out of energy. We know that an electron assumes different posisions in an atom according to how much energy it has (it moves out and eventually leaves an atom if it gets enough energy and moves inwards towards the centre of the atom when it gives out energy (Photons)) so it is only reasonable that it consists of energy. I have the thought that mass comes from the energy spinning and there fore resists movement like a gyroscope.
I don't think you are totally correct in your theory but I think it could be a part of a building stone of a better theory. I think the same about my ideas.
My thoughts come from my electric engineering point of view. I am not a Physichist.
The amount of text I tried to send was too long, so I have folloed up with the piece I had to deleate. Tony.
The Nucleus.
I would also hypothesize that the nucleus of the atom is radically different from the standard model. I believe that the nucleus is made up of just two types of particle, the small negatively charged monopole particles that I have described as ‘ Harveytrons ‘, and a positively charged monopole particle, that I described as a ‘ Dannytron ‘. These particles may well be dimensionally the same, but of opposite charge. They are also monopole magnets, which retain their forces of attraction and repulsion even when surrounded by their oppositely charged particles. It is this fact that binds the nucleus so tightly together.
I believe the makeup of the nucleus would be like a ‘ Gobstopper ‘ sweet, starting with a positively charged particle, which is encompassed with negatively charged particles, then successive layers of alternately charged particles in shells. The different elements being defined by the amount of positively charged particles contained in the nucleus of each atom.
From this description, it will be realized that the positively charged ‘ Dannytrons ‘ will never be found in isolation, but always surrounded by the negatively charged ‘ Harveytrons ‘. However, the ‘ Harveytrons ’ do exist alone in the ‘ Harveytron cloud ‘.
The Nucleus may equally be composed of just a complete mix of these two particles, the result would still be the same. All of the particles making up the standard model’s table of particles, are composites of these two monopole particles.
Beyond this, there are only negatively charged particles in a cloud around the nucleus to the boundary of the atom and then on throughout the whole universe. When electrical energy and light moves from one atom to another, as depicted in the standard model, only part of this charge leaves the atom as a package, as would be attributed to an electron movement described in the standard model, producing a ‘Photon’. The deficiency of negative charge being replaced by the negatively charged energy exerted on the atom to dislodge the package of charged particles from the atom. The existence of these particles forming the cloud, could explain the inconsistency between the expected estimated mass and the actual missing mass from the universe.
I do not believe that there are any electron movements as described in the standard model, where electrons jump between higher and lower orbital rings of the atom. I believe that it is only the ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles that I propose occupying the outer boundary of the atom that are responsible for the transmission of energy from one atom to the other and where molecular bonding takes place.
As far as I am aware, my hypothesis would not conflict with the known and proven accepted laws of physics, but may aid in the resolution of problems as yet unresolved. However I would expect it to be in conflict with some assumed accepted facts derived purely from manipulated mathematical formulae. It is also very possible that my model could accord with the work that particle physicists have been doing for a number of years.
By this I mean, even though my model of the nucleus is different from that of the standard model, from my description, it can be seen that if nuclei of my model were collided or parts of it, the resulting detritus, would consist of many fragments of atomic matter of varying dimensions, and electrical characteristics. This may accord with the particles that make up the standard model.
Depending on the proportion of positive and negative particles contained in these pieces, may account for the phenomenon referred to as spin in the standard model. Also it could explain why in violent reactions, Hydrogen is formed, when the right quantity and mixture of these two particles are broken off from atoms.
However, I stand by my hypothesis, and feel it has more merit to be a more workable and logical model that fits well with our known and proven classical laws of physics. It also provides a workable and logical explanation for the unanswered questions of quantum mechanics and cosmology today. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
This was surprisingly interesting
Thanks for this.
IF we consider how QM, SR & GR are integrated into ONE SYSTEM then logical explanations appear. Particles exist in radial trajectories of spherical expansion. At each single point of transfer from radial position, energy is spherically expanding (observed entanglement).
omg at 11 minute mark is EXACTLY how i see it in conjunction with Fractal Woman model of what lenght contraction is.
Good stuff man
there is no length contraction. Einstein is nonsense.
@@axeman2638 agree, this is why i agree with Fractal Woman's idea of what lenght contraction is.
edit: And got a deep think yesterday and figured that all in all relativity is not wrong. Its just useless since its not explaining simultaniety. rog no. Relativity is about visual morganas of each observer and nothing more
Thank you, thank you.
Beautiful. When you see the pattern, you see it !:-)
⚡️⚡️⚡️
Upon exiting your house, you have a choice, to take the reality on the right, or take the reality to the left. These different energy realities, enable you to experience a different energy perspective. Many worlds has got the right idea, but I would go further by adding, all possible realities are present at the same time, future, past and present, in the "Now" moment. Your focus, (Consciousness), is the defining factor here, it chooses the next reality for you to move into. The only limit to this kind of progress, is how your focus (consciousness), perceives your reality. Also, the fact that you have to drag a physical mass (body), around with you, will also limit you to a certain amount of paths (realities). The frequency of vibration of your focus, is also a defining factor, as energy normally follows the path of least resistance, your focus will follow the path that resonates with it!
The circular reasoning in this comment leaves me dizzy in more dimensions than I can count on my fingers and toes. ⭕️
@@DeathValleyDazed It's hard to explain, in a quick RUclips comment, but... All possibilities are present, but when you make your choice, all other possibilities disappear, and you are only left with the one you have chosen!
@@cazcam2000 If our mind didn't act this way we could not have an experience OF anything. So the focus is within a greater field of potential that seems future to the memory set of a past.
While we identify within our focus we are 'phished' by our own thinking - or indeed reflections) yet all that is temporarily discarded or set to background hasn't gone anywhere else.
A spotlight conceals more than it reveals.
The opportunity of a reintegrative appreciation is to abide in the specific as a representation of Infinity - which is Felt Life, and full of 'information' as a seed is 'full of' the plant that it holds within.
For local day to day doings, the discarding of infinity doesn't usually bring up any problems, but an objective timeline will at some point meet anomalies that cannot be indefinitely masked over, masked in or dark fudged as banality with added CGI.
When you establish that matter is infinite from the macro to the micro, Heisenberg’s theories can be opened up to everything.
Bohm's theory appears to line up with my alternate spectrum theory - whereby the pilot wave is undetectable because it is the manifestation of a non-EM spectrum (which we currently have no means of observing). A non-EM spectrum is the basis of a hypothesis of mine to explain (and settle) the aether vs space-time argument for a "medium". I don't believe my idea to be completely original, but haven't seen any papers considering alternate spectrums as an explanation for reality since I thought of the idea nearly 40 years ago.
That is a fascinating idea. Thank you for sharing that!
Hello Dave. I thought you might be interested in the following. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
Sorry I repllied before I had added the extract from my hypothesis. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
I have responded to this chanel before, and this video very much accords with what I am proposing in two hypotheses that I have been working on, in which I propose that the main problem with Quantum Mechanics is the ' Schrodinger Wave function ', and the uncertainty principal.
I believe that the standard model of the atom, is fundamentally flawed, and that the electron, as described in the standard model, is not a fundamental solid particle, but a cluster of very much smaller negatively charged monopole particles called ' Harveytrons ' which, in a cloud, fill every available empty space between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, and also every available empty space throughout the universe.
This negatively charged cloud is the 'Dark Matter', and the force of repulsion it produces is the dark energy, and also one of the two components of ' Gravity ', which I believe is a force of both attraction and repulsion. This cloud also provides a medium through which electromagnetic radiation and shockwaves can travel.
I further contend that all electromagnetic radiation does not travel in waves, but as a ray consisting of discrete pulses or packages, at various frequencies, depending on the energy it contains. I further contend that there exists a corresponding positively charged monopole particle called a ' Dannytron ', which in combination with the ' Harveytron ' make up all of the nuclei, and thus all of the nuclear matter throughout the universe.
I propose that these two particles make up everything that exists in the universe, and all of the so-called particles making up the standard model's table of particles, are composites of these two particles. below is an extract from my hypotheses, which you may find interesting. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
Electron.
It is proposed that the accepted view, that an electron is an elementary solid particle, is incorrect, and that it is in fact a collection of the much smaller negatively charged monopole particles that I have just described as ‘ Harveytrons ‘. I believe that these particles would be the finitely smallest particles in the universe, and would constitute everything that exists in the universe, with the exception of the positively charge component contained in every nucleus that exists. Also I propose that these particles would form a cloud ‘, the ‘ Harveytron ‘ cloud, that fills every available empty space within the atom and the universe.
Just to emphasize the point, I believe that the electron, as a solid particle does not exist.
It is proposed that the electron as it is described in the standard model, is in fact a parcel of the much smaller negatively charged monopole ’ Harveytron ‘ particles described in my hypothesis, and is the quantity of negatively charged particles to be contained together, before the charge they contain is released as a Photon, or as a pulse of energy outside the spectrum of visible light. This quantity of charge is a constant, throughout the whole of the universe, and is the quantity of charge contained in a quanta of light or electromagnetic radiation, when the threshold quantity of charge able to be held within the boundary of the atom is reached.
This is analogous to an electrical circuit, containing a power source, a capacitor, and an SCR, whereby, when power is applied to the circuit, the capacitor begins to charge, until the trigger voltage of the SCR is reached and it fires, at which point the capacitor discharges in a pulse.
The way that these clusters form, is due to the interaction between the opposing positive and negative forces in the nucleus and any external force applied to the atom pushing the negative particles up to the point where the pressure cannot be contained by the atom, and the energy contained in these bunched particles is released to the adjoining atom. The quantity of negative charge surrounding each nucleus, is strongest nearest the nucleus, and gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus. At the point where the force of attraction to this charge from the nucleus reaches equilibrium with the force of repulsion between the negatively charged monopoles is reached, this is the boundary of the atom. This is also the boundary that the positive charge forming the strong nuclear force extends to. From this point out, there only exists the negative force of repulsion in every direction in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘.
I contend that the whole of the available empty space within the boundary of the atom, as described in the standard model, is filled with these particles, and the amount of negative electrical charge equal and opposite to the positive charge carried by the nucleus, attributed to the electrons, as described in the standard model, is distributed throughout the mass of these particles.
The negative electrical charge that would be carried by the electron in the standard model is in fact, just a small proportion of these particles, and of the negative charge within the area surrounding the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. I also hypothesize that these particles do not fly around at speed, but are at rest unless exited by an external force, other than trying to get closer to the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus, and contributing to the strong nuclear force.
Beyond the last layer of the positively charged monopole ‘ Dannytron ‘ particles forming the nucleus, as I will describe later, there are only the negatively charged monopole ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles in a cloud that encompasses every space within the universe. This cloud is negatively charged, and forms a negative force of repulsion exerting a repulsive force in every direction.
As these negatively charged particles cluster around the nucleus, they are held very strongly by the positively charged particles making up the nucleus. As the positive and negative particles are monopoles that do not give up their force of attraction and repulsion, there exists a complex interaction between these particles in the nucleus. The attractive and repulsive force of each particle, extends through adjoining particles. Although the negatively charged particles are trying to repel each other, this repulsion is a standard pressure in the ‘ Harvetron Cloud ‘. However, because the positively charged particles are trying to attract the negative particles from every direction, and their force of attraction extends beyond the boundary of their neighbouring oppositely charged particle , there is in effect, a double force pulling and pushing the nucleus extremely tightly together. This is the ‘ Strong Nuclear Force ‘.
As more negatively charged particles try to get to the nucleus, a dense shell of the negatively charged particles forms due to the very strong attraction of the positive particles in the nucleus. As these negatively charged monopole particles can’t get any closer to the nucleus, this is the boundary of the atom. From this point out, there exists only the negative force of repulsion, and equilibrium is reached in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘.
The negative force of attraction to the nucleus gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus until the force reaches equilibrium within the cloud, to become the weak force, and a constituent of gravity.
At the point where the boundary of the atom would be defined, it is possible that the negatively charged monopole particles, might bunch up, as they are being pulled by the positive particles in the nucleus, but also being repelled by the negative particles already in this region. This could be what is visualized as an electron. Any applied force would then cause the energy contained in these bunches, to be released as a photon.
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines, particularly after seeing the hexagonal arrangement of droplets in one of the photos at the end and being reminded of the "vortices' of various constructs of the aether, including Maxwell's mechanical one. Maybe Gareth can comment further. I can't really digest what Tony Marsh says below enough to agree or disagree, but perhaps the pilot wave is also interacting with the neutrinosphere.
@@19valleydan - I figure everything in the Universe appears to operate on a balancing principle. I hope to set up an experiment that may illuminate a "tether", if you will, between EM and an alternate spectrum (perhaps there are many and perhaps either the electric or the magnetic component may be shared with an alt spectrum). Say 'XY' represents an alternate spectrum: perhaps there is an XM or an EY spectrum as well - thereby allowing an indirect tether to the XY. All this is purely speculative, but I experimented with H cancelling (magnetic cancelling) coils a decade ago & found some odd behaviors (made a cancelling coil and added another inside it, similar to an axial transformer, only the windings were done to cancel the flux to
Well done
Very good!
So perhaps aether vibrations create and pilot the electron?! That was a great program Gareth thanks
No. There is no aether. It isn't even a useful concept.
@@davidhand9721 just like your comment
@@omekafalconburn9202 oo, sick burn. Don't come up with anything substantive!
No point you already made your mind up, I used to think like you I was wrong
@@omekafalconburn9202 I used to think like you, but I was wrong. It seems we should exchange the info we each think we are missing, no?
Prof. Gerald Pollack also demonstrates banding of exclusion zones in a water bath adjacent to a hydrophilic barrier. This is a fourth state of water he calls EZ water.
For the record: Bohmian mechanics isn't compatible with quantum field theory despite decades of work trying to reconcile the two frameworks. Pilot waves cannot explain the measured effects of quantum vacuum fluctuations (virtual particles), like the fine structure of atomic orbitals and anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, which are precisely predicted by quantum electrodynamics.
There a small problem with the many worlds interpretation assuming quantum entanglement happens to all particles. No, quantum entanglement only happens to energy, EM fields and light. Only to things traveling at c. Matter having mass cannot travel at c without having an infinite amount of energy² applied to the EM field. Thus quantum entanglement doesn't apply to baryonic matter with mass. It only happens to massless energy. Example. If it happened to matter with mass then because the sun's EM field was entangled to the EM fields of planets and moons then everything in our solar system would have the same spin and tilt as the sun, and that's not so. Quantum entanglement many worlds interpretation doesn't account for the differential spins and trajectories of bodies when their EM fields are entangled.
The information in the field is not real. It is observer dependent. It doesn't exist until it is determined by an observer. See observer effect. The information is potential until it is determined. This is because when energy travels at c time and distance are zero. Special relativity refers to this as time dilation. It only happens when light moves at the maximum velocity allowed by the universe. It doesn't happen to particles having mass. It only happens in an instant to energy because the information is potential in our time.
I have said this, that particle moving in 'empty' space do wave, makes waves... over 30 years ago. 😀
If we put this in 4D space, all 3D observations will make full sense.
In my opinion this determine that our Universe is 4D. Where 'our visible' universum (3D) is twisted like Moebius ribbon, that is 2D universum, existing only that 3D universum exist. (you can't 'twist' 2D surface without 3D)
Along these lines I found the concluding animation with the spheres and waves lacking because the wave(oil surface) was one dimensional. I lack the skill or expertise to upgrade the graphics to 3D-4D. I conclude that people much more competent than me will get this all practically demonstrated 🤞
Why would they need to be four dimensional? At least in my experience with working with writing code for quantum computers, no matter how many qubits you add to the system, the overall wave function never exceeds three dimensions. You can have a million qubits and a single three-dimensional wave function can describe the whole state of the quantum computer at any given point in time.
I think the reason some people think quantum stuff has higher order dimension is because they confuse degrees of freedom with spatial dimensions. If I have a box with five knobs on it, if you wanted to plot the state of the box at a particular time, it would require a five-dimensional graph, but that doesn't mean the box is in five dimension. It is the number of degrees of freedom the box has. A quantum computer exponentially grows in the number of degrees of freedom the more qubits you add, but these waves just all interfere with each other to produce a single wave that is a linear combination of all the respective waves. The degrees of freedom represent how complex the waveform can be, how many combinations you can make, but not the dimensions of the waveform which is always 3.
I guess maybe the fourth dimension is added to solve the nonlocality "problem"? I don't get why nonlocality is something people feel the need to "solve" as it is intuitive and has always been part of physics for all of human history. But if you wanted to solve it, there are interpretations like the Transactional interpretation which uses time as the fourth dimension and so it really is not nonlocal in reference to spacetime as a whole.
One of the more subtle aspects of Pilot Wave Theory is that neither the pilot waves nor the particle positions referred to by the theory are manifest in physical spacetime. These phenomena are produced by the quantum wave function, which is defined in Configuration Space, a complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions. As with all interpretations of QM, events described by the quantum wave function propagate instantaneously throughout Configuration Space, which accounts for "spooky action at a distance" simultaneously affecting entangled particles separated by any amount of distance in physical spacetime.
The diagram @14:41depicts a particle guided by its pilot wave along a deterministic trajectory. The positions it is shown to occupy lie not in physical spacetime, but in complex-valued, multidimensional Configuration Space. It is the probabilistic projection of these events from the domain of non-local Configuration Space into the realm of physical spacetime (where we can actually detect and measure them) that conforms to the relativistic nature of spacetime.
I'm also not convinced that the quantum particle can totally create its own guiding wave as seems to be implied by the oil drop bouncing experiment
It cannot exist in isolation - even if seemingly closed system can be set up in a lab.
The idea of a self-reinforcing effect would lend to 'habit' or a memory effect within the physical realm - as suggested by Sheldrake's morphogenetic field. Above I sketched the posit that infinity particles are responsive to love - It's love, but not as we know it Jim!
Unifying integrality as principle of coherence, rising within or even spontaneously flipping from the 'chaos' of disintegrality, dissonance or segregative patterns not unlike the idea of decoherence - but never really separating - so much as spinning off nodes of temporal local order to the surrounding 'chaos' or junk DNA (as a metaphor for discarded unrecognised function).
Hiley has shown that Bohmian Mechanics can be constructed in the momentum basis.
16:33 That pilot wave looks strikingly similar to what they now describe as a quantum field.
It isn't, though. The similarity is purely superficial.
Bonjour, l'!interprétation many worlds vient De Witt pas de Everett. Everett a défini une interprétation statique de la qm sur laquelle s'est appuyé De Witt. Cordialement
Turbulence is the last unsolved problem of classical mechanics.
This succinct sentence takes the comments section by storm!
When we don’t understand the root cause to our observations and insist to build a model of it wearing a guru hat, our prediction will be about 50/50 chance on the money. To hide our shame as a guru we decided to name our model probabilistic quantum physics.
Lewis Little also resurrected de Broglie's pilot wave theory.
Very good.
TINA, to QM-TIME superposition-> i-reflection synchronisation in/of Duration Timing Bose-Einsteinian Condensation Modulation Mechanism Conception, ie quantization.
Thanks, excellent resume. Can you include in another video a new interpretation (2021) that considers space in oscillation between our observable 3D and an extra 4th dimension? This is the first interpretation that considers multiple dimensions aside from the 3D. By this, the compact particles will follow this wavy behavior of their local space; a novel way to understand the wave-particle duality. Besides, when the quantum space splits, the system will still behave as one, and conservation laws are preserved thanks to this ephemeral stay at the 4th D. In this way, entanglement communication, tunnel effect, and other quantum effects are understandable. In Amazon, there will be a short book "Can Relativity and Quantum mechanics go together?"; any comment is appreciated, thanks
Bravo, Bravo!!
5:56 that random distribution of spin when measured from a different axis would be expected. Consider the source emission, each particle pair would be emitted with opposite spins along some axis, but the axis would be random for each pair. When measuring one particle from one axis, the spin axis is rotated to align with the axis of the measurement apparatus. So if we flip the corresponding apparatus measuring the other pair by 180°, we would expect both particles to be spinning in the same orientation. If we rotate by only 90°, then particle will orient based on its axis of spin which we expect to be random due to each particle pair being emitted with opposite spins of some random axis. Really, each particle should be measured along 3 axis simultaneously to get the emitted axis. But I’m not sure if that’s possible. Perhaps if the apparatus is modified to align with the particles spin in 3D space rather than the particle aligned to the apparatus.
The derivation of Bell's Inequality relies on the tacit assumption that time ticks at the same rate everywhere and everywhen - an assumption consistent with Special Relativity. But under General Relativity, where gravitational gradients are taken into consideration, time-keeping varies from one location to the next along any gravitational gradient. Had Bell employed a proper gravitational path integral (to take into account proper time), the presumptive hidden variables would not have vanished, but would have resulted in a non-vanishing "beat frequency" term. Or, to put it another way, time itself is the unappreciated hidden variable.
Could one say that in a sense in an aether universe the aether itself might be considered a form of condensed matter and therefore in a sense there is no issue with "spooky action at a distance" since the condensed matter universe in a sense is one giant "point"? The reason things happen instantaneously at a distance is that from the viewpoint of the condensed matter itself, there is no distance, it's all the same place. Thoughts? Comments? Derision?
Been writing "Condensate of Universe"/zero point, for years. Entanglement = Lighthouse frequency.
Whatever interpretation of quantum mechanics we follow, we need a mechanism to annihilate unwanted bits of the wave function, or unwanted streamlines, or unwanted universes, once a measurement has been made. I will grasp the nettle and suggest something.
A photon detector could be just an electron in a potential well which is kicked into a second well by interaction with a photon. The photon has previously passed through a half-silvered mirror and its amplitude does indeed make it a half-strength photon (this is definitely not the logical positivist way of looking at it). The electron begins and ends in a monochromatic state.
I will propose that the electron is in a monochromatic state at all times in-between. If it is described by the Dirac equation, then it is a tachyon, and it can reach out and interact with the entire photon, annihilating the other part of the photon that was reflected back by the half-silvered mirror.
This is not the whole story. The electron has an additional tachyonic Brownian motion which is orthogonal to its wavelike behaviour. There is correlated TBM in the electromagnetic field, and the joint correlation is able to convey information nonlocally, when required, like a natural Vernam cipher. The NVC acts upon the envelope of the Dirac wave packet to convert a bradyon to a tachyon when required. This might remind us of viscosity acting through a shock wave in fluid mechanics in order to give a rise in entropy.
This is one for computer simulation, but it will take some time to investigate and develop. To begin with, we can look at comparative studies of the Schroedinger equation with the rest mass term and the Dirac equation. Let's see the encounter between a moving electron and a potential well. The well can be modelled with a bit of classical Brownian motion to represent the fact that it is a dimple in a macroscopic object.
Where I have actually got to on this is that I can generate an animation of the Dirac wave packet and watch it proceeding with a superluminal wave speed and a subluminal group speed. This is done by a numerical solution of the one-dimensional Dirac equation. A multi-page spreadsheet makes a good platform for generating an animated display and I would dish it out if there were a means to do so. The bispinor is defined in Excel VBA in a class module and there is a second ordinary module to deal with bispinor operations. The numerical integration uses a three-stage process of estimator based upon the dominant rest-mass term followed by predictor and corrector. Some of the problems are being solved.
Pilot Wave is equivalent to i-reflection relative-timing of Singularity-point positioning in Absolute zero-infinity orthogonal-normal entangled reference-framing. A Spacetime in Aether (Feynman guess), every named concept is fundamental relative-timing pulsed-events of Singularity-point e-Pi-i sync-duration in ONE-INFINITY word-picture Conception.
Different POV are potentially as different as one galaxy is to another, ie different line-of-sight universe(s), one Principle.
Waves and particles mimic waves and particles, who wouldn't have guessed?
This pilot wave theory is very interesting, if all fundamental particles are formed by fields, why would it be strange if another field (pilot wave) guides these particles. This collapsing wave, always seemed far fetched. Interesting clip. But why does an observation make a difference with the double slit experiment (particles when observed), does the pilot wave theory have an explanation for this ?
Spectacular presentation !!!
>>> FIVE STAR !!
13:30
That is impressive....
Anyone who does not see that the universe is fluid and charge in every respect is simply not paying attention! -- Great video, Matthew!
As a simple engineer, I can't agree more. A five year old can tell you a black hole looks like a hurricane, the equations for particles "popping in/out of existence" in accelerators are essentially vortex dissipation equations....so why are we still playing games?
@@clevelandsavage"Looks like" is not science. go ahead and prove that the universe is made up of fluids and charge if u can, there is a nobelle price waiting for u... XD
@benebene9525 fortunately I'm not a scientist, I'm am engineer...which means we focus on whats useful. And I do know comparatively little has been accomplished with the "space as a tautological quilt" model relative( pun intended) to the previous fluidic one.
@benebene9525 also it voids almost all the singularity issues modern physicists wrestle with ( black holes, the FTL paradox, vacuum perturbation issues etc). Linguistically, a singularity is better expressed as where an analogy breaks down.
There's a chinese-developed "quantum radar" system, which seems to be based on entanglement.
It splits a laser beam, one beam going into many miles of fiber, the other beam being directed outwards.
It detects a change to the light in the fiber, when the other beam hits an aircraft.
That radar must have a lot of implications for quantum mechanics?
Do any functional prototype exist?
To me, that sounds like either a hoax, or a misinterpretation of the actual principles of the radar. This could be more interesting if you could tell us what quantum effects they claim it is exploiting, because as far as I know, there's nothing that would enable such a setup. Perhaps if they create a closed loop with the laser? But then, there's no need for any quantum effects....
China ignores the West's Quantum Mechanics babblings, and deals practically with observed Photonic Quantum Entangled Parallel phenomena in harnessing it
all without referring to the West's unproductive Quantum Mechanics babbling
any observed persistent physical behaviour can and should be harnessed for its utility
use it in engineered technological systems with practical value
its better than pondering QM "cosmic" hypotheticals that produce nothing useful as in the West
your reference to China utilizing photonic entangled behaviour at a distance, means they can observe light split reactions in one place as indication of interactions illuminated elsewhere (like China's Satellites that can detect enemy stealth military aircraft perturbation over vast open spaces or submerged submarines lurking long-term in vast oceans)
👆
no need to reveal details
is advantage that China doesn’t waste time in West's pointless QM hypotheticals, but instead they are very "hard science" minded
everyone knows photonic entangled parallel behaviour is real, and know its weird, but so is electrons moving about a nucleus is weird, too (just make use of it, instead of wasting time philosophizing about it!)
So what is the substance of the pilot wave? Does the theory say?
Interesting ending
I always thought the measurement problem was because you couldn't get a small enough pair to tweezers to catch Planck. Doesn't mean there's anything magical down there.
It does mean there's something magical if you believe the wave function is a physically real object. The Copenhagen interpretation claims the wave function represents a really-existing indeterminate state of an object when you are not observing it that contains all the information described by the wave function, and when you measure it that information collapses to a single bit of information at a single point. The Many Worlds Interpretation claims that the wave function represents the branching of a grand multiverse where measurement reveals which one of those specific branches in the grand multiverse you were kicked off onto (for some reason). These are real problems with no obvious explanation. Why would the wave function collapse to one specific point and not another? Why would the universe kick us off into one branch and not another?
There is no measurement problem if you don't assume the wave function is physically real, that there is no physical interpretation of it because it does not represent some sort of indeterminate state or some sort of branching universe, but that it just represents a prediction made by the observer, and that prediction branches out only because the observer has uncertainty so they have to express that uncertainty in the form of all the possible paths the particle could have taken, rather than the particle actually having taken that many paths. Then there is no measurement problem because measuring the particle just reveals the one, and only one, path it took.
But this viewpoint is VERY unpopular, I should stress EXTREMELY unpopular. A poll was done with experts in the field a few years ago and literally 0% of experts subscribed to this viewpoint, and the vast majority subscribed to either the Copenhagen or Many Worlds, or a sort of modification of Copenhagen called the Informational interpretation.
@@amihart9269I thought that the double slit experiment shows that the particle DOES take all paths until measured, unless you take the pilot wave interpretation. (Which introduces new wavy stuff so is basically the same but different)
The weird think about QM is that it is just probability math, expressed in waves. But that the probability waves act as waves in the real world.
@@daanschone1548 It only shows that if you interpret the experiment that way, which only not all interpretations do. Even pilot wave does in way interpret that something takes both paths, the pilot wave itself. Relational and ensemble interpretation don't make this assumption.
@@amihart9269 I have to read further in those interpretations. At first glance I like the relational interpretation. Very immaterialistic. But it does sound a bit similar to many worlds. It just replaces a universe with a frame of individual experience. Cool.
@@daanschone1548 I would not say it is "immaterialistic" as it really has nothing to do with the question of materialism, which is a separate topic. These frames of reference also are an objective part of nature and not related to conscious experience in the idealistic sense, even a rock could be described from a point of view in relation to everything else.
It is closely related to the philosophy of _contextual realism_ which argues that objective reality consists of "context fragments" whereby all things exist only in relation ("in context") to everything else, and that there is no "god-like" perspective, but reality is not subjective, either, as there still really is an objective reality independent of our "subjective experience" (which is a bit of a misleading and self-contradictory term but I digress).
The velocity of an object, for example, will change from a different frame of reference. You can talk about the velocity of an object from the context of even something like a rock. It's not mind-dependent, and even though it changes depending upon frame of reference, it is not "subjective" either as there is still an objective answer to the question of what is the velocity from the reference frame of that rock, or from the earth, or from a train, or from a human being.
counterfactual indefiniteness is trash on EPR. For the argument to work it is not enough, given we now have loophole free experiments, to say "unperformed experiments have no results". You have to say "unperformed experiments have different results". This is because, with loophole free experiments such as Delft, if we had performed a counterfactual measurement, say if Alice had chosen a' instead of a for her measurement axis, then - for sure - the experiment would still have had results. To account for Bell violations it is necessary that these results be different from the measured ensemble.
Its about time Mr Bohm has gotten his due upcomance. I found out about Bohm and Pilot wave some years back and was impressed by his incorporating conscienceness into his equations as a variable. Plus his theories played in my mind like a symphony, enabling me to picture the workings of what we call an atom and even evisioning the slit experiment with a boat and a set of docks, getting thexsame results mentally. When i discovered his work was usurped and buried by Oppenheimer and the rest of the bomb crew, i knew he was right. This absolutely legitemizes these theories in my projected universe. Now these new theories have done the same for me, making in my mind a very complete picture of galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, life, atoms, consciousness as a whole and the entire concept of as above so below. Yeah, its that deep. Peace.
How many shots of vodka were involved in that process? ;-)
A lot of these outcomes only fail to make sense if you regard time as linear on the quantum scale. If you limit your perception to that view then the information transfer seems to be instant and lawbreaking, but if you allow your particles to move backwards to the point of entanglement then propagate forwards along the other path then there is no paradox or breaking of laws or pilot waves. There is no need for other realities, or creation of whole universes, just allow subatomic particles in a superposition to move forwards and backwards in time backwards to the point of entanglement and forwards over and over until the point of observance, when the 'waveform' collapses, at which point they only ever travelled along a single path and always had the spin etc they are measured as having. A waveform is a conceptual dead end, it is just single particles that literally are in every possible position, moving forwards and backwards through time, in the same way that a wave on the sea is made of many water molecules.
Due to our macro scale, we are unable to do this, or observe this.
Not in a plane spin. A photon particle that falls out as a larger participant suspended in fluidity. An energy ✨️ ball spinning in a swirls. Predictable if you know where it formed in its small orbit.left or right the chirality of the spin of the orbit. Opposite chirality w/ its entangled paired particle.
With Energy Wave Theory the particle generates the pilot wave. This could complete this video in a very significant way to reinforce the idea that quantum mechanics can be simpler and reduced to transverse wave mechanics
That sounds cool, but it ain't so. There is no energy missing between the initial and the final state, so no energy can go into some form of wave.
With the discovery of two dimensional particles and the fact that we already know that at certain subatomic levels when you look at them, they actually do change when you retire other gays it’s no longer apt to see universe, which would technically be in a one or 2D it is now the multi-verse the word universe should not even be used anymore because there’s infinite versions of your life running. The manifestation is so intense you have to pick and choose.
whats funny is that i have heard of pilot wave theory but never understood it until i saw the thingy here.
There is nothing to understand. Bohmian mechanics is completely equivalent to standard physics with the exception of the inclusion of supernatural elements. It's like saying that there is no gravitational acceleration but you are being held on the floor by the constant wing flapping of gravity angels. That's not science but just horrendous nonsense. ;-)
As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, electrons do not actually spin... They have a property that causes them to behave/interact in some ways as if they were spinning. If they actually spun, it would have to be faster than the speed of light. Since there is no actual spin, there is no axis. It's simply a property that can only be in one of two states, up or down. Theories based off of a misdefinition/misunderstanding of a term are the hallmark of pseudoscience.
Wow I just had an epiphany knowing how sound and other waveforms work by effecting the matter around the wave I just realized how lightwave particals move through the vacuum of space and that's that they are compressing and expanding spacetime how sound does in the air and water that's the mysterious eather spacetime
Quantum Mechanics is wonderful , it is a science that gives us a peek into the innerworkings of the universe, problem to me arises when the theory makes so many observable predictions that are correct , we often seem willing to ignore the paradoxes and seemingly impossibe things that should be a clue that we haven't gotten it all yet.
Some of our greatest theories are based on a premise , relativity tells us the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit , the theory its self is built on that truth , and it could be wrong , doesnt seem like it , but it could be.
So perhaps quantum mechanics should have some similar foundation based say on an idea that all possibilities cannot happen and only one outcome is possible.
Then build upon that.
There has to be something that determines the value; if there isn't, then everything is continuously coming from nothing
One thing I don't get in Pilot Wave theory. It just introduces new physical wavy stuff (the probability wave is just math). So it just moves the quantum weirdness from a particle to an unknown substrate. So how does this solve anything?
It doesn't. What attempts like Bohm do is to take all eyes off the valuable lessons that can be learned from Copenhagen and the fact that one has to go beyond non-relativistic quantum mechanics to get to a self-consistent theory. The closest you ever were to a correct understanding of quantum mechanics was in high school, by the way. We tell seniors that "quanta are small amounts of energy". That is precisely what they are. The language we teach in introductory QM courses at university, OTOH, is highly misleading. Quantum mechanics is NOT about particles. There simply are no particles in nature. All of physics is about energy transfer between systems. Quanta are the smallest possible such energy transfers, but not because energy is quantized but because angular momentum and charge are quantized and both are invariably linked to energy. Both angular momentum and charge quantization are relativistic effects. No amount of navel gazing of the non-relativistic theory can produce them. This should, by the way, be obvious from a cursory look at high school chemistry. We teach the Pauli exclusion principle which is the backbone of deriving the structure of the atoms in the periodic table and possible molecular bonding configurations. Where does that come from? It certainly does not come from the Schroedinger equation or any other piece of non-relativistic physics. Boson and fermion statistics are also relativistic results and they are even dimensionality dependent. Bosons and fermions only exist in three dimensions. Two dimensional quantum systems have anyon states. So, yeah, the entire discussion about "interpretations" overlooks the trivial fact that non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not even the correct theory. In relativistic QM, OTOH, all interpretations go out the window because the theory is self-explanatory.
To me it seems like comparing apples with oranges...
Any "observation" requires an observationpoint "from" and until THAT is defined as well, the quantum wave can't collapse - indicatng a unique perspective at any "position"...
Any "interpretation" is unique and is shared by many individuals...
So "observations" are in the realm of "multiverse" (multiple perspectives) - and "interpretations" are in the realm of singularities...
Just like we "position" ourselves relative to eachother by aligning through the "Northpole"...
As individuals we observe everything relative to our own "position" ("here and now") as center of the observation (using "front, back, left, right")...
As a collective interpretation, we align to a point of common reference (Northpole using "North, South, East, West")...
Only way to equalize those two values would be, by performing the "observation" at the "Northpole"...
We overlap 2 different perspectives and expect them to be identical...
The "particle" is an individual experience - and the "probability of it's position" is a collective interpretation..
Multiverses are real - from the individual end of the spectrum...
A determanistic "reality" is build from points of common reference - and thus illusional, because it's only ment to be used for alignment between individual experiences...
But I really liked the video and found it very informative and inspirational so please keep'em coming...
BTW- I was born in Copenhagen, so I'm a living wave of quantum probabilities, although I feel very "solid" from my own perspective... ;-)
3 quantum interpretations and no one knows which one to pick. That is why quantum mechanics is not complete. And it is not complete because the Theory of Everything will not be reached for we don't know everything.
1) The variables aren't hidden. They were deducible. 2) Yes there is a classical explanation of quantum mechanics in fluid dynamics. 4) yes an 'aether' exists as the quantum background with fluidic properties. 3) yes 'mathiness' set us back because math is only descriptive not causal, and as such, einstein/bohr's descriptive but non causal advneture with 'mathiness' (platonism) was easier to solve than maxwell, lorentz, and hilbert's 'physics'. 4) No, there is no evidence of non classical existence. We simply do not know if information can be transmitted by other than waves through the background at whatever lower level of resolution that exists that the background evolves from.