Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Insight into how a rational quantum theory might work

  1. #1 Insight into how a rational quantum theory might work 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Discovering the quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics relationship and the parallels of the micro and macro worlds.

    When fluid dynamics mimic quantum mechanics

    This could be a big "discovery" and an important part of the "big banana."

    Physical aether proponents like De Broglie and Maxwell would have loved to know of these results, as the article implies. This below, I think, was a most relevant quote from the article concerning fluid dynamics and quantum theory.


    "It's the first pilot-wave system discovered and gives insight into how "rational quantum dynamics" might work, were such a thing to exist."


    I think this could be the beginning of rational changes in quantum mechanics/theory concerning the existence of a physical, aetherial type background field of some kind like De Broglie believed and asserted in his pilot wave theory, as the article explains. With such hypothesis such as dark matter, a Higgs field, gravitons, etc., the existence of a physical background field of some kind, as being the basis for the observed effects in the quantum world, should not be that big of a surprise. I'm surprised I have not seen this information yet elsewhere!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I'm surprised I have not seen this information yet elsewhere!
    Then perhaps you are following the wrong sources, because the original work by Couder and Fort dates back to 2006. This is not new by any stretch of the imagination.
    I am not sure what kind of "rational changes" you would expect as a result of this, because the system as a whole ( both the wave pattern and the particle's trajectory ) is highly chaotic, and hence doesn't lend itself to any kind of practical calculation - technically it is deterministic, but in a chaotic way. Even a simple scenario like an electron in a hydrogen atom cannot be modelled using this "pilot wave" in anything resembling a closed analytic form. The entire idea, though certainly interesting, is just highly impractical when it comes to real-world applications, which is probably why no one really followed up on it since the original publication.

    Btw, this is really nothing else but a hidden variable model, and the determinism within it comes at the price of non-locality. So, if you are looking for a replacement for QM which follows the rules of classical mechanics ( which is I think what you want ), then this is not a suitable candidate for you.


    KALSTER and tk421 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I'm surprised I have not seen this information yet elsewhere!
    It is all over the Internet, including discussion on this forum. I am surprised you haven't been polluting that thread already...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I'm surprised I have not seen this information yet elsewhere!
    It is all over the Internet, including discussion on this forum. I am surprised you haven't been polluting that thread already...
    Nope. I haven't seen it as yet until I posted it. I'll soon join in. Thanks my friend
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I'm surprised I have not seen this information yet elsewhere!
    Then perhaps you are following the wrong sources, because the original work by Couder and Fort dates back to 2006. This is not new by any stretch of the imagination.
    I am not sure what kind of "rational changes" you would expect as a result of this, because the system as a whole ( both the wave pattern and the particle's trajectory ) is highly chaotic, and hence doesn't lend itself to any kind of practical calculation - technically it is deterministic, but in a chaotic way. Even a simple scenario like an electron in a hydrogen atom cannot be modelled using this "pilot wave" in anything resembling a closed analytic form. The entire idea, though certainly interesting, is just highly impractical when it comes to real-world applications, which is probably why no one really followed up on it since the original publication.

    Btw, this is really nothing else but a hidden variable model, and the determinism within it comes at the price of non-locality. So, if you are looking for a replacement for QM which follows the rules of classical mechanics ( which is I think what you want ), then this is not a suitable candidate for you.
    The kind of rational changes that I expect eventually is that the entire theory of the quantum world will become totally rational and logical in every way. This can only happen when De Broglie and many others ideas of a physical background field become realized. Such an idea I would think would not be surprising to anyone with hypothesis like dark matter, Higgs field, gravitons, and many other background field hypothesis. Since Michelson Morley and following Special Relativity, such a field has been denied by mainstream physics. I think the realization of such a physical moving field at galactic scales, could bring back logic to all of modern physics in every way-- no matter what kind of background particle field it could turn out to be. I'll soon try to comment on the rest of your posting. Thanks. Forrest

    Added: your quote: "determinism within it comes at the price of non-locality."

    I think roughly 80% of the conceptual "problems" with Quantum Theory, if there is a background particle field as suggested by this article, can be corrected by the inclusion of such a particle field at the heart of Quantum Theory. The other "problems" like the idea necessitating non-locality, I think, are also correctable misconceptions. If you are interested in my opinion of the details please PM me. I have always believed that if QT were changed because of new discoveries, that its formulations would be little effected. On the other hand, the final acceptance of a background particle field and a preferred reference frame, could seemingly be the end of SR, which could be replaced by LT. It also might become a conceptual problem with GR if SR were replaced.
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 11th, 2013 at 09:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    if there is a background particle field as suggested by this article
    The original work by Couder suggests no such thing. All it does is note similarities between chaotic movements of droplets in a field of wave fronts, and the trajectories of QM particles. That's not the same thing.

    The kind of rational changes that I expect eventually is that the entire theory of the quantum world will become totally rational and logical in every way
    It is already logical and rational; only because it is based on ( well defined ) probabilities doesn't make illogical or irrational. I don't know what you are trying to say here.

    On the other hand, the final acceptance of a background particle field and a preferred reference frame, could seemingly be the end of SR
    SR is one of the most thoroughly verified theory in history, in terms of experiment and observation; it is also just a special case of GR, which in itself is also well verified.
    I should also mention that a "background particle field" does not necessarily imply a preferred reference frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I think roughly 80% of the conceptual "problems" with Quantum Theory, if there is a background particle field as suggested by this article, can be corrected by the inclusion of such a particle field at the heart of Quantum Theory. The other "problems" like the idea necessitating non-locality, I think, are also correctable misconceptions.
    Regarding non-locality, this work has not modelled anything that can be considered an analogue of entanglement or other non-local phenomena. Which means that, so far, it is a system that shares some interesting statistical properties with some quantum phenomena. So I think you can put the champagne away for the time being.

    On the other hand, the final acceptance of a background particle field and a preferred reference frame, could seemingly be the end of SR, which could be replaced by LT.
    There are already background fields. These do not provide any sort of absolute of preferred frame. Even if such a frame were found, it would not make any difference to SR which doesn't actually require that there isn't a preferred frame, it just says one isn't needed.

    I'm not sure what you mean by LT, I am going to guess Lorentz Ether Theory (just because it has "ether" in it). This is an identical theory to SR in every respect (apart from the addition of unicorns an unnecessary magical ether ... <cough>Occam's razor<cough>).
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    if there is a background particle field as suggested by this article
    The original work by Couder suggests no such thing. All it does is note similarities between chaotic movements of droplets in a field of wave fronts, and the trajectories of QM particles. That's not the same thing.

    The kind of rational changes that I expect eventually is that the entire theory of the quantum world will become totally rational and logical in every way
    It is already logical and rational; only because it is based on ( well defined ) probabilities doesn't make illogical or irrational. I don't know what you are trying to say here.

    On the other hand, the final acceptance of a background particle field and a preferred reference frame, could seemingly be the end of SR
    SR is one of the most thoroughly verified theory in history, in terms of experiment and observation; it is also just a special case of GR, which in itself is also well verified.
    I should also mention that a "background particle field" does not necessarily imply a preferred reference frame.
    Because of this and confirming experiments, I expect to see big changes coming concerning the conceptual aspects of quantum mechanics.

    It is already logical and rational; only because it is based on ( well defined ) probabilities doesn't make illogical or irrational. I don't know what you are trying to say here.
    Many perspectives of QM like the "many worlds" view, for instance, seems far too speculative based upon evidence. I hope to see the majority of these "bizarre" interpretations fall out of favor. Aside from entire perspectives falling from favor, I think corrections will be needed for interpretations in the quantum world that would be illogical in the macro world. I expect every aspect of Quantum Theory eventually will have a rational/ logical explanation and that everything involving "woo" will be dispelled. I agree this process will take some time with a number of other new experiments.
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 12th, 2013 at 01:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I hope to see the majority of the "bizarre" interpretations fall out of favor.
    Note that these are interpretations describing the same underlying theory so even if they all fell out of favour, it would make no difference to the science. (I don't like most of them, either.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    Regarding non-locality, this work has not modelled anything that can be considered an analogue of entanglement or other non-local phenomena. Which means that, so far, it is a system that shares some interesting statistical properties with some quantum phenomena. So I think you can put the champagne away for the time being.
    I agree that this does not explain or solve some questions, or provide explanations for entanglement, non-locality, and other rationally hard-to-explain phenomena. But I expect these first revelations when incorporated into theory, may solve many of present-day logical quandaries involved in Quantum Theory. l know other insights will be needed to enable the quantum world to become totally "rational" like the macro world. But this discovery, I think, may provide the incentive needed to look for the rest of the pieces of the puzzle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I hope to see the majority of the "bizarre" interpretations fall out of favor.
    Note that these are interpretations describing the same underlying theory so even if they all fell out of favour, it would make no difference to the science. (I don't like most of them, either.)
    In any event I am hopeful that they are now finally on the right track.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. General relativity theory, Quantum theory, Sting theory, Whatever theory, True theory
    By painwithoutlove in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2013, 09:40 PM
  2. Relating Quantum Field Theory with String Theory
    By MaxH in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 31st, 2013, 11:01 PM
  3. Basically, following the insight of the seers, the 1956 theory of the big bang comes to mind.
    By kamau in forum Anthropology, Archaeology and Palaeontology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2012, 10:41 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •