Quantum mechanic cognitive dissidence dissipates.

[mcompengr]

"An Engineered Theory of Motion"

 

If this is "it", the it that this is would cover the very bottom. It could be implemented with a matter-field theory and/or a string/M-theory, then the Standard Model could sit on top of that, and on up howsoever. Not much if anything seems depreciated, and many strange puzzles seem solved by one simple proposal.

 

Here, through reverse-engineering, "a single coherent framework" (Barrow, p.17) hopes to explain "the different fundamental forces...with effective descriptions of each of the different interactions between particles of matter and light." Yet, first a "bedrock of reality" (p.12), would need to come with all that, a mechanism for existence, which might not be "buried deep in the math" (p.128), but rather laying on the surface of the geometry. If so it could be "'a single world formula' [Planck]" (p.114), nonetheless. Clearly, there is a standard to be met.

 

It's just a framework, a perspective on the data and analysis of those pros listed, if not explicitly attributed. The "concept of force" is subsumed (p.105), here into one description for all interactions, a "one pattern" view (p.219) of the universe, if existence itself can be a real quantum action, too.

 

Quantum Space

"One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them. One ring to bring them all

and in the darkness bind them." -J.R.R.Tolkien

 

Geometry and discrete space could take their rightful places in the scheme of things as follows. Discrete space would offer a prime symmetry uniting matter, field and radiation, particle and wave, space and time, all through a unification of motion and existence itself, a single mechanism for both.

 

By discrete spaces here we're talking real, physical omnipresence. There can be nothing in between them because there would be no such place as "between". In this scenario, there is nowhere else to be except inside one or another of these discrete space regions. Nothing extant, nothing fundamental or first composite would exist except inside one, and while it exists (you name it) it would exist there in its entirety; real, virtual or wanna-be.

 

Particles, though, would not "leap" from one space to another (Greene, p.351), but rather they would serially instantiate inside a space, and then in another, and in another. This would be motion, with granularity off the scale, and could be how anything might get transferred: the stuff of virtual particles, bare naked four-momentum or whatever. Truly, " 'space tells matter how to move' [Einstein]". (Rees, p.65)

 

Each and every space-time point in the universe would be a template particle capable of becoming anything. The field develops, the string vibrates, and the particle exists. The field collapses, the string relaxes, and the particle is "gone". And then the next space would do it, and then the next, and the next. Here would be the equality of all things physical.

 

This could easily be a QCD particle seabed and quanta of theta-vacuum. (Watson, p.385) The implications would seem huge, and perhaps not a little unpalatable. Such things as electro-magnetic fields and the vacuum energy must also be discrete even if not quantum in nature (i.e. being able to have any amplitude).

 

For photons it would happen at the maximum rate possible, hence the cosmic speed limit. Without some form of real quantum world there might be no cosmic speed limit. Quantum mechanic cognitive dissidence dissipates.

 

Quantum Mechanics; The "next" space could be naturally anywhere, guided by the particle's wave function. The particle would be a particle, but it would exist like a wave by being a moving amplitude in a discrete medium, a true wave-particle duality. Everything just might appear to interact like particles and move like waves. Even the very unity of the mechanics, the statics and dynamics, is laid bare. In a way, it's all statics.

 

Uncertainty; Position and momentum could never be measured at the same time because they ain't happenin' at the same time (baby!). Like musical chairs, either the players have a seat or they are dancing but never both. If every interaction is a "measurement" (Ford, p.261) the measurement problem evaporates. (see: More on Wave Function Collapse) Position and momentum would be Fourier conjugates for real.

 

Quantum Relativity (going out on a limb here); The faster you would go, the more often you would be "gone". Your clocks can't tick while they're "gone", and so they would run slow relative to a stationary observer but not to you because you would be "gone" more often too. So, the fast traveling twin's clocks could be running less often than the stay-at-home's clocks, internal ones too, but at the same rate while running. (see: More on Time)

 

The Speed of Light; When a light source moving howsoever emits a photon it could never impart any of its state of motion to that of the photon. Before emission time the photon does not exist, and after emission time there would be no interaction possible that could cause such a thing. A photon would be born moving at the speed of light away from the discrete-space of its first instantiation, its emitting electron left in the dust, and its emission a fundamental action of existence. Emission would be a digital event.

Quantum jumping and tunneling

; No problem, whatever wave functions allow.

Superposition and neutrino oscillation

; Incremental switching back and forth.

 

Bibliography

　

 

"Before the Beginning", Martin Rees, Addison-Wesley, 1997.

 

"New Theories of Everything", John D. Barrow, Oxford University Press, 2007.

 

"QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter", Richard P. Feynman, Princeton University Press, 1985.

"The Fabric of the Cosmos", Brian Greene, A.A.Knopf, 2004.

"The Quantum Quark", Andrew Watson, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

"A Geometric Theory of Everything", A.Garrett Lisi and James Orwen Weatherall, Scientific American, December 2010.

"101 Quantum Questions", Kenneth W. Ford, Harvard University Press, 2011.

 

"McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology", McGraw-Hill, 2007.

"Origins of the Universe for Dummies", Stephen Pincock, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2007.

"CliffsQuickReview Chemistry", Harold D. Nathan and Charles Henrickson,

Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

 

[swansont]

What predictions does this model make, and how can it be tested?

[mcompengr]

It predicts all of the "weirdness" in quantum mechanics, stuff like wave-particle duality and uncertainty.

[swansont]

It predicts all of the "weirdness" in quantum mechanics, stuff like wave-particle duality and uncertainty.

 

 

Let's see the math.

[mcompengr]

It all follows logically from the speculation that motion and existence might be the same thing.

Particles would move by annihilation in one (1) real and physical discrete space, followed by

creation in another. Math for the speculation hasn't been invented yet.

 

[swansont]

It all follows logically from the speculation that motion and existence might be the same thing.

Particles would move by annihilation in one (1) real and physical discrete space, followed by

creation in another. Math for the speculation hasn't been invented yet.

 

 

 

Then how can you claim that it predicts all the "weirdness" of QM? Without the math, it predicts nothing.

[mcompengr]

I disagree. Speculations (theories without evidence) do make predictions.

 

[Strange]

I disagree. Speculations (theories without evidence) do make predictions.

 

 

 

Not without math, they don't.

[swansont]

I disagree. Speculations (theories without evidence) do make predictions.

 

 

 

Not very good ones. "Things fall down" is a prediction (though even then, there's arguably some math), but there's no precision without math. Such a prediction doesn't distinguish between falling with a certain value of acceleration vs some other value, or even falling at a constant speed, or falling in a way that depends on your mass. Only one of those is actually in agreement with how nature behaves.

[mcompengr]

Synthetic statements are not without problems, but they do make predictions.

 

"If we want the 'secret of the universe' to have testable predictions, it must

be a synthetic statement." -John D. Barrow (p.237)

Quantum mechanics "weirdness" is testable.

[Strange]

Quantum mechanics "weirdness" is testable.

 

 

That is because it is a mathematical theory that makes precise and quantifiably testable predictions.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

Synthetic statements are not without problems, but they do make predictions.

 

"If we want the 'secret of the universe' to have testable predictions, it must

be a synthetic statement." -John D. Barrow (p.237)

 

 

That does not preclude that they be rigorous statements. You have provided a necessary but insufficient condition.

[carlos delatorre]

I have a hypothesis that consciousness is the "goo" of virtual photons within the limits of our neurons. Pink elephant. Your consciousness is as real as that elephant you just thought of. I get much deeper in a thread I started. Come chat because I could be wrong, and I would like to find out.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, carlos delatorre said:

I have a hypothesis that consciousness is the "goo" of virtual photons within the limits of our neurons. Pink elephant. Your consciousness is as real as that elephant you just thought of. I get much deeper in a thread I started. Come chat because I could be wrong, and I would like to find out.

!

Moderator Note

Bringing up speculations in someone else's thread is hijacking, a rules violation.

(And, should one be tempted to do so, responding to a modnote is off-topic)

 

[carlos delatorre]

dude isn't science bringing up questions and trying to answer them? I'm simply trying to have to have a discussion. Is this not a forum? I brought up questions regarding what this gentleman was talking about. I guess I will never bring up speculations. The scientific community needs help.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, carlos delatorre said:

dude isn't science bringing up questions and trying to answer them? I'm simply trying to have to have a discussion. Is this not a forum? I brought up questions regarding what this gentleman was talking about. I guess I will never bring up speculations. The scientific community needs help.

How can you have brought up questions?

There wasn't a single question or question mark in your previous post.

 

The moderator was not complaining about this statement 

 "dude isn't science bringing up questions and trying to answer them? I'm simply trying to have to have a discussion"

That is exactly what is wanted here.

The moderator was complaining about your method of discussion, (but really very gently) because it is against the rules of this forum.

If you wanted to ask your questions related to something previously started here, the forum correct way is to start your own thread

perhaps referring to this one like so:

XXXXX said in thread YYYY........................

However is this an alternative view/explanation/........................

You will find plenty of examples of such spin off threads here.

go well

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

As studiot notes, the proper method to ask question not directed at the thread-starter is to start a new thread. That has nothing to do with the scientific community, per se. It's about ease and clarity of communication.

 

Now, let's get back on topic.