Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/23/18 in all areas

  1. HYPOTHESIS FOR WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY SOLUTION - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Author: Mikko Ilmari Laukkanen This hypothesis provides a simple elegant mechanical solution to the central mystery of Quantum Mechanics - that of wave-particle duality - and thereby helps resolve the other mysteries of QM as well. The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct - Occam's Razor HYPOTHESIS Photons are particles which; contain energy, have mass, and therefore have electromagnetic properties and actions, including each an electromagnetic field that interacts with the electromagnetic fields of other photons and matter around them. The simple self-organizing behaviour and actions of electromagnetic particles results in what we label as ‘quantum phenomenon’ and ‘wave behaviour’ such as interference patterns. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF PHOTONS · A photon is fundamentally very simple and can thus be described by a mechanical model. · Photons are real and of course can thus be described in a realist manner, (rather than only mathematically or statistically). · A photon is a particle, and is not itself a wave. · A photon has electromagnetic properties (i.e. electrical field and magnetic field), and has/is/carries energy. · These electromagnetic properties and their energy cause photons to interact with other photons in particular observable ways under certain circumstances. · These electromagnetic properties also cause photons to interact with other particles/matter/fields in certain ways. · Photons can reflect and diffract with other matter electromagnetically, (i.e. Van der Waals forces). · A description of photons as most likely being mechanically spinning dipole particles can fully explain the characteristics of light, including frequency, oscillation, wavelength, and polarization. · The electromagnetic interaction between spinning photons causes self-organization ‘behaviour patterns’ among photons. · This interaction between photons can cause certain observable phenomenon which can be described as or appears 'wave-like' in appearance - such as interference patterns. · As photons interact with fields and with the matter of the apparatus in double-slit experiments, it is simply the means of measurement which is altering the behaviour of the photons, not the photons ‘reading your mind about whether or not they are being watched’. · Photons have both momentum and mass (even if the mass is obviously very very small). · ‘Entangled’ photons are not ‘communicating; with each other. But because photons do interact, they simply each had those paired properties separately prior to being emitted even and retain them thereafter, thus there is no ‘super-position’ of properties such as spin or polarization. DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT INTERFERENCE BANDING EXPLANATION Following the electromagnetic diffraction occurring at the beam-splitter, where the photon’s wavelength-phase in the two overlapping fringes are out-of-phase (and have sufficient electromagnetic contact time due to similar trajectories and at close-proximity), the photons repel each other apart resulting in a dark band. And the photons creating the light bands had electromagnetically realigned themselves and possibly even attracted each other further to form relatively more coherent beams of photons in the places where we see the bright bands. Accordingly, the light and dark interference bands are not created as a result of mathematical wave-function collapse and the photons within the dark band cancelling each other out. Rather, the photons had simply repelled and attracted each other via electromagnetic interaction of their positive and negative dipoles (which you might be more familiar with the description of these photon’s wavelengths being in-phase our out-of-phase, if you insist), and thus there simply are no photons landing within the dark band areas. Please see full-length paper here for comprehensfive explanations, images, diagrams, and criticisms. https://www.dropbox.com/s/75mniw1pwzyja3e/Wave-Particle%20Duality%20Hypothesis.pdf?dl=0 Wave-Particle Duality Hypothesis.pd
    1 point
  2. You do realize no one can make any sense out of your images. Nor can we make any sense out of anything you've posted. I haven't seen anything you have posted that conforms to any proper physics yet just a smattering of word salad. Rainbow gravity seriously ???? Have you ever considered picking up a few good textbooks and learning how the photon is modelled under physics or how gravity is ? Try Snells law of refraction for starters. About the most accurate descriptive I can give of your last several posts is ramblings. I can't read a single formula on any of your images but if your using Mandelbrot then you should have recursive functions. This includes the recursive functions of the Koch snowflake. ie [latex] D=\frac{log m}{log f}[/latex]
    1 point
  3. Thanks for not taking the humour too seriously! But really, the consequences depend on how you change those laws. So, for example, if you say that energy is not conserved, then dragons could generate massive destructive flames without needing a source of fuel. And they could fly because they wouldn't be constrained by the energy needed to lift a massive object. On the other hand, if energy weren't conserved, then orbits probably wouldn't be stable. Even atoms probably wouldn't be stable. So the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. But maybe you could suggest that energy is not conserved in some very special and limited way. If so, the consequences depend on what those limitations are. You can make up the rules and then invent the consequences. There have been real examples of this. For example, when the evidence for neutrinos was first seen, as an unexplained energy difference, one of the suggestions was that energy conservation might only be true on average. And so individual small-scale interactions could violate it. However, after a while neutrinos were detected and the conservation law lived to fight another day. Also, it used to be thought that mass was conserved and energy was conserved but, famously, Einstein showed that it is actually mass-energy that is conserved. (That's hyphen not a minus sign!) Because of Noether's theorem, if energy were not conserved then you would have odd effects like physics experiments not behaving the same at different times.
    1 point
  4. Only if you can get Alexa to do what you tell her.
    1 point
  5. https://www.sciencealert.com/lightning-inside-ferocious-hurricane-blasted-beam-antimatter-earth-gamma-ray-flash-positrons/amp Hard core. They report having recorded gamma ray flashes with up to 20 MeV, which could have only been Matter-Antimatter annihilations. Since Positrons and Electron annihilate with 511 keV each, this is entirely possible. They're still unsure how exactly the positrons were created in the storm. My best guess would be that a few virtual electron-positron pairs were separated and the positrons were accelerated too fast toward the earth to interact with electrons in their vicinity. Well, just because it's my best guess doesn't mean it's a good one. I would love to read some input on my idea, and also some alternative ideas Edit: Scratch the virtual pair idea. I just thought of beta+ radiation, and according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen, 15O has a half life of 122.24s and is produced naturally when 'regular' high-energy lighning flashes knock a neutron out of the 16O nucleus
    1 point
  6. Well I for one don't see the OP ever employing the mathematics required lol particularly since he states it as a mistake to do so in his paper lmao. Good summary however quite accurate +1 @OP good luck with the advanced QM mathematics you will need. If you actually understood the required mathematics involved you would be well aware just how wrong your attempted hypothesis really is. A theory requires predictability and testability and thus requires not conjectures but the very mathematics you shun. Lol if you truly understood those mathematics and the pointlike and wavelike characteristics which involves the compton wavelength then you would have realized that waveparticle duality isn't a problem as mentioned above by Strange.
    1 point
  7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Excerpt 1: Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions. Excerpt 2: In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models. Your Hypothesis: Photons carry energy (correct), have mass (incorrect), and therefore have electromagnetic properties and actions. Aside the fact that one of your facts are 50% wrong, I don't see how having energy and mass should infer that anything has electromagnetic properties and actions. Maybe this is some linguistic problem you're having, but if it isn't, there certainly is a logical problem. Now, Photons DO interact with matter via the electromagnetic interaction, heck, they are the transmitter bosons of the electromagnetic field, so again, you are partially right. Also, you're not saying anything that is new. "A photon is fundamentally very simple and can thus be described by a mechanical model." Photons don't have mass, yet they have momentum. This insight was worth a nobel prize (Albert Einstein's Photo Effect). Up until then, scientists believed light was only a wave. I'm being a little inaccurate here, because it was Einstein's introduction of the wave/particle dualism that earned him the Nobel Prize with his Photoeffect theory, not the insight that Photons have momentum without mass. Without wanting to be dogmatic, but overthrowing a principle that earned Albert Einstein a Nobel Prize is quite ambitious. "Photons are real and of course can thus be described in a realist manner, (rather than only mathematically or statistically)." Photons appear as real and as virtual particles. I don't know where you're going with this. "A photon has electromagnetic properties (i.e. electrical field and magnetic field), and has/is/carries energy. " Given the fact that Photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field, yeah. Though they don't emit an electric or magnetic field of their own. Every particle has energy. That's fundamental. "These electromagnetic properties and their energy cause photons to interact with other photons in particular observable ways under certain circumstances. " The only photon-photon interaction that I know of is the interference of their waves. In 'A Brief History of Time", Hawking describes that Photons orbiting a black hole at the Schwarzschild Radius would 'interact' with eachother via the Pauli Exclusion principle. But because we know the speed of Photons with systematically 100% precision (invariance of the speed of light) their locations are extremely uncertain, and constricting them to a sphere around a singularity makes their location on the surface of this sphere even more uncertain - if I've understood Heisenberg correctly. What makes Photon-Photon mechanical interactions even more difficult is the fact that they don't have a diameter. There is no spatial crossection for a mechanical interaction. The simplicity of the photon that you mentioned before makes this literally impossible. "These electromagnetic properties also cause photons to interact with other particles/matter/fields in certain ways. " Yes, this is very well documented. Matter which interacts with photons is called visible or light matter, opposed to dark matter. "A description of photons as most likely being mechanically spinning dipole particles can fully explain the characteristics of light, including frequency, oscillation, wavelength, and polarization." But you run into Bohr's conundrum when he proposed the planetary model of the Atom. He had to axiomatically postulate that electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus don't radiate away their potential energy as light. You really need the complex math of Quantum Mechanics to get rid of this problem without just postulating stuff that otherwise contradicts classical mechanics. If you don't come up with some genius math, this hypothesis is basically dead in whatever medium it was trying to propagate through
    1 point
  8. In a sense, getting to massless SM particles could be achieved by increasing the temperature in some region. But it would be more like an activation of the frozen Higgs field than a blocking. It is easier to explain coming from the high-energy side (high temperature), since that is the standard explanation for the Higgs mechanism: The Higgs proto-field (*) can be considered as an additional particle class to a Standard Model in which all of the other Standard Model particles are massless (**). It interacts with most of the other particle fields. But it also has a weird self-interaction which causes the energetically lowest state to not be at "no proto field" but at "some value of the proto-field". At low temperatures, where the Higgs proto-field is just lying around in its minimum, this means that the dynamic interaction terms of the Higgs proto-field with the other particles become some dull interaction of those particles with some sticky stuff that seems to lie around everywhere (***). In the mathematical description of the Standard Model time evolution, the associated terms that originally were terms of a dynamic interaction now become the mass terms for the other particles. If the minimum was at "no field", they would simply drop out (****). This "low-energy" limit actually covers almost all of the temperature ranges we can create on earth, and only recently did we manage to even create and see a few excitations of the Higgs proto-field around its minimum in specialized, very expensive experiments (-> confirmation of the Higgs-Boson at the LHC). So technically, I think we are very far away from creating the "massless particles" state in an experiment. But there is no theoretical reason why this would not be possible (*****). But as described, I would understand it to be less of a shielding of the Higgs field and more of an activation. And as a state with such a high amount of interaction between the fields. So I am not even sure if the common view of a few particles flying through mostly empty space and only rarely kicking into other free-flying particles would still make sense. Remarks: (*) I would just call it Higgs-field(s), but since the paper you cited seems to explicitly avoid using the name at this stage I may be wrong about common usage of the terms. Haven't been working in the field for over ten years. So I have invented the term proto-field for the scope of this post - it is also easier to understand than "doublet of complex scalar fields". (**) This is not exactly true because the particles are mixed and get renamed under the Higgs mechanism. But I'll pretend that does not happen for the sake of providing an answer that is easier to understand than reading a textbook. (***) Sidenote: In this state, the few excitations of the Higgs proto-field around its minimum are the infamous Higgs Boson. (****) Which is why you can always invent new fields that just happen to have no effect on anything we can see but magically make your particle cosmology equations work at very, very high energies (****) Except for the fact that some people still expect new physics and associated new particles at such high temperatures, which then again would have mass from another Higgs-like mechanism
    1 point
  9. The only assumption I made was about it being mentioned before that nothing you've described is out of the normal parameters for human empathy, and that's why I said "probably". The rest are observations based on your writing, which is all I have to go by in this discussion. I "picked" that one segment to quote strictly because it held examples of what I find to be faulty reasoning. In science terms, you've removed your falsifiability. The way you pose your explanation for this phenomenon, you can never be shown to be wrong (and again, I'm not saying you are, just saying you aren't presenting objective support for it).
    1 point
  10. Some scientists think they have solved the mystery https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/ "Even with a power of just a couple of Watts, the EM-drive generates thrust in the expected direction (e.g., the torsion bar twists in the right direction). If you reverse the direction of the thruster, the balance swings back the other way: the thrust is reversed. Unfortunately, the EM drive also generates the thrust when the thruster is directed so that it cannot produce a torque on the balance (e.g., the null test also produces thrust). And likewise, that “thrust” reverses when you reverse the direction of the thruster. The best part is that the results are the same when the attenuator is put into the circuit. In this case, there is basically no radiation in the microwave cavity, yet the WTF-thruster thrusts on. So, where does the force come from? The Earth’s magnetic field, most likely. The cables that carry the current to the microwave amplifier run along the arm of the torsion bar. Although the cable is shielded, it is not perfect (because the researchers did not have enough mu metal). The current in the cable experiences a force due to the Earth’s magnetic field that is precisely perpendicular to the torsion bar."
    1 point
  11. More likely a work of art. There are other examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Book_from_the_Sky
    1 point
  12. I think that your belief that empath's exist renders you insane. Can you provide any peer reviewed scientific studies disproving that you are insane?
    -1 points
  13. -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.