spydragon

Random "theory" of quantum mechanics

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

this cannot be called a theory (its not even a very educated guess).

if you know of pilot wave theory, you might know that people have found a flaw. but the same person that came up with pilot wave theory came up with an alternative theory that is similar but (as far as anyone can tell) predicts the same outcome as standard quantum mechanics (except entanglement) here is a link to an essay that explains all of this.

so I decided to expand it and found a bit of irony.

imagine that the probability wave is controlled by an actual physical wave that travels through a medium that we cannot detect (to bring old terms back I will call it the Aether) this Aether would act like pilot theory defines it but each particle is a vortex rather than a wave and this vortex would guide the particle (and the particle would still create a wave in the Aether (maybe caused by the vibration of the particle its self?)) if you think of it this way, pilot wave theory might explain entanglement. you can entangle particles by getting two particles really close (is this true? that's what I've heard) in the Aether this would combine the two vortices into one half ring vortex, thought about testing this but I don't have the materials all I think you need is a standing wave in a large body of water and create something called water walkers and glide them towards little dips in a half ring vortex I have know a video for water walking, and a video for a half ring vortex.

if the two water walkers act the same (don't know how to test that) even with a delay it would support this.

now if it had a delay then (the irony is coming soon) maybe the Aether has no definition of distance. meaning that it begins as soon as it ends allowing two particles to act the same at great distances instantly (and the bond would not be weak the way a long half ring vortex would be). now if we still think of these as vortices (and they are spinning) if we got them spinning fast enough they could widen into a hole that exists in two places at once (Teleportation!!!) this would explain how we were able to teleport a photon over 25 kilometers by shooting it through an electron. the reason that this is ironic is because we could call it an Einstein Rosen bridge and Einstein's greatest blunder is solved by his own theory.

don't bother telling me this is nonsense I already know that (but if someone finds evidence of it, please contact me and THIS IS MY THEORY (I am selfish that way))

Edited by spydragon
added clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, spydragon said:

@Strange can you give a reason?

It is speculation, not science fact, so he moved it to speculation?

35 minutes ago, spydragon said:

this cannot be called a theory (its not even a very educated guess).

 

 

Edited by DrP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, spydragon said:

if you know of pilot wave theory, you might know that people have found a flaw.

What is this flaw? Can you provide a reference?

32 minutes ago, spydragon said:

but the same person that came up with pilot wave theory came up with an alternative theory that is similar but (as far as anyone can tell) predicts the same outcome as standard quantum mechanics.

What is this alternative theory? Can you provide a reference?

33 minutes ago, spydragon said:

imagine that the probability wave is controlled by an actual physical wave that travels through a medium that we cannot detect (to bring old terms back I will call it the Aether) this Aether would act like pilot theory defines it but each particle is a vortex rather than a wave and this vortex would guide the particle (and the particle would still create a wave in the Aether (maybe caused by the vibration of the particle its self?)) if you think of it this way, pilot wave theory might explain entanglement.

Pilot wave theory is a mathematical theory. As far as I know it already explains entanglement.

What is the mathematics of your "vortexes"? How, exactly, does this add to or modify the mathematics of pilot wave theory?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you gain from changing the pilot wave to a vortex? Does that actually solve some issues, or is it just putting a new coat of paint on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Strange the flaw is that the original pilot wave theory would break down if you extended the tunnels of the double slit experiment, and that it could not predict what would happen if two particles were near the same place

reference now provided, I should add that it can't predict entanglement.

no it explains everything but that

I am only an amateur at math but I know complex things I don't know fluid dynamics or anything useful to support this speculation

@swansont both, it fixes the issue pilot wave theory has about entanglement

Edited by spydragon
added more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, spydragon said:

the flaw is that the original pilot wave theory would break down if you extended the tunnels of the double slit experiment, and that it could not predict what would happen if two particles were near the same place

I would like to see a reference for that. (And "tunnels" ?)

7 minutes ago, spydragon said:

reference now provided, I should add that it can't predict entanglement.

You have not provided a reference. (A link to a reputable source that confirms what you are saying.)

The Wikipedia page on pilot wave theory has an entire section on how it explains entanglement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory#Quantum_entanglement,_Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen_paradox,_Bell's_theorem,_and_nonlocality (that is a reference)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, spydragon said:

here is a link to an essay that explains all of this.

@Strange yes I have (first paragraph)

"tunnel": the slits if you elongate them

and my reference mentions everything except teleportation (I lost that one), vortices, and water walkers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spydragon said:

@Strange yes I have (first paragraph)

It would have been clearer if you had provided that in your answer instead of pretending it was there all the time.

5 minutes ago, spydragon said:

 "tunnel": the slits if you elongate them

Do you have a reference to experiments using "tunnels"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Strange sorry I didn't mean to sound rude

the reference I provided explains the flaw with "tunnels"

Edited by spydragon
spelling mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spydragon said:

the reference I provided explains the flaw with "tunnels"

I see no reference to tunnels in that article. Can you quote the text you are referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Strange maybe I read it in a different article, you are right its not in the reference I gave but it went something like this:

"you can disprove this theory by a simple thought experiment if you imagine a particle going through one slit at a time, the pilot wave would travel through both slits creating an interference pattern but if you elongate the slits, the pilot wave that went through the slit without the particle would dissipate before it reached the end, creating no interference pattern"

not an exact quote but if I find it I will reference it.

then it goes on to explain a similar theory that was created which got around this issue but still couldn't explain two particles at once

Edited by spydragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, spydragon said:

@Strange maybe I read it in a different article, you are right its not in the reference I gave but it went something like this:

"you can disprove this theory by a simple thought experiment if you imagine a particle going through one slit at a time, the pilot wave would travel through both slits creating an interference pattern but if you elongate the slits, the pilot wave that went through the slit without the particle would dissipate before it reached the end, creating no interference pattern"

Why would it dissipate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, spydragon said:

@Strange maybe I read it in a different article, you are right its not in the reference I gave but it went something like this:

"you can disprove this theory by a simple thought experiment if you imagine the particles going through one slit at a time the pilot wave would travel through both slits creating an interference pattern bit if you elongate the slits, the pilot wave that went through the slit without the particle would dissipate before it reached the end"

not an exact quote but if I find it I will reference it.

You can't really disprove a theory with a vague thought experiment. The ESWW paper mentioned in your linked article is a highly mathematical analysis of the behaviour of the waves. This (it is claimed) shows that the waves are non-physical. But several other papers say that their analysis is wrong.

Ultimately, it is only when people can produce a theory that can be tested experimentally that it can really be confirmed or ruled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't really disprove a theory with a vague thought experiment. The ESWW paper mentioned in your linked article is a highly mathematical analysis of the behaviour of the waves. This (it is claimed) shows that the waves are non-physical. But several other papers say that their analysis is wrong.

Ultimately, it is only when people can produce a theory that can be tested experimentally that it can really be confirmed or ruled out.

And in order to distinguish interpretations from each other, they will have to predict different results. Otherwise they will remain as alternative ways of explaining the physics so it makes sense to an audience, rather than the physics itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Strange@swansont I am only quoting what I've read, and it would dissipate the same way ripples in a pond do

I have thought about your question too swansont, why wouldn't the waves bounce of the wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spydragon said:

@Strange@swansont I am only quoting what I've read, and it would dissipate the same way ripples in a pond do

I have thought about your question too swansont, why wouldn't the waves bounce of the wall?

Where did you read it?

These are the same waves that are superluminal and propagate everywhere in the universe at once. I think there is a conflict between the two concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spydragon said:

"you can disprove this theory by a simple thought experiment if you imagine a particle going through one slit at a time, the pilot wave would travel through both slits creating an interference pattern but if you elongate the slits, the pilot wave that went through the slit without the particle would dissipate before it reached the end, creating no interference pattern"

not an exact quote but if I find it I will reference it.

@swansont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now