Jump to content

Misconception at the core of physics leading to entanglement


Ashish
 Share

Recommended Posts

Physical phenomena explained or proved on the basis of WAVE theory is the misconception at the core of physics which leads to entanglement in going ahead in physics. I mean to say that wave theory was just like a mathematical tool which was used in physics just to go ahead in physics but the real concept is only particle (Dont merge here the DeBroglie equation). And I really discard wave theory and any phenomena explained or proved on its base.Every thing is particle.

 

Wave, distribution of energy in space but the question here comes who is responsible for transferring energy from one place to another and its particle.

 

From past 5 year I'd a great study over wave and I've come to this point and I made so because of zeal for studying PHYSICS and also as since Quantum mechanics and relativity contradict each other thus creating entanglement for the unification of all four forces i.e in GUT.

 

I think one of the most mysterious tool (I call it) or theory used by physicist is wave and any phenomenon going to be proved on it will lead to entanglement. So theres a need to get the clear cut concept and not just by grasping over the ideas and theories studied or taught by.

 

What you all think am I right? and please tell me about how to publish a new theory with all its criteria.

Edited by Ashish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QM is one of the most tested theories in the history of science...

 

Many modern devices rely on it....

 

Physics is the mathematical modelling of reality and the testing of those models....

 

If you claim that QM is wrong you need a mathermatical model that makes predictions that match the data better than QM.

 

QM and relativity do not predict each other, there are some circumstances where both break down, but relativistic quantum mechanics is a very common and well understood field.

 

Entanglement has also been experimentally tested.

 

Just because you don't like or understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means you don't like it.

 

To publish a new theory you first need to formulate it mathematically and show how it matches all current data better than the existing theories, at that point you can write a paper encapsulating this and sending it to a journal who will peer review and publish it if it is correct. You should also in this either have conducted or make suggestions for experiments that can falsify your theory.

 

The debroglie wavelength has been shown to be true for bucky balls (C60 structures) which matched the prediction perfectly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here I'm not talking any thing about QM and you've just told me about it.

 

I understood what you want to tell me, and if I'm saying that there is nothing like a wave then after all my studies over it I've come to the point it was just a mathematical tool and I've several reasons voilating all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya its true that if I tell that there is nothing like a wave in this whole universe then there are certain phenonmena in QM which require wave i.e. matter wave.

 

So the question here is can a electron or let it be C60 structures as you've told (as its a particle, mean to say that it is composed of electon, proton, neutron and many other thing than how it can be a wave.

 

Please don't tell me here about according to DeBroglie wavelength.

 

 

Because I think there is someting a miss in this whole theory not only in QM or relativity but its from the core itself.

 

And the results like this have made me even more confident that there is nothing like a wave in this whole universe

 

 

Modern physics often describes the forces between particles in terms of the

actions of field particles or quanta. In the case of the familiar electromagnetic

interaction, the field particles are photons. In the language of modern physics, the

electromagnetic force is mediated (carried) by photons, which are the quanta of the

electromagnetic field. Likewise, the strong force is mediated by field particles

called gluons, the weak force is mediated by particles called the W and Z bosons,

and the gravitational force is thought to be mediated by quanta of the gravitational

field called gravitons. All of these field quanta have been detected except for

the graviton, which may never be found directly because of the weakness of the

gravitational field. From Servay college physics 7th ed.

 

Why to go toward maths i.e. first we must have a true underatanding of any phenomena by having some idea about it and certain imagination and after on do calculation over it through mathematics.

 

Its true that wave nature has explained various phenomena but then also we're missing something and resulting in entanglement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you how electrons or c60's are waves and particles... But I can tell you that they are.

 

All the evidence shows that they are, you fire a SINGLE electron at a slit and it goes threw both of them and interferes with itself, the only type of thing that can act like that is a wave.

 

That is reality if you don't like it tough.

 

I lean towards maths because it is the ONLY way to make accurate falsifiable predictions. A requirement of science.

 

Entanglement has been experimentally proven...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashish, you've asked me to weigh in here, but Klaynos is giving you reasonable answers.

 

If you think that there are only particles, you need to explain things like single-particle interference. If you shoot single electrons, photons or atoms through a double slit, they will generate an interference pattern, which is a wave phenomenon, as Klaynos has already noted.

 

One should realize that physics attempts to describe how nature behaves, not what these phenomena are. We use "particle" and "wave" because they are convenient to use, stemming from macroscopic behavior. And things like electrons have behaviors of both, which are convenient to use in the description of their behavior. But there's a big difference between "acts like a particle" and "is a particle" and to say the latter means you step outside of science, IMO, and into metaphysics. There's no way to test "what it really is." Only "how it behaves."

 

You may be able to come up with a model in which everything is a particle. If you can get that to work, i.e. it's consistent with what we already have, explaining observations and predicting others, great. But to be useful (i.e. a better model), it will need to be simpler than what we already have.

 

—————

 

 

"New Physics" post moved to speculations http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35525

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The OP's distrust of waves pretty much sums-up Borh's Copenhagen theory of quantum mechanics.

 

No objective reality it attached to probability amplitued, but only to the values measured. This is made evident in his answer to the EPR paper, "Can Quantum Mechanics be Considered Complete?", or some title close to it.

 

On the other hand he wants to replace them with objective particles...

 

This doesn't seem to work at all, but then again Einstein seems to have advocated them.

Edited by booker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a simple explanation for entangled particles using relativity. Say each particle was seeing distance contraction. What that means is each particle would appear closer to each other in their references, such that forces are at the correct distant to overlap for a given affect. Another reference might see an expanded distance affect where the distances appear too far to explain how the force fields are able to interact.

 

One could do this mathematically, even if it is not traditional conceptual. Pretend they are close enough for the affect not to be called entangled. Then back calculate the distance relativity that is required. This theory amounts to untangled relativity can create entanglement. Or only distance is showing relativity with the time and distance variables still in our reference.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.