Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Quantum Mechanics'.
Found 4 results
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/ "Look, physics has definitely avoided what were traditionally considered to be foundational physical questions, but the reason for that goes back to the foundation of quantum mechanics. The problem is that quantum mechanics was developed as a mathematical tool. Physicists understood how to use it as a tool for making predictions, but without an agreement or understanding about what it was telling us about the physical world. And that's very clear when you look at any of the foundational discussions. This is what Einstein was upset about; this is what Schrodinger was upset about. Quantum mechanics was merely a calculational technique that was not well understood as a physical theory. Bohr and Heisenberg tried to argue that asking for a clear physical theory was something you shouldn't do anymore. That it was something outmoded. And they were wrong, Bohr and Heisenberg were wrong about that. But the effect of it was to shut down perfectly legitimate physics questions within the physics community for about half a century. And now we're coming out of that, fortunately."
In order to make my physics work more digestible I am intending to make a series of small papers each of which illustrates a particular point I am attempting to make within a larger comprehensive theory. The later work will be in [updated] book form and will contain more than the individual papers can. The first of these papers is: Two-Component Gravitation - Solution to Galaxy Rotation Curves http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/files/Two-Component%20Gravitation-v1.pdf http://tinyurl.com/7k48vwu I call this a Pre Pre-Print because getting a Pre-Print into arXiv.org is little different than getting it published in a journal. The problem is a chicken and egg issue. In order to get into arXiv you must have a sponsor current in the field of study. The journal discourages contacting people in the field for sponsorship unless you have a pre-existing relationship with the sponsor. Having an existing academic position in the field of study is the other means of entry. Having neither sponsor nor academic position I am not an "incumbent" so I have no means of entry. They encourage those unable to gain entry to arXiv to seek the normal journal route [glacial if ever] or publish on the web on your own. For now I am putting it out on the web and still giving away free copies of the 2nd edition of my book until they run out [contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you want a copy]. Upon reading the paper you will see that the paper is not self-contained but requires other parts of a new physics infrastructure. That is another chicken and egg issue - how do you publish one result based in part upon other results yet to be published? I was encouraged in this forum to put out my work in arXiv - this is a small step in that direction. Dennis May
The Terminal Velocity Photon Dennis L. May 10218 Mills Road, Novinger, Missouri 63559-2124, USA Email: email@example.com (Dated: March 8, 2012) In this first of several papers we address an entirely classical description of quantum mechanics, one which preserves identity and causality, does not require an artificial false dichotomy implied by wave-particle duality and one which replaces the "Guiding Waves" of de Broglie-Bohm mechanics [deBB] with an entirely particle based description supported by the synchronized hyperchaos [classical physics in complex non-linear systems] work of Gregory S. Duane [1,2]. In this first paper we discuss a particle based solution to the speed of light in vacuum. With the introduction of the concept of wave-particle duality a bargain was struck within the physics community concerning the properties of electromagnetic radiation and particles exhibiting quantum wave characteristics. Some calculations are done using wave properties, others as particle interactions - but with the ether abandoned there was nothing to support wave action. Wave-particle duality solved this by allowing particles of all kinds to travel in vacuum without an ether. Additionally waves were no longer actually waves but probability distributions in the form of wave equations in the quantum field. The reality of the quantum field and whether or not it qualifies as an ether is never clearly defined. When the localized discontinuous nature of quantum phenomenon dominates the particle description is used. It is said that wave-particle duality is a fundamental underlying principle which cannot be described by classical means. In effect a claim is made requiring a new philosophy abandoning identity and causality in order to deal with what cannot be described solely as "particle" or solely as "wave". Several successful competing models embrace some form of this new philosophy - all eliminating the dichotomy by abandoning identity and causality. A false choice was foisted upon physics - live with an inexplicable dichotomy or abandon identity and causality. We take the view that identity and causality can be preserved while doing away with the dichotomy. Once you abandon identity and causality it is not surprising that many models are capable of producing partially correct results - in fact it would seem the number of available partially correct models should be unlimited. Choosing among the limitless possibilities then becomes a matter of personal philosophy, culture, taste and the political influence of orthodox historical legacies. To further complicate the subject, the lack of identity and causality in such models makes it problematic that precise descriptions of the physics involved can be formulated. It would seem fundamental that all descriptions abandoning identity and causality must contain elements lacking clarity. Discussions of quantum mechanics have been heavily burdened by questions of interpretation from the beginning. When identity and causality are preserved the set of correct solutions and their descriptions should narrow down to logically equivalent clearly defined propositions and approximations thereof. In all of known physics elastic and inelastic collisions conserve momentum. This fundamental observation lies at the heart of explaining the speed of light in vacuum. In an elastic collision we have: m₁u₁ + m₂u₂ = m₁v₁ + m₂v₂ In an inelastic collision we have: m₁u₁ + m₂u₂ = (m₁ + m₂)v In our particle based quantum mechanics we assume photons and other quantum particles are extended bodies composed of yet smaller particles. The space between large particles is inhabited by a constant flux of smaller particles which interact with and are exchanged among larger particles. An analogy of this arrangement is free floating water drops in humid air. Water molecules are exchanged in both directions between the water drops and the surrounding air. In the case of a photon traveling at the speed of light in vacuum we have what is observationally known to be a very stable system. The photon exists in what can be described as a stable terminal velocity mode. Using the water drop analogy again - terminal velocity indicates a balance of forces leading to a constant velocity. For a water drop this usually means gravity pulling down until increasing air resistance balances the downward force - leaving the drop moving at a constant speed. What forces balance to leave a photon moving at a stable terminal velocity? The terminal velocity photon is in apparent thermal equilibrium with its environment. Elastic collisions conserve energy, inelastic collisions do not. As in a molecular gas in thermal equilibrium, the existence of inelastic collisions implies other collisions are super-elastic [possessing more kinetic energy after the collision than before]. Across all elastic, inelastic, and super-elastic collisions we end up with elastic collisions on average. The terminal velocity photon along with the particles composing the space it is traveling through form a system in apparent thermodynamic equilibrium. When we examine elastic and inelastic collisions in nature the physical properties of the colliding bodies determine whether or not a collision is elastic or inelastic. In a variety of collisions higher speeds tend to produce inelastic results while lower speeds are more likely to lead to elastic collisions. For our purposes we will assume a work function must be overcome for a collision to become inelastic. For identical particles this amounts to a relative velocity determining whether a collision is elastic or inelastic. An interesting property of the conservation of momentum is the difference in the impulse you receive during elastic versus inelastic collisions. When you are struck from behind and the collision is inelastic - you move forward from the added momentum but you are also dragging extra mass along. When you are struck from behind and the collision is elastic - you more forward from the hit but you are not dragging the extra mass along. The particle you were struck with is directed away from your direction of motion in the center of mass frame of reference. How is the terminal velocity photon able to maintain a uniform speed while in apparent thermodynamic equilibrium? When the swarm of particles composing a photon are moving they are stuck from all directions by the smaller particles comprising the space they are traveling through. Those particles striking from the forward direction have added velocity making inelastic collisions more likely. Those striking from the rear are more likely to produced elastic collisions. The particles composing the photon are individually impacted then redistribute the results of those impacts to the photon as a whole. Since the swarm is in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings the number of inelastic collisions must be balanced by a similar number of emissions carrying the energy in super-elastic collisions. With the inelastic mass and energy distributed to the volume of the swarm, the emission of mass is presumed to be radial - imparting no net momentum to the photon as a whole. Early modeling discovered [1984-1990] and the work of Duane [1,2] confirmed that the swarm must remain diffuse. In other words particles traveling from the outside need to be able to penetrate the volume from any direction before interacting. A "solid" photon cannot achieve a terminal velocity other than zero and a "solid" photon cannot participate in the complex non-linear exchanges required of quantum systems. This situation may be summarized in computer form. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/photos/album/408323353/pic/2134390606/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc When the velocity is zero there is no net force. When the speed increases from zero there is a net force pushing the photon to move faster. Eventually faster speed causes the net force to decrease due to the increasing momentum of collisions from the forward direction. A terminal velocity speed is reached when the forces again balance. Increasing the speed beyond this point causes a force slowing the photon again.  Duane, G. S., 2001: Violation of Bell's inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353.  Duane, G. S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1917-1932.
I have posted a .PDF file of a paper on Physics_Frontier at Yahoogroups. http://tinyurl.com/8558r9m http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/QHYYT1n9t6ywC0jdLHaxGbwb1G6KqrG7ySu0kaVBpasOl2oQBYKSvKSoJJJwitoro0RZyLUGcvNu_RpfJWwy4Q/CMBR%20-%20Non-Linear%20QM%20Thermalization-v1.pdf It is my alternative explanation for the CMBR [Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation] which does not involve Big Bang cosmology. Dennis May