Why Quantum?

Robert,

I agree. But I took jc's comment to refer more to how the energy in say a 3 wave 'group' is conserved on compression (Doppler Blue shift) to a shorter wavelength, which is then valid. Might you be arguing a little 'across' each other?

I find the energy to be fixed in the wavenumber (for given amplitudes), which seems an important measure in quantum optics.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, in my local science museum, there is an apparatus equivalent to Laithwaite's that involves a bicycle wheel and spindle, and a chair that is free to rotate. A participant in the experiment sits in the chair, spins the wheel and takes hold of both ends of the spindle. With the slightest effort, changing the orientation of the spindle's axis spins the participant in the chair. Kids get a big kick out of it.

The explanation for the effect, however, is simple and concerns only Newton's laws of motion. Briefly, energy conservation -- the energy input to Laithwaite's device, or in spinning the bicycle wheel -- accounts for the inertial effects.

Tom,

I think most know the description that far, even a little further. But that's rather like saying gravity is 'simple'. It's 'true' but only superficially. What nobody has yet successfully rationalised is the detailed mechanism of precisely 'HOW' the effect counters the gravitational potential. (Including in terms of particles and classical or quantum mechanics).

That's what upset the guardians of doctrine so much when Laithwaite pointed out it was anomalous in theoretical terms. It was, and they had no answer! Despite all the explanations and dismissals it still is at the fundamental level, unless you've discovered something new?

Best wishes

Peter

". But that's rather like saying gravity is 'simple'. "

No it isn't. There is no theory of quantum gravity. There is, however, a theory of inertia, explained in Newton's laws of motion. The Laithwaite demonstration is just another physical correspondence between Newton's theory and its predictions.

"It's 'true' but only superficially."

No, the theoretical description is mathematically complete. There is nothing to add or subtract. If there were any more to it, Laithwaite would have discovered 'anti-gravity.' The fact is, though, that energy put into the device equals the energy output.

"What nobody has yet successfully rationalised is the detailed mechanism of precisely 'HOW' the effect counters the gravitational potential. (Including in terms of particles and classical or quantum mechanics)."

I am sure plenty of people have successfully rationalized it. Just add a few ad hoc hypotheses, and if those don't work, add a few more. Isn't that what you've been doing?

"That's what upset the guardians of doctrine so much when Laithwaite pointed out it was anomalous in theoretical terms."

Where's the anomaly? By what theory?

"It was, and they had no answer! Despite all the explanations and dismissals it still is at the fundamental level, unless you've discovered something new?"

No, I say the experiment is entirely consistent with the known classical laws of motion, whose equations have exact solutions.

Where's the anomaly?

Tom,

You suggest mathematics can replace physical descriptions. I disagree. So did Laithwaite. It only supplements or 'stands in' until we understand what's happening physically. i.e. my explanation to Stefan is a real physical one. The maths of QM have had your "exact solutions" for decades, but they can only tell us as much what's happening as the metaphysical art of manipulating ancient Arabic symbols to predict it's effects. (what DO they call that?)

If you've resolved the issue Laithwaite identified at last then do tell. It couldn't be done within doctrine (beyond some maths). It may be worth a Nobel prize!

"Just add a few ad hoc hypotheses, and if those don't work, add a few more. Isn't that what you've been doing?"

Nothing can be further from the truth. An ontological construction is coherent. Many feel that if THEY can't understand some rationale then NOBODY can! It's a common and well known erroneous assumption, making living in the dark tolerable.

Would you like to truly understand how I suggest QM's predictions are fully reproduced with physical geometrical evolution? It works so requires falsification. Only possible with a comprehension you don't yet posses. I'm very happy to help anybody overcome their misapprehensions.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, what is the anomaly explained by Laithwaite's 'physical description' that is not explained in Newton's mathematical description?

Tom,

Newtons maths, like QM's, explain precisely in mathematical terms. But Laithwaite's point was that neither have any physical meaning beyond that, and in physics (despite the rumours and beliefs to the contrary!) it's physical meaning that we need to truly understand nature.

Indeed, shockingly, a fundamental problem still remains with Newtons predicate Calculus, in common with all predicate logic, and famously "all logical systems are ultimately beset by paradox" (except one; 'Truth Function Logic' - equivalent to the hierarchical 'brackets' rule of arithmetic).

'Anomaly' was probably not then the ideal word. (I only ever recall hearing Laithwaite use it once in many demonstrations of the phenomena). I think; "not theoretically rationalised" (beyond the Arabic symbols) may be a better description, unless you can provide one?

There are large numbers of phenomena in the same class, particularly in astronomy and even the fundamental ecliptic plane transition (all swept under that mound that once was the carpet) rational classical mechanical resolution of many of which emerges consistent with the SR postulates from the implications of electron harmonic resonant scattering at local c.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, what is "not theoretically rationalised" in Newton's theory that is explained by Laithwaite?

Dear Peter,

thanks again for the reply.

I shortly have to summarize what i have found until now - for the sake of not being confused about some things:

Our 90° example is with spin 1/2 particles and Stern-Gerlach instruments on both sides.

Your model states, that all pairs of particles are produced at the source such, that their respective spins are always aligned with the propagation axis. The next statement of your model is, that those two spins are created always in opposite orientations ( 'green' always pointing to the left hand side and 'red' always pointing to the right hand side - or vice versa).

So your model does not assume an ensemble of twin particles spin states to be distributed with relative frequencies around the propagation axis. There are only two discrete possibilities of pole orientations - in relation to the two particles.

You wrote

"Now each electron absorbs the wave energy (is 'charged') takes charge of it, and re-emits the energy (in almost not time at all as n=1) but now with the ELECTRONS spin direction! (again as recently shown experimentally, see fig below). In the 'twin photomultiplier' set up the new emission meets BOTH but will only ever trigger one."

Let's assume the energy which is re-emitted is our 'new' particle (say, an electron). First question: can an electron of the field absorb and re-emitt another electron? Let's assume it can and the new electron has now the spin direction of the field. For a field pointing *up*, the electron has now *spin up*.

This new electron with *spin up* has it's new spin axis again lying on its propagation axis. Right? The other particle's new spin should be then measured as *spin down*, for same settings and orientations of the magnets. But why should it, regarding your model? The settings and orientations of the magnets are the same, the directions the particles fly in can also be made the same.

The only difference between both sides of the scenario can be stated as the different order of the poles (front/back, back/front, from the perspective of the detectors).

"Now each electron absorbs the wave energy (is 'charged') takes charge of it"

Is this wave energy identical with the OAM?

Peter, i cannot understand your approach as long as you don't name the respective binary outcomes (field up/down, spin up/down, left/right side of the experimental setup, spin in/out at the rotated detector; here you can 'freely' choose) of one run of such an epxeriment for the 90° case (relative angle between the magnets = 90°):

In which directions are the poles (not spins) of the the two particles orientated when they start from the source?

What is the setting and orientation of each detector?

I am not sure if anybody can follow what you describe, until you make it explicit.

Sorry for not having grasped the full picture. I think without your help nobody can do so. Otherwise this person should come to help me!

Anyways, thanks for replying and looking forward for an explicit example.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Dear Peter,

i have another question that may elucidate the whole matter.

You wrote

"3. At 90 degrees from the polar plane the spin direction is undecidable."

What do you mean by undecidable? Do you mean "not analyzable in physical terms"? I assume you mean that for many runs of the experiment we can observe - in addition to your rules 1. and 2. - for rule 3. not only two pairs of values, but 4 pairs of values.

Thanks!

Stefan

I think we can all agree that the universe is fine-tuned. However, we cannot tell either way whether it was by accident or by design (God exists). It is my belief that this is a choice, a Cosmic Choice that we all get to make. Either you believe in God or you don't, or you're undecided. I chose to believe in God.

Tom,

Laithwaite didn't 'explain' in terms of theoretical rationalisation, what he did was analyse and demonstrate the effects, and identify that (beyond the basic mathematical approximations) there was NO theoretical rationalisation or physical 'classical mechanics' explanation.

It's precisely that which upset the keepers of doctrine at the time. It was nicely 'under the carpet' to the extent that many even believed no physical explanation was needed (or perhaps even possible! - remind you of anything?) It's not well known but behind the scenes Imperial apparently came under great pressure over Laithwaite - but the their credit this time they resisted it. If you watch his later video's you'll see his disgust at the fools coming through (i.e; an incredulous aside; "...you wouldn't believe some of the...")

What the mafia DID succeed in doing was, for the first time ever, stopping that first lecture being published in the Ri proceedings. Honesty eventually prevailed for once as he got his own back by repeating it a number of times! Current paradigms still can't provide the physical explanations he identified as missing, any more than they can for 'non-locality'.

Best wishes

Peter

Thanks Peter,

I had a gyroscope when I was a kid and loved it but it got broken.

I'd like to show that the 3 different motions are not incompatible, how about this demonstration of a macroscopic object pitching and rolling and yawing.

Arobatics Biplane doing a variety of stunt combinations.

Flight training Quote "The airplane can rotate around one, two, or all three axes simultaneously. Think of these axes as imaginary axles around which the airplane turns, much as a wheel would turn around axles positioned in these same three directions."

"Laithwaite didn't 'explain' in terms of theoretical rationalisation, what he did was analyse and demonstrate the effects ..."

Then what makes you think that the demonstration does something that Newton's laws of motion don't explain?

Tom,

What's all this about Laithewaite? Specifically, how does Newton explain whatever it is Pete says he demonstrated? The bone of contention lacks any flavor for the rest of us, please boil it down. I was going to help a fella fix his garage door header today but he got called away, so I've got all my road coffee already in me. jrc

Thanks Georgina for the Aerobatics video. Would you feel safe in a plane flying like that in three directions at the same time rather than one flying in one direction at a time?

I don't see anything that Newtonian mechanics cannot explain in the plane's motion.

If that plane is not a drone, I bet the pilot would be throwing up after landing.

I don't see much relevance of this type of motion Quantum mechanics but that's an area I cant claim deep knowledge so I leave it to Peter to lead or mislead us.

Regards,

Akinbo

"What's all this about Laithewaite? Specifically, how does Newton explain whatever it is Pete says he demonstrated?"

My question to Peter is, what does Laithwaite demonstrate that Newton's laws of motion do not account for? The demonstration is, after all, a classical phenomenon.

Tom,

"The demonstration is, after all, a classical phenomenon."

Okay, so is a 7 inch grinder with a heavy abrasive wheel. Ever notice how if you try to whip it around a corner to a different attitude, it will take off and try to eat you alive?

This thread, however, combined has actually introduced the subject of the reality of spacetime. And while GR intentionally leaves electromagnetism out of the equations, if we look at the right hand rule that Faraday discovered we can find the relationship through the mutual right angle orientations, of all three force effects that are clearly indicative of a geometric property of spacetime as can be described in Hilbert space.

To refresh on the right hand rule; hold out your right hand with palm vertical, point your thumb straight up, your first finger pointing straight forward, bend your second finger to the left (at a more or less right angle), and curl your other two into your palm. Now... if your first finger is a conductor moving in the direction your thumb is pointing, across the direction of magnetic lines of force indicated by your second finger; a current of electricity will be induced to flow in the conductor in the direction from your fingernail towards your wrist. Every time. Move the conductor in the direction opposite from the way your thumb is pointing, and the current will flow towards your fingernail.

The orientation of magnetic field direction and electric field direction are at right angles, and at right angle to direction of motion. The only thing that seems 'moitionless' is the direction of magnetic force, but it is analogous to the freefall of Einstein in his elevator car. So in all reality, at any chosen point (in n-dimensional Hilbert space, if you like) at any given relative attitude of mutual orientation, there exists three simultaneous axes of motion which relate to electromagnetic gravitation. The unified field Einstein sought, is the existential reality. And the mutual right angles of orthogonal axes are clearly indicative that our concept of geometry is genuine, not illusory. Those orthogonal axes can and must be utilized to determine that any change in either a sphere or a cube, occurs uniformly throughout the whole volume of each. And, a sphere is the most efficient encapsulation of space, while a cube is the most efficient filler of space. The volume of both increases by a factor of 8 with the doubling of length of a side or diameter.

That geometry is inherent to a static rest mass, and to a dynamic propagation of light. It is the 'standard model' of an orbital atomic structure with an instantaneous 'quantum leap' that is the illusion. For it is not truly a model of reality, it is a collage, and no matter how brilliant the insights from experiment that are assembled in the picture it is still a collage. jrc

Stefan,

"What do you mean by undecidable?" I mean inadequate information exists in any individual case. i.e; Does the equator spin clockwise or CCW?, and; what is the circumference of spin at a pole? or "is 'sand' closer to red or green." (+see below)

I'm not sure what you mean by 4 pairs of values, but I suspect you mean the 2nd order ('hyperfine') electron case. However the answer to your 1st question; 'are we using electrons' is No. For now we're considering just the photon spin 1 (polarity) until you've grasped the 1st order dynamics. I agree I need to fully specify details. Also show in Fig's. First the answers, which are 'Yes', except as below;

"two discrete possibilities of pole orientations - in relation to the two particles. Yes BUT; the approaching 'photons' are not really 'particles' but expanding wavefronts with surface helicity, so I prefer to minimise use of "particle" to avoid confusion with the 'field' electrons.

"..new spin axis again lying on its propagation axis. Right?" Hmmm. With CFS etc. it's an expanding wavefront again. The part on the propagation axis should then have elliptical polarity. Ellipticity is (common and) important! The peak energy, 'circular polarity' axis it seems, is 'deflected' proportional to field strength (voltage dependent in an electro optic analyser such as Weihs). In weak field cases the apparent net 'deflection' is low (a bit like 'curved space-time'!).

"Why should...The other particle's new spin...be then measured as *spin down*, for same settings and orientations of the magnets."? OK. Imagine a long bench with 20 identical detectors in line all set to the same spin. Now form a large ring with them on the floor. They'll all spin the same way, OK? Now take them all away apart from two adjacent ones. Now go round to the back of each and look in the output holes. You'll find one Clockwise and one CCWise! That's 'non mirror symmetry' of spin; an apparently peculiar fundamental truth about spin very poorly understood by man. Observer 'orientation' is everything!

"Is this wave energy identical with the OAM?" In the approaching wavefront, and to the 1st order, it seems Yes. But the OAM transferred ('measured') is 'RELATIVE', so a function of electron orientation, and also of wavelength.

If the electron field is also in lateral motion we also find "kinetic reverse refraction" due to charge asymmetry ('JM rotation') which has the same effect as the anomalous "stellar aberration". (Within the 'extinction distance' for the medium we also get 'multi refringence' and 'scintillation'). But don't worry about that lot for now!

Either of the 2 photomultipliers 'clicks' with varying probability related to the cosine value, so we've established that EACH (A or B) set of findings can be plotted to give it's own independent cosine curve distribution related to 'latitude' derived from electron orientation for each event.

We now have two independent 'sets of data' each producing cosine curves linked ('entangled') by the common propagation axis. The 'relative angle' case is an entirely NEW abstracted 'geometry'. As we only need relative information we must consider this as asking; "for every angle A, is angle B more 'similar' or more 'opposite', and how certain." Then we can plot the answers (using inverse values). Clearly a very small angle difference gives high certainty of "similar". Near 180 degrees gives high certainty "opposite". But AS 90o APPROACHES; CERTAINTY REDUCES non linearly, with the reversal around 90o.

In summary; Geometrically we only need to show how the cos distribution at each detector emerges. The 'relative' distribution re-emerges from that due to the common axis, as a non linear distribution of 'similarity', which may of course also be termed 'probability'.

My Essay 'end notes' Table 1 'Classroom Experiment' results (reproduced) describes that same question as; "Which colour is closest; Red or Green".

I do understand it takes some getting your head round. I didn't anticipate assimilation of DFM dynamics before 2020 so you're ahead of the game!

I'm racing round the world's biggest sailors graveyard on Sunday (Goodwin Sands) so if I don't come back it's all up to you!

Best wishes

Peter

PS. I attach the 'kit' for reproducing the subjective classroom experiment.Attachment #1: 9_Kit._FIG_5.jpg