Why Quantum?

Lorraine,I see what you mean. I think its just that that topology allows an explanation of whats happening but not fully the why. I don't think its the topology of space that is the complete answer but rather the type of particle and the energy and momentum given to the particle by its source is dictating behaviour. And Tom says the particle is exhibiting a continuous function. In the case of the photon moving in such a way as to create the familiar em wave form. That's what I have been doing, explaining how I think the photon particle generates the EM wave. The behaviour can then be put into a representation of space and time that illustrates what is happening. The particle can be imagined in a 3D space with a time dimension allowing its motion to be described. However it isn't staying in that space it is also moving through space, so into a new sphere with time dimension where once again its motion can be described and so on which I think will give paralellised 3 spheres (IE spheres with a time dimension.)that Joy is talking about. Of course Joy is the one who can best explain his work but if it works as I have described it makes sense to me. If it isn't I'll admit I don't understand what he is doing-and I'll just carry on doing my own thing.

" ... 'space' is DERIVED FROM properties and relationships."

True. Which is why space has no physical existence independent of spacetime.

Georgina,

"I want a set of gimbals to play with". Like most 'toys' you'll find them on Ebay. I have a number of gyroscopes, you can pick up small ones for around £10.00. They're of far more interest and value that just x,y,z axis freedoms. But beware of chasing wild geese!

It was partly an Eric Laithwaite Ri lecture that taught me how much nonsense I'd been taught in physics. He came up against the 'establishment' by pointing out that key effects from gyro's "have been missed" in theory. While "they" succeeded in subjugating dissent in most cases Laithwaite was too good and well respected so kept his job in the face of a massive 'assault' (top elec guru at Imperial). He was gobsmacked at the mainstream 'mafia' censoring the truth from physics doctrine (some comments come out in later videos).

The still unresolved doctrinal issues with gyro's are rationalised by 'discrete field' dynamics. Do you know 'why' and 'how' the phenomena called "precession" allows you to hold a 40kg gyroscope horizontally over your head just by holding one tip? Google him and gyro's on Utube. It's fascinating and very elucidating.

Have fun.

Peter

jc,

I don't understand what that means. Can you elucidate?

My own meaning was that in trying to understand the dynamic geometrical derivation of the primary 'non-local' findings and intermediate distribution, the delta lambda is a secondary consideration which could act as a 'red herring' if the only focus.

'Wavelengths' of course change in the helical as well as 2D representation as well as adopting ellipticity, and the 'spin/orbit coupling' (de Broglie type) relation between gauges is included and also important, but was there some other specific aspect you were thinking of? And if so what do you see as it's importance?

Have you understood my geometric rationalisations to Stefan? They're very tricky to fully describe in blog posts.

Thanks

Peter

Only an unmodulated (time invariant) wave, of infinite duration, can have a single frequency or wavelength. Since quantums of energy, like photons, are not infinite in duration, they cannot be a single frequency. Hence, de Broglie's "association" of a single frequency with a quantum, is not a mathematical description. It is merely an associated "label". The actual mathematical description is based on a Fourier Transform, that has an entire "spectrum" of frequencies.

Distributions of multiple quantum, are part of reality, and are inherently probabilistic; different subsets of quantum may be scattered differently when passing through double slits, for example. The Fourier Transforms describe these distributions. The "internals" of the Transforms (wave-functions) have no one-to-one correspondence with any reality pertaining to an individual quantum. Only the amplitude "spectrum", of the complete transform, corresponds to reality, specifically to the probability distributions of sets of quanta.

The reason this works, is because a Fourier Transform can be thought of as a filter bank; a set of tuned detectors. Consequently, by simply measuring the amplitude (counting quanta) that each detector detects, one obtains a probability distribution.

Rob McEachern

Stefan,

I omitted the condition; "at the same setting" for; "opposite spin/OAM." I'm sorry that confused. Of course when the 'field direction' is reversed, the SAME spin and or OAM is found, (crossing over at 90o.)

I agree the physical mechanism is key. I already had to abstract too much. But we must depart from Bohm's assumptions which are too 'particulate' ('particles' don't; 'pass through' a slit!). I use contemporary optics applications, including a Schrödinger (S) Sphere (from the central splitter), his non-linear (NLS) equation, 'coherent forward scattering' (CFS) and Huygens Construction. Those give us an almost planar "causal wavefront" carrying the signal to A and B magnetic fields (and aligned spinning electrons).

Now for the 'visualisation' I perversely also invoke 'invisibility optics'!! or rather the proof it gives that the 'optical axis' (apparent source position) is NOT on the 'wavefront normal', i.e. not orthogonal to the sphere surface (my 2013 "Intelligent Bit" essay gives the proof and links). That fact implies elliptical polarisation (which is modelled as ellipticity of the helical progression(s) of any point on the (S) sphere surface).

SO; We're using light; as a 'plane' wave, with different scale surface 'shimmy's' ('spins') and some degree of ellipticity (picked up because Schrödinger sphere's don't have smooth surfaces, they get 'dented' by moving propagation media en route). This (parallel at A and B but never quite perfectly) plane then interacts with the electrons of each field (more than one, but considering one will do). The field may have ANY x,y,z orientation, subject to both settings AND orientation of the detector, but always with a known A,B relationship on ONE axis. However in Bohm's thought (and most real) experiments this is the ONLY 1st order delta theta!).

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.

You already understand how the cosine distribution emerges from the 'tangent point' longitude, so we can forget the cones and move on. Dynamically we can now take either of the "setting angles" and set it as "zero" anywhere (randomly!) on the equatorial (longitude) or polar (latitude) planes of a new Block sphere), then subtend the other relative angle from that. This is the 'simple' diagrammatic method, recognising that the sphere itself is (y,z) 'featureless'. It reverts to the case you referred to with TWO (electron) axes in the sphere. Bearing in mind the negative cos values, what we find is;

1. At exactly opposite settings the findings are identical (apart from a residual 2nd order uncertainty).

2. At exactly the same settings the findings are opposite (apart from ditto).

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

4. At 90 degrees from the equatorial plane the OAM energy transferred ('measured') reduces to ~zero.

5. The intermediate 'value change' is non linear, slow near 0o and 180o, fast near the 'flip' at 90o. i.e. for the 22.2o between 67.5o and 90o we have cos = 0.0761, but between 0o and 22.5o we have 0.3827 (and the reciprocal for the orthogonal value relationship).

I'm glad you enjoy and (hope you still!) understand this. I expected few to at this stage, but it's all only geometry with no mysterious 'properties of space' invoked. It helps me to develop slightly comprehensible descriptions without needing the full discrete field model ontology each time! jc has the right concept with 'spin' propagation at all scales and in all directions. The 2nd fig below is a simple(ish!) 'fractal' spin/orbit case.

Best wishes

PeterAttachment #1: Polarisation_flip_pt.5.7087figure1.jpgAttachment #2: FIG_1.jpg

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

Some of this fine-tuned universe physics is delicious, but a bit over my head right now. Just from experience, I would argue that the requirements for biochemstry are more stringent than for basic chemistry. But to get life, that requires even stricter standards. For example,

4.electromagnetic force constant

if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission

if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

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