Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics

With space and matter density, you plow the very familiar field of our space time universe. Space and density are very useful concepts for our brains and are ones that we really cannot do without. As long as you have space as an axiom, though, you will keep ending up with some version of space time.

However, you can equally well describe all inertia and action as just changes of matter in time without any reference to space and that is the matter time principle. In this case, space becomes a result of action and is not causal. The Lorentz invariance is embedded from the start.

"The Lorentz curve is typically constrained to mass increase with velocity, but if given an added degree of freedom it could equate as density change, what Steve might call 'exchange of matter'."

By Lorentz curve you must mean Lorentz invariance as E = sqrt(m2c4 p2c2), which includes momentum. You want to add a term to get the pilot wave thingy to work...and there is a further energy term in matter time. For objects like stars that undergo serious matter decay over time, i.e. luminosity, but are bound into galaxies, a new term does show up in the virial equation and in this GR expression. It is (dmstar/dt) vstar (rstar-ro), and this interaction shifts angular momentum from inner stars to outer stars in a galaxy, from inner galaxies to outer galaxies in a cluster, from inner clusters to outer clusters in a supercluster, and from inner filaments to outer filaments in a large scale structure.

This interaction makes what we interpret as space, what I call the boson matter wave that is the universe, and so in a sense, you are right with your pilot wave thingy. Each particle in space is a matter wave and there is a complementary matter wave in the boson matter of the universe that is what we think of as space. The spiral density wave in a galaxy is a result of such a matter wave where the star inertial mass is mi = mstar (1 v2star/c2 vstar/c2 (rstar-ro)(d ln mstar/dt))), not only increased by it velocity, but also by its luminosity. This is what causes the galaxy to rotate like a rigid rotor, not dark matter.

If you see where this leads it means that there is an inherent matter decay, mdot, that likewise is the glue binding electrons to protons as charge force as well as binding matter objects to the universe as gravity force. Since the universe as an object of boson matter also decays, the objects that are bound to it appear to move in response to a force in space that we call gravity.

Objects in matter time do not move in space because of changes in momentum, objects exchange matter with other objects including the universe over time and the amplitude and phase of those exchanges is what both our brain and science imagine as motion in space, the giant whiteboard of our mind. So while space along with our number system are both useful and even necessary artifices of our consciousness, the many conundrums of space and of our number system are barriers to understanding the underlying simplicity of our matter time reality.

But each matter wave that undergoes decay and that decay represents a corresponding ripple in the boson matter wave of the universe. They both exist as complements of each other and so neither matter wave is the pilot of the other...they are more like cocaptains.

...which means that the matter time mass-energy equation becomes with star matter decay:

mf = mr sqrt[1 2 mi / mr ( 1 (d ln mr / dt)2 (t-to)2)]

The mf is the mass in the external frame, mr is the mass in the rest frame, mi is the inertial mass of motion, d mr / dt is the star luminosity, and (t-to) is the star time distance from the pivot point of the galaxy or other object.

Note that there are no spatial dimensions now, only matter and time. Space is just a result and not a part of action.

jc,

"If matter waves exhibit a helical OAM, what is a particle? Let's talk electron, because experimentally we could theoretically vary it's velocity. All by itself, with no way to behave as if it were either at rest or in motion, would it have what it takes to exhibit inertia?"

Yes. The fact that the motion 'returns' full circle (spin state) gives it inertia, so 'momentum' (which is the same thing from a different observer frame!).

Have you studied the Majorana fermion. It was well conceived but attracted the ('not broke don't fix it') response that Steve employs. It seems to have been found and doing a comeback; Sci-news.

I like the toroid electron, which you flip over and it's a positron. Yes, shocking I know. The free vortex pairs will cancel unless, the DFM predicts, they meet tip to tip, in which case they bind and close to torus. The Higgs process's 'extra spin state' then binds it on the perpendicular plane (imparting spin on the 3rd axis) and lo and behold we have the first phase of bound 'matter'. But the vast majority of vortices will 'cancel out' (charge) on meeting.

Apparently after a multiply reported UFO sighting nearby Ettore Majorana could no longer be found, just disappeared from the face of the Earth for good. (He was almost exactly the same age as Jesus!). Makes you think ..for a moment at least! ..Naah that's silly. Isn't it? Weird though!

Best wishes

Peter

jc,

"The Lorentz curve is typically constrained to mass increase with velocity, but if given an added degree of freedom it could equate as density change, what Steve might call 'exchange of matter'."

If you look up Optical Breakdown (OB) mode you'll see the non-linear response emerge as the limit to passing on oscillations when density approaches the OB mode limit, equating to min wavelength gamma.

On a big dance floor you can oscillate all you like in big swoops, but as it gets busier when new dancers 'condense' on the floor your dancing has to 'close in' and tighten to short 'blueshifted' motions until when crammed together tightly (gamma) you just can't oscillate any more! (EM signals can't be passed on). You also get very hot (beware if any heat tiles fall off on re-entry!).

Luckily when things slow down again many just evaporate and leave the dance floor so there's a change for those remaining to couple up.

Best wishes

Peter

Pete and Steve,

PWT itself does not specify what a particle is, rather that a particle can be traced as if it were always in existence following a trajectory. A fermion is treated as a particle, and similar to complimentarity, a boson is treated as a matter wave which does not have a physical significance in QM. QM is intentionally analytical rather than realistic.

In a realistic model, wherein there exists no voids free of at least a gravitational field, and hence space does exist by whichever definition you choose; would a projected electron (moving through an amalgam of gravitational field overlap) in the inertial domain frame of an experimental apparatus, persist as a distinct mass, or phase in and out of existential diffeomorphis (?) and would it's relative velocity through the amalgamated field environment alter it's physical properties such that it could 'wrap' around a significantly small material object (spider silk) in the course of it's initially projected path without becoming bound to the electrostatic fine structure surface above a threshold velocity?

Apart from your own preferred and distinctly different theoretical prejudices, of course. jrc

jc,

Can theoretical prejudice be dropped completely? I've been trying but am coming to the conclusion there'll be nothing left, particularly when guesswork has to creep in as with electron dynamics.

One model I rather like as it seems to be consistent with many findings is smoke ring propagation, then twin smoke rings bound dynamically get REALLY cool! Dolphins can make those, so perhaps they're telling us something as a thank you for all the fish.

Ellen and the giant vortices.

These propagate like Ellen's too, as a pair.

Add another spins state or two to bind it properly, around the body and diagonally both ways, as the 'self organising' dynamic of a helicoil, tokamac and AGN. Soo much for the 2nd Law. (see the Plank Inst. figure I posted recently, and Garret Lisi's competition also video under 'contests' Here. The Schrodinger spread function allows expansion both with and possible as well as the sphere surface expansion. Like 'em?

Best wishes.

Peter

Electrons scattered from a thread will behave either ballistically or diffractively depending on the scale of the interaction. This is also true for light. Rayleigh or Compton scattering that is of atomic dimension will show very short wavelength diffraction and therefore be virtually ballistic. Scattering that involves the dimension of the thread will show larger wavelength diffraction.

"...would a projected electron (moving through an amalgam of gravitational field overlap) in the inertial domain frame of an experimental apparatus, persist as a distinct mass, or phase in and out of existential diffeomorphis (?) and would it's relative velocity through the amalgamated field environment alter it's physical properties such that it could 'wrap' around a significantly small material object (spider silk) in the course of it's initially projected path without becoming bound to the electrostatic fine structure surface above a threshold velocity?"

First of all, useful electron beams usually have energies like hundreds of eV or more and so the wavelengths are much shorter than the thickness of a spider thread and such electrons diffract off of lattice planes. However, electrons can also scatter off of individual atoms of the thread, clusters of atoms, or indeed the whole thread.

In principle, an electron at 2.5 eV will diffract similar to light for a thread of that dimension but electrons also scatter more ballistically like a bullet off of atoms and atom clusters at smaller dimension. Electron beams at such low energies is possible, but really, really tricky due to charging effects. But such an electron is a true matter wave and has both amplitude and phase.

But if you mean to measure a gravity effect, you have a factor of 1e39 to deal with, the ratio of charge to gravity forces.

A single electron at 2.5 eV will diffract just like a single green photon at 2.5 eV from a 0.5 micron diameter thread, but with very different cross sections and absorptions. While light at 2.5 eV is not absorbed by silk, electrons at 2.5 eV will be strongly absorbed and very few will scatter. Those that do scatter will do so mainly ballistically off of atoms and atom planes with even fewer diffracting from the thread dimension.

So it would be better to use a metal thread to keep charging under control since you will need a substantial current to measure the few ballistic as well as the even fewer diffracted electrons. The space charge will limit the current and the beam will need to be focused onto the thread. You measure absorbed electrons as current as well as each scattered and diffracted electron. The scattering tensor would have both a forward lobe as well as a backward lobe and each electron diffraction event will be statistically distributed just like photon events.

The diffraction of an electron from a thread dimension represents the interference of a single electron with itself during the interaction time with the dimensions of the thread, 1.7e-15 s. The ballistic scattering of an electron from the atoms of the thread is a much shorter interaction time, ~1-e18 s, and therefore smaller diffraction spacing. The amplitude and phase of the electric field are what that interference is all about. The realization of a scattered electron as a single diffracted particle depends on all of its possible futures during the interaction time.

What this has to do with a pilot wave is not really clear to me. Each electron carries along a certain amount of self energy since the electron interacts with its own electric field. So in a sense, you can think of this self energy as a pilot wave, but one that is already built into quantum electrodynamics.

The electron will behave either ballistically or diffractively depending on the interaction time with the thread. Note that all of the scattered electrons are really diffracted as well, just at very different spatial and time scales. This is the same for light but with much different cross sections. It is not clear what an interaction time has to do with the pilot wave.

Somehow you would have to have pilot wave dynamics that could scale three orders of magnitude in time in order to emulate the behavior of either photons or electrons. Atomic scattering has interaction times that are roughly three orders of magnitude shorter than the interaction times of the thread dimension of 0.5 microns.

The reason that slits are useful for diffraction is that the cavity effects of the slit dimension dominate diffraction spacing and that determines the interaction time in the slit or in multiple slits.

QED and Light

The impetus for this thread was a suggestion from comments in the latest contest. The suggestion was to continue a conversation in a place other than the contest comments.

I wish to begin this discussion with an idea I have about QED.

My understanding is that photons move through space by entering electrons and then being ejected. They are ejected because the energy in the photon does not match any electron energy levels in the atom associated with this interaction. The photon does not obey reflection when hitting an electron. Rather, it is emitted randomly. Thus, light is going in all directions. Feynman's point is that this random action and the wave properties of photons add constructively on or near a line between two points. Outside of these two points, the photons add destructively while some image is carried from point A to point B.

To me this suggests that the description of light moving through space is different than appears in most textbooks. I see redefinitions of a light ray and a photon moving through space. A photon is a particle of light traveling from electron to electron. A ray of light is a highly complex network of photons smashing and clashing. The photon that initiates the ray motion only participates in the beginning of the energy transfer. Millions of photons randomly participate in what we call a beam of light traveling from A to B.

Comments?

Al,

I read your reply to my post on your essay thread. I also viewed the preamble written to your book, New Age Quantum Physics, in which you stated that "... The second half of the book essentially begins with a study of Einstein's special theory of relativity. From this author's point of view, this is the most proved theory in existence".

This in my opinion is erroneous. If you want to engage in dialectic over this, let us meet either on the Faster than Light, Ripping Einstein Apart or Alternative Model blog which I think is more appropriate to defend or criticize SR.

Regards,

Akinbo

*I am taking you up as I sense if you see what is True, it is unlikely you will call it False.

These posts seem to have stumbling blocks on the suggestion that the walking drop is an analog to the interference experiments. I suggest we start with the idea that the walking drop is an analog to the interference experiments. What are the characteristics of photons and the aether (my plenum) to make this happen?

1st, the drop is matter. The drop induces a wave in the medium just like the matter in general relativity (GR) causes a warp in `space' (gravitational ether).

2nd, the wave in the medium is traveling (much) faster than the drop - analog wave in plenum travels much faster than photon.

3rd, the medium wave causes the drop to change position like the `space' directs the matter.

4th, the drop is traveling as fast as it can. This is more like Lorentz's idea that photons travel at the fastest of any other matter rather than the SR view of a set speed in a vacuum.

Matter cannot travel faster than light, but the wave does. This is the source of entanglement. More, the wave has a frequency dependent on the drop. Therefore, the wave causes the matter at a distant place to move. If the matter is the same, a resonance is established only with similar particles. If the plenum is ubiquitous as in the walking drop experiment, then the resonance can appear to be tunneling. A barrier stops the inducing particles but the similar particles on the other side of the barrier are induced to move.

Bohm has had a problem in describing where the wave originates. The walking drop solves this issue. But ohm has another problem. Bohm and wave diffraction models assume the wave goes through the slit. But the drop follows the diffraction path without a wave source on the input side of the mask. The waves that cause diffraction to guide the drop cannot be going through the slit - there is only one drop in the experiment. Note that Afshar and others have shown single photon (very low intensity) experiments also produce diffraction. That is, light experiments agree with the drop experiments.

I suggest that the waves that cause diffraction are reflected waves from the solid portions of the mask and the other part of the waves go through the slit. This is the reverse of the wave calculation (Fresnel, etc.) math. A wave generated by the drop is reflected by one side of the mask, not reflected by the slit, and reflected by the other side of the mask. These reflected waves interfere because the have a common source in such a manner as to cause the diffraction pattern.

But why does the Fresnel method work when the source of the wave is the mask and not the slit? The Fresnel derivation includes some assumptions such as the "obliquity factor" and the wavelet ¼ phase advance to make it work that seem to have no cause. The wave leaves the drop, is reflected (180 degree phase shift), and travels back to the drop in time to influence the drop's path. This suggests the Transactional Interpretation of QM (TIQM) where the reverse wave is not a time advanced wave but a very fast wave returning to the source (drop). Studies of waves reflecting off a plane (flat screen) show the whole wave returning as if it was sourced from a point equidistant on the other side of the plane. Mathematically, subtract that portion of the wave that is lost through the slit to produce the mask with slit situation. This is equivalent to a wave from the slit with the required Fresnel assumptions.

The remaining issue is how can the photon be faster than other matter particles? Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics and Photon diffraction and interference .

The walking drop experiment is a very good analog to quantum observations.