Ordinary Analogues for Quantum Mechanics by Arjen Dijksman

Hi Arjen

I hope you're not being worked too hard.

Demonstrating to someone how a key area of 'logic' proving SR and QM are not compatible is flawed has shown how a very important door is opened. Your simple physically based solution is entirely consistent.

If you're interested see my posts, and please comment.

Peter

Hi Arjen.

It's 'model' rather than 'theory' (DFM), as it's highly testable.

Yes, in fact it'll be a good test to 'think on my feet' here, so here's some thinking aloud on refraction:

We're considering signal waves. A couple of 'warm up' points; Although the earth is spinning, light entering the sea on each side of the planet, dawn and dusk, is measured at exactly the same speed. This is a paradox of SR, but not when adjusted by DFM; Whatever local field the waves travel through they do it at the constant for that material ('c' or less), whatever speed that 'chunk' of material is doing in relation to any other.

Let's first consider light coming OUT of water. Say an aquarium with glass sides. It instantly speeds back up to 300,000km/sec! What amazing energy the zero mass photons must have to do that! Of course that's nonsense 19th century science. The model tests if the energy keeping light at exactly the same speed (for over 10bn years!) comes from the dark energy/matter field itself, which only allows it to travel AT 'c' and modulates it's frequency accordingly (FM is done by 'particle' oscillation) to Christian Dopplers fomulae.

Lena Hau has also demonstrated this at Harvard, stopping & restarting wave signals.

REFRACTION Stop thinking about the surface 'bending' the light. That's just our naive description of the 'effect'. Think about the wave front, at particle level, being slowed due the material change. Take 2 oscillating particles (of the 1/137th fine structure constant of the surface of the water), side by side. A light wave, part of a sphere representing an 'event', hits them at 'c' at a 45 degree angle, so it hits one particle before the other. They both slow the signal down the same amount.

Now you must remember simple causality. Our only definition of the 'angle' of the light is that the identical signal, from the part of the sphere representing that 'event', is in line with another part. if we 'draw a line' connecting the 'identical moment' signal from that sphere the line will be at an angle to the original sphere tangent. The angle is proportional to the speed change, as Snells equation.

You may need to read that twice and draw diagrams, but I assure you it works, and once you understand it you'll see how dead simple it is! Of course it does have many implications. In this case I've demonstrated the 'implications' first and just thrown your question at it as a test to see what comes out. This has been very interesting for me! and looks like a pass with Hons!! (hope you get the same), but typically easy once the basic architecture of the model's been discovered.

The real beauty is that the 1/137th increases with velocity of the mass, because the Doppler shift required is greater (also explaining the photoelectric effect). It also means the cloud of crazy free action 'photoelectrons' round a proton in an accellerator IS, or is closely related to, Dark Matter, and is the same phenomina as the dark matter halo's and shocks of larger groupings of mass. All in the viXra paper. But perhaps we're getting out of your area?

Are you starting to understand the model better now? How well could it fit with your own mental model of QM.

Best of luck with your exams.

Peter

Ooops, sorry Arjen, didn't log in for the above on refraction.

But it should certainlly be clear it was me!

Relflection is of course just essential conservation of the energy when the new material can't absorb it, and evidences the resiliant 180 degree nature of the relevant quantum spin.

Now if you could just pick which 'spin' was involved!!!

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Arjen,

If you agree that 'an electron cannot express its charge if there is no other charge in the universe, then it couldn't be charged itself, so a property is something which is shared by particles', then this must mean that it cannot have a charge outside of this 'sharing'.

In clinging to the antique particle idea, you assume that it is charged even as seen from outside the universe, outside of interactions, as if it has a kind of 'surplus' charge ready to show to anyone looking from the outside in. The antique particle idea is a religious idea as it ascribes the thing an absolute kind of reality it cannot have in a self-creating universe.

Similarly, in speaking about 'the universe', we claim it to be an entity which in principle, though not in practice, can be observed from the outside, as if it has an absolutely objective existence, meaning that there is some Observer to which it exists. In doing so, we imagine it as seen standing in god's shoes, so we automatically and without even being aware of it, agree that our universe is created by some outside influence, that it is a caused, a causal universe. This way of looking at things is a form of self-deception, the product of an age-long collective self-hypnosis that our universe has been created by some god, with disastrous consequences for science.

Though our way of reasoning to us may seem too self-evidently logical to even be able to entertain doubts about, it actually is the product of a long trial-and-error kind of evolution, so what to us seems logical sometimes may very well be the result of the way our blinders are directed. If problems cannot be solved by clinging to old ways of reasoning, then we should try to dream up new ones, a new logic which obviously cannot be appreciated from the old point of view, understood by the old logic, but which, planed and sanded, may be designed to fit experimental evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I wonder if you happen to know of papers specifying the experimental conditions of experiments as described by Feynman in his Lectures, Vol III, 1-4, the setup with the electron gun ? I'd be obliged if you would mail this to anton@quantumgravity.nl

Regards, Anton

Hi Arjen

Major bombshell from NASA - conflicting completely with SR but exactly following the predictions of Peter Jackson DFM model, see my message in his Perfect Symmetry posts.

Jamie

Arjin,

I did respond to your post on my forum concerning:

a. A minimum velocity for particles

b. Photons as having mass in the same sense as particles have mass

In the investigation into a new interpretation of deBroglies work (Digital Wave Theory) neither the concept of charge or electro-magnetism appeared. I am not sure if this is a benefit or disadvantage. I do not believe Feynman in QED goes into charge or electromagnetism?

Alway interested in your thoughts.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Arjen,

Thanks for the info. I did miss that in QED. I will look into it a bit because it is puzzling: How to convert probability into Coulombs?

The stuff of my essay did not hit against any need to go into concepts of charge or electromagnetism. I had enough to handle so I let these sleeping dogs lie.

I have this intuition that there is a fundamental connection between gravity-inertia and electro-magnetism but nothing more than that.

So it is true, I do not have a complete theory of nature. I just have an interesting tidbit.

Don Limuti

Arjen,

Just wanted you to know that I was disappointed in your not taking a prize.

From another admirer of Louis deBroglie.

Don L.