International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Merged: I killed Duality and Uncertainty for a Theory of Everything (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=338655)

 pittsburghjoe 3rd September 2019 05:15 PM

I killed Duality and Uncertainty for a Theory of Everything

The Observer Effect

The unobserved quantum realm doesn't care about time or distance so the order goes something like this:
1. quantum field excitation of a new particle is about to happen
2. it gets assigned a path in the quantum field
3. if the path contains a spacetime enactor (a detector), it swaps the particle to physical
4. the particle or wave is sent via the quantum field if it's a wave / spacetime if physical

Uncertainty

Delta x Delta p = h-bar/2

There isn't a problem with position and momentum when the object is physical and not a quantum wave. The Uncertainty Principle is for waves.

Duality isn't a thing anymore. You may think you have evidence of a particle acting as a wave at the same time ..but you don't. You are assuming they are both at the same time because you are not taking observation into account. You wouldn't catch a quantum wave being a wave before it went through a detector (that it was moving towards). The particle is likely pre-set to be physical or a wave before it starts moving. Observation gives one type of result ..a physical one. (unless you messing around with polarizers) .

They key to killing duality is pointing out that the final panel of an experiment doesn't count as observation. When you say you can measure wave-like properties, it is derived from that final panel. If quantum observation doesn't show wave-like properties, duality at the same time falls apart. Quantum observation is only for detectors in the path of a particle that allows the particle to continue on.

People say uncertainty applies to physical objects because you peg an electron with a photon so its momentum changes ..well, duh, two objects just hit each other.

You can be certain that the particle in question will be physical if you place anything that will acknowledge its existence while it propagates on its path. That's what observation is, acknowledging a particle while it's moving from a to b. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of both entangled particles is known. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed while in flight. Time in flight is not a factor for the state a particle will be from start to finish.

The realms of the Observed vs Unobserved

This post predicts what happens when Spacetime gets involved with unobserved quantum waves from the act of observation.
 for rule 4 Please do not post material that is available elsewhere. See here, for example. Posted By:zooterkin

 Trebuchet 3rd September 2019 06:36 PM

Next Nobel winner or another crank? We'll see.

 Molinaro 3rd September 2019 06:55 PM

Sounds like a crude form of Feynman's Transaction Interpretation of QM.

 arthwollipot 3rd September 2019 07:22 PM

I'm trying to figure out how many points it gets.

 pittsburghjoe 3rd September 2019 07:35 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Molinaro (Post 12807467) Sounds like a crude form of Feynman's Transaction Interpretation of QM.
I don't use advanced waves or handshakes in that way and I never use the final panel for anything.

 pittsburghjoe 3rd September 2019 07:36 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12807487) I'm trying to figure out how many points it gets.
I'll give you points for everything that is refutable and isn't plausible

 Molinaro 3rd September 2019 08:02 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12807497) I don't use advanced waves or handshakes in that way and I never use the final panel for anything.
Hence my use of the word "crude". You just hand wave away the need for explaining how it knows which form to take and how the knowledge of the future path gets back to it. Whereas the Transactional Interpretation shows how the answer is already there in the equations that are already in use.

 pittsburghjoe 3rd September 2019 08:09 PM

Placing a detector that would take an intelligent mind to create and place is not hand-waving. The abbe diffraction limit of matter automatically anchors objects to spacetime.

 arthwollipot 3rd September 2019 08:31 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12807498) I'll give you points for everything that is refutable and isn't plausible
I'm open-minded but you're already at least 60 points up, so I don't hold out a lot of hope.

Why are you posting this here instead of submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal?

 Molinaro 3rd September 2019 08:34 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12807521) Placing a detector that would take an intelligent mind to create and place is not hand-waving. The abbe diffraction limit of matter automatically anchors objects to spacetime.
Oh, so things are worse than I thought. You've fallen for a mistake so common that a correction to it is usually found near the beginning of any discussion of the "observer effect".

For example, the Wiki page has this bit:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wiki Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.
The fact that a detector made by an intelligent mind is used in experiments does not mean the effect only occurs when an intelligent mind or a product created by it, is part of the interaction.

The observer effect in QM has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, minds, or human observation of results.

This error is most commonly made by the people who attempt to make a point, without any math to back it up.

 pittsburghjoe 3rd September 2019 08:35 PM

I want people to see my idea ::shrugs::

You act like any dummy is allowed to post to those things.

 pittsburghjoe 3rd September 2019 08:40 PM

I explained the observer effect in the op. I understand that the mainstream is wrong. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that intelligence has to be involved.

 Molinaro 3rd September 2019 08:43 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12807536) I want people to see my idea ::shrugs:: You act like any dummy is allowed to post to those things.
The idea of the observer effect is a property of the equations of QM. The experiments came after, to see if what the equations were saying could be seen. Not the other way around.

You have an idea that it turns out, shares some properties with something that has been developed in a formal way, from the equations which match experimental results.

However there is nothing formal about what you present. You make statements while giving no description, mathematical or otherwise, of how.

 Molinaro 3rd September 2019 08:46 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12807542) The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that intelligence has to be involved.
No. What it shows us is that we can use our intelligence to design an experiment that allows us to detect a physical process that the equations already said was there. And the equations say it is there no matter if we are doing our specific experiment or not.

 pittsburghjoe 3rd September 2019 08:50 PM

You have a double slit with opposite linear polarizers at each slit. You get an observed clump. You then add a 45 degree polarizer and the fringes come back.
It's not because the which way information is getting erased. It's because the particle starts a new life when passing through multiple filters.
The state of a particle is predetermined based on the path it will fly through. But something interesting happens with you place multiple detectors.
The particles state is reassessed while passing through a polarizer. If it sees another polarizer in its path it's going to cycle back to being a wave.

A simple double slit example shows us that a particle can be requested to decohere and remain decohered until it hits the final screen.
An Uncertainty Principle test requires several requests of decoherence to get the momentum.
What's newly discovered is that each request is causing the particle to cycle from wave to particle, setting fuzziness because it wasn't fast enough to do the swap.

If you are measuring something that isn't remaining in the same state, you can't blame the detectors of decoherence anymore. It was ridiculous to assume a detector capable of displaying both coherence and decoherence was the cause anyways.

 pittsburghjoe 3rd September 2019 09:25 PM

Your way of thinking would require nature to be aware of everything at all times. Don't you think it's much more likely a person is requesting a single physical particle?

 Molinaro 3rd September 2019 09:35 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12807568) Your way of thinking would require nature to be aware of everything at all times. Don't you think it's much more likely a person is requesting a single physical particle?
I think it is much more likely that nature works just fine when no people are anywhere around.

Attaching people to the use of the word observer in QM demonstrates that you don't even understand the most basic ideas on the subject.

 Robin 3rd September 2019 09:49 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12807542) I explained the observer effect in the op. I understand that the mainstream is wrong. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that intelligence has to be involved.
To clarify, do you mean that intelligence is involved in assigning the path and taking the decision to swap it to physical, as well as to set the detector?

 pittsburghjoe 4th September 2019 09:02 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Molinaro (Post 12807575) I think it is much more likely that nature works just fine when no people are anywhere around. Attaching people to the use of the word observer in QM demonstrates that you don't even understand the most basic ideas on the subject.
I understand all to well that there are stubborn people like you. The funny thing is, you don't have proof that a particle swaps without observation.

 pittsburghjoe 4th September 2019 09:05 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12807584) To clarify, do you mean that intelligence is involved in assigning the path and taking the decision to swap it to physical, as well as to set the detector?
Erm, my theory still works with star light.

 Belz... 4th September 2019 09:31 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12807536) I want people to see my idea ::shrugs:: You act like any dummy is allowed to post to those things.
If you have a groundbreaking new physics on hand, I guarantee it'll open doors or, barring that, occasionally go through them.

 Molinaro 4th September 2019 09:38 AM

The laws of physics describe what occurs when we observe, and when we don't. The equations don't change from one circumstance to the other.

Your suggestion that they do change when nobody is looking is not science.

 ferd burfle 4th September 2019 09:49 AM

OP has been spammed to a number of non-academic physics and math fora. Anyone surprised?

 BStrong 4th September 2019 09:50 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12808105) I understand all to well that there are stubborn people like you. The funny thing is, you don't have proof that a particle swaps without observation.

 BStrong 4th September 2019 09:53 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ferd burfle (Post 12808188) OP has been spammed to a number of non-academic physics and math fora. Anyone surprised?
That seems to be the rule rather than the exception with "scientific" breakthroughs.

 Robin 4th September 2019 05:12 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12808110) Erm, my theory still works with star light.
Either way would work with star light, so that doesn't answer my question.

Is there any reason you can't give me a direct answer?

 Robin 4th September 2019 05:19 PM

Incidentally, I don't ever recall having wave-particle duality cashed out as "is a particle and a wave at the same time", more often it is something like "matter sometimes displays wave like characteristics and sometimes particle like characteristics".

So I don't see how wave/particle duality has been 'killed'. I would have thought that Many-Worlds QM deals rather more effectively and simply with this duality in any case.

And to say that uncertainty has been killed - does this mean that there is an experiment that will show a clear exception to the principle?

If not I don't see how it has been killed.

And, in any case, why would killing WP duality and the HUP be desirable features of a theory? What does that get you?

 pittsburghjoe 4th September 2019 05:23 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12807584) To clarify, do you mean that intelligence is involved in assigning the path and taking the decision to swap it to physical, as well as to set the detector?
Intelligence can't be involved in assigning the path or else it would always cause decoherence. Intelligence does have to make an educated guess of where the path will be though.

 pittsburghjoe 4th September 2019 05:24 PM

If you believe in uncertainty for both sides then you believe in duality at the same time.

"wave/particle duality" has been killed for cases that insinuate they are both at the same time.

I killed them so we can have a bridge between the theories of the very large and small. We can understand reality better now.

 arthwollipot 4th September 2019 05:59 PM

The current formulation of quantum physics has a very strong mathematical underpinning. Do you have a strong mathematical basis for your theory?

 pittsburghjoe 4th September 2019 06:14 PM

Sorry the unifying theory isn't more exciting, it wasn't meant to disprove much.
It's a bridge.

 arthwollipot 4th September 2019 06:15 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ferd burfle (Post 12808188) OP has been spammed to a number of non-academic physics and math fora. Anyone surprised?
Are any of them taking it seriously?

 Robin 4th September 2019 06:22 PM

I am not sure how the path assignment is supposed to happen.

Say we have a photon emitted near a pane of glass and a detector at the reflection position but no detector at the pass-through position.

The probability that it will arrive at the detector (rather than pass through) obviously depends in a non-monotonic way upon the thickness of the glass but also on the energy of the photon. So how can a path be assigned before the wave/particle switch has been made when the path depends upon both wave properties (frequency) and particle properties (triggering the detector at a particular time and place)?

 p0lka 4th September 2019 06:26 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe (Post 12808812) Sorry the unifying theory isn't more exciting, it wasn't meant to disprove much. It's a bridge.
If you have an actual theory, spit it out so the detail can be examined.

 pittsburghjoe 4th September 2019 06:39 PM

if it's pass-through ..it doesn't count as tunneling

 Lukraak_Sisser 4th September 2019 09:49 PM

So basically this assumes a sentient creator god which continuously observes every single particle at the same time to make them behave?

 Skeptic Ginger 4th September 2019 10:14 PM

If anyone had a reasonable potential theory of everything, why would they post it in a forum? :rolleyes:

 Robin 4th September 2019 11:00 PM

Also, what is the definition of "physical" used here? How is a wave not physical?

In fact if there were something that had wave and particle properties simultaneously, by what definition of "physical" would it not be physical?

 pittsburghjoe 5th September 2019 05:18 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 12808971) So basically this assumes a sentient creator god which continuously observes every single particle at the same time to make them behave?
No, that's how it would be if observation wasn't in place. It hints at god that wanted life to be a thing so it created spacetime(observed).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12809008) Also, what is the definition of "physical" used here? How is a wave not physical? In fact if there were something that had wave and particle properties simultaneously, by what definition of "physical" would it not be physical?

Unobserved Quantum waves are not physical. Maybe you are thinking of mechanical waves. I killed duality.

 Lukraak_Sisser 5th September 2019 09:13 AM

yet 99.99999999999% of the observable universe does not have life and we've only observed the bare surface and thus by your theory no chemical or nuclear reactions can take place there as it is unobserved.

Alternatively, you are wrong.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:12 PM.