Merged: I killed Duality and Uncertainty for a Theory of Everything

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

I didn't imply that

"Unobserved quantum waves not having spacetime is a very big deal. Without time, its life is instantaneous."

Everything happens at its birth ..the particle itself isn't deciding things. The quantum field is.

Then you should be able to mathematically demonstrate this.

[pittsburghjoe]

Show me the math that is used to describe the delayed choice quantum eraser and I'll try to mode it.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The textbook physics stated is correct as anyone who learns about the uncertainty principle knows. The uncertainty principle applies to everything in the universe. Every photon in the universe. Every electron in the universe. Every proton in the universe. Every neutron in the universe. Every quark in the universe. etc. etc.

Every measurement of position and momentum (and other conjugate observables such as time and energy) has an inbuilt uncertainty.

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

It sure does if waves are involved

Somewhat ambiguous. Are you agreeing that it applies to everything in the Universe?

Or are you saying that there are some things it doesn't apply to?

[pittsburghjoe]

lol

[Robin]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

Show me the math that is used to describe the delayed choice quantum eraser and I'll try to mode it.

Why do you need to ask someone else to show you that maths? Don't you know it?

And why don't you start with something simpler - say a particle trapped in an energy well. Show how the quantum field detects that there is no detector and therefore to keep it as a wave?

Then you can show how it deals with a situation where there is a detector in the path and show how the quantum field detects the detector and determines that it is a detector and not, to use your term, a "tombstone".

[Robin]

Can you give at least a high level description of what sort of detector the quantum field uses to detect the detector?

[pittsburghjoe]

while it's being created the quantum field knows if its state will change

[Robin]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

Just checking how we are going.

A definite hit for:

Quote:

A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Partial points for:

Quote:

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

ie "I get it, you hate new science"

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

while it's being created the quantum field knows if its state will change

Now you have "knowing" quantum fields rather than the previous implied fantasy of "knowing" particles.

[Robin]

However recent events must be taken into account, and I have a few last minute points to award.

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

while it's being created the quantum field knows if its state will change

Quote:

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

Show me the math that is used to describe the delayed choice quantum eraser and I'll try to mode it.

11 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: An irrelevant math of delayed choice quantum eraser post.

We are not currently discussing the delayed choice quantum eraser. We are discussing the simpler uncertainty principle that you show no sign of understanding. If that math seems beyond you, the added complexity of the delayed choice quantum eraser will be way beyond you.

Google exists! Physics textbooks exist! Wikipedia exists and you have been cited Delayed-choice quantum eraser with its references.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

while it's being created the quantum field knows if its state will change

So it doesn't have a detector to detect the detector? It just knows there is a detector.

[pittsburghjoe]

Well something has to be the decider. My bet is on the quantum field that experiences all time, all the time.

I already said the path isn't important anymore.

What matters is if the state ever changes

[Robin]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

Well something has to be the decider. My bet is on the quantum field that experiences all time, all the time.

I already said the path isn't important anymore.

What matters is if the state ever changes

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

[arthwollipot]

This is why I lost count. I lost track of all the "1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

Well something has to be the decider. My bet is on the quantum field that experiences all time, all the time.

I already said the path isn't important anymore.

What matters is if the state ever changes

Let us know when you have a mathematical model that describes this decider and predicts this decision.

Let us know when you have an experimental observation that confirms your model's prediction.

[Robin]

So lets see.

You claim to have killed uncertainty but refuse point blank to demonstrate that you even understand the uncertainty principle and seem to show by your statements that you clearly do not.

You claim to have killed duality but cannot give even a high level description of how the mathematics of that would work.

And for the mainstream mathematics - that does work and that predicted that the existence of a detector to tell which slit the particle passes through would result in the loss of the interference pattern, even before this had been observed - that mathematics you call "wrong" and "ridiculous".

But when asked for your alternative mathematical treatment you claim you don't need to because this "wrong" and "ridiculous" mathematics still applies.

[pittsburghjoe]

"Decider" isn't the correct term. The quantum information for a new particle forms and if its state doesn't change it's released as a wave in the quantum field.

The delayed choice quantum eraser already confirms my prediction.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

"Decider" isn't the correct term. The quantum information for a new particle forms and if its state doesn't change it's released as a wave in the quantum field.

The delayed choice quantum eraser already confirms my prediction.

What prediction is that?

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment confirms standard quantum mechanical theories. How is yours different?

[Little 10 Toes]

Please clarify these two statements (bolding added):

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

I didn't imply that

"Unobserved quantum waves not having spacetime is a very big deal. Without time, its life is instantaneous."

Everything happens at its birth ..the particle itself isn't deciding things. The quantum field is.

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

The particle (before it exists) cares if spacetime (observation) will be assigned to it during its path.

[pittsburghjoe]

My theory is different by saying the states are set, and remain set, before the particles start moving


The birth is this:
The quantum information for a new particle forms and if its state doesn't change it's released as a wave in the quantum field. If it does change it becomes physical and released in spacetime.

The Unobserved Quantum Realm is somehow all time, all the time.

[Robin]

So, according to this theory, in the below case, the particle is swapped to physical before it is emitted, right?



NB, the detector can tell which slit the particle passed through on the second screen.

[pittsburghjoe]

yes, the physical particle will only have the chance to go through one slit of each set. Like a little bullet.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

yes, the physical particle will only have the chance to go through one slit of each set. Like a little bullet.

So here we have a prediction from your theory that is definitely different to the one of standard quantum mechanics.

That would allow an experiment to distinguish between your theory and standard quantum mechanics.

[Robin]

Similarly here, your theory would predict no interference pattern on the back panel, right?

[Robin]

I take is back for saying your theory has no concrete testable predictions.

Here are two experiments and predictions of your theory that would definitely distinguish between yours and standard quantum theories.

[pittsburghjoe]

correct, yay, thanks

[Robin]

Glad to have been of help.

[arthwollipot]

Okay, now what?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

My theory is different by saying the states are set, and remain set, before the particles start moving.

11 September 2019 pittsburghjoe: A delusion that particles know what is going to be done on them before they are even created!

A fundamental feature of the delayed quantum eraser experiment is that the particles have been created and are in flight before a decision is made what to do with them . Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is even more explicit about delaying the choice until the particles have been created and are in flight.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, now what?

Of course I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the standard quantum model would predict that the paths up to the first screen have to be summed as interfering and in the second diagram the paths in the last stage would have to be summed as interfering.

That would mean that the theory could be tested experimentally.

[Robin]

If I am wrong and someone can correct me then I will have learned something I didn't know.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by pittsburghjoe

Any uncertainty principle experiment that shows uncertainty means a wave was involved.

That is not the uncertainty principle. It is becoming clear you don't know what it is and how it applies to particles.

Please respond to the post above and previous requests for the correct definition.

[Robin]

Finally in this example, the emitter emits a photon which might be reflected or it might pass through the glass. There is a detector just behind the glass which can tell whether or not it passed through or reflected.

So, according to the theory in this case the photon should travel like a little bullet, ie be switched to physical, right?

[Robin]

OK, one more prediction.

Say we have the standard double slit with only one screen and a detector to tell which slit the electron passed through.

The back panel has been prepared with an array of atoms with empty slots on the valence shell so that we can capture the electron after its journey and keep track of it.

Under this theory, the electron has been switched to physical and therefore will not be a wave form as the other electrons in the atom are, but instead will orbit the nucleus like a little moon orbiting a planet or else continue to trace some path around the nucleus continuing to have a definite position and momentum.

Am I also correct that this is a prediction of the theory?

[Robin]

I imagine that having an atom in which one of the electrons didn't obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be pretty easy to detect.

I am not exactly sure how it would work, but I imagine it would be easy to detect.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Robin

I imagine that having an atom in which one of the electrons didn't obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be pretty easy to detect. I am not exactly sure how it would work, but I imagine it would be easy to detect.

I don't think it is possible or even logical to have such a particle. The only way to measure velocity/location or detect a particle is to interfere with it, by bouncing a wave or another particle off it. To have a particle thats velocity or location can be measured simultaneously, without any form of interference...well then what is making the measurement?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

I don't think it is possible or even logical to have such a particle. The only way to measure velocity/location or detect a particle is to interfere with it, by bouncing a wave or another particle off it. To have a particle thats velocity or location can be measured simultaneously, without any form of interference...well then what is making the measurement?

Yes, and I am pretty sure that it is not possible to accurately describe the structure of any atom without using wave equations or equivalent.

But I can't see how this is avoidable as a prediction of the theory in the OP.

[pittsburghjoe]

If the Unobserved Quantum Realm is all time, all the time. Spacetime's time is based off the speed an observation can happen ..the speed of light.

[pittsburghjoe]

Originally Posted by Robin

Finally in this example, the emitter emits a photon which might be reflected or it might pass through the glass. There is a detector just behind the glass which can tell whether or not it passed through or reflected.

So, according to the theory in this case the photon should travel like a little bullet, ie be switched to physical, right?

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-3.png?w=484

The detectors will act as the final panel in this case. Light reflecting or going through glass does not change the state while in flight.