Thoughts On Physics - Part 6 - Quantum Mechanics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 พ.ค. 2024
- In this video I will describe how the alternative interpretation of physics that I have described in this series would work with the standard model of quantum mechanics. Which is that, at least in concept, very little would need to change in quantum mechanics for this interpretation to work.
The most radical change comes down to how this interpretation is based on the universe having an infinite scale, while the standard model assumes a bottom floor to reality. Which would mean that quantum mechanics is a good description of reality, but only from our perspective at our scale.
Were this to be true it would mean that quantum fields don't really exist, they would just be a mathematical tool used to describe particle behavior from our perspective.
I would claim that very little else would need to change in the standard model to support this local and real interpretation.
This is of course just speculation. I am not a physicist, so watch this with a heavy dose of skepticism.
Twitter - / lathamincubator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to support this project you can do so at
Patreon - / lathamincubatorproject
Paypal - www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/EF...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles used in this video:
Validation of the 10Be Ground-State Molecular Structure Using 10Be(p,pα)6He Triple Differential Reaction Cross-Section Measurements
doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.1...
Broken Symmetries and the Higgs Boson
doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20147...
00:00 - Introduction
03:21 - Quantum Field Theory
11:25 - Are Fields Ever Real?
13:56 - Wave-Particle Duality
16:12 - The Quantum In Quantum Mechanics
19:05 - The Bosons And The Fundamental Forces
20:36 - The Electromagnetic Force
24:23 - The Weak Force
27:35 - The Strong Force
34:43 - Gravity
37:11 - The Higgs Field
43:46 - Generations And Neutrinos
46:28 - The Orbits of Electrons
48:09 - Outro - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
A note on the 3 generations. The other 2 generations would be stable in an environment of the appropriate energy level. They likely exist for long periods inside stars or other possible extremes.
Also, neutrinos do not decay. They can fluctuate but they do not decay into anything else unless they interact with another particle which is very rare. . During a supernova 90 percent of the energy, and therefore mass, is carried away by the neutrino flash before the first photons are ever noticed. If neutrinos do decay their lifetime is estimated to be 1e29 years and it would be into some as of yet unknown component particle.
As a side note I am sure many of us have heard that one day all the stars will be gone due to Hydrogen deficit.
Think about this though. In neutron star collisions we know heavy elements are produced but part of it should also end up as hydrogen. Free neutrons decay into protons, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos. Even if those protons do not immediately combine with some electrons they eventually will. Ta-da.
Interesting points, decay I think is also a question of how the fundamental particles interact with the Higgs field thus experiencing mass and time. At one extreme, photons for example, have no rest mass, so dont experience time, and arguably as a result, don't decay.
@@jimgraham6722 Excellent observation. Lets think about this.
The photon even though it has no mass it does possess an equivalent energy.
Well, the speed of that light is regulated by the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space.
I would be willing to bet that these two factors are altered in extreme settings. This could lead to situations where photons are given mass possibly even resulting in a totally different particles or even its properties..
Hell, maybe neutrinos also have a link with the photons that we had not considered.
You are also correct about the Time element but I will add to that in the final paragraph.
I tend to think the Higgs field could also have more direct connections to Gravity and Magnetism.
After all, the gluonic field is Chromo-Magnetic.
I think that what Color truly may be.
The ultimate source of magnetism.
We also need to question whether
Gravity is primary or emergent from the others.
I also pursue esoteric mysticism so I like to attempt to connect it with physics and cosmology. Our knowledge comes to us by our faculty of Intuitive Understanding and our actions and/or actions of other agents with us in this world or others.
Time was always the Father aspect. In addition to that it is also Intent of the Spirit and Motion.
Space has always been the Mother (Mater/Matter impregnated by the Father and then giving birth to the Son (Sun) which is called Life or Energy.
Eventually this energy cools and/or transmutes to produce Matter out of Space itself through the actions of Time.
Everything around us is Life itself in myriad forms. The awareness transiting the forms is limited by the form itself yet its source is not the form.
Who knows huh?
Maybe even Time and Space just simply aspects of awareness itself. Spirit itself crucified on a cross of Time Space Energy and Matter.
@@chuckjones9159 It is interesting that when light encounters a medium of transparent but changing density it refracts dependent on photon energy.
However, curvature of spacetime doesn't seem to have the same effect. Regardless of their energy, all photons seem to follow the same path. Of course at extremely high energies beyond gamma rays, something might be happening that we haven't observed yet.
@@jimgraham6722
Could that be due to the "matter" reaction being more intense due to magnification of sorts? In other words if Matter is made from Space (Time as well of course or change/action/motion are not possible) and small amounts of "pure Space" also exist within Matter maybe light travelling within matter is magnified/altered in some way that light travelling within Space and/or around large amounts of mater is not.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
Yes, that was bullshit as well. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Anyone who has to use ridicule and condemnation to make their viewpoint work, has revealed the truth to the unbiased witnesses who are here reading this conversation.
If you would like to show us your subatomic model, we will be glad to take a look at it.
Fascinating.
I have for a very long time felt that many scientists (nuclear physicists among them) fall in love with their math, believing that the math (and their interpretation of its implication) is the definition of the universe or reality, instead of seeing the math as a way of representing reality, but not defining it.
I certainly cannot judge whether your interpretation is correct or not, but I find it refreshing to see that you are willing to consider different interpretations of the experimental observations and the derived math.
For what it is worth, your interpretation makes more sense to me than the conventional field-based theory. Perhaps in time there will be evidence pointing in one direction or another.
Why are you telling us that your feelings are no more reliable than your intellect? We didn't ask and we don't have to know. :-)
Interesting views. I see particles notably photons as solitons in their respective fields. Soliton theory could explain a lot about wave particle duality and the interaction of particles.
The solitons persist because they don't experience time on the same scale as the macro world.
My view is the fields are fundamental, the spacetime we experience at the macro level is an emergent effect of the underlying fields.
There are no particles. There are only quanta of energy and people who didn't listen carefully in high school when this was explained to them. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Exactly solitons are quantas of energy their respective fields.
@@jimgraham6722 A soliton is a classical non-linear wave phenomenon. It's not even quantized. ;-)
a quite innovative approach, I'm looking for a mechanism of mass enforcing spacetime... so far no success.
PS. constant movement inside particles will result in irregularity on EM graph
Yes, that was complete bullshit. ;-)