all 19 comments

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

The Simplest interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is not even known well:
The Threshold Model.

It is the FIRST and simplest interpretation of quantum physics as proposed by Planck. Using Occam's razor, it would certainly win.

I like it because it is the simplest interpretation that still matches with all observations that I know of. It can also be tested well, and leaves room for adaption or expansion.

Because it is hard to find good information on it, I will explain it fully:

The threshold model (Plank, modified)

It places hidden variables in the detector. If the "energy" received at the detector reaches a certain threshold, the detector sees it as a quantum-change. The detector can be anything (even atoms), as long it stores the energy in some way. All particles can be treated as energy in this model.

Like the light that is received by an camera, energy needs to be enough to trigger the CCD-cell or CMOS-cell of the camera. The hidden variables are in the receiver, where it is unknown how much light each cell has received.

The starting conditions are kind of random or hidden. Plank dismissed his own model, because he thought that the starting condition was always zero. He did not take random start conditions in account. This logical correction is the only one needed to make it work and make it match with many observations.


Detector energy-levels before receiving 1 photon:    
00% 20% 40% 60% 10% 40% 90% 30% 20% 50%   
 Detector reads:
 0      0      0      0      0      0     0      0     0    0

After detection, light energy spreads over all positions:   
10% 30% 50% 70% 20% 50% 100% 40% 30% 60%
 Detector reads:
 0      0      0      0      0      0     1      0     0    0
Photon found at X, where threshold level has been reached

Detector converts the energy to electric energy, 
This resets the cell again.

This interpretation makes some things a lot simpler. In antenna-technology, we can measure the phase of the incoming EM-waves. I think this mean that we are measuring parts of photons. Static EM-fields also become simple. We need no photons at all and certainly no virtual photons.

In QM we have to use non-existing virtual particles, to explain static fields. With this interpretation this is not necessary. Everything becomes simpler.

The interpretation does not need weird concepts like: multiple worlds, nor other dimensions, nor a conscious observer, no time-travel, no invisible pilot-waves. It brings energy back to waves that work exactly as EM-waves. The reason that we encounter particles, in this model, is because the particles are a result of a threshold that is reached.

The model can easily be expanded. Like different thresholds, resonating energy-waves, etc. But it already works well from the start. So for science, and using Occam's Razor, I propose to roll back all the weird theories that EM has produced, and start with thresholds first.

The theory is also completely testable, which brings the power of experiments back into science. In some experiments the detectors sometimes find 2 "particles", for only one being transmitted. Or sometimes no "particle" is detected. This is often ignored as noise, but it can also justify this very simple interpretation.

It is partially compatible with the zero-worlds interpretation (simplified MWI), but much easier to understand and use. Also similar to Pilot-wave interpretation, but with no particles.

Here is a website of a laboratory-scientist that is about this interpretation:
He is not a good communicator at all, but shows some interesting experiments. But after reading my explanation, it is now a lot easier to understand his writings and talks.

[–]forscher 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There only is one interpretation of quantum dynamics and sure as hell: It ain't yours.

You need more dimensions, if you like it or not. You can't fold all this stuff in four dimension with a determinant that is positive.

Clearly this isn't possible, so i hope you finally grab your balls and admit the truth here.

Otherwise we go into Calabi-Yau-Manifolds -which for themselves - surely are fascinating but impossible to apply on any real-world-problem.

Math is like that: Either you come forward with any application or you and my will scratch our forehead two hundred years again to come.

So far.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for answer, but I think it needs a little more argumentation than: "sure as hell" / "admit the truth here".

Here is a more in depth discussion of this model:

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I won't believe it: as you already knew.

But i really like your style, your effort not to mention.

This is one nut now ain't it ?

What'cha tell me if just we both had to sit in small room for seven days ?

Only a blackboard there.

Oh i know: Because i did this already. We'd be soon be debating null-sets and their non-appliances.

Still, i'd like it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The theory is also completely testable

It was my understanding that testability is a requirement for any theory?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It was my understanding that testability is a requirement for any theory?

I mention this, because this differentiates the theory that you're biased for, as it's the only validly testable theory.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. So in that sense the threshold model is the only theory.

And that is why I promote it. It can give us more insights into the workings, even if it were incorrect

We may be able to determine:
1) whether there are hidden variables in the detector. An energy buffer, or clock-phase.
2) whether other phenomena are influenced by this.
3) whether particles are real or just an energy buffer.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]hennaojisan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The cat is dead after being in that box so long. But seriously, quantum computers apparently don't use only zeros and ones but other values that are neither ones nor zeros. So is quantum computing the wave of the future or the particle? As one female Indian physicist said in a Ted Talk: If you think you don't understand quantum physics very well, you're getting it. Apologies in advance for this nonsense.

[–]wendolynne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You cannot observe something without affecting it. Like wildlife photography, in order to get that picture of the heron chicks, you had to invade their nesting site. Or debugging software, to see the value of the variable you had to interrupt the operation. there is no passive observer. Everything you observe is changed because you saw it.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I like the interpretation where consciousness can somehow influence the randomness of quantum mechanics. But I do not think that it is realistic. But for those interested see this video

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The multiple world interpretation of quantum mechanics is my least favourite. It makes the real world seem schizophrenic.

The reason why this is liked, seems to come from particle physics, where particles can have multiple interactions with each other. The QED diagrams describe such interactions.

But I think this way of thinking is flawed, because all possible interactions take place simultaneously. Including those with virtual particles. This would give an infinite amount of possible interactions with an almost infinite amount of particles. While mathematically interesting, it seems to me that all these interactions can be compressed into a single field of possibilities.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've never really looked into quantum mechanics, or physics, but I've looked into theosophy, and it sure seems like Blavatsky, and those she sites in her books, definitely felt it was the real workings of the universe; I mean it's close.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Have you read the book Occult Chemistry?
It is the Theosophy system of atoms and sub-particles. They kind of predicted the Quarks, which are all build from 3 particles in their system.

It is all very different from the Quantum mechanics that we know, and I don't know how that would connect.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No I've not, but appreciate the book title.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Fate manifests itself through coincidences.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That sounds like the answer of a Zen master.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I feel honored :D