all 28 comments

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I think the pilot wave theory solves a lot of the problems with the photon particle/wave duality. It also requires no magic and nothing weird, which makes it very appealing:

Pilot waves are simply ripples in the electromagnetic field. We know the field exists, and we know when things move in it, it creates waves in that field, just like when a boat moves across water.

The waves physically represent quantum coherence, and explain "action at a distance" as well as explaining the double-slit experiment perfectly. So really photons are both particles and waves. A particle sitting in the middle of a wave, like a boat surrounded by waves on a lake. However this particle can never sit still, or else it collapses, which is why photons cannot be measured at rest, or any other speed than the speed of light. So there is an interaction of the waves and the particle at light speed that apparently holds it all together to produce all the effects that have been measured from photons.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Thanks for reply.

As I understand it, the Pilot Wave assumes that there is some kind of substance that carries those waves. That is a magic substance, because we do not know what it is. And you think there are waves without substance, you have undetectable magic waves.

The results of the pilot wave theory are also slightly different from the experiments. In some cases the path that pilot-wave-particles should take, are not possible in certain experiments. That is what I read. I think that such paths can even be blocked, but I don't know an example.

But if you just forget about the substance and use the electromagnetic field as the carrier of the photon-wave, you can just forget about the particles. You get exactly the Loading theory.

The problem with quantum mechanics comes pure from the particles. In optics scientists often fall back to electromagnetic fields instead of photons. No particles, no problem. That is why I think it is the simplest explanation. Not necessarily the correct one, but one that should be thoroughly tested.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That is a magic substance, because we do not know what it is.

It's the electromagnetic field, which is a proven substance to exist everywhere in the universe, and carries all electromagnetic waves.

I think there are a lot of dumb interpretations of quantum physics that hopefully die off after the more quality and testable hypotheses are tested.

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

Electromagnetic fields propagate throughout 3D physical space, which makes them inherently relativistic. Pilot Waves do not propagate in 3D physical space, they manifest in complex-valued Configuration Space, which is inherently non-relativistic. Pilot Waves are produced by the evolution of the quantum wave-function, evaluated via Schrodinger's Equation. These solutions are expressed as superposed complex-valued probability amplitudes in Configuration Space. Physically realizable solutions are projected into 3D physical space as probability density fields, according to Born's Law (= the conjugate square of the probability amplitude), which Bohmian Mechanics derives from its Quantum Equilibrium Hypothesis. The probability density field is not a physical entity, it is just a prediction of the likelihood of detecting a particle at any specific point in 3D physical space.

According to Bohmian Mechanics, relativistic particle trajectories do in fact exist, but their sole property is the actual location of the particle in 3D physical space at any point in time. That physical trajectory is the sole "hidden variable" in Bohmian Mechanics, and as shown by Bell's Theorem, can only be a non-local hidden variable (in order to remain consistent with QM). All other properties that can be measured are not those of the particle itself, but of the Pilot Wave that guides the motion of the particle. What BM contends is that in practice, the only things we can actually detect are the 3D positions of particles. If particles did not manifest in 3D physical space, there would be nothing to detect, since the only way we have of detecting e.g. an electromagnetic field is to observe how it deflects particle trajectories.

The non-locality of the Pilot Wave is the inevitable result of it manifesting in Configuration Space, which like the quantum wave-function itself, is inherently non-relativistic. This means that unlike the relativistic propagation of electromagnetic waves in 3D space, Pilot Waves propagate instantaneously throughout Configuration Space. This non-local (i.e. non-relativistic) property of Pilot Waves is what is misinterpreted as "faster-than-light information transfer" by those who mistakenly assume Pilot Waves propagate in 3D physical space.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's the electromagnetic field.

Then you don't need photons to carry forces. Which was the premise of my writing. ;-)

I think there are a lot of dumb interpretations of quantum physics that hopefully die off after the more quality and testable hypotheses are tested.

Fully agree. The Loader theory can be tested very well.

The pilot-wave is visual very interesting, and can be tested thoroughly. But we need some model of what the waves are. And if it is the EM-field what it separates from the photon.

I wanted to build a simulator for quantum mechanics, but found it very hard. Until I found the Loading theory. And it makes everything much much simpler. Now I can just have hidden variables in the detector instead of having to go through all possibilities.

Regarding the best and worst prediction of science:
The Loading theory and pilot-wave theory (as you describe it), define forces as fields. This means that we do not have virtual particles everywhere, unlike QED and QFT. And this means that the worst prediction in science (>10100) to a much better prediction.

But following the "progress" in science, it seems that they never want to look back. A reason I started the Null-Hypothesis series. Much more to come!

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Then you don't need photons to carry forces.

Well technically because of the photoelectric effect, it shows photons are in "packets", which is where the "quantum" in quantum physics comes from. So you can't absorb 1.5 of a photon, which would be possible if photons were only waves in the EM field. But it seems to have some particle-ness.

Anyway, I have enjoyed the discussion, I'm sure in 50 years humanity will look back at our understanding of quantum physics as a civilization and wonder how we got it so wrong lol

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

For clarity, the Loader theory replaces the photo-electric effect. It gives statistically the same results. Most of the time.

In the Loader-model / threshold-model, the "detection of a particle" takes place when the electromagnetic energy reaches a threshold. The electron-sphere then moves to a different level.

In most quantum-mechanics models, a whole packet of energy (photon) is transferred at once. But it due to quantum-magic it is also on all places at once. And by measuring, the packet suddenly becomes visible. This is where the magic interpretations come from. This leads to the questions: Where is the energy when it is not measured? What is measurement?

Following your pilot-wave model, the EM-field guides a packet of energy towards the detector at a fixed place. So the EM-field transfers no energy to the detector, but the photon causes a sudden transfer of energy (or momentum) to the atoms in the detector.

I would love to see tests on these different ideas. Feel free to post articles about such experiments.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'll have to read more about the Loader theory.

But it due to quantum-magic it is also on all places at once.

It's not in all places at once, it's just everywhere with varying statistical probabilities, some of which are zero. It's still most likely to appear in the direction of travel, and can't exist outside the light-cone because it can't travel faster than light. So it's basically just a statistical wave that spreads out over time.

Where is the energy when it is not measured?

Where is the energy in a wave, when it is spread across a whole lake?

So the EM-field transfers no energy to the detector, but the photon causes a sudden transfer of energy (or momentum) to the atoms in the detector.

The EM-field and photon co-exist, and both are absorbed. But the EM field isn't completely absorbed, that's why there are things like Bremsstrahlung, which is EM radiation from photons turning a corner.

This couldn't exist if photons didn't also create waves in the EM field.

Very interesting discussion. The one question to me that really remains is how when the photon is absorbed, there is "quantum decoherence" wherein the entire distributed wavefront collapses... i.e. once that photon is absorbed, it cannot be absorbed anywhere else. Which to me indicates that it has a definite position, because the quantum decoherence collapse moves faster than the speed of light... I am a big fan of the "hidden variable" theory, which would be explained by the combination of the photon and the EM field.

I guess the question is: Does a photon become larger when it's in a quantum coherence wave? When that wavefront collapses, does the photon collapse down to a small size again? Is the photon actually about a transition between on EM field regime and another, rather than being a "particle"? Similar to how a gas expands to fill its container, perhaps a photon expands to fill the EM field region that can support it as it moves along at the speed of light. And when it is absorbed, the related EM waves no longer can support the conditions for a photon anywhere along the entire wavefront.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's really interesting to me.

When a photon 'tunnels', the statistical chance of it being elsewhere changes instantaneously, but since it has moved, and the wave front of its previous statistical distribution had also moved at the speed of light, the change in statistical probability has to travel at double the speed of light.

if we had a line A-B-C-D-E, with the photon at C to start with, with an equal probability of being at A and E, then it tunnels to E.

If the probability distribution changes at the speed of light, then the probability of being at A is still high, so the photon could tunnel there (at twice the speed of light).

Maybe im stretching an analogy too far.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes it was what Einstein called "spooky action at-a-distance".

I don't believe it's possible for the wavefront to collapse faster than the speed of light, because information can't travel faster than the speed of light. But yet that's what the observations show. But to me, this is just more evidence of the hidden variable theory.

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

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

oooh, the Aether is back. awesome

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There is quite a difference between the proven electromagnetic field that we use every day, and the outdated 1800s idea of "Aether"

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Not really. The fundamental concept is the same. An underlying something against which things can be positioned.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Well except one is measurable, and the other isn't...

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


I get that people dislike the concept of aether because it was drummed into us from birth, but I can't see any functional difference between grids or underlying fields or aether. They are just common names for the same thing.

Love to know why that's wrong. All concepts break relativity.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The aether hypothesis was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of an aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.

The negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) suggested that the aether did not exist, a finding that was confirmed in subsequent experiments through the 1920s. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether.

It's a pretty interesting concept. It's one of the times science really went down the wrong path, for a long time.

With the development of the special theory of relativity, the need to account for a single universal frame of reference had disappeared – and acceptance of the 19th century theory of a luminiferous aether disappeared with it.

So basically it was disproved by relativity, because aether requires a universal frame of reference to work, and things like space dilation and time dilation, which are very measurable, couldn't be explained by aether.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

'luminiferous' - made of light.

ie. an EM field.

relativity doesn't work. Spacetime dilation is explainable without relativity, as the Gabriele link I posted gets into.

have you ever really looked at relativity? It seems to hold together when considering two objects in motion to one another, but put 4 into the mix, 3 on orthogonal axis and one oblique, and let the fun begin.

Adding insult to injury, G seems to depend on absolute velocity (the variation in measured G matches changes in velocity of earth relative to the galactic core). Relativity is poop.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting ideas, I'll have to think more about them.

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


Of course I had to open this monsterous post right as I'm trying to go to bed.

I'll probably read it while driving to the office... :-/

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

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

In the Evanescent Field the light disappears exponentially.
This is not really possible with photons, as photons would need to disappear into nothingness.
This is not what photons are supposed to do.

I think that this phenomenon can only be explained with waves, and is probably the best example of why photons do not exist.

This has been added later, and may be put back into a discussion at a later time.

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

Additional reasoning:

We can create an electric current, or move a magnet, and this would hypothetically create a photon.
But we can control them, so it is possible to create any fraction of a photon, by creating only a small change in the electromagnetic field.

Yet, the change can still be registered in an antenna on a distance. So it is like a wave.

This implies that photons have no size related to the field created, and therefore photons do not exist.

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

Additional info:
Single-photon emission from single-electron transport in a SAW-driven lateral light-emitting diode

While the article claims how they got single photon emissions, the article shows how they use a radio-transmission.
The electromagnetic waves in the transmission have a saw like structure.

They tune it in a way that the receiver only receives EM-energy in cycles, and these cycles are called "photons". The cycles seem directly related to the threshold of the receiver.

The article argues that the receiver only gets photons, because the energy should not be received in cycles if it was purely electromagnetism. But they do not know about any threshold.

In my short read, it seems to me that in figure 3, the threshold fills up, and then goes back to zero in a clear cycle.

But research like this is interesting, and more specialized experiments might reveal more physics.

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

[Moderator note] One Reply that bring down the pyramid of discussion (via ad hominem) has been removed.

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

I keep adding updates, so this post also becomes a library of related subjects.

Virtual Particles: What are they?
Written by theoretical physicist.

And this is the product of 50 years of pure theoretical physics:
1. Virtual photons are "ripples" of the photon-field.
2. Forces are transmitted via these ripples.
3. Photons are ripples/disturbances in the electron-field.
4. Particles are not simply objects.

So this is a very complex way of saying:
"It is like the electromagnetic field"

Corrected with electromagnetic field:
-> 1. Virtual photons are the electromagnetic field.
-> 2. Forces are transmitted via electromagnetic fields.
-> 3. Photons are thresholds at the detector.
-> 4. Particles (Fermions) are collectors of electromagnetic energy.

The problem is that Feynman and Dirac tried to explain everything with particles first.
And when that did not work, imagined fields that produced those particles.

But we already have fields to begin with.

The reason why fields were abandoned is unclear.

It could be related to relativity.
Relativity regards fields as time-less, where particles travel through space/time.
But if you have changing fields, you have to reconstruct a different system for relativity. To avoid this problem, the theoretical scientists have created different, extremely complex problems. And because most of the theory is hidden in invisible stuff, we can not even verify it.

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

My reply to theoretical physics expert.

Quantum entanglement for babies:

I wonder why Plank's loader model is always avoided. It is the simplest solution. It has no invisible magic. Actually, in experiments we see that it works better.

Explained: Modernized Plank's loader model: Threshold model. Quantum model that has no particles: Instead it uses "loop locked waves" to store energy and state. Like we see in super conductors, where loops of electric current store magnetic flux "particles".

Using energy storage with loops creates thresholds, which then replace the "measurement". Energy quanta are transferred via resonance instead of particles in a collapsing wave. So in this model the locked wave goes up in energy state, instead of the wave function goes down in state.

Example: in normal QM one would model ONE photon particle hitting a pixel-sensor of the camera. Now we have a light-wave of ONE "photon" hitting all pixel-sensors of the camera, and the sensors that reach a certain energy threshold get activated. On average exactly one. In most cameras you can change the threshold level of the sensors via the ISO settings. So this concept is already well integrated in our technology.

The observations are only slightly different, except for high energy particles. In those cases you will find more often multiple quanta detections, or none at all. As if 2 quantum particles were suddenly present. And indeed experiments with high energy quanta do show this phenomenon. So you do not get quantum magic, nor bad science. I dont know exactly, they are often observed with superconductors.. But it is a bit like asking how magnetism exist, and probably has the same answer.