Null-Hypothesis - Quantum mechanics shows that there are no photons

submitted by zyxzevn from self.Physics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

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)

Are we talking about De broglie now?

http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/sa_spherical.htm