interference of particles at the quantum level

[pantheory]

Ideas and questions by Edgarcito.

 

"Please excuse my ignorance, but I had an idea that at the quantum level, perhaps there is less interference than at a macro level....maybe "classical" has too much, again, interference, to match the quantum level.  Just shit that runs through my brain....maybe totally out in left field.  My brain also wants to associate 100% certainty with lack of choice and uncertainty with choice/ free will."

 

Replies concerning answers of the quantum world will be science based, and idea and comments concerning "lack of choice," "Free Will" should be philosophical without religious connotations. 

 

 

[pantheory]

33 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Ideas and questions by Edgarcito.

 

"Please excuse my ignorance, but I had an idea that at the quantum level, perhaps there is less interference than at a macro level....maybe "classical" has too much, again, interference, to match the quantum level.  Just shit that runs through my brain....maybe totally out in left field.  My brain also wants to associate 100% certainty with lack of choice and uncertainty with choice/ free will."

 

Replies concerning answers of the quantum world will be science based, and idea and comments concerning "lack of choice," "Free Will" should be philosophical without religious connotations. 

 

 

 

Actions and interference in the quantum world are generally unknown via mainstream theory, quantum theory. The odds of something happening are the primary calculations made concerning the quantum world. Einstein and others objected to this statistical interpretation of quantum reality and wrote a paper proposing unknown local hidden variables in the background field as being the cause of interference and differences in this field. In 1964 John Bell wrote a paper asserting that Einstein and associates explanations could not explain everything observed in the background field via their proposal. The result was that local hidden variables are no longer an acceptable alternative for explanations. But this is where I and others disagree.

 

Free Will is an interesting subject. It's something that we have discussed many times here in the Ex-Christian forum. Whether or not free will is real somewhat depends on its definition iMO.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Actions and interference in the quantum world are generally unknown via mainstream theory, quantum theory. The odds of something happening are the primary calculations made concerning the quantum world. Einstein and others objected to this statistical interpretation of quantum reality and wrote a paper proposing unknown local hidden variables in the background field as being the cause of interference and differences in this field. In 1964 John Bell wrote a paper asserting that Einstein and associates explanations could not explain everything observed in the background field via their proposal. The result was that local hidden variables are no longer an acceptable alternative for explanations. But this is where I and others disagree.

 

Free Will is an interesting subject. It's something that we have discussed many times here in the Ex-Christian forum. Whether or not free will is real somewhat depends on its definition iMO.

Thank you so much for the effort.  I'm just going to spit out what I'm thinking just to get it out there please.

 

I picture interference at the quantum level existing, but at such a level, we shouldn't be able to see a difference except maybe where appreciable interference is involved.   In other words, if I had a pure whatever, then maybe we would see a very steady behavior.  I'm asking myself if behavior is limited but variable affected by the environment of the whatever, even if it's a pure whatever.  The problem then being the orientation and size of the interference.

 

Just a mental picture:  1-1 has a predictable bond and behavior, but (7 1-1 9), the 1-1 bond and behavior may be different and very unique.

 

thanks again.

[pantheory]

15 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thank you so much for the effort.  I'm just going to spit out what I'm thinking just to get it out there please.

 

I picture interference at the quantum level existing, but at such a level, we shouldn't be able to see a difference except maybe where appreciable interference is involved.   In other words, if I had a pure whatever, then maybe we would see a very steady behavior.  I'm asking myself if behavior is limited but variable affected by the environment of the whatever, even if it's a pure whatever.  The problem then being the orientation and size of the interference.

 

Just a mental picture:  1-1 has a predictable bond and behavior, but (7 1-1 9), the 1-1 bond and behavior may be different and very unique.

 

thanks again.

 

The background field in the quantum world is called the Zero Point Energy Field (ZPE) . It is know to be an energy field but others have proposed a physical non matter entities within it; something like an aether. If so the physical interactions within it would be the cause of the observable energy within it. This can be called the ZPF, the Zero Point Field. The most common energy observed is called virtual particles, which are believed to be the waves of pairs of electrons and positrons that appear together and disappear almost instantaneously.

 

There are many causes of particle interference in the background field. One of the most common is particle waves. Spinning particles, fermions, produce particle waves in the background field which can interfere with the motion of other particles. Photons and virtual photons as well as free electrons can also cause particle interference. Although the background field is filled with high speed neutrinos all the time they seldom interact with matter or matter particles. Under very tightly controlled testing, the probability of certain interference events occurring can be calculated.

 

I'm not familiar with the 1-1 or (7 1-1 9) meaning or nomenclature. What does it mean?

 

Why is any of this important?  In the mid 1960's physicist John Bell, through his mathematics,, proposed a now-famous theorem saying that local hidden variables did not agree with observati0ns of quantum mechanics. There are at least 2 problems and assumptions of this theorem IMO. One is that his theorem only relates to Einstein's version of the background field which does not allow for a background field of physical aether. Second, the theorem relates to entangled particles and is based upon the mainstream interpretation of their meaning. If either of these assumptions are wrong then the theorem is wrong. To put it more simply, If local hidden variable theory is valid then the understandings of Quantum Theory could be relatively simple -- which it presently is not.

 

This misunderstanding of local hidden variable theory could be the biggest error and misunderstanding in modern-day quantum physics. Such a change of understanding would greatly change quantum physics for the better if it were realized and corrected IMHO.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

The background field in the quantum world is called the Zero Point Energy Field (ZPE) . It is know to be an energy field but others have proposed a physical non matter entities within it; something like an aether. If so the physical interactions within it would be the cause of the observable energy within it. This can be called the ZPF, the Zero Point Field. The most common energy observed is called virtual particles, which are believed to be the waves of pairs of electrons and positrons that appear together and disappear almost instantaneously.

 

There are many causes of particle interference in the background field. One of the most common is particle waves. Spinning particles, fermions, produce particle waves in the background field which can interfere with the motion of other particles. Photons and virtual photons as well as free electrons can also cause particle interference. Although the background field is filled with high speed neutrinos all the time they seldom interact with matter or matter particles. Under very tightly controlled testing, the probability of certain interference events occurring can be calculated.

 

I'm not familiar with the 1-1 and (7 1-1 9) meaning or nomenclature. What does it mean?

 

Why is any of this important?  In the mid 1960's physicist John Bell through mathematics proposed a now very famous theorem saying that local hidden variables did not agree with the observati0ns of quantum mechanics. There are at least 2 problems with this theorem. One is that his theorem only related to Einstein version of the background field that did not allow for a background field of physical aether. Second, the theorem related to something called entangled particles, and it is based upon the mainstream interpretation of their meaning. If aether of these assumptions are wrong then the theorem is wrong. If local hidden variable theory is valid then Quantum Theory could be relatively simple.

 

This misunderstanding of local hidden variables could be the biggest error of misunderstanding in modern-day quantum physics which would greatly change quantum physics for the better if it were corrected IMHO.

 

 

 

Edgarcito,  Yo voy a Tijuana Mexico hoy, Martes. . Cuando regreso en 2-3 dias hablamous Free Will, OK?

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Edgarcito,  Yo voy a Tijuana Mexico hoy, Martes. . Cuando regreso en 2-3 dias hablamous Free Will, OK?

Certainly!

[Edgarcito]

Believe it or not, Dr. Alex Filippenko came to our local university to speak on several subjects.  I listened to his dark energy lecture.  Hard to rationalize an expansion without the necessary means.  Super cool though.

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Believe it or not, Dr. Alex Filippenko came to our local university to speak on several subjects.  I listened to his dark energy lecture.  Hard to rationalize an expansion without the necessary means.  Super cool though.

 

Howdy again Edgarcito,

 

Yeah. I wrote a paper contrary to the existence of dark energy,

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18af/86eb09dbf86df826906392e2eb4c9f876d8d.pdf

 

Your question: 

 

"Hard to rationalize an expansion without the necessary means."

 

Yeah, The original Big Bang model had the necessary means, the "big bang" as the motivator for the proposed expansion of he universe. When that idea began to fail theoretically, they came up with space itself expanding. When the Hubble distance formula seemed to indicate that  that space was expanding at an accelerating rate, they proposed dark energy. Now they realize that this rate of expansion may not be constant and that there are two different calculated expansion rates, called the Hubble Tension.

 

As we have discussed many times before here, science is a Method, not a theory. When a theory fails it is usually replaced by a better one in time. The foundation of all modern medicine and technology is the scientific method.

 

cheers

 

For coming attractions we could discuss Free Will. There have been many good discussions of this in the forum.

[Edgarcito]

21 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Howdy again Edgarcito,

 

Yeah. I wrote a paper contrary to the existence of dark energy,

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18af/86eb09dbf86df826906392e2eb4c9f876d8d.pdf

 

Your question: 

 

"Hard to rationalize an expansion without the necessary means."

 

Yeah, The original Big Bang model had the necessary means, the "big bang" as the motivator for the proposed expansion of he universe. When that idea began to fail theoretically, they came up with space itself expanding. When the Hubble distance formula seemed to indicate that  that space was expanding at an accelerating rate, they proposed dark energy. Now they realize that this rate of expansion may not be constant and that there are two different calculated expansion rates, called the Hubble Tension.

 

As we have discussed many times before here, science is a Method, not a theory. When a theory fails it is usually replaced by a better one in time. The foundation of all modern medicine and technology is the scientific method.

 

cheers

 

For coming attractions we could discuss Free Will. There have been many good discussions of this in the forum.

Thanks, I will read it....given I might be able to comprehend.  I think conceptually I might follow.  It appears from the causal observer's standpoint, that one idea might be as valid as another.  Again, just listening to this gentleman speak and some other things he said that people were proposing....post super collider collision, part of the collision goes in another dimension?  Sound like reaching to me.

 

Back to the free will.  Again, for some reason, my mind thinks that a finite grand theory leaves us in a finite position, where infinite provides infinite.  Then my mind leans towards finite = death, and infinite = God.

 

Let me think, some of this is slow coming to the top.

 

Thanks again sir!

[Edgarcito]

On 8/18/2022 at 6:21 PM, pantheory said:

 

Howdy again Edgarcito,

 

Yeah. I wrote a paper contrary to the existence of dark energy,

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18af/86eb09dbf86df826906392e2eb4c9f876d8d.pdf

 

Your question: 

 

"Hard to rationalize an expansion without the necessary means."

 

Yeah, The original Big Bang model had the necessary means, the "big bang" as the motivator for the proposed expansion of he universe. When that idea began to fail theoretically, they came up with space itself expanding. When the Hubble distance formula seemed to indicate that  that space was expanding at an accelerating rate, they proposed dark energy. Now they realize that this rate of expansion may not be constant and that there are two different calculated expansion rates, called the Hubble Tension.

 

As we have discussed many times before here, science is a Method, not a theory. When a theory fails it is usually replaced by a better one in time. The foundation of all modern medicine and technology is the scientific method.

 

cheers

 

For coming attractions we could discuss Free Will. There have been many good discussions of this in the forum.

I'm guessing that the redshift models are not linear over prospective distances and don't match intensity?  And they are looking for a reason why not?

 

Let me ask an ignorant question please sir.  Can they not look at the spectra in smaller distances and see if the shift is extremely accurate.  For example the distance of a satellite vs. the distance to the moon and see if there are expected or unexpected differences.  Sorry, just thinking out loud.

[pantheory]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm guessing that the redshift models are not linear over prospective distances and don't match intensity?  And they are looking for a reason why not?

 

Let me ask an ignorant question please sir.  Can they not look at the spectra in smaller distances and see if the shift is extremely accurate.  For example the distance of a satellite vs. the distance to the moon and see if there are expected or unexpected differences.  Sorry, just thinking out loud.

 

Yes you are generally correct. The Hubble distance formula, a major part of the Big Bang model, has a limit to it. about 13.8 billion years. If the formula is correct, no matter how large the observed redshift of the galactic spectrum observed, the age of the galaxy could be no more than ~13.6 billion years old. But if this distance formula is wrong, like I and a few other scientist's believe, then the Big Bang model would be in jeopardy of losing one of its foundation pillars.

 

Yes the BB theory will be shown in time to be totally wrong and replaced IMHO.  But remember, science is not science theory, it is a method of approaching a problem. Science theory is generally just the mainstream option of the majority in that field of science at any given time. For instance, the theory of Natural Selection in Biology is beyond any possible dispute. There is a mountain of evidence which supports it. The theory changes little over time, and then by simply adding even greater insights.  Other theories in physics like quantum physics, and Particle Physics are not on a solid foundation pillars and both will find their theories being changed and replaced over time IMHO.

 

Your quote:

 

"Let me ask an ignorant question please sir.  Can they not look at the spectra in smaller distances and see if the shift is extremely accurate?  For example the distance of a satellite vs. the distance to the moon and see if there are expected or unexpected differences.  Sorry, just thinking out loud."

 

According to the BB model redshifts are due to the expansion of space over distances of hundreds of millions of light years.  Yes, the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, and the Earth is slowly moving away from the Sun, but there is no redshift involved since distances have to be 10's of thousands times greater for galactic redshifts to show up. But redshifts and blueshifts do show up from our perspective all the time when galaxies are moving toward or away from each other and from us  physically.

 

cheers Egarcito

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

41 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes you are generally correct. The Hubble distance formula, a major part of the Big Bang model, has a limit to it. about 13.8 billion years. If the formula is correct, no matter how large the observed redshift of the galactic spectrum observed, the age of the galaxy could be no more than ~13.6 billion years old. But if this distance formula is wrong, like I and a few other scientist's believe, then the Big Bang model would be in jeopardy of losing one of its foundation pillars.

 

Yes the BB theory will be shown in time to be totally wrong and replaced IMHO.  But remember, science is not science theory, it is a method of approaching a problem. Science theory is generally just the mainstream option of the majority in that field of science at any given time. For instance, the theory of Natural Selection in Biology is beyond any possible dispute. There is a mountain of evidence which supports it. The theory changes little over time, and then by simply adding even greater insights.  Other theories in physics like quantum physics, and Particle Physics are not on a solid foundation pillars and both will find their theories being changed and replaced over time IMHO.

 

Your quote:

 

"Let me ask an ignorant question please sir.  Can they not look at the spectra in smaller distances and see if the shift is extremely accurate?  For example the distance of a satellite vs. the distance to the moon and see if there are expected or unexpected differences.  Sorry, just thinking out loud."

 

According to the BB model redshifts are due to the expansion of space over distances of hundreds of millions of light years.  Yes, the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, and the Earth is slowly moving away from the Sun, but there is no redshift involved since distances have to be 10's of thousands times greater for galactic redshifts to show up. But redshifts and blueshifts do show up from our perspective all the time when galaxies are moving toward or away from each other and from us  physically.

 

cheers Egarcito

 

 

 

Thanks, +1.  Christians don't get an upvote.  I shall keep reading!

[pantheory]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks, +1.  Christians don't get an upvote.  I shall keep reading!

 

I didn't know that, but I can give you a +1 for your interesting science questions

[Edgarcito]

Varying field matter concentrations?  Almost has to have an effect....the "void" vs. a heavily populated area......varying space densities.  No clue how you would discern or calculate that over huge distances,  yet alone know where they vary.  

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Varying field matter concentrations?  Almost has to have an effect....the "void" vs. a heavily populated area......varying space densities.  No clue how you would discern or calculate that over huge distances,  yet alone know where they vary.  

 

Howdy Edgarcito.

 

According to the Big Bang model the universe should have been much denser with matter in the past based upon space steadily expanding. But what they actually see is that the universe appears to have been the same or less dense in the past. This is called the universe density problem. They have many hypothesis trying to explain these contrary observations.

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/531-why-does-the-apparent-density-of-galaxies-drop-off-at-larger-distances-advanced

 

But one possibility they never mention is that the expanding space/ universe model (Big Bang model) could be wrong.

 

The void of space also is a known field which has more energy than the rest of the known universe combined. It is called Zero Point Energy or the Zero Point Field. Therefore it can be called the farthest thing from nothing that exists.

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

Double posting

[Wertbag]

21 hours ago, pantheory said:

But one possibility they never mention is that the expanding space/ universe model (Big Bang model) could be wrong

That is one thing I've noticed, that while the science is incomplete and debate rages about which of many models could be right, the lay people you find online are often fast to jump to conclusions.  "There was nothing before the big bang", "An eternal universe has been disproven", "The big crunch isn't believed by anyone".  But when I look to what the experts are saying, they are a lot more cautious to not rule out possibilities with the limit data we have.  What was before the big bang?  We don't know.  Could the universe be eternal?  We don't know.  Could there be a universal reset?  We don't know.

I've heard people use dark matter or dark energy, not because we have any clue what it is, but just because feeding that into a model makes it work.  So people accept this unknown substance exists, rather than questioning if the model is correct.  It reminds me of the ancient idea of aether, a mysterious substance inserted into the gaps in our knowledge to make things work.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I've heard people use dark matter or dark energy,

I prefer the Dark Matter model.  She's hot.

 

 

[pantheory]

12 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

That is one thing I've noticed, that while the science is incomplete and debate rages about which of many models could be right, the lay people you find online are often fast to jump to conclusions.  "There was nothing before the big bang", "An eternal universe has been disproven", "The big crunch isn't believed by anyone".  But when I look to what the experts are saying, they are a lot more cautious to not rule out possibilities with the limit data we have.  What was before the big bang?  We don't know.  Could the universe be eternal?  We don't know.  Could there be a universal reset?  We don't know.

I've heard people use dark matter or dark energy, not because we have any clue what it is, but just because feeding that into a model makes it work.  So people accept this unknown substance exists, rather than questioning if the model is correct.  It reminds me of the ancient idea of aether, a mysterious substance inserted into the gaps in our knowledge to make things work.

 

I just posted a new thread in the science vs religion forum along the same lines  you are explaining, which you might want to look at and comment

[pantheory]

10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I prefer the Dark Matter model.  She's hot.

 

 

 

Most definitely Hot Dark Matter  -- me Drooling

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 8/19/2022 at 2:13 PM, Edgarcito said:

Thanks, I will read it....given I might be able to comprehend.  I think conceptually I might follow.  It appears from the causal observer's standpoint, that one idea might be as valid as another.  Again, just listening to this gentleman speak and some other things he said that people were proposing....post super collider collision, part of the collision goes in another dimension?  Sound like reaching to me.

 

Back to the free will.  Again, for some reason, my mind thinks that a finite grand theory leaves us in a finite position, where infinite provides infinite.  Then my mind leans towards finite = death, and infinite = God.

 

Let me think, some of this is slow coming to the top.

 

Thanks again sir!

 

Yes, sounds like reaching to me also.

[pantheory]

Just now, pantheory said:

 

Yes, sounds like reaching to me also.

 

As to Free Will, by one type of definition I can concur that Fee Will exists. By another type of definition, it doesn't exist IMHO.

[Wertbag]

5 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

As to Free Will, by one type of definition I can concur that Fee Will exists. By another type of definition, it doesn't exist IMHO.

Yes definitions can change how it is meant and where it applies.  In general I look at fantasy, at art and at the imagination, and I see unique events often with no prior basis.  There are stories told about anything you can imagine, which seems to fly in the face of having no ability to choose.  There are certainly things influencing our choices, but completely controlling them in every circumstance seems a much harder sell.

[Edgarcito]

On 8/30/2022 at 4:21 PM, pantheory said:

 

Yes, sounds like reaching to me also.

Not that difficult to conceptualize.  If the limits are known, absolute, then again, it's just a matter of computing the inputs and outcomes.  This yields a finite answer.  Job Bob is born, is imputed with these knowns.... his body reacts to the knowns, and we understand the output of his body, then Joe Bob lands over there dead where we predicted he would die simply because our abilities would allow us to understand the entire system.

 

Let's just start on this half of the dilemma for now please.  I'd like to know how the aforementioned is incorrect in anyone's opinion.

[Edgarcito]

It, them, scientists, humans, are largely on an ego trip because of our ability to predict our tiny subjective realm pretty well.... essentially making it into a math proof and then summarily patting ourselves on the back with shit like Nobel prizes and expensive awards banquets.  

 

It's a mess....and then use that knowledge to run people down.... which is even more sad for the person having to revert to that avenue.  Don't be that guy.  My dear ole dad was.  Granted he was smart enough to do it, but it was unbecoming and hurtful.

 

You want to be famous; I would suggest taking your prospective model and the building outward with the known inputs and know behaviors of those inputs into your model.  And then move outward adding the shit and see how your certainty stays intact or not.

 

I'm not going to charge anyone for this insight as "I am a neat guy".  That's a Steve Martin reference for us old guys.

 

Take care.