Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

Imagine linear antenna: electrons running up-and-down a line ... producing cylindrical EM waves.
Now imagine p-e-p collapsing faster and faster to nearly a point - wouldn't it be a single pulse of such linear antenna?
Like an impulse from EMP weapon ...

Quote from AlainCo

To dissipate 20MeV, 10Mev per direction, 10keV per electron.

This is very similar to an idea I had, where the excited compound nucleus formed immediately after a fusion de-excites by transmitting the energy to electrons in the area. I still kind of like the idea, although I doubt that dd fusion is the source of the 4He.

The deexcitation in that case would be on the normal nuclear scale (i.e., very fast), rather than slow as Ed Storms would have it. He is of course proposing a somewhat different mechanism.

I have to admit that I'm often thinking through soliton particle model I consider ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1416 slides: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/soliton.pdf ) - it usually leads to some nonstandard but very simple and intuitive explanation.

So its basic structures are lines having spin 1/2 configuration in cross-section (kind of Abrikosov vortex but in vacuum) and there are three types of them with growing energy density: electron, muon and taon spin loops.
Electron is such electron spin line with 180 deg rotation inside - getting hedgehog configuration - topological charge which is interpreted as electric charge (Gauss-Bonnet thm acts as Gauss theorem).

Baryons would correspond to such loop around spin line (like above) - geometry says that they have to be of different types (electron-muon) and that such loop enforces some partial internal rotation - a fractional charge ("quark").
So baryon structure itself requires some (fractional) charge - proton has only this charge (can be narrow), while neutron has to compensate it with opposite charges like in the picture - has to be wide - has larger energy ... getting intuitive explanation of why proton is lighter than neutron.
Next, deuteron is lighter than p + n because they can share their single charge like in the figure.

So how does it suggest the last moments of p-e-p collapse?
I think they first would connect/synchronize their spins: so everything is happening on one electron spin line: one loop (proton) then internal rotation (electron), then second loop (proton).
So these two loop nearly symmetrically travel on the spin line and finally release all the stress while forming the deuteron - it should be symmetric, so should create symmetric EM wave.
Alternatively, there could be created neutrino (free spin loop) like in the picture for beta decay - they might also carry some of the energy ...

Mike,
Thank you for the links. I have spent a fair amount of time on the double slit experiment. I always look for at least a second explanation for anything just to ensure I have perspective. I will have to go back again and start over. If anything it provides a way to visualize how particles interact within the waveform.

Quote from Rigel

Mike,
Thank you for the links. I have spent a fair amount of time on the double slit experiment. I always look for at least a second explanation for anything just to ensure I have perspective. I will have to go back again and start over. If anything it provides a way to visualize how particles interact within the waveform.

Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.

"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…/2015/05/150527103110.htm

&"I have spent a fair amount of time on the double slit experiment."

A fair amount of time is not enough trying to understand quantum time. We're not equipped to understand wavicles and it will take a lot more than a fair amount of time. Coming up with fancy terminology and diagrams won't do it. The basics that establish the foundation of our physics are faulty and we have been fooled from the start. The best we can do is combine the words wave and particle into the term wavicle. Best to not be concerned with what lies in between.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

Particles are relative

Unruh demonstrated theoretically that the notion of vacuum depends on the path of the observer through spacetime. From the viewpoint of the accelerating observer, the vacuum of the inertial observer will look like a state containing many particles in thermal equilibrium—a warm gas.

Although the Unruh effect would initially be perceived as counter-intuitive, it makes sense if the word vacuum is interpreted in a specific way.

In modern terms, the concept of "vacuum" is not the same as "empty space": space is filled with the quantized fields that make up theuniverse. Vacuum is simply the lowest possible energy state of these fields.

The energy states of any quantized field are defined by the Hamiltonian, based on local conditions, including the time coordinate. According to special relativity, two observers moving relative to each other must use different time coordinates. If those observers are accelerating, there may be no shared coordinate system. Hence, the observers will see different quantum states and thus different vacua.

In some cases, the vacuum of one observer is not even in the space of quantum states of the other. In technical terms, this comes about because the two vacua lead to unitarily inequivalent representations of the quantum field canonical commutation relations. This is because two mutually accelerating observers may not be able to find a globally defined coordinate transformation relating their coordinate choices.

An accelerating observer will perceive an apparent event horizon forming (see Rindler spacetime). The existence of Unruh radiation could be linked to this apparent event horizon, putting it in the same conceptual framework as Hawking radiation. On the other hand, the theory of the Unruh effect explains that the definition of what constitutes a "particle" depends on the state of motion of the observer.

The free field needs to be decomposed into positive and negative frequency components before defining the creation and annihilation operators. This can only be done in spacetimes with a timelike Killing vector field. This decomposition happens to be different in Cartesianand Rindler coordinates (although the two are related by a Bogoliubov transformation). This explains why the "particle numbers", which are defined in terms of the creation and annihilation operators, are different in both coordinates.

The Rindler spacetime has a horizon, and locally any non-extremal black hole horizon is Rindler. So the Rindler spacetime gives the local properties of black holes and cosmological horizons. The Unruh effect would then be the near-horizon form of the Hawking radiation.

Yet another Bell's Theorem test in a recent issue of Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/j…575/full/nature15759.html
They called it:: Death by experiment for local realism
The recent test noted above is very much like the original 1935 EPR thought experiment and has ramifications for quantum computing.
Personally I was satisfied by Alain Aspect's work over the past 30+ years.

Sure, Bell inequalities should be fulfilled for local entities.

Fortunately we are not talking about them - here we have highly nonlocal entities with wave-particle duality like Couder's droplet - which dynamics is a part of the entire field due to waves coupled with them.

Mathematically, the stable local configurations are called solitons, and single topological charge would influence the entire universe - for example hedgehog configuration: all vectors pointing away from a point.
However, PDEs governing the dynamics are defined locally, propagation of information is with finite speed - e.g. you cannot create a single charge, only pair of opposite charges.

For such field theoretic entities the Noether theorem says that the entire field guards e.g. momentum conservation in EPR experiment - Noether theorem kind of encodes this information in the entire field around - the assumptions of Bell theorem are just not fulfilled for solitons.

Regarding Bell - we know that nature violates his inequalities, so we need to find an erroneous assumption in his way of thinking.
Let's look at a simple proof from http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/paper.pdf
So let us assume that there are 3 binary hidden variables describing our system: A, B, C.
We can assume that the total probability of being in one of these 8 possibilities is 1:
Pr(000)+Pr(001)+Pr(010)+Pr(011)+Pr(100)+Pr(101)+Pr(110)+Pr(111)=1
Denote by Pe as probability that given two variables have equal values:
Pe(A,B) = Pr(000) + Pr (001) + Pr(110) + Pr(111)
Pe(A,C) = Pr(000) + Pr(010) + Pr(101) + Pr(111)
Pe(B,C) = Pr(000) + Pr(100) + Pr(011) + Pr(111)
summing these 3 we get Bell inequalities:
Pe(A,B) + Pe(A,C) + Pe(B,C) = 1 + 2Pr(000) + 2 Pr(111) >= 1

Now denote ABC as outcomes of measurement in 3 directions (differing by 120 deg) - taking two identical (entangled) particles and asking about frequencies of their ABC outcomes, we can get
Pe(A,B) + Pe(A,C) + Pe(B,C) < 1 what agrees with experiment ... so something is wrong with the above line of thinking ...

The problem is that we cannot think of particles as having fixed ABC binary values describing direction of spin.
We can ask about these values independently by using measurements - which are extremely complex phenomena like Stern-Gerlach.
Such measurement doesn't just return a fixed internal variable.
Instead, in every measurement this variable is chosen at random - and this process changes the state of the system.

Here is a schematic picture of the Bell's misconception:

The squares leading to violation of Bell inequalities come e.g. from completely classical Malus law: the polarizer reduces electric field like cos(theta), light intensity is E^2: cos^2(theta).
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca…zation-of-light/polar.pdf

To summarize, as I have sketched a proof, the following statement is true:
(*): "Assuming the system have some 3 fixed binary descriptors (ABC), then frequencies of their occurrences fulfill
Pe(A,B) + Pe(A,C) + Pe(B,C) >= 1
(Bell) inequality"

Bell's misconception was applying it to situation with spins: assuming that the internal state uniquely defines a few applied binary values.
In contrast, this is a probabilistic translation (measurement) and it changes the system.
Beside probabilistic nature, while asking about all 3, their values would depend on the order of questioning - ABC are definitely not fixed in the initial system, what is required to apply (*).

Finally! - the end of Bell's requirement for magic (nonlocality, nonrealism):
There is a recent article in a good journal (Optics July 2015) showing violation of Bell inequalities for classical fields:
https://www.osapublishing.org/view_article.cfm?gotourl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.osapublishing.org%2FDirectPDFAccess%2F3CDF1E24-B4FD-68DF-0F9D26A3DECF74EE_321243%2Foptica-2-7-611.pdf%3Fda%3D1%26id%3D321243%26seq%3D0%26mobile%3Dno&org=
Hence, while Bell inequalities are fulfilled in classical mechanics, they are violated not only in QM, but also classical field theories - asking for field configurations of particles (soliton particle models) makes sense.
It is obtained by superposition/entanglement of electric field in two directions ... analogously we can see a crystal through classical oscillations, or equivalently through superposition of their normal modes: phonos, described by quantum mechanics, violating Bell inequalities.

The key thing is that QM spookiness - while it allows (in fact demands) nonlocality - does not allow acausal signalling. In other words you can't get timelike causal loops.

That is the one aspect of spacetime locality that we would realistically like to preserve as an absolute, and it seems it is preserved.

So quantum spookiness works well and while it is counterintuitive for us existing in a macroscopic largely classical world it does not contradicts other aspects of physics.

We'll get a good GUT eventually...

Hi Thomas,
Look at the paper I have just mentioned:
"Shifting the quantum-classical boundary: theory and experiment for statistically classical optical fields"
https://www.osapublishing.org/…ct.cfm?URI=optica-2-7-611
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.01305
It says that electromagnetism as local field theory already violated Bell inequalities - no magic is required, classical field theory might be sufficient.