Mistakes in Quantum Mechanics as Seen from the History of Science

    This shows your ignorance. If you read the linked wikipedia articles and youtoub videos your statement assume that you have independence e.g if

    \lambda represent the underlying hidden variables and $X,Y$ are the measurements, then you have,


    P(\lambda|XY) = P(\lamnda)


    That is, given your measurement, you do not get any more information about the underlying hidden variables. This is the super deterministic loophole as

    Bell fraze it. Now I put great effort and care to explain this (multiple weeks behind doing development), so try be a bit more polite and put some serious

    work onto going into opposition. I was curious to see what a super deterministic model could look like, as I could not find a good example on the internet. My latest

    development actually shows that Mills orbitsphere most likely is such a physical model. Assuming that there is a local super deterministic model behind

    QM is a correct scientific stance. It's just not popular.

    What is complex is the interpretation of the observations in the "deep inelastic scattering" experiments. This does not necessarily imply a complex proton structure.

    It is like trying to understand the structure of a glass beaker by shooting it with a gun and studying the fragments produced.


    "Proof that the proton contains multitudes came from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in 1967. In earlier experiments, researchers had pelted it with electrons and watched them ricochet off like billiard balls. But SLAC could hurl electrons more forcefully, and researchers saw that they bounced back differently. The electrons were hitting the proton hard enough to shatter it — a process called deep inelastic scattering"

    I was opposing the thread name and all the other things said about "QM is no good".


    I have not actually said anything about superdeterminism?


    So I don't understand how you can say I am assuming what you say I am assuming?


    My point is that hidden variables never looked great, and that they look less good now than they did 40 years ago.



    As for superdeterminism - it is so profoundly unattractive an idea (to a physicist) that while ideas are free and can be pursued, I cannot see in it any merit.


    Quote
    There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

    Although he acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible. Even if the measurements performed are chosen by deterministic random number generators, the choices can be assumed to be "effectively free for the purpose at hand," because the machine's choice is altered by a large number of very small effects. It is unlikely for the hidden variable to be sensitive to all of the same small influences that the random number generator was.[9]


    My dislike of this is not because I am devoted to free will - I do not much care about it. It is because it replaces (unfortunate) FTL correlations by (equally unfortunate) whole-of-spacetime correlations.


    I am happy to agree it is a loophole, but not that it is a physically helpful one.


    As for Mills's orbitsphere I will be happier about it when you can derive from it all of the corresponding known-from experiment correct QM formulation of electrons? Otherwise as physics it is a joke.


    As for Mills experimental claims. The claims that most of the earth H is in a metastable state which could release large amount of energy if collapsed are so grandiose in terms of their ubiquity, and unfortunately lacking teh (one would think not difficult to find) experimental evidence, it is difficult to take them seriously.


    It’s worth stepping back and considering the claims made by Mills. The scientific claims include that he has refuted quantum mechanics, can explain “mysteries of the sun” and has identified dark energy. His inventions can: produce power very cheaply through “’shrinking’ the hydrogen atom's orbitsphere” with a power density of 100 billion watts per liter. Additionally, the materials created can act as an explosive or propellant, make ships rustproof and endowed with stealth properties, produce an anti-gravity effect that will allow a vessel to elevate, and “form the basis of batteries the size of a briefcase to drive your car 1000 miles at highway speeds on a single charge.” Apparently, it won’t enable a pen to write in whipped cream, but you can’t have everything.

    At different times, the company and its founder have pushed two separate approaches to generating power. First, the thermal effects from creating hydrinos would turn a turbine; and more recently, the light emissions from the unit could be converted into electricity through the use of conventional photovoltaic cells. At least some note that he hasn’t delivered on his initial promises.


    Still, few seem impressed with the grandiose promises made but never kept. Mills insisted in 1999 that he would “demonstrate an entirely new energy process by the end of 2000,” and a board member noted, “We're past the scientific verification stage. The talk now is about commercial applications.” Later, Mills said there would be an operating commercial scale plant by 2012, then by 2013. I can find no evidence that a single plant has ever operated commercially.


    This case has many things in common with other failed new energy technologies, including a charismatic leader who generates lots of press, claims of academic validation and criticism of expert skepticism, ample fundraising, and frequent reports of interest from potential buyers. What you don’t find are actual ongoing operation of a power plant outside of demonstration models controlled by the promoter. To quote Mills himself, "the good thing about materials is that they exist, or they don't. There's no argument."

    Quote from gio06

    What is complex is the interpretation of the observations in the "deep inelastic scattering" experiments. This does not necessarily imply a complex proton structure.

    It is like trying to understand the structure of a glass beaker by shooting it with a gun and studying the fragments produced.


    "Proof that the proton contains multitudes came from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in 1967. In earlier experiments, researchers had pelted it with electrons and watched them ricochet off like billiard balls. But SLAC could hurl electrons more forcefully, and researchers saw that they bounced back differently. The electrons were hitting the proton hard enough to shatter it — a process called deep inelastic scattering"

    I should have quoted your mistake (you make very long posts),

    "

    1) Any Hidden Variable interpretation of QM compatible with known experiments must have non-local hidden variables

    (not just Bell's inequality - which is approximate - but may similar versions - non-local entanglement forces this)

    "

    The underlined statement assumes independence.


    And I would refer to this blog post discussing a local model that both breaks Bell's inequality and is local, but does not satisfy the independence condition. You will find information in the blog post from a real physicist (Hossenfelder) that discusses the role of super determinism. Also I think that in the end I will show that a physical model where in stead you have one single spin, you have a distribution of spin's that are fixed relative each other would produce the QM result you see in Aspect's experiment and the Stern Gerlash experiment. This is your second mistake as this is really not a complex model. It is deterministic, local and there is a dependence between the hidden variables and what you measure.

    i like very well last Simon Brink expectations, i think he touched a key point.


    Perhaps the most important development behind this new model is the resolution of particles as closed loop electromagnetic waves. The "wave-particle duality" concept is now replaced by "wave-particle equivalence", ( I called that rather the nucleation principle, very related finally to the superposition principle from the quantum postulate )

    recognising a more fundamental link between waves and particles. This development opens the door to a whole new way of looking at the nuclear physics.


    Wave-particle equivalence" identifies that particle mass is equivalent to curvature energy, so mass is inversely related to particle radius, in accordance with the reduced Compton wavelength."


    New Atomic Model
    subtleatomics.com


    This is what i personally expected previously:


    This is a key point that shows also the fundamental role of Ehrenberg-Siday-Aharonov-Bohm relations. Zitterbewegung radius curvature, mass, angular speed and electromagnetic potentials are different faces of the same entity.

    Quote from gio06

    angular speed and electromagnetic potentials are different faces of the same entity.

    What angular speed are you talking of???


    There is no electron orbiting any particle, but you can construct a simple equivalence relation with the help of a central force. Real flux speed is always "c" the speed of light!

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    What angular speed are you talking of???


    There is no electron orbiting any particle, but you can construct a simple equivalence relation with the help of a central force. Real flux speed is always "c" the speed of light!

    Exactly. The angular speed is consequently ω=c/R where R is the Zitterbewegung radius (i.e. the reduced Compton wavelength)

    I am quite proud of myself, me who is not a physicist.. in fact, crossing the Mediterranean by boat, I am told to myself so many H2, so many H2 i see and all of the same "size", even from side to side another of the universe !

    Also, it makes no sense that they should come from an original explosion and keep also this same size.

    Only a "duplication process", what I call "nucleation", could take place in this case, then SB called it "wave particle equivalence".

    Quote from gio06

    This is a key point that shows also the fundamental role of Ehrenberg-Siday-Aharonov-Bohm relations. Zitterbewegung radius curvature, mass, angular speed and electromagnetic potentials are different faces of the same entity.

    Quote from Cydonia

    SB calls it wave particle equivalence.

    Such a thing does not exist. Only in very wet dreams of physicists.


    You can say that particles have some wave like properties but they are never equal.


    A photon is not a wave, albeit simplistic people treat it like a wave but fail to show the physics how the E/B field mutually reproduce each other..

    I don't think doing harm alone in my corner :)

    Now to me, a particle remains an expression , a kind of shape, a conformation nothing more of this undulating field.

    About the Photon , this is only a 2D expression from the 3D electron undulating shape.

    In fact, the famous ether should be only a 3D-1 space, nothing more even if it appears 3D by our eyes.

    The missing dimension being that of time.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Such a thing does not exist. Only in very wet dreams of physicists.


    You can say that particles have some wave like properties but they are never equal.


    A photon is not a wave, albeit simplistic people treat it like a wave but fail to show the physics how the E/B field mutually reproduce each other..

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Haha 2

    It seems you share the same blood with Jeremy Clarkson, i like :)

    Quote from Frogfall

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Cydonia

    Really could you tell more ?

    In the UK, Clarkson is a TV presenter, and media "journalist", that some people like - and some people absolutely hate. I just happen to be in the second group ;)

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.