Sunday, November 8, 2020

I've already disagreed with three "physics teacher" quantum mechanic videos

 Arvin Ash

Sabine Hossenfelder

The Science Asylum

All three are professional physics teacher youtube channels.

All three recently uploaded vids promoting Schroedinger's quantum orbitals.

The recent research I've done via Yakir Aharonov has debunked all three videos.

These are physic TEACHERS - yet as Professor Jean Bricmont emphasizes - most physicists do not truly understand quantum mechanics.

 Kind of trippy! What's the secret? Noncommutative phase logic.

 

@Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang im not gonna pretend that i understand your point. this video isn't even about double slits, it's about the shape and motion of orbitals. are you trying to prove that electrons are waves?
@Anarchy OK if you read Fred Alan Wolf he explains clearly that when Schroedinger ignored de Broglie's critique of Relativity then Schroedinger was not able to explain why the light was emitted when the electrons "jumped orbits." In other words the light emitted is a subharmonic of a superluminal momentum that is relativistic. de Broglie called this discovery his "Law of Phase Harmony" and his most important discovery of his life. Most people studying de Broglie never even learn about his Law of Phase Harmony. To properly understand it then only noncommutative matrices math can be used that relies on 1/2 spin of the electrons based on the vectors, before they are squared into amplitudes. So that means at "zero time" there already is a nonlocal causative force that is a newly discovered force of the 5th dimension. Spin is not a "wave" nor a "point." I have a list of 80 scientists giving quotes on de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony. http://ecoechoinvasives.blogspot.com/2018/01/summarizing-de-broglie-pilot-wave-law.html you can scroll down there or you can go here: https://www.academia.edu/41059601/Inner_Vibration and I think I "uploaded" it also... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m38Asft-fw Well I'll upload a vid on it - that one goes into Basil J. Hiley who collaborated with David Bohm (who rediscovered de Broglie). So Hiley now uses noncommutative phase math and he does not use Schroedinger wave equation. Same with Yakir Aharonov - he uses noncommutative matrices math from Heisenberg.
 
 
Yakir Aharonov: "There is a non-local exchange that depends on the modular variable....I'm saying that I have now an intuitive picture to understand interference by saying that when a particle moves through two slits, it always goes through one slit or the other, but it knows which other slit, the slit through which it did not go, whether it is open or not, because there are nonlocal equations of motion." Finally making sense of the double-slit experiment (2017, Aharonov): The nonlocal equations of motion in the Heisenberg picture thus allow us to consider a particle going through only one of the slits, but it nevertheless has nonlocal information regarding the other slit.... The Heisenberg picture, however, offers a different explanation for the loss of interference that is not in the language of collapse: if one of the slits is closed by the experimenter, a nonlocal exchange of modular momentum with the particle occurs....Alternatively, in the Heisenberg picture, the particle has both a definite location and a nonlocal modular momentum that can “sense” the presence of the other slit and therefore, create interference." as John Bell states: "Is it not clear from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by the wave?"
1

position is pointless if you are going to look at the energy involved in an interaction
@Farvez Farook energy uncertainty is from time-frequency uncertainty which is noncommutative. something the Science Asylum dude apparently knows nothing about (not surprisingly).
@Farvez Farook As mentioned, the character of time remains unchanged when we go from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, i.e. time is a simple parameter in quantum theory. This lack becomes obvious in particular in the case of relativistic formulation because there is no symmetry between space and time. This is however not in agreement with the most basic conceptions of the special theory of relativity. Louis de Broglie expressed this fact as follows: "The present quantum theory in all its versions takes time as the evolution parameter and therefore destroys the symmetry between space and time." In quantum systems the principle of conservation of energy can be temporarily violated....This has far reaching consequences. Wolfram Schommers on Cosmic Secrets 2012 book Wolfram Schommers, theoretical physicist and professor at The Research Center in Karlsruhe, Germany,

@Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang This is why QFT has supplanted QM. The fields in QFT are subject to all the symmetries of SR.
@Michael Bishop To quote quantum mechanics professor Jean Bricmont: "What about QFT or relativistic quantum mechanics ? In standard textbooks, the reduction or collapse of the quantum state is never discussed in relativistic terms−→the question raised by EPR and Bell is not even raised." and "All our intuitive notion of causality collapses, because this notion is based on the idea that causes precede effects in an absolute sense that does not depend on the reference frame." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnrJb66rQ2U Jean Bricmont: Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky (EPR), Bell and Nonlocality Have fun getting educated! https://www.math.uni-tuebingen.de/de/forschung/maphy/lehre/ss-2019/statisticalphysics/dateien/9-bricmont.pdf
 

Does a “system” have Free Will? Could someone define a “system” for me? Do living, conscious system’s have natural boundaries? The physicalist assumes the natural boundary is the brain/skull and then goes searching for signs that the physical brain could give a physicalist version of freedom, perhaps in the form of chaotic neural trajectories and/or some quantum or other neural randomness. Sadly, this kind “freedom” is nothing like my freedom to choose honey over marmalade for breakfast or the felt intention of stirring a cup of coffee? What about consciousness as a “system” irreducible to the brain? My conscious mind seems to have a natural boundary that keeps my thoughts and intentions private and unique to myself (leaving the possibility for mental telepathy and mind control aside), but my experience also encapsulates the entire world beyond the confines of my brain. The coffee cup is located outside my head, not in it. The “system” is then extended in space-time to include not just my body and my brain, but the coffee cup as well. There is no simple location in either space-time where my “free” act of stirring the coffee cup is located, yet there does still seem to some conscious entity called “me” that is separate from the world. This is the “boundary problem” as mentioned by Gregg Rosenberg. The boundary problem, lies at the heart of the “hard problem” when we scratch our heads and ask: why should this physical system - a brain - have qualia, or free will, while this physical system - a rock, say - does not? What makes the natural boundary of these physical systems anyway? This problem comes up also with Karl Friston’s Predictive Coding when he talks about “Markov Blankets.” Friston describes living systems in terms of the abstract mathematical notion of Markov blankets, but can’t tell us where to naturally place these blankets or boundaries around living systems without being to some degree arbitrary. I’m not sure Bergson, or anyone else, for that matter, has a solution for the boundary problem (or the hard problem).
read "Mind and Nature: A necessary unity" by Gregory Bateson - wherein he tries to grapple with the same questions about systems theory and natural boundaries. The "hard problem" is also addressed by Hameroff and Penrose. Essentially science is based on Fourier or Time-frequency uncertainty. So this goes back to Plato and the Pre-Socratics. So when "magnitude" was introduced into music theory then wavelength was the definition of a closed system based on geometric magnitude as irrational numbers. But quantum physics then realized that from time-frequency uncertainty there has to be noncommutative phase logic. So the "hard problem" is the same as the "quantum measurement problem." Jean Bricmont goes into this also very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnrJb66rQ2U So Bateson relied on Bertrand Russell - the "error of logical types" in set theory. Penrose is relying on Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem. This goes back to the difference between geometry and algebra but the missing ingredient is music theory as logical inference. Alain Connes then realized that noncommutative phase logic solves the hard problem of consciousness. So frequency is primary to geometry yet frequency arises from noncommutative phase that creates time. So noncommutative phase is the 5th dimension that can not be seen. This inherently goes against how Western science defines reality through an external measurement. And so paradoxes arise via the "reference frame" as the boundary condition.
 
@Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang I don't believe there is any type of shutter fast enough for the way popular science describes the enhanced double slit experiment. We know that a detector that just perceive a photon is impossible. Photon have too low energy, so detecting is absorbing and destroying it. The double slit experiment that acknowledge that, so instead pretend to open or close one slit after the photon is emitted are probably not doing what they seems to describe.
​@Christian Gingras
"It has since become clearer, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[8] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[9] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer" 
 
so no it has nothing to do with the shutter as you claim. So you are just repeating a common error - even Neil de Grasse Tyson makes this same error! 
 
"Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[5][6] with a related effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system, that is, without changing something in a system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
 
  "Note that the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with the precision of an experimental apparatus. Even for perfect measuring devices, these uncertainties would remain because they originate in the wave-like nature of matter."
https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/the-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle/
 
Nevertheless, the general meaning of the energy-time principle is that a quantum state that exists for only a short time cannot have a definite energy. The reason is that the frequency of a state is inversely proportional to time and the frequency connects with the energy of the state, so to measure the energy with good precision, the state must be observed for many cycles.

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)