Merged I killed Duality and Uncertainty for a Theory of Everything

[Belz...]

I want people to see my idea ::shrugs::

You act like any dummy is allowed to post to those things.

If you have a groundbreaking new physics on hand, I guarantee it'll open doors or, barring that, occasionally go through them.

 

[Molinaro]

The laws of physics describe what occurs when we observe, and when we don't. The equations don't change from one circumstance to the other.

Your suggestion that they do change when nobody is looking is not science.

 

[ferd burfle]

OP has been spammed to a number of non-academic physics and math fora. Anyone surprised?

 

[BStrong]

I understand all to well that there are stubborn people like you. The funny thing is, you don't have proof that a particle swaps without observation.

I hope your physics skills are better than your grammatical skill.

 

[BStrong]

OP has been spammed to a number of non-academic physics and math fora. Anyone surprised?

That seems to be the rule rather than the exception with "scientific" breakthroughs.

 

[Robin]

Erm, my theory still works with star light.

Either way would work with star light, so that doesn't answer my question.

Is there any reason you can't give me a direct answer?

 

[Robin]

Incidentally, I don't ever recall having wave-particle duality cashed out as "is a particle and a wave at the same time", more often it is something like "matter sometimes displays wave like characteristics and sometimes particle like characteristics".

So I don't see how wave/particle duality has been 'killed'. I would have thought that Many-Worlds QM deals rather more effectively and simply with this duality in any case.

And to say that uncertainty has been killed - does this mean that there is an experiment that will show a clear exception to the principle?

If not I don't see how it has been killed.

And, in any case, why would killing WP duality and the HUP be desirable features of a theory? What does that get you?

 

[pittsburghjoe]

To clarify, do you mean that intelligence is involved in assigning the path and taking the decision to swap it to physical, as well as to set the detector?

Intelligence can't be involved in assigning the path or else it would always cause decoherence. Intelligence does have to make an educated guess of where the path will be though.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

If you believe in uncertainty for both sides then you believe in duality at the same time.

"wave/particle duality" has been killed for cases that insinuate they are both at the same time.

I killed them so we can have a bridge between the theories of the very large and small. We can understand reality better now.

 

[arthwollipot]

The current formulation of quantum physics has a very strong mathematical underpinning. Do you have a strong mathematical basis for your theory?

 

[pittsburghjoe]

Sorry the unifying theory isn't more exciting, it wasn't meant to disprove much.
It's a bridge.

 

[arthwollipot]

OP has been spammed to a number of non-academic physics and math fora. Anyone surprised?

Are any of them taking it seriously?

 

[Robin]

I am not sure how the path assignment is supposed to happen.

Say we have a photon emitted near a pane of glass and a detector at the reflection position but no detector at the pass-through position.

The probability that it will arrive at the detector (rather than pass through) obviously depends in a non-monotonic way upon the thickness of the glass but also on the energy of the photon. So how can a path be assigned before the wave/particle switch has been made when the path depends upon both wave properties (frequency) and particle properties (triggering the detector at a particular time and place)?

 

[p0lka]

Sorry the unifying theory isn't more exciting, it wasn't meant to disprove much.
It's a bridge.

If you have an actual theory, spit it out so the detail can be examined.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

if it's pass-through ..it doesn't count as tunneling

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

So basically this assumes a sentient creator god which continuously observes every single particle at the same time to make them behave?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If anyone had a reasonable potential theory of everything, why would they post it in a forum?

 

[Robin]

Also, what is the definition of "physical" used here? How is a wave not physical?

In fact if there were something that had wave and particle properties simultaneously, by what definition of "physical" would it not be physical?

 

[pittsburghjoe]

So basically this assumes a sentient creator god which continuously observes every single particle at the same time to make them behave?

No, that's how it would be if observation wasn't in place. It hints at god that wanted life to be a thing so it created spacetime(observed).

Also, what is the definition of "physical" used here? How is a wave not physical?

In fact if there were something that had wave and particle properties simultaneously, by what definition of "physical" would it not be physical?

Unobserved Quantum waves are not physical. Maybe you are thinking of mechanical waves. I killed duality.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

yet 99.99999999999% of the observable universe does not have life and we've only observed the bare surface and thus by your theory no chemical or nuclear reactions can take place there as it is unobserved.

Alternatively, you are wrong.