Merged I killed Duality and Uncertainty for a Theory of Everything

[pittsburghjoe]

The Observer Effect

The unobserved quantum realm doesn't care about time or distance so the order goes something like this:

1. quantum field excitation of a new particle is about to happen
   
2. it gets assigned a path in the quantum field
   
3. if the path contains a spacetime enactor (a detector), it swaps the particle to physical
   
4. the particle or wave is sent via the quantum field if it's a wave / spacetime if physical

Uncertainty

Delta x Delta p = h-bar/2

There isn't a problem with position and momentum when the object is physical and not a quantum wave. The Uncertainty Principle is for waves.

Duality isn't a thing anymore. You may think you have evidence of a particle acting as a wave at the same time ..but you don't. You are assuming they are both at the same time because you are not taking observation into account. You wouldn't catch a quantum wave being a wave before it went through a detector (that it was moving towards). The particle is likely pre-set to be physical or a wave before it starts moving. Observation gives one type of result ..a physical one. (unless you messing around with polarizers) .

They key to killing duality is pointing out that the final panel of an experiment doesn't count as observation. When you say you can measure wave-like properties, it is derived from that final panel. If quantum observation doesn't show wave-like properties, duality at the same time falls apart. Quantum observation is only for detectors in the path of a particle that allows the particle to continue on.

People say uncertainty applies to physical objects because you peg an electron with a photon so its momentum changes ..well, duh, two objects just hit each other.

You can be certain that the particle in question will be physical if you place anything that will acknowledge its existence while it propagates on its path. That's what observation is, acknowledging a particle while it's moving from a to b. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of both entangled particles is known. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed while in flight. Time in flight is not a factor for the state a particle will be from start to finish.


The realms of the Observed vs Unobserved

This post predicts what happens when Spacetime gets involved with unobserved quantum waves from the act of observation.

<SNIP> for rule 4
Please do not post material that is available elsewhere.

See here, for example.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Trebuchet]

Next Nobel winner or another crank? We'll see.

 

[Molinaro]

Sounds like a crude form of Feynman's Transaction Interpretation of QM.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm trying to figure out how many points it gets.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

Sounds like a crude form of Feynman's Transaction Interpretation of QM.

I don't use advanced waves or handshakes in that way and I never use the final panel for anything.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

I'm trying to figure out how many points it gets.

I'll give you points for everything that is refutable and isn't plausible

 

[Molinaro]

I don't use advanced waves or handshakes in that way and I never use the final panel for anything.

Hence my use of the word "crude". You just hand wave away the need for explaining how it knows which form to take and how the knowledge of the future path gets back to it. Whereas the Transactional Interpretation shows how the answer is already there in the equations that are already in use.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

Placing a detector that would take an intelligent mind to create and place is not hand-waving. The abbe diffraction limit of matter automatically anchors objects to spacetime.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'll give you points for everything that is refutable and isn't plausible

I'm open-minded but you're already at least 60 points up, so I don't hold out a lot of hope.

Why are you posting this here instead of submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal?

 

[Molinaro]

Placing a detector that would take an intelligent mind to create and place is not hand-waving. The abbe diffraction limit of matter automatically anchors objects to spacetime.

Oh, so things are worse than I thought. You've fallen for a mistake so common that a correction to it is usually found near the beginning of any discussion of the "observer effect".

For example, the Wiki page has this bit:

Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.

The fact that a detector made by an intelligent mind is used in experiments does not mean the effect only occurs when an intelligent mind or a product created by it, is part of the interaction.

The observer effect in QM has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, minds, or human observation of results.

This error is most commonly made by the people who attempt to make a point, without any math to back it up.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

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

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

 

[pittsburghjoe]

I explained the observer effect in the op. I understand that the mainstream is wrong. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that intelligence has to be involved.

 

[Molinaro]

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

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

The idea of the observer effect is a property of the equations of QM. The experiments came after, to see if what the equations were saying could be seen. Not the other way around.

You have an idea that it turns out, shares some properties with something that has been developed in a formal way, from the equations which match experimental results.

However there is nothing formal about what you present. You make statements while giving no description, mathematical or otherwise, of how.

 

[Molinaro]

The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that intelligence has to be involved.

No. What it shows us is that we can use our intelligence to design an experiment that allows us to detect a physical process that the equations already said was there. And the equations say it is there no matter if we are doing our specific experiment or not.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

You have a double slit with opposite linear polarizers at each slit. You get an observed clump. You then add a 45 degree polarizer and the fringes come back.
It's not because the which way information is getting erased. It's because the particle starts a new life when passing through multiple filters.
The state of a particle is predetermined based on the path it will fly through. But something interesting happens with you place multiple detectors.
The particles state is reassessed while passing through a polarizer. If it sees another polarizer in its path it's going to cycle back to being a wave.

A simple double slit example shows us that a particle can be requested to decohere and remain decohered until it hits the final screen.
An Uncertainty Principle test requires several requests of decoherence to get the momentum.
What's newly discovered is that each request is causing the particle to cycle from wave to particle, setting fuzziness because it wasn't fast enough to do the swap.

If you are measuring something that isn't remaining in the same state, you can't blame the detectors of decoherence anymore. It was ridiculous to assume a detector capable of displaying both coherence and decoherence was the cause anyways.

 

[pittsburghjoe]

Your way of thinking would require nature to be aware of everything at all times. Don't you think it's much more likely a person is requesting a single physical particle?

 

[Molinaro]

Your way of thinking would require nature to be aware of everything at all times. Don't you think it's much more likely a person is requesting a single physical particle?

I think it is much more likely that nature works just fine when no people are anywhere around.

Attaching people to the use of the word observer in QM demonstrates that you don't even understand the most basic ideas on the subject.

 

[Robin]

I explained the observer effect in the op. I understand that the mainstream is wrong. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that intelligence has to be involved.

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?

 

[pittsburghjoe]

I think it is much more likely that nature works just fine when no people are anywhere around.

Attaching people to the use of the word observer in QM demonstrates that you don't even understand the most basic ideas on the subject.

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.

 

[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?

Erm, my theory still works with star light.