emergence theory: the Particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time


Our program at Quantum Gravity Research is, in some sense, a modern code theoretic and discretized analogue of the original Bohm model. And, unlike his model, we have the important advantage of being able to recover gauge symmetry equations under transformative mappings

In our first-principles quantum gravity theory, which we call emergence theory, there is no wave/particle duality (just like there is none in the pilot wave model). The particle is BOTH a wave and a particle at the same time.

We are attempting to deal with the need for Lorentz invariance and the measurement of the uniform speed of light in a radically different manner than Einstein and the rest of the physics community.

Furthermore, we have a not-so-radically different view of quantum mechanics.

Only about 60% of physicists surveyed agree with the Copenhagen interpretation. This is the view attached to the philosophical/ontological conjecture of wave particle duality and superposition.

 The second most popular view is the many world’s interpretation. 

And the third but the most growing in popularity view is the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave model. Now, this is a starkly different view, wherein one fully rejects the concept of, say, one particle going through both slits of the double slit experiment simultaneously. 

NOTE: A similar departure from the standard view also has de Broglie’s name assigned to it. That is the de Broglie electron clock, wherein that is a sort of substructure to the time domain patterns of electron positions that allows for a clock cycle to exist along with a forward propagation pattern.

Anyway, below is a short (8 minutes) fun Derek Muller video off the Veritasium youtube channel that will give a conceptual feel for Bohm’s idea if you are unfamiliar.  It is well known that the mathematics is rigorous and in full agreement with QM and with the experiment. But the idea is growing in popularity and has received a tremendous amount of attention in the media in the last few years because of various groups writing papers about the experimental analogy of mesoscopic scale pilot waves. This video will talk about that. And, when you’re ready, you can find peer review papers on all I'm talking about here.


NOTE: The Bohm view is deterministic. However, as theoretical physicist Jack Sarfatti will agree, Sutherland’s rigorous treatment of QM allows for backwards-in-time feedback loops which, by logic, would render the system non-deterministic. Furthermore, any physics based on code theory, such as the Quasicrystalline Spin Network (QSN) approach, where such physics is similar to the pilot wave principle, will, by definition of “code”, render the physical outcomes to be strictly non-deterministic. 

For more on the QSN, check out this very short video in which geometer, animator and QGR research scientist Dugan Hammock displays some of his work visualizing the quasicrystalline point space on which we model our physics. This 3D point space which we call the Quasicrystalline Spin Network is derived from a 4D quasicrystalline point space called the Elser-Sloane quasicrystal, which is a projection to 4D of the E8 lattice at a particular angle. :


Comments

  1. Hi Mr. Irwin
    I would like to speak with you.
    My "business card" will be this article , that, of course, is related to your post.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4010
    When you read it, please notice that all Bell's experiments until 2012 are covered. It is more than a revision paper with some profound insight into the topic - it even corrects Krotkov inequality, the one Ansmann's team used to "disprove" local-realism, and whose protocol is used by the major players in quantum computer research. I would suggest you ask a mathematician, specialised in Operational Research methods , to check the optimization calculations, as "Simplex", widely used in management, is a mathematical optimisation tool physicists rarely use.
    Hoping the question in your head will be: Why someone that doesn't "belong" to the physics community has such a deep insight into this subject?
    Are you interested?
    Teresa

    ReplyDelete
  2. You would think that an emergent theory would be easy to formulate because we know that photons are emergent because we can create photons relative to our actions. Every time we light a candle or turning on an electric light bulb we create photon vibrations or oscillations. But such a theory would have to be based on the Standard Model of Particle Physics; also it would have to contain the time dilation of Relativity and the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics. All these theories would have to be approximations of the new emergent theory. Also all the phase changes of matter that are relative to temperature would have to be explained as emergent processes. And all this would need a mathematical foundation and be relative to the four fundamental forces of nature! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ILhIgvf_o

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts