Posts Tagged ‘quantum entangled phase group’

Noncausal Interactions, part II

December 11, 2012

I want to clarify the previous posting on how I resolve the noncausal paradox in unitary twist field theory–after all, this is the heart of the current struggle to create a quantum gravity theory.  Here, I’m continuing on from the previous post, where I laid out the unitary twist field theory approach for quantum interactions.  In there, I classified all particle interactions as either causal physical or noncausal quantum, and quantum interactions fall into many categories, two of which are interference and entanglement.  These two quantum interactions are non-causal, whereas physical interactions are causal–effects of physical interactions cannot go faster than the speed of light.

Many theories have attempted to explain the paradoxes that result from the noncausal quantum interactions, particularly because relativity theory specifies that no particle can exceed the speed of light.  The Copenhagen interpretation, multiple histories, string theories such as M theory, the Pilot wave theory, etc etc all attempt to resolve this issue–but in my research I have never found anyone describe what to me appears to be a simple solution–the group wave approach.

In my previous posting, I described this solution:  If every particle is formed as a Fourier composition of waves, the particle can exist as a group wave.  Individual wave components can propagate at infinite speed, but the group composition is limited to speed c.  This approach separates out particle interactions as having two contributors:  from the composite effect of changing the phase of all wave components (moving the center of the group wave) and the effect of changing the phase of a single fundamental wave component.  If the individual wave components changed, the effect is instantaneous throughout spacetime, but there is a limitation in how quickly the phase of any give wave component can be changed, resulting in a limitation of how quickly a group wave can move.

It’s crucial to understand the difference, because this is the core reason why the paradox resolves.  Another way to say it is that when a change to a wave component is made, the change is instantaneous throughout R3–but the rate of change for any component has a limit.  An analogy would go like this: you have two sheets of transparency paper with a pattern of parallel equally spaced lines printed on it.  If you place each sheet on top of each other at an angle, you will see a moire pattern.  Moving one sheet relative to the other will move the moire pattern at some speed limited by how quickly you moved the sheet.  But note that every printed line on that sheet moved instantaneously relative to every other line on that sheet–instantaneous wave component movement throughout R3.  Note that the interference pattern changes instantaneously, but the actual movement of the moire pattern is a function of how fast the sheets are moved relative to each other–exactly analogous to what we see in real life.  This is the approach that I think has to be used for any quantum gravity theory.

Agemoz

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Noncausal interactions in the Unitary Twist Field Theory

December 10, 2012

It’s been a little while since I’ve posted, partly because of my time spent on the completion of a big work project, and partly because of a great deal of thinking before posting again (what a concept!  Something new!).  This blog has traveled through a lot of permutations and implications of the unitary twist field theory.  It starts by assuming that the Standard Model is valid, but then tries to create an underlying geometry for quantization and special relativity.  This twist vector field geometry is based on E=hv, and has worked pretty well–but when we get to entangled particles and other noncausal aspects of quantum theory, I’ve needed to do some new thinking.  While the noncausal construct is easily built on group wave theory (phase information propagates at infinite speed, but group Fourier compositions of waves that make up particles are limited to speed c), there are significant consequences for the theory regarding its view of the dimensional characteristics of the 3D+T construct of our existence.

As I mentioned, the unitary twist field theory starts with E=hv, the statement that every particle is quantized to an intrinsic frequency.  There really is only one way to do this in a continuous system in R3+T:  a twist within a background state vector field.  Twists are topologically stable, starting from the background direction and twisting to the same background direction with an integral turn.  Quantization is achieved because partial turns cannot exist (although virtual particles exist physically as partial turns for a short time before reverting back to the background state).  With this, I have taken many paths–efforts to verify this pet theory could really work.  For example, I tested the assumption of a continuous system–could the field actually be a lattice at some scale.  It cannot for a lot of reasons (and experiments appear to confirm this), especially since quantization scales with frequency, tough to do with a lattice of specific spacing.  Another concern to address with twist field theory occurs because it’s not a given that the frequency in E=hv has any physical interpretation–but quantum theory makes it clear that there is.  Suppose there was no real meaning to the frequency in E=hv–that is, the hv product give units that just happen to match that of frequency.  This can’t be true, because experimentally, all particles quantum interfere at the hvfrequency, an experimental behavior that confirms the physical nature of the frequency component.

So–many paths have been taken, many studies to test the validity of the unitary twist field theory, and within my limits of testing this hypothesis, it seems so far the only workable explanation for quantization.  I believe it doesn’t appear to contradict the Standard Model, and does seem to add a bit to it–an explanation for why we see quantization using a geometrical technique.  And, it has the big advantage of connecting special relativity to quantum mechanics–and I am seeing promising results for a path to get to general releativity.  A lot of work still going on there.

However, my mind has really taken a big chunk of effort toward a more difficult issue for the unitary twist field theory–the non-causality of entangled particles or quantum interference.  Once again, as discussed in previous posts here, the best explanation for this seems pretty straightforward–the particles in unitary twist field theory are twists that act as group waves.  The group wave cluster, a Fourier composition, is limited to light speed (see the wonderful discovery in a previous post that any confined twist system such as the unitarty twist field theory must geometrically exhibit a maximum speed, providing a geometrical reason for the speed of light limit).  However, the phase portion of the component waves is not limited to light speed and resolves the various non-causal dilemmas such as the two-slit experiment, entangled particles, etc, simply and logically without resorting to multiple histories or any of the other complicated attempts to mash noncausality into a causal R3+T construct.

But for me, there is a difficult devil in the details of making this really work.  Light-speed limited group waves with instantaneous phase propagation raises a very important issue.  Through a great deal of thinking, I believe I have shown myself that noncausal interactions which require instantaneous phase propagation, will specify that distance and time be what I call “emergent” concepts–they are not intrinsic to the construction of existence, but emerge–probably as part of the initial Big Bang expansion.  If so, the actual dimensions of space-time are also emergent–and must come from or are based on a system with neither–a zero dimensional dot of some sort of incredibly complex oscillation.  Why do I say this?  Because instantaneous phase propagation, such as entangled particle resolving, must have interactions in local neighborhoods that do not have either a space or time component.  Particles have two types of interactions–ones where two particles have similar values for R3+T (physical interactions), and those that have similar values only in phase space.  In either case, two particles will affect each other.  But how do you get interactions between two particles that aren’t in the same R3+T neighborhood?  Any clever scheme like the Standard Model or unitary twist field theory must answer this all important question.

Physicists are actively trying to get from the Standard Model to this issue (it’s a permutation of the effort to create a quantum gravity theory).  As you would expect, I am trying to get from the unitary twist field theory to this issue.  Standard Model efforts have typically either focused on adding dimensions (multiple histories/dimensions/string theories) or more exotic methods usually making some set of superluminal assumptions.  As mentioned in previous posts, unitary twist field theory has twists that turn about axes in both an R3 and a direction I that is orthogonal to R3 in time.  Note that this I direction does not have any dimensional length–it is simply a vector direction that does not lie in R3.  When I use the unitary twist field theory to show how particles will interact in R3+T, either physically or in entangled or interfering states, those particles would simply have group wave constructs with either a matching set of R3+T values (within some neighborhood epsilon value) or must have matching phase information in the I space.  In other words, normal “nearby”  interactions between two particles happen in a spacetime neighborhood, but quantum interference interactions happen in the I space, the land that Time and Space forgot.  There is no dimensional length here, but phase matches allow interaction as well.  This appears to be a fairly clean way to integrate noncausal behavior into the unitary twist field theory.

Obviously, there are still things to figure out here, but that is currently the most promising path I see for how unitary twist field theory will address the noncausal interaction construct issue.

Agemoz

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Multiple histories. Baloney!

June 29, 2012

I’ve dug in deep to trying to find out how to make a valid field description that will be implementable in a simulation.  The hope is, just like Conway’s game of life, the right unitary twist field model will show self sustaining quantized behavior that could provide a geometrical basis for the particle zoo.  When you do this, a lot of the baloney in a crackpot idea is forced out into the open–not easy to fool yourself when you have to actually implement an idea.  No surprise that that’s a tough road to follow–what I’ve found is that there are an awful lot of cool ideas that die this way.

I’m still working and thinking, but today I had a great discussion with a friend about a different topic.  Someone was asking me about multiple dimensions and multiple histories, and I told him what I thought–and we had a great time!  You may think physics is a mined out field with not much prospect of exciting work, but discussions like this are why I find this field so fascinating.  There’s not really any chance that I will actually add anything to the base of human knowledge–that’s for university physicists with papers to write.  But we can still think–and that is what I love to do!

Here’s the deal.  Multiple histories and String theory (theories, actually, including M-theory and other multiple dimensional approaches) are two broad classes of theories that try to resolve the non-causality of quantum problems such as entanglement and the dual slit experiment.  In other words, these are theories that try to form a common mathematical basis for general relativity and quantum theory.  These are really the only two approaches that are considered by mainstream physicists–and I don’t think a lot of them really like either approach.  Multiple histories, the idea that all possible alternatives to a triggering event  exist, and that observation resolves the alternatives to a single outcome without violating causality, and multiple dimension theories, which remove causality by providing a near zero length alternative path (via an additional set of dimensions) both have serious problems.  I have no doubt that the history of physics is full of fiery debate about which approach works and is real.

There’s no debate in my mind, though, I think they both severely violate the keep-it-simple-stupid rule–because I think there’s a far better answer.  Causality is a property of particles, massive or massless (eg, photons).  Quantum entanglement and non-causal interference is a property of wave phase.  A simple answer is that the Fourier composition of a collection of group waves is limited in velocity (to c), but the phase information propagates at infinite speed.  The phase information gets to the target (observation point) instantly, but the actual particle takes a while to arrive.  There’s a lot of details to this approach that I won’t cover in this post, but hopefully that is enough for you to get the gist.  No piling on of dimensions, no absurd multiple copies of the universe weaving in and out of observer views (do we have to include all possible observer outcomes as a set of histories–but then just where does it resolve to one observed outcome…. etc).

So my friend asks, if this is a real option, why isn’t presented and considered in the literature or in pop physics books and all?  Well, there’s an excellent chance that this idea *was* considered back in the early quantum theory days and rejected for obvious reasons, just not obvious to me.  Unfortunately, the literature only records successes, not failures and the reasons behind the failure–so valuable information and research about why something *wont* work does not get captured for future generations.  Perhaps a future version of the scientific method will evolve that realizes the value of wrong information (properly labeled) and include it with papers describing groundbreaking correct discoveries.

Even though I suspect a real working physicist would have an easy answer why this approach can’t be, I haven’t heard it yet, read of it yet, nor thought of a good reason why this can’t be the right answer–despite having a hopefully skeptical sense that I am unlikely to have a right answer when no one else has found it.  Don’t know what to tell you there, except that this phase/group wave idea seems a far simpler and more logical explanation than adding dimensions or whole universe copies to our existence.  And in any event, thinking about it and having fun discussing it isn’t restricted to university physicists!

Agemoz

PS:  It may look like I’ve left out the Copenhagen interpretation, which says the process of observation causes composite quantum states to resolve (decohere).  Not really–I categorize this interpretation as a variation that falls under the multiple histories category–the composite quantum state vector contains all possible outcomes).

PPS:  And, then you might come back with:  Oh, this looks like the discredited Pilot Wave approach, where there are multiple pieces to the particle and the surrounding part “guides” the particle.  Dr. Bell, who should have won a Nobel before he died, disproved that one by showing there cannot be internal structure explaining entanglement.   My counterpoint:  You are getting warmer, a better objection–but Fourier composition does not mean physical components–the Pilot Wave is not the same as a group wave composition forming a particle.

Then there’s DeBroglie, Bohm, and a whole bunch of others.  I’ll leave you to research the rest of it.  It’s kind of a tired debate now…

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

More notes from my local thinking journal–quantum is phase and group

July 2, 2008

This post has the discovery that the quantum entangled state, and particle interference experiments, could be well explained by assuming that particles with mass move as a group velocity of waves, but all particles, massive or not, have phase information that travels at infinite speed. Again, these are copies of notes from my local thinking journal.

More thoughts, and a nice revelation. First, a correction on the F field (composite E/B material, where E is when substance is perpendicular to c velocity, B is parallel). The ring motion and photon motion solution must have the rotation diameter in line with the c velocity, (thus a circle representing the vector lies on the axis of motion. In the case of the ring, same thing, but then the circle is always tangent to and the diameter is parallel to the normal axis of the ring. In this case, the vector is tangent to the ring, then perpendicular to the tangent of the ring, then tangent again at the 180 degree point (but pointing in the opposite direction), then perpendicular but now pointing in the opposite direction. A spin-up solution is clockwise, spin down is counterclockwise.

In this model, it became apparent that the substance (field) magnitude is unimportant because energy is only relevant to the vector spin rate. In fact, this magnitude probably has to be constant regardless of frequency (otherwise the energy of the photon or ring would depend on it, but it doesn’t since E=hv). In the case of the photon, this spin rate can be anything. In the case of a ring, only certain very specific frequencies will create a ring (eg, electron). Other topological structures should be possible, but it is very clear that in the end, only that frequency and nothing else will produce a ring. It also is clear from the two slit experiment and large photons that a string model will not work–the field is distributed and has to be part of the particle. An infinitely thin ring or string will not cause wave/particle behavior shown by the two-slit experiment.

The Fourier transform method of locating a quantum particle start from the transform of the delta function, F(x,t) = Integral(e^i 2 pi (wt – kx) delta(x,t) dt dx. This results in the following: F(x,t) = e^i 2 Pi (wt – kx), and thus implies an infinite unit magnitude frequency distribution where the particles location is solely determined by the phase relationship of every possible frequency up to the frequency determined by the energy of the particle. However, that solution is for a delta function, but a photon or electron actually is a subset of those frequencies, each of whose magnitudes will be less than unity. Nevertheless, a particle’s motion will be solely determined by rotation of the frequency set. It is doubtful that this will be useful in understanding the construction of the particles. The critical question is clearly confined to nothing more than why does only one particular frequency of the vector rotation induce a stable ring. Nothing else matters (I think) not the field magnitude, the geometry of a ring, or anything else that I can think of. In the end, a constraint must be found that specifies the field path as straight for all cases unless this particular frequency occurs, which causes path curvature.

A couple of interesting related issues–I realized that entangled states imply that phase information transfer is not limited to the speed of light, but the group velocity of waves is (whether photon or ring. massless always goes the speed of light, but massive never does). In this model, it is possible to explain the two-slit and Aspect experiments. I also realized that looking for the cause of either the speed of light or the electron energy (the “magic frequency” or from now on, the ring frequency) may be an observational issue as opposed to an actual constant of the universe. For example, it is possible that the speed of light pops out simply because time is a scaleless entity and it results from some kind of ratio given that we are particle-derived observers in an infinite (no-time) universe. In addition, I realized that the group velocity of waves creates a quantum entity by shifting the phase of the set of waves described above, and that the speed of light may actually be some maximum rate of phase shifting. But as mentioned before, my real suspicion is that the Fourier decomposition of quantum particles is a mathematical artifact and is not going to be useful.

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »