A New Theory of Quantum Physics: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » A New Theory of Quantum Physics » A New Theory of Quantum Physics

A New Theory of Quantum Physics
Einstein, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics

A New Theory of Quantum Physics

tblaine74
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/12/08 - 07:20 AM: Subject: A New Theory of Quantum Physics	#1
I only titled this as “A New Theory of Quantum Physics” to catch attention. Though, if I were naïve enough, it might be a good title. [I posted this on a physics forum, and they booted it because they “don’t accept new theories”, and my “equations” comment was offensive. So I am posting it here, in the same form, for comment.] I am no physicist, but having read much of the contemporary theories, particularly Einstein’s, I am very curious. I am skeptical of things like equations that have been abstracted from nothing, and synthesized in accordance with nothing more than an expected result. So I tried, some time ago, to think of an explanation for certain experiments, which have led to much of contemporary theoretical physics, that was more "intuitive", where those, such as Einstein, seem to have been more creative. I am going to present my thoughts. It will be crude, and likely naïve, but I am not educated enough on these subjects to reject it myself. I will use the term ether, despite the risk of immediate discredit. I simply want to throw it out there, so as to get it off my mind. Could the simplest physical forms be three in number? Perhaps only one is what might be called material, and is something of a particle which, collectively, constitutes ether. Another is manifest as a point of "materialization" of ether, and the last is manifest as a point of "dematerialization" of ether. Perhaps the latter “points” possess attributes differing as to “size” or rate of materialization/dematerialization, which result in something of an imbalance when drawn together in a type of bond, or complex bonds representing elements. Perhaps when a complex combination of these forms results in a star, the imbalance is such that there is an excess of ether. The star could be seen as producing ether in this case. In which case, stars ought to gravitate away from one another, at least until the rate of “production” decreases. Perhaps when a complex combination of these forms results in a planet, the imbalance is such that there is an ether deficit. In this case the planet ought to be drawn toward a star until it reaches the point where the deficit is balanced. In relation to a star or planet, the excess and deficit in this postulation are, perhaps, arbitrary in accordance with my ignorance, but in either case there ought to be an area surrounding such bodies as planets or stars where the ether, the medium for a light wave, is moving either toward or away from the center of the body. In the case of the ether moving toward the body, this might explain any empirical evidence of light curving as it passes, as the light would be traveling in a medium that is, itself, moving. Such a phenomenon would seem to pose obvious consequences in relation to a Michelson-Morely experiment as well. Perhaps, this could also help explain the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. As for this, and getting of subject, what if we imagined silver atoms as a train of spinning symmetrical plastic discs rolling across the ground. When the train proceeds into a body of water (magnetic field) the disks start flopping over, either to the left or to the right. Maybe it is a 50/50 split. Now the 50 percent that flopped to the right (arbitrary) proceed onto a plane of water that is perpendicular to the present plane of water. Now the disks begin flopping over again, either to the left or to the right. Maybe it is a 50/50 split. This doesn’t seem very extraordinary. Though, perhaps, my ignorance of all this is. Surely, these have already been considered. In which case, I would appreciate any direction to those considerations which debunked them. Thanks

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2411

Posted 04/12/08 - 09:12 AM:	#2
tblaine74 wrote: I only titled this as “A New Theory of Quantum Physics” to catch attention. Though, if I were naïve enough, it might be a good title. [I posted this on a physics forum, and they booted it because they “don’t accept new theories”, and my “equations” comment was offensive. So I am posting it here, in the same form, for comment.] The only reason that your equations comment shouldn't be taken to be offensive is that it, among other parts of your posts, is symptomatic of your almost complete lack of understanding of actual physics, the practise of science, and, indeed, common sense. It is an unfortunate tendency of humans that we often want benefits without any effort. It sometimes leads us to the mistaken assumption that we can approach difficult subjects without doing the work required to understand these subjects. It also leads us to think that those people who do work in these subjects do not actually do any work on the subject.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

tblaine74
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/12/08 - 01:34 PM:	#3
Kwalish Kid wrote: The only reason that your equations comment shouldn't be taken to be offensive is that it, among other parts of your posts, is symptomatic of your almost complete lack of understanding of actual physics, the practise of science, and, indeed, common sense. It is an unfortunate tendency of humans that we often want benefits without any effort. It sometimes leads us to the mistaken assumption that we can approach difficult subjects without doing the work required to understand these subjects. It also leads us to think that those people who do work in these subjects do not actually do any work on the subject. The only benefit I saw in posting this was to get it off my mind. I don’t have physicists at my disposal, who can tell me “What a silly thought, for such and such reason”. Though, perhaps there are people here who can. I haven’t judged any of “those people” based on their work, or those interesting people you appear to know who simultaneously “do work” and “do not actually do any work”. If I thought the latter about people, I suppose I might also not think it at the same time. I’m not going to judge you yet either. Though, I am suspicious that you are one of those rational lightweights who rely on dramatic statements to hide their lack of ability to demonstrate anything. Perhaps I have no understanding of “actual” physics, the practice of science, or common sense, but I suppose it might take some “effort” to demonstrate that.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 04/13/08 - 07:16 PM:	#4
grins. I've looked at the aethir theory a bit. Yes, and no. Is my answer. Less simply put, it is possible that the experiments they used would not show any proof at all that the aethir exists. Part of the problem is how humans look at things. The aethir, a phenomenon that is supposed to give you the backdrop to 'place' the universe upon, is the wrong way to look at the problem. If you have something that you can actually place a thing on, then there is a division between space, so to speak. The difference you find in a house between stories. Like a floor. The floor of the second story, is the ceiling of the first story. One could argue therefore that the floor does not exist within either the top floor, or the bottom floor. In other words, the aethir does not exist within nor outside the universe. So, the question is, by what means are we capable of determining the existence of the aethir by means that exist within the universe? Unfortunately, I haven't seen any really good ideas yet, since we cannot define that which is outside the universe. I'll agree with Kwalish, a bit in that your post is extremely difficult to seperate into seperate sections. It causes alot of confusion, and is where a number of 'common sense' problems arise. No help however, on the maths and physics side.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.