Anyone know of crazy quantum mechanics alternative theories?

[Doug Treadwell]

I'm interested in hearing about any crackpots you know of out there who have even the most ridiculous alternatives to current QM theory.  I'm very unsatisfied with the amount of data that's available and it's difficult to formulate any new theories due to lack of data, but maybe there is somebody out there who has connected the dots even though the mainstream hasn't accepted it.  I'll be interested in doing a computational simulation based on their ideas to see if there's any shred of possibility they're on to something.

[Alex Kiselev]

Look at string theory, that's all I can say. That's about as crackpot as you can get without falling far from the scientific tree.

There is a massive amount of theories surrounding quantum mechanics, and as for the amount of data, we have more data supporting quantum mechanics than almost any other science and QM as a whole has made the most astonishing, risky, and accurate predictions of all the sciences. The difficulty of formulating new theories of QM is not due to the lack of data, quite the opposite in fact. We have so much data, a majority of it extremely complex and strange, that a theory must be extremely well worked out to describe even the simplest particle physics experiments.

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Doug Treadwell <therealepi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm interested in hearing about any crackpots you know of out there who have even the most ridiculous alternatives to current QM theory.  I'm very unsatisfied with the amount of data that's available and it's difficult to formulate any new theories due to lack of data, but maybe there is somebody out there who has connected the dots even though the mainstream hasn't accepted it.  I'll be interested in doing a computational simulation based on their ideas to see if there's any shred of possibility they're on to something.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

[Doug Treadwell]

I think the data supporting QM is not as extensive as people think.  It's extensive only if you interpret practically everything as supporting QM, rather than just QM being in good agreement with that data.  It's not that that data rules out other theories (other than a couple of selected alternative theories that experiments have been designed to test).  Practically every experiment before QM (until events around the turn of the 20th century) supported classical mechanics, and yet it was eventually surpassed.  In the 1880s it would have been easy for someone to say "we have more data supporting classical mechanics than almost any other science and it has made the most astonishing...".  And of course the predictions of classical electromagnetism would have been "astonishing, risky, and accurate" based on the expectations of the time.  Would you have expected to not be electrocuted if you were sitting in a metal cage and someone put 100,000 volts through the cage?

[Doug Treadwell]

I guess what I'm trying to say above is, the data do not support QM to the exclusion of all possible alternatives or improvements.

[Doug Treadwell]

I should also say that when I am talking about QM I'm talking about the Copenhagen interpretation in particular.  In my opinion the only experiment that currently supports that interpretation to the possible exclusion of others is the single electron double slit experiment.  I'm very interested in alternative interpretations of the results of the very few of those experiments there have been.  Also any thoughts on the De Broglie relation are of interest, as once you have that the Schrodinger equation is a simple next step.

[Russell Whitaker]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Doug Treadwell
<therealepi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess what I'm trying to say above is, the data do not support QM to the
> exclusion of all possible alternatives or improvements.
>

Quick question is in order: what, if any, formal coursework have you done in
the subject? What is your background?

Russell

--
Russell Whitaker
http://twitter.com/OrthoNormalRuss
http://orthonormalruss.blogspot.com/

[Doug Treadwell]

Russell, I've only had an introduction to modern physics that discussed QM briefly, but I've also read self-selected portions of popular undergraduate and graduate physics textbooks, have read most of the research papers thought to be decisive in supporting QM for myself, histories of the development of QM, and went through the math of deriving the Schrodinger equation (in the process of which I taught myself how to solve hyperbolic partial differential equations, although that turned out not to be necessary just for the derivation).  I've read more research papers than most of the grad students I know.  Basically I understand the research supporting QM and the derivations, and what I'm not able to do is calculate wave functions for anything beyond a hydrogen atom.  My understanding is that most of what's learned in QM courses (including at the grad level -- I looked) is how to do more complex calculations.  I've intentionally postponed that because I'm more concerned with the theoretical foundations than the mathematics, which I'm sure I could learn relatively quickly.  Other relevant education includes math through multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations, and intro courses in mechanics, electromagnetism, and modern physics.

[William Heath]

Hi Russel,

Albert Einstein did not subscribe to quantum mechanics.  He fell out of favor with mainstream science as a result during the last years of his life.  During that time he attempted to create a unified theory that would explain quantum mechanics and unite those observations with classical newtonian physics.  His main ideas to accomplish this were:

1.  The concept of hidden variables  (Variables that actually exist but that you can't actually detect or perform an experiment on)

Thats all I know right now.  Anyway, he was horrified by Quantum Mechanics and the theories used to explain it.

I am no expert just giving my two cents.  

-Tim

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Russell Whitaker <russell....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Cathal Garvey]

Sounds awfully like more recent attributions of unexplained phenomena to "invisible forces" and "invisible matter".

I saw an entertaining and thought provoking argument against the big bang theory that went something like this:

1) Big bang was an intelligent assumption derived from observation of celestial bodies generally moving apart.

2) When the data didn't support a direct "explosive" pattern, a period of anomalous sudden expansion was proposed, called inflation. Fair enough; fit model to universe first, search for evidence after.

3) Due to a lack of evidence for inflation, a secret force that acts against gravity in some unknown circumstances was proposed. Dark Energy.

3) When the spin of galaxies seemed too fast for currently accepted models of gravitation, the existence of a peculiar form of matter that only, and really only, holds galaxies together was proposed. Dark matter.

Although I didn't agree with the following argument that the big bang itself is all bunkum, he makes a solid case that much of the work in modern physics is based upon three concepts that were invented to explain away problems in the model, but which remain utterly unproven.

Prediction: We won't be seeing *any* evidence of "Dark Matter" that couldn't equally be attributed to something else, and any affects currently attributed to "Dark Energy" will turn out to be variations in the effects of gravity according to relative velocities or some other variable of space-time.

All this doesn't necessarily affect quantum mechanics generally, be QM is one of the areas of physics that is well supported by benchtop experiments and accelerator data. It's more a problem for astrophysics, where the only "data" is observation of the visible universe and disappointingly vague (going by the models) answers from huge accelerators.

However, many active researchers in quantum mechanics are working under assumptions derived from these at-least-highly-suspect theories of inflation, dark energy, and dark matter, so their predictions of quantum mechanical effects are likely to be skewed heavily from what probably emerges from the experiment. And unfortunately, when your observations are worlds away from your predictions, human nature says to ignore them, assume the experiment is set up incorrectly, and continue (especially when that experiment cost millions or more).

letters.cunningprojects.com
twitter.com/onetruecathal
http://www.indiebiotech.com

[Jay Woods]

In terms of your original question, I suggest you look at

http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/2/1/272
Time-Symmetric Boundary Conditions and Quantum Foundations

Abstract: Despite the widely-held premise that initial boundary
conditions (BCs) corresponding to measurements/interactions can fully
specify a physical subsystem, a literal reading of Hamilton’s principle
would imply that both initial and final BCs are required (or more
generally, a BC on a closed hypersurface in spacetime). Such a time-
symmetric perspective of BCs, as applied to classical fields, leads to
interesting parallels with quantum theory. This paper will map out some
of the consequences of this counter-intuitive premise, as applied to
covariant classical fields. The most notable result is the contextuality
of fields constrained in this manner, naturally bypassing the usual
arguments against so-called “realistic” interpretations of quantum
phenomena.

[John Griessen]

On 12/08/2010 04:10 AM, William Heath wrote:
>
> Albert Einstein did not subscribe to quantum mechanics.

And wasn't Feynman's mechanics name for it because it was just a model, not a
simple to explain pure theory like Einstein wanted?

JG

[William Jennings]

aether wave theory and topological geometrodynamics are my favorite crackpot theories

[William Heath]

Did you hear about the theory that dark matter is irrelevant and not even necessary if it was proven that space is warped and gravity is not uniform?

-Tim

[sgt york]

TIME CUBE.

(sorry, it hadn't been said yet, and William's post oddly sounded like
the setup to a joke, so I almost had to say it. Besides, it's
practically mandatory in such a discussion).

On Dec 8, 1:53 pm, William Heath <wghe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you hear about the theory that dark matter is irrelevant and not even
> necessary if it was proven that space is warped and gravity is not uniform?
>
> -Tim
>

> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Cathal Garvey <cathalgar...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Sounds awfully like more recent attributions of unexplained phenomena to
> > "invisible forces" and "invisible matter".
>
> > I saw an entertaining and thought provoking argument against the big bang
> > theory that went something like this:
> > 1) Big bang was an intelligent assumption derived from observation of
> > celestial bodies generally moving apart.
> > 2) When the data didn't support a direct "explosive" pattern, a period of

> > anomalous *sudden* expansion was proposed, called inflation. Fair enough;

> >>> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Alex Kiselev <akise...@caltech.edu>

> >>> >>>> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com<diybio%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>> .

> >>> >>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> Groups
> >>> >>> "DIYbio" group.
> >>> >>> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>> >>> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com<diybio%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>> .

> >>> >>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
> >>> > --
> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> Groups
> >>> > "DIYbio" group.
> >>> > To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>> > diybio+un...@googlegroups.com<diybio%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>> .

> >>> > For more options, visit this group at
> >>> >http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Russell Whitaker
> >>>http://twitter.com/OrthoNormalRuss
> >>>http://orthonormalruss.blogspot.com/
>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >>> "DIYbio" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com<diybio%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>> .

> >>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
> >>  --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "DIYbio" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com<diybio%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> .

> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > letters.cunningprojects.com
> > twitter.com/onetruecathal
> >http://www.indiebiotech.com
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "DIYbio" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > diybio+un...@googlegroups.com<diybio%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[ruphos]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:46 PM, sgt york <jv...@yahoo.com> wrote:

TIME CUBE.

(sorry, it hadn't been said yet, and William's post oddly sounded like
the setup to a joke, so I almost had to say it. Besides, it's
practically mandatory in such a discussion).

Heretic! You are just another example of the academic institution attempting to suppress a truth that challenges your viewpoint and social position. No one has collected the the $10,000 bounty to disprove the Time Cube, which is just more proof it is correct!

--
"And if ye cannot be saints of knowledge, then be at least its warriors."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

[Doug Treadwell]

Very funny guys, but I do mean to ask a serious question here.  Basically I want to "pan for gold" and sift out a couple grains of possibly fruitful ideas from a whole bunch of what I also agree is generally nonsense.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.

[ruphos]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Doug Treadwell <therealepi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very funny guys, but I do mean to ask a serious question here.  Basically I want to "pan for gold" and sift out a couple grains of possibly fruitful ideas from a whole bunch of what I also agree is generally nonsense.

I think it's more a matter of terrible attempts to interpret quantum, but there's always What The Bleep Do We Know. I want to say they made a second one as well. Good luck with a needle search through that haystack though.

[fen]

try looking up jack sarfatti

[EddieM]

Regarding experiments like the single-electron double slit experiment,
there have been many related experiments, certainly hundreds and
perhaps thousands, published. Key words for searching might be
"photoelectron diffraction" (ARPES, ARPEFS, and many other acronyms)
and "Low Energy Electron Diffraction" or LEED. These tools are used
routinely in surface science and are entirely based on the wave nature
of the electron. Also look for Near Edge X-ray Absorption Fine
Structure (NEXAFS) as interpretation of this phenomenon is also based
on the wave nature of the electron and there have been quite a few of
those studies. I also dimly remember reading about helium and proton
diffraction experiments, too.
These bodies of data should help winnow out alternative theories that
do not work.

On Dec 8, 1:20 pm, ruphos <apokrup...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Doug Treadwell <
>

[Cathal Garvey]

I really love everything-wave duality, and how it so easily demonstrates how poorly evolution has equipped us to understand the real universe. That someone apparently managed to diffract a buckyball, something just-barely visible under an amazing microscope, hints at great things to come.

How long til we diffract a bacterium? A nematode? A person? :D

Of course it's silly, but thinking about the 'difference' between the universe we inhabit and the apparently different world our constituent atoms live in really makes you question everything about our perceptions and cognition.

Sent from my Android.

On 9 Dec 2010 05:05, "EddieM" <ejmoler...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Regarding experiments like the single-electron double slit experiment,
there have been many related experiments, certainly hundreds and
perhaps thousands, published. Key words for searching might be
"photoelectron diffraction" (ARPES, ARPEFS, and many other acronyms)
and "Low Energy Electron Diffraction" or LEED. These tools are used
routinely in surface science and are entirely based on the wave nature
of the electron. Also look for Near Edge X-ray Absorption Fine
Structure (NEXAFS) as interpretation of this phenomenon is also based
on the wave nature of the electron and there have been quite a few of
those studies.  I also dimly remember reading about helium and proton
diffraction experiments, too.
These bodies of data should help winnow out alternative theories that
do not work.

On Dec 8, 1:20 pm, ruphos <apokrup...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Doug Tr...

> therealepicureanid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Very funny guys, but I do mean to ask a serious questi...

[Bill]

Hi Doug,

I'm new to this group, but attached is my contribution... See the stuff in Part 2 of this book. Not intended as an "alternative" to formal QM, but maybe a way to "visualize" experimental results in double-slit interference experiments, and violations of Bell Inequality in EPR-type experiments (using entangled polarized photons or entangled spin electrons).

Please let me know what you think...?