Deterministic physics
Jarek Duda
mechanics does not have to lead to indeterminism, but is just a
natural consequence of four-dimensional nature of our world - that for
example particles shouldn't be imagined as 'moving points' in space,
but as their trajectories in the spacetime like in optimizing action
formulation of Lagrangian mechanics.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724
There will be analyzed simplified model - Boltzmann distribution among
trajectories occurs to give quantum mechanic like behavior - for
example electron moving in proton's potential would make some concrete
trajectory which average exactly to the probability distribution of
the quantum mechanical ground state. We will use this model to build
intuition about quantum mechanics and discuss its generalizations to
get some effective approximation of physics. We will see that
topological excitations of the simplest model obtained this way
already creates known from physics particle structure, their decay
modes and electromagnetic/gravitational interactions between them.
What do You think about it?
Bob_for_short
particle.
In QM the particles are quantum-mechanically smeared. This is
described with the corresponding formfactors.
These form-factors (elastic and inelastic) are measurable. The
inclusive cross section (sum of all elastic ans inelastic cross
sections) is very close to an elastic cross section of scattering off
a point-like particle. So the classical notion of point-like particle
is a rough, inclusive, illusory picture. Knowing that, it is not
necessary to "derive" QM from CM with help of hidden or explicit
additional variables. QM is self-sufficient. See, for example,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2635.
Jarek Duda
that Boltzmann distribution among paths gives some concrete
stochastically constructed trajectory which average to quantum
mechanical ground state probability density. On the end of section 3
(fig. 6) are shown lacks of this model like zero radius particles, how
to repair them and particles constructed from section 4 are "smeared"
deformations of optimal ellipsoid shape enforced by topological
properties.
The conclusion of sections 2 and 3 is that it should be enough to
focus on some well designed classical field theory. QFT works on huge
amount of completely abstract entities and usually just fit required
constants - I believe that we can really construct these particles as
some special local solutions of the same field vacuum is made of.
Analyzing this model and correspondence with QFT we should find
required constants, cutoffs, etc.
Thank You for the paper, I'll take a look at it.
Best Regads,
Jarek
Ilja
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724
> What do You think about it?
1.) That QM does not have to lead to indeterminism is already known
and proven by de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory.
2.) Very different from your claim about it, the pilot wave does not
"go into the future to chood current behaviour", but evolves
(following the Schroedinger equation) in the same way as the guided
configuration.
3.) While you mention Bell's inequalities, it is not seen how your
theory avoids their conclusions. Realistic models in Bell's sense
certainly include also four-dimensional theories of the world (else,
nobody would care about them - almost all physicists are
relativists).
4.) In fig. 1b it looks like past and future are confused.
5.) fig 10: what have myons to do with alpha-particles and pions? In
the SM they are completely unrelated.
6.) I see you reject the quark model. Means, you will have an
extremely hard job to save all the evidence in favor of it. I think
the status of the quark model is already of the type that the theory
has to survive as an approximation in any viable future theory and
would not spend time on alternatives.
Jarek Duda
usually it is not taken seriously, especially in quantum mechanics.
It says that behind their probability densities there in fact is some
deterministic evolution/trajectories.
2) As I understand Bohm interpretation, while interference the
particle goes through exactly one slit - so for example in Wheeler's
experiment the pilot wave would have to go into the future to check
the detection method and report back to choose particle's behavior,
doesn't it?
3) I didn't wanted to discuss EPR in the paper, because it would be as
in fig.1b but this time propagator goes into the past to the point of
pair creation and then go back into the future. Anyway probability
distribution for separate half-planes are estimated using linear
functional and so to get estimation of probability given spin we
should use squares.
4) I don't understand? While time passes, past half-plane 'grows' at
cost of future half-plane.
5,6) I'm showing the simplest topological excitations of ellipsoid
field, which is generalization of quantum phase:
- into three(four)dimensions,
- undirected to allow fermions which are now the simplest topological
excitations,
- being able to deform to cope with singularities and give them mass.
Suggesting that there is really nice correspondence with physics
menagerie of particles - three generations, expected mass gradation,
decay modes, spin/charge, interaction... And if this similarity is not
only a coincidence, I believe there is still place for correspondence
with Standard Model. But of course it will require a lot of work and
numerical simulations.
Best Regards,
Jarek