entanglement question
nobod...@operamail.com
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html
I'm asking why this can't be true: suppose an electron starts with
random spins along x,y,z axis. But when a spin is measured, spins along
all axis except the measured one are randomized. Entanglement is then
reduced to electrons starting with same spins.
Thanks.
ethon
A SKETCH BY B. A.
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
PRELIMINARY CHAPTER : CHOICE OF EUCLIDEAN SPACE AND ABSOLUTE TIME.(*)
CHAPTER I: EFFERVESCENCE PHENOMENON.
EFFERVESCENCE PHENOMENON
EFFERVESCENCE FIELDS
CHAPTER II: NEW CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
WHAT IS TIME?
WHAT IS SPACE?
WHAT IS SPACE-TIME?
WHAT IS MOTION?
WHAT IS ENERGY?
WHAT IS FORCE?
WHAT IS MASS?
CHAPTER III: CONFRONTATION WITH THEORY OF RELATIVITY:
THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES
THE LIGHT SPEED
THE CURVATURE OF SPACE-TIME
CHAPTER IV: CONFRONTATION WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS
QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT:
THE DUALITY WAVE-PARTICLE:
MATTER CREATION (AND MANY WORLDS):
CONCLUSION
FOREWORD
THIS IS AN AMATEUR WORK? IF YOU HAVE NO TIME FOR ENTERTAINEMENT, PLEASE
IGNORE IT.
Hi!
This paper is an attempt to answer why modern physics works while
nobody knows how it can be like that. It's an attempt to combine the
four fundamental forces; to explain the measurement problem, to explain
the duality wave-particle, to explain why light speed is constant
...etc.
Am I right? Am I wrong? I don't care.
The paper in it's all is wrong but maybe somewhere there is a part of
truth.
I am not a physicist. Physics are my hobby.
My English is very bad.
But I really want to share my thoughts of amateur with someone who can
understand. You have here a funny idea clumsily expressed.
I intend this paper to be understood by professionals, but I am afraid
my very bad English and the use of a non-professional style made it
very hard to read and seem worthless.
I don't believe in many things, but I prefer keeping my common sense,
I prefer this hypothesis to quantum strangeness. I agree that common
sense is based on unproved axioms, but I think, in physics we didn't
yet reach the common sense limits.
Whatever I'll not die more ignorant than any other man. No one knows
the truth, (if there is any truth).
Common sense will tell you not to read this article, but common sense
is no more reliable guide in modern physics, so let's take a look at
it. It's worth reading (right or wrong? it doesn't matter).
Read this paper as an entertainment; don't take it seriously. Read it
as a fiction.
I hope you'll enjoy it. Have a good read.
Introduction:
"Some people say that only few men understood the theory of relativity.
And no one understands quantum mechanics. ..."
Is it true? No problem this paper starts away from these two theories
and far from any other theory. We will start from an Euclidean space
with "absolute time" and "absolute space", measurements will be
given instantly (we'll not be limited by the information speed)
I know that it's practically useless in experimentation and practical
calculations but it's necessary to explain my hypothesis. Don't
worry relativity; curved space-time; quantum mechanics.... All will be
explained. (Almost J)
I begin this paper by a preliminary chapter to explain the choice of
the Euclidean space and the absolute time, these four dimensions are
our reference. I prefer to call it absolute reference because it deals
with absolute space and absolute time.
To understand my hypothesis you must first understand the
"effervescence phenomenon" which is the first chapter subject;
Then you must understand the new concepts according to this hypothesis
(definition of space-time; energy; force ...etc) these definitions are
given in chapter tow.
Before reading following chapters (III and IV) you must digest previous
ones (I and II) not because it's difficult to understand but
there's too many informations to catch.
Chapter III and IV contain a confrontation of my hypothesis with theory
of relativity and quantum mechanics,
Our theoretical basis is not deducible from quantum mechanics or from
theory of relativity but it lead us to their interpretation. It's
rather an interpretation than a confrontation, we try to explain the
measurement problem, the duality wave-particle, the wave function
collapse the quantum entanglement and other physic's phenomena.
PRELIMINARY CHAPTER: CHOICE OF EUCLIDEAN (***) SPACE AND ABSOLUTE TIME.
At the start of this chapter we agree that the continuous real line
that we see is a creation of our brain and nervous system. Everything
we see and touch is made up of fundamental particles.
Our intuition about the time flow is also a creation of our brain. But
we'll start here in a four absolute dimensions reference (three
dimensions of the Euclidean space + absolute time): that means physical
space-time will be studied in absolute space and absolute time.
In an Euclidean space, time and space are treated as distinct
dimensions, while in the following definition of physical time and
physical space it's hard to make a distinction between them. Actually
it's hard to make distinction between all properties of matter.
So please always remember: here time and space are absolute and events
measurements are given instantly (we'll not be limited by information
speed).
I think there's no need to give definition to this "absolute
reference", it's an intuition everyone has, however I am afraid
some physicists have forgot it.
If you don't need more details (and I am sure you don't) go
straight ahead to chapter one. But if you want to know my view of
absolute space and absolute time read the following paragraphs.
Absolute space:
Absolute space corresponds to our intuitive understanding of space,
it's the three dimensional Euclidean space.
The standard meter or simply meter, is defined as the distance traveled
by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a
second. But information brought by light is not reliable. This is due
to the Structure of space-time and not to the light speed.
To more details see my explanation of the uncertainty principle,
You'll see that light speed is the most reliable but remain not
totally reliable.
Otherwise, Space measurement needs a "distance standard" which
means a piece of matter "a ruler" to compare its length with other
elements length. Because made up of matter the ruler will never remain
the same (matter looses energy and gains energy, looses particles and
gains particles constantly).
The "distance standard" is reliable only exactly at the moment T0
when it has been chosen as a "distance standard". At a different
moment (T >< T0) the "distance standard" is no more the same, it
changed.
The only way to have an absolute "distance standard" is to freeze
the ruler exactly at the moment we choose it as a "distance
standard". Freezing it, means no loss or absorption of energy no loss
or absorption of particles no motion of atoms and even no motion inside
atoms.
It will be a reliable ruler but not absolutely reliable because the
space inside the ruler will be heterogeneous (see definition of
physical space).
Absolute time:
The « conventional second" is defined as 9 192 631 770 oscillations
of specified transition in Cs-133 atom.
Atom means matter, and we said that matter is not stable it's
constantly changing (matter looses energy and gains energy, looses
particles and gains particles constantly).
And you'll agree that Cs-133 atom oscillation is not the same since
the big bang and until the big crunch. It's always changing. This
changing occurs even during the shortest moment.
The only way to have an absolute "time standard" of a second is to
freeze that second oscillations sequence exactly at the moment we
choose it as a "time standard" I mean to catch it like we catch a
video sequence.
The Cs-133 atom will be isolated (no interactions with outside
elements) and the oscillation sequence can be played as many times as
we want, the same sequence will be seen each time with no change.
That's the only way to have a reliable "time standard" but not
absolute "time standard" because the time flow inside this "time
standard" will be heterogeneous. (See definition of physical time).
Absolute reference point:
In addition to "time standard" and "space standard", we'll
need an absolute reference point. We know that every thing is moving
even those who seem to have stability.
The only way to have an absolute reference point is to take the census
of the universe even of other dimensions (see definition of many
worlds). The map of our world will correspond to the space-time map.
Once we have a map of universe in its multiple dimensions, then and
only then any point can be taken as a reference point.
Conclusion:
Absolute time and absolute space are a creation of our brain, of our
intuition and here the use of the "absolute reference" made the
explanation of this hypothesis very easy.
You have an idea now how clumsy is my explanation and how bad is my
English. But beyond this clumsiness there's an idea I count on your
to catch (true or false doesn't matter) so please keep reading.
CHAPTER I: EFFERVESCENCE PHENOMENON.
EFFERVESCENCE PHENOMENON
Matter is dissolving; it's annihilating. Every particle (or body) is
disintegrating into "ethons". Ethons are the smallest particles in
our hypothesis.
We can compare this phenomenon to an effervescent tablet. Therefore our
hypothesis will be called "the effervescence hypothesis". (Keep in
mind a picture of an effervescent tablet.)
Every particle disintegrates into pre-ethons before these pre-ethons
disintegrate into ethons.
We'll need pre-ethons to explain the elector-weak force and the
strong nuclear force.
Density of ethons around a particle defines its effervescence
characteristics: the general direction of ethons and their intensity
(according to absolute time). This relation between the density of
ethons around a particle and the particle effervescence is not linear.
I don't see difference between density and intensity, perhaps because
my vision is above space-time. Whatever when I use density I am taking
an instant picture, when I use intensity it's a sequence in absolute
time.
EFFERVESCENCE FIELDS:
The effervescence process creates a field of moving ethons. This field
can be visualized as a pattern of circular field lines surrounding the
particle (or body).
The general direction of ethons lines is given according to the density
of ethons out of the particle. The general direction of ethons is from
the highest density to the lowest density.
All space is filled with moving ethons. Note that physical vacuum
doesn't mean emptiness it's filled with ethons and other kinds of
"matter". In our hypothesis we make distinction between physical
vacuum and the "absolute vacuum" in the Euclidean space.
The effervescence of tow particles (or bodies) in an area creates a
third field of ethon which looks like a field created by one particle.
However each particle preserve its own ethon field in this system (a
system includes many particles or bodies).
There are no big complications arising in the many-body cases. (Picture
n°).
All properties of a particle are a result of the effervescence
phenomenon. A particle with no effervescence can't be detected, it
have no mass no charge no energy no physical location. (See definitions
of these properties below.)
No detection doesn't mean no existence. (See definition of many
worlds).
It's amazing: what we observe is not matter itself, but its effect on
space-time.
CHAPTER II: NEW CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
We have here new definitions of the main properties of matter and
physical phenomenon according to the "effervescence phenomenon".
These definitions make it hard to make distinction between all
properties of matter. Every thing seems to be a result of the
"effervescence phenomenon".
WHAT IS TIME
We have one definition of physical time but we find three different
flows of time.
The tow others can be considered as perceptions of time rather than
time itself.
Here is the definition of "main physical time", I call it ambient
time.
The ambient time (or physical time):
The "effervescence hypothesis" defines time in an area as the
amount of ethons flowing per unit of absolute time through this area.
In other words it's the intensity of ethons current, this intensity
defines the effervescence rhythm of a particle in this area.
If we take a picture, time flow in a given area is proportional to the
amount of ethons in this area. Our perception of this time in physical
vacuum is possible only if we put a particle in it, because our
perception of time is based on "atomic time".
Note: "intensity" is from an "absolute time" point of view. You
agree that we can't define physical time according to physical time.
The density of ethons decreases when we go forward the atom nucleus.
Let's suppose that there are three main densities of ethons so three
levels of "physical time" flow. (We choose three to explain the
three fundamental forces: gravity, elector-weak force and strong
nuclear force). The three densities are in:
-The immediate surroundings of nucleus (area of strong nuclear
interaction)
-Inside atoms. (Source of elector-weak interaction).
-Outside atoms. (Area of gravity, but not exclusive area).
The particle time flow:
It's the amount of ethons loosed by a particle per unit of absolute
time. We can call it "particle's life".
It's like an hourglass: lot of loosed ethons means short particle
life, less loosed ethons means long particle life.
The effervescence rhythm of a particle is defined by the density of
ethons around it. And we said that physical time is the density of
ethons. So the particle life is defined by the physical time.
The atomic time: (or conventional time).
Conventional time is defined according to oscillations of specified
transition in Cs-133 atom. We can call it also atomic time.
This time isn't true for subatomic elements. Normal it's based on
atoms. It's the time for mechanic phenomena like clocks, and for
biologic phenomena like humans. In other words all phenomena were atoms
are considered as the basic elements.
Atomic time is based on atom oscillations, so it's based on motion
inside atoms. And we'll see that physical motion is a creation and
redistribution of "physical space-time" so a creation and
redistribution of ethons (see definition of motion).
We'll see that motion is a result of the effervescence.
And we said that the effervescence rhythm (= motion) of a particle is
defined by the ethon density out of it, so the particle speed is
defined by the density of ethons out of this particle, so of physical
space-time.
WHAT IS SPACE:
Space is usually defined as a part of the fundamental structure of the
universe, a set of dimensions in which objects are separated and
located, have size and shape, and through which they can move.
Physical space is not continuous, it's made up of particles that we
call ethons.
The distance between tow physical points is the amount of ethons on the
imaginary line between them.
Because ethons are in a perpetual motion the amount of ethon between
tow absolute points is always changing.
We said above that all properties of a particle are the result of its
effervescence. In the physical space the particle itself doesn't
exist. The only thing we can see and measure is its effervescence.
And according to our definition of physical space, the diameter of a
particle is null because ethons are only around the particle.
WHAT IS SPACE-TIME:
We gave distinct definitions to physical time and physical space, and
you've seen that it's hard to make distinction between them.
Let's try now to give a definition of space-time according to the
four-dimensional "absolute reference" (with absolute time and
Euclidean space):
We can visualize Space-time as a sea of ethon's strings in constant
evolution.
The amount of ethons in each string defines at the same time the
physical time duration and the physical length of this string.
Space-time can be seen as a geographic map of ethons (a four
dimensional map in the absolute reference).
WHAT IS MOTION:
Motion occurs when bodies change their position in space with "time."
In our hypothesis we describe motion in an absolute reference:
Motion seen in our four absolute dimensions is an addition of:
-Absolute motion (body changes its position from an absolute point A to
an absolute point B) which is the real motion, even we don't know if
there is real motion.
AND
-Physical motion which is a creation of space and redistribution of
space (we said that physical space is made up of ethons, so it's a
creation of ethons and a redistribution of these ethons with no real
motion.
In other words if we have tow bodies A and B moving from each other. In
fact there is no move it's the amount of ethons between them, which
is changing. It's the physical space between them that is changing.
This definition is neither for continuity nor for discontinuity. The
background of this apparent discontinuity (in our hypothesis) may be a
real continuity or may be a real discontinuity. We're far from giving
the answer.
Whatever, motion remain a miracle for me; I really don't understand
it.
WHAT IS ENERGY:
Energy is effervescence AND effervescence is energy, it's the loss of
ethons by a body, it's a creation of space-time particles (ethons).
If you compare our definition of motion to this definition of energy
you'll find that's hard to make distinction between energy and
motion.
Energy is everywhere.
Zero-energy doesn't exist, we said that all properties of a particle
are a result of its effervescence, a particle without effervescence
can't be detected, and is not located in our « world » it's in an
other dimension. (See many-worlds definition).
Even physical vacuum is filled of energy (of moving ethons) but it's
hard to detect it when space is devoid of matter.
The concept of energy that common people have can be defined as an
acceleration of the effervescence rhythm of a body (its annihilation)
compared to its effervescence in average conditions.
In other words it's the energy human senses can detect (visible
motion, heat, shape changing...etc). Actually energy (and motion) is
every where every time even at absolute zero degree.
Different bodies have different rhythms of effervescence in same
conditions. These rhythms can be deduced from the ability of this body
to refract, diffract and absorb light and energy.
WHAT'S FORCE:
I'll give a short definition to force, I can't expand it more:
Force is an effervescence modulation inside a system caused by:
An unstable physical system looking for stability
Or a physical system in stability trying to maintain its stability or
to recover it.
Force is simply: The effervescence (rhythm) modulation in order to
reach a stability, to maintain it or to recover it.
Whatever, it's useless to expand this definition. Our vision of force
isn't important to the hypothesis in its all.(stability is relative,
ther's no absolute stability at least in our world)
WHAT'S MASS:
"Mass of physical objects is the amount of matter they contain".
That's the classic definition.
In our hypothesis, the body property we measure and call mass isn't
the amount of matter but the inertia -resistance- of this body to
loose ethons (in other words its effervescence).
Effervescence and by the way mass are not only related to the amount of
matter but are also related to the structure of matter and may be to
its absolute speed.
CHAPTER III: CONFRONTATION WITH THEORY OF RELATIVITY
THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES:
The four fundamental forces (as every thing else) are the result of the
effervescence phenomenon, it's the same phenomenon with three
variations according to ethon density variation in an area and to the
variation of the way particles loose their ethons.
GRAVITY:
Usually Gravity is defined as the force of attraction. But we'll see
that it's not an attraction like we imagine it.
So what is gravity:
Gravity occurs between tow and more bodies.
We said that effervescence of tow particles in an area creates a third
field of ethon which looks like a field created by one particle.
However each particle preserve its own ethon field in this system (a
system includes many particles or bodies). (See picture n°)
And we also said that direction of ethon current of a body is from the
highest to the lowest density.
Attraction occurs when the SUM of the ethon's flow (of the third
field) that is running out of the system PLUS the ethon flow created by
each particle out of the system is BIGGER THAN ethon flow created
inside the system.
A+B+C >A1+B1
A: ethons loosed by A in opposite direction to B (out of system).
B: ethons loosed by B in opposite direction to A (out of system).
C: ethons of the united field that are always running out of the syste
A1: ethons loosed by A towards B (inside system).
B1: ethons loosed by B towards A (inside system).
In other words gravity occurs when the physical space (or space-time)
created out of the system is bigger than inside the system.
When A+B+C =A1+B1
That means the smallest body is a satellite of the biggest. Rotation
occurs because the third field of ethons is in rotation. And we said
that motion is a creation and redistribution of ethons. So it's the
rotation of space time that make one body rotating around the other.
The explanation of why gravity is so weak is that ethon density between
bodies is very low while the density of ethons inside the atom is
extremely high.
When A+B+C <A1+B1
That means there is a third body, which changes the effervescence
direction of the tow bodies and the system.
Electro-weak force:
The elector-weak force is the result of the way that particles loose
their ethons. So, what happens exactly:
We said that bodies (or particles) loose pre-ethons before these
pre-ethons annihilate into ethons. In this case the particle (or body)
loose pre-ethons in a certain shape: pre-ethons are loosed in a way
that a given amount of pre-ethons draw a circle. The result of the
annihilation of these pre-ethons with circle shape creates whirlwinds
(of ethons) exactly as the explosion of hollow explosive charge (of
dynamite).
There are tow directions of whirlwinds of ethons, let's say clockwise
and anti clockwise. These directions of rotation define the charge of a
particle.
So why tow particles with the same charge are attracted to each other
while tow particles with opposite charge are repulsed from each other.
To answer this question we must return to our example of tow particles
in effervescence in the same area.
Remember: The effervescence of tow particles in an area creates a third
field of ethon which looks like a field created by one particle.
However each particle preserve its own ethon field in this system (a
system includes many particles or bodies).
The attraction or repulsion of the tow bodies depends on the evolution
of the amount of physical space between them. They are attracted if
physical space created (and redistributed) inside the system is less
than physical space created (and redistributed by ethon current) out of
the system.
When tow whirlwinds (of ethons) with the same direction of rotation are
put together they annihilate creating a big amount of ethons between
the tow particles. That's why tow particles with the same charge are
repulsed from each other.
When tow whirlwinds (of ethons) with opposite directions of rotation
are put together, their strength is boosted and by the way the ethon
current that is running out of the system is boosted making the amount
of ethons inside the system less important than the amount of ethons
(produced and redistributed) out of the system.
That's why tow particles with opposite charge are attracted to each
other.
Strong nuclear force:
Tow protons put together must create repulsion. Why it's not the case
in the nucleus:
Protons loose pre-ethons in circle shape, the annihilation of the
pre-ethons circles create whirlwinds (of ethons). These whirlwinds are
supposed to make a repulsion but when we add tow neutrons, these
neutrons also loose pre-ethons making circles loosed by protons
disappear (circle shape is disturbed by pre-ethons loosed by neutrons)
and by the way whirlwinds disappear too.
These whirlwinds disappear inside the nucleus not out of it.
Why there is attraction and not repulsion?
Repulsion; attraction; or rotation depends on the effervescence rhythm
of a system. This rhythm is related to distances; masses; charges
...etc.
This relation is not linear . I can't say more.
Observation: All photons are whirlwinds, but not all whirlwinds are
photons.
SPACE-TIME CURVATURE:
Space-time curvature is the contrast of ethons density. Gravity to an
area occurs when the ethon density there is higher than it is in the
surrounding.
For example: Gravity of an object to earth is due to high density of
ethons that surround earth (ethon density decreases when we go forwards
an object)
And we said that ethon current direction is from the highest density to
the lowest density so this direction is deviated when the object comes
near earth.
Earth and object are a system where the direction of ethons (of both
earth and object) is out of the system. That means space is increasing
out of the system. In addition to that, the flow of the third ethon
field (the common field of earth and object) is going out of the
system. That means space between the tow objects is decreasing. The
combination of the tow effects creates the apparent attraction.
Non-locality:
We said that ethon density decrease when we go forward the nucleus. The
contrast will be very high between an atom and its surrounding and even
inside the atom itself.
That means space time isn't the same and that's the origin of some
quantum strangeness. And among them the uncertainty principle.
So what are origins of non-locality:
Trajectory of a particle inside an atom (in high ethon density) is a
continuous succession of ethons. But when we transpose this trajectory
out of the atom (in lower ethon density) it will give us a
discontinuous succession of ethon.
The high contrast inside the atom means space-time curvature. That
means we can see one object in tow positions at the same time. It's
similar to the effect of the sun gravity, which make us see one star in
different positions at the same time.
The high contrast (of ethon density) makes informations don't arrive
to us in the right chronological order, because it's deviated by
(micro) space-time curvatures.
May be that's why an electron is seen as a cloud around the nucleus.
LIGHT SPEED:
We'll try here to explain how light speed is constant. We'll also
explain the physical time contraction.
Relations are not linear, but to make the explanation easy will suppose
them linear.
Let's start:
Light speed is constant in "physical space" according to the
"absolute time".
That means light cross the same amount of ethons during an "absolute
second".
Light speed isn't constant according to absolute space.
This constancy is due to:
- Absence of mass, this makes photons insensitive to background waves.
And may be light is the only thing that exist continuously. (See
quantum entanglement)
Constancy of light speed:
When people or objects are traveling at a substantial fraction of the
speed of light; the density of ethons out of the system changes making
the density of ethons inside the system (inside rocket) changing too.
If rocket speed is 50% of LS; the amount of ethons inside a ruler
becomes twice it is on earth. If a ruler length on earth was X ethons,
it will be 2X in the rocket. However number of atoms that make the
ruler remain the same.
So what changed?
It's the ethon density inside the atom and in space between atoms
that changed. Their changing isn't proportional. But the combination
of the tow (atom and space between atoms) makes the length of the ruler
(by ethons) twice its length on earth.
And we said that light speed cross ethons is constant, so light will
take twice absolute time to cross the ruler.
But what happens to atomic time? (See definition of atomic time)
In the other hand we said that ethon density inside atoms changed, so
speed inside atoms also changed (see definition of motion).
Oscillations (are motion) inside atoms are twice slower. That's why
light speed according to atomic time remains the same.
Observation:
This model can explain other physical phenomenon like: light refraction
diffraction and absorption, dark energy... and many others but I think
it's useless. All I want is to introduce you to this view.
ACCELERATORS:
According to our hypothesis when traveling at a substantial fraction of
the speed of light: life of a single particle (not system) must
decrease, while atomic time contracts.
But experimentation shows that particle life is longer in an
accelerator. This can be explained by the fact that this particle (in
very high speed) absorbs energy of whirlwinds that it cross inside the
accelerator. (See whirlwinds in explanation of elector-weak and strong
forces).
These whirlwinds crossed (and absorbed) in the accelerator, change the
inertia -resistance- of the particle to effervescence (mass is inertia
-resistance- to effervescence).
This increasing of life particle inside an accelerator is a kind of
matter creation. (See matter creation).
Observation: all photons are whirlwinds but not all whirlwinds are
photons.
CHAPTER IV: CONFRONTATION WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS
QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT
There is tow ways to explain quantum entanglement:
The first is short and too easy, but it doesn't allow a perfect
Simultaneity.
The second is a little bit complicated but it allows (in given
conditions) a perfect Simultaneity.
First explanation:
The space-time waves are crossed by waves like sound waves in sea
waves. When we prepare two particles in a single quantum state they are
in the same diapason, that means one particle vibrates according to the
vibration of the other particle.
This explanation presuppose sound-like waves inside space-time waves
spreading faster than the speed of light, and the Simultaneity will not
be perfect.
The second explanation is more interesting
Second explanation:
We said that all properties of a particle are a result of its
effervescence, a particle without effervescence doesn't exist
physically.
The effervescence process isn't continuos, it's discontinuous, the
effervescence is a succession of short effervescence sequences. We
suppose that effervescence process is generated by background waves
coming from the origin of the universe from the big bang explosion.
When a background wave hits a particle it releases one effervescence
sequence of this particle and creates an echo of the background wave.
The background wave spreads in one way only, while its echo spreads in
all directions forwards the particle.
Our world doesn't exist continuously (because the background waves
and their echo are not everywhere every time).
When we prepare two particles in a single quantum state they are in the
same diapason, that means one particle vibrates according to the
vibration of the other particle.
The Simultaneity will be perfect from A to B if this background wave
direction is from A to B.
It will be imperfect if the background wave is from B to A, in this
case it's the echo of the background wave coming from A that brings
the vibration to B, time of correlation will be an entire number of one
effervescence sequence.
If we suppose that a single sequence of effervescence duration is a
chronon, then time of correlation between A and B will be x choronon
with x entire number.
THE DUALITY WAVE-PARTICLE:
We said that matter is annihilating into pre-ethons before these
pre-ethons disintegrate into ethons.
The amount of ethons produced by the pre-ethons annihilation is not
linear it's wavy. That means the space-time is wavy.
In young experimentation interference fringes are made by space-time
waves and because particles are moving in space-time their impact
correspond to space-time waves impact.
The particle exhibits a wave-like behavior when space-time waves have
some properties and it exhibits a particle-like behavior when
space-time waves have other properties.
These properties can be:
Space-time waves: length, height, frequency and direction.
The particle exhibits a particle-like behavior when:
The sum of space-time waves in physical vacuum and space-time waves
produced by the particle effervescence is null.
The sum is space-time waves with very long wavelength.
The sum is space-time waves with very short height.
The measurement problem:
Measurement means information, and information means a motion of
something (matter or photons) from the measured area to the measurement
instrument.
In other words measurement is a deviation at least of ethons. This
deviation perturbs space-time waves and by the way perturbs the sum of
space-time waves of the particle and vacuum.
This measurement can also change the effervescence rhythm of the
particle.
Young experiment:
In young experiment the measurement disturbs synchronization between
space-time waves coming through the tow pinholes, The interference
fringes disappear and the interference fringes of the particle
disappear also.
The disturbance occurs only at the measurement, because it occurs only
when real deviation (of ethons) occurs.
The synchronization between the tow pinholes disappear instantly, but
it takes a while to appear again.
We can say the same thing about the synchronization between space-time
waves produced by a particle and space-time waves in vacuum it
disappear instantly but it take a while to appear again. (a particle
have an inertia -resistance- to change its effervescence rhythm)
MATTER CREATION (AND MANY WORLDS):
MATTER CREATION :
We said that all properties of a particle are a result of its
effervescence. Particle without effervescence doesn't exist
physically.
Our world is filled with particles without effervescence, without mass
(mass is inertia -resistance-of a body to effervescence) this lack of
effervescence is due may be to:
-The matter structure.
-Or to it's absolute speed (in absolute space).
-Or to its insensitiveness to the background waves we mention in
quantum entanglement.
Whatever, when a photon cross (to avoid saying hits) this particle in
given conditions, the photon energy changes the structure of this
particle making it in effervescence state.
The relation between energy and mass is in fact a relation between
energy and the particle inertia-resistance- to effervescence.
MANY WORLDS:
This parallel world (or worlds) isn't well structured as ours, it's
rather a pollution of our world than a parallel world.
Real parallel worlds (structured like ours) can exist but not in the
same absolute location we have.
However this "pollution particles" have memory, and interference
with our world that's may be the explanation of some paranormal
phenomenon.
CONCLUSION
I titled this paper "a sketch...." because it's an outline. I
hope you have understood this amateur view.
My goal is to share this idea (may be it's helpful in someway),
You'll agree that I've a monstrous lack of knowledge in physics and
mathematics, but my reasoning is logical, naïve but logical.
I've been told that to be taken seriously a hypothesis must be crazy
.I tried to make it as crazy as possible, unfortunately I couldn't
leave my common sense, sorry I need it
Certainly this paper is worthless but no one can say it's wrong. If
we really reached the common sense limits neither wrong nor right
remains.
The only hope this paper has comes from the fact that mathematicians at
a macroscopic and microscopic scale with existing technology can
simulate this hypothesis.
A further understanding will lead us to make predictions that can be
verified by experimentation.
I hope this idea is enough explained and expound to pass judgement on.
(As an amateur of course).
This paper doesn't need comments I am not able to understand them.
But you can help me by giving address of physics amateur web site. And
if you have some advises send them to:
B.E.L.G.U.E.R.N.I.N.E A.H.M.E.D:
ahmed...@caramail.com.
ahmed...@yahoo.fr.
PS : i've been told that unfortunatly my ethons have mass and
location. I ask: "sorry but if you understand my definition of
space-time and mass you'll find that ethons have no mass and no
physical location.
(*) I don't say that absolute time and absolute space exist. Absolute
frames are only in our brain. All I want to say is that frames in our
physical world are changing they are not reliable. If we can create the
length etalon mentioned above, and if we can see it (we can't because
there is no effervescence, it will be in a parallel world) our length
etalon (the ruler) will be changing its shape and its length like if we
were seeing it throw a thick glass. Actually it's not the ruler that's
changing, we are.
And if we can have the time etalon mentioned above, we'll see it
accelerating and/or decelerating. Actually our time etalon is neither
accelerating nor decelerating, we are. That's what I mean when I
speak about absolute time (the hypothetic ruler and the hypothetic
cerium atom). I totally agree that there are no absolute frames. There
is no absolute.
THANKS
Ben Rudiak-Gould
The linked page talks about electron spin measurements in two dimensions
only. The fact that you mention a z axis makes me think that you haven't
understood Appendix III yet.
I don't think that the derivation on that page is especially clear. I prefer
to think of the experiment as a gambling game, since people are usually
better at reasoning about such things.
This particular game has two players, who are allowed to agree on a
strategy, then physically separated so that they can no longer communicate.
Each player is then told a number, 1, 2, or 3, and must answer either "yes"
or "no". The payoffs are:
* If the numbers told to the players are equal, their answers *must*
be the same, otherwise there's a severe penalty (say decapitation
or eternity in hell or something). If their answers are equal then
the payoff is zero.
* If the numbers told to the players are unequal, then they win $1
if their answers are different, and lose $2 if their answers are
the same.
What's the best possible long-term strategy for this game (assuming you have
to play)? In order to avoid the severe penalty, each player must be able to
predict with certainty what answer the other player will give for each
number. This means they must pre-agree on answers for each number. There are
only 2^3 = 8 possible answer sets, so only 8 possible strategies. Two of
those, namely YYY and NNN, are bad ideas because they'll always lose when
the numbers are unequal. The other six are all basically equivalent, because
all of the rules of the game are symmetric under exchange of "yes" and "no"
and under permutation of the numbers 1, 2, and 3. In all six of these
strategies, the players will win for 4 of the 6 possible combinations of
unequal numbers. In the worst case, if the numbers are chosen randomly, they
win 2/3 of the time when the numbers are unequal, which means that they just
break even overall.
But in a quantum-mechanical world, it's possible to make a profit. In the
strategy phase, the players make a pair of electrons in a Bell state, and
each keeps one. On hearing the number, they measure their electron's spin
state along one of the three axes show in Appendix III. Quantum mechanics
then predicts that if the axes are the same, the measured spins will always
be the same, and if the axes are different, the measured spins will be
different 3/4 of the time. This allows the players to win with probability
3/4 when the numbers are different, and still avoid the severe penalty.
-- Ben
Farts Loudly in the Library.
"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:eit4ih$bib$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> nobod...@operamail.com wrote:
> > I have read this:
> > http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html
> >
> > I'm asking why this can't be true: suppose an electron starts with
> > random spins along x,y,z axis. But when a spin is measured, spins along
> > all axis except the measured one are randomized. Entanglement is then
> > reduced to electrons starting with same spins.
>
> The linked page talks about electron spin measurements in two dimensions
> only. The fact that you mention a z axis makes me think that you haven't
> understood Appendix III yet.
>
> I don't think that the derivation on that page is especially clear. I
prefer
> to think of the experiment as a gambling game, since people are usually
> better at reasoning about such things.
I'll second that - by the time I got half way through it I already developed
a severe migraine.
These sites have better pictures -
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGe
rlach.html
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSli
t.html
Math and physics both make the same mistake. They use nonexistence and
triviality like a trashcan. It's not considered to be a usable tool in
either field. I think that this is a big gaping hole in both math and
physics.
Consider this approach. Probabilities are generally considered to be
abstractions. They are not considered to be materially manifested in nature
as a tangible object. Probabilities are thought to be an "abstracted
property" which describes physical or other abstract systems. Probabilities
are generally never considered to be tangible objects.
Consider the double slit.
You have a photon which cannot be chopped in half, but you chop it in half
anyway. The photon itself is nothing more than a waveform of probabilities
in the existential potential. You chop this waveform in half, and the result
is that the probabilistic wave which "was" a photon is now a mere
existential probability and the particle seems to have vanished. It did'nt.
The link between probabilities and existence is very obvious to me because I
think that I understand quantum gravity in a very intuitive way. It's really
seems very, very simple.
Your question about the x,y,z axes is a very interesting one and certainly
worthwile to think about. If you keep it up you will understand this
experiment completely >>> http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
There is one more thing to think about which is of utmost importance. There
is much being said of indeterminacy. I have never seen, and cannot imagine a
case where genuine and indisputable indeterminacy can arise without some
discussion of nonexistence. I think that it may not be possible without
resorting to existentialism. An example :
Two balls are on a collision course, ball A and ball B. Ball A always
exists, but ball B exists only %25 of the time. The chance that they will
even collide is 25:75. This is genuine partial determinism, partial
causality, partial order. Simply derived based on nonexistence, and it makes
perfect sense. Except for the question of how something might only exist for
%25 of the time. There is also an answer to this question, found here >>>
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/
QM considers particles to be probabilistic. I consider length and time to be
probabilistic. Particles are merely waveforms which are manifest as
probabilities in the existential potential. It's all quite obvious, and it
would be quite impossible without the notions of triviality and
nonexistence. I have calculated that my ideas will remain relegated to
obscurity for another 276 years, 48 days, 13 hours 25 minutes and 37
seconds, at which time they will be widely adopted and I shall ultimately be
vindicated.
Farts Loudly in the Library.
pretty simple.
Consider two points A and B. Most people think of the distance between these
points as being a line composed of points. I disagree. I think that the only
thing which connects A and B is a continuous sequence of probabilities.
These probabilities give the probability that a tiny chunk of length will be
found at that specific location. This is illustrated in diagrams on my blog
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/
So, a bending of space is merely a variation in these probabilities. Smooth
space would be represented by very minimal variability in these
probabilities. A particle is then a probabilistic waveform composed of
dimension, and can be easily modelled, at least conceptually.
Now, the double slit.
A "traditional particle" seems to be reduced to a probability. This is
because it was never anything other than mere probabilities in the first
place. But you went and chopped it in half, the particle seems to disappear,
but "the probability is conserved", and when uncertainty is destroyed by the
aquisition of whichway information you suddenly get your particle back.
Like magic.
Hah !
There is nothing mysterious about it at all. Length is probabilistic, and
for that to happen you must incorprate triviality or nonexistence into the
analysis, which nobody wants to do.
But the justification is pure, valid physics. Start with nothingness. Add 1
Plancklength. You cannot say anything about this Plancklength except that
there is a certain probability that it even exists. Harris Space follows
directly from that by adding more Plancklengths until you have an
existential continuous celllular automaton.
And that is the only explanation of whichway information & double slit that
I have ever heard that makes the least bit of sense !
THAT is the ONLY way to convert a PARTICLE into a PROBABILITY. And if that
aint quantum gravity then I dont know what is.
GO DEMS !!!!