Couder’s memory effect – could it be real?

Yves Couder’s (and others) experiments with small (in the human sense) and absolutely huge (in the quantum sense)  silicon oil droplets and baths have proven to be a wonderful analog for quantum mechanics.

There are many researchers who think that these experiments show something much more – they hint at what the microscopic quantum world is really like. The quantum like effects occur when the driving force and frequency of the system are carefully tuned. When the conditions are right, the drops interact with their own waves – long after the waves have been emitted. Couder calls this behaviour the ‘high memory regime’ – its where all the quantum like behaviour emerges.

So the question becomes – what is the memory of a real quantum system? The answer to that question is surprisingly simple. Its infinite. Quantum states can entangle and ‘live’ forever. This fact is the foundation of Quantum Computing, the Many Worlds Theory and many other absurdities (Schrödinger’s cat…). Indeed the only point in QM where memory is not complete and infinite is at the point of measurement. But measurement is in the eye of beholder, and thus we need not worry about the measurement problem here. Or rather we will attempt to solve the measurement problem with a new hypothesis – that the memory of real quantum systems are limited, and that this limit is responsible for the collapse of the wave function.

This of course could kill or seriously limit the reach of quantum computing, and would provide a quick end to the Many Worlds Theory, and many many other consequences of quantum mechanics. Indeed Hilbert Space itself would lose its ‘reality’ – becoming nothing more than a mere mathematical trick for ‘memory intact’  (AKA pre-collapse) states.

What is the form of the memory? In Couder’s experiments its simply the range of an emitted wave in meters. Since his test trays are small, this means that the waves can bounce off the walls and interact with the emitter again.

We can look at such a system as a particle in a well. In Couder’s experiments you can see excited states decay after a time, and this time is increased as the memory of the system is increased.

So if we look at the simplest alpha_emissionphysical analog of this – a particle in a well that can quantum tunnel out – we have  Alpha – emission. These particles are trapped in the nucleus, but sooner or later they tunnel out.

Thus tunnelling is a collapse of the wave function – these alpha particles leave fossil traces in rocks for instance, so they have been emitted in a very real sense.

Of course the pure QM follower will tell you that each emitted alpha is just another cat in a box - and that the entire history of the world hinges on you (or is that any smart person?) looking at the actual billion year old track - only then does the linear superposition of uncountable 10Millions of state vectors collapse. Kind of hilarious, but that is what a truly linear system will do to you if you push it!

What causes the emission? The wave function has presence inside and outside of the barrier, so it can ‘feel’ that there is a lower energy state out there waiting for it. In a real pilot wave sense the pilot wave extends into the region beyond the barrier. We have a series of waves inside a femto metre sphere or so, and they bounce around for a few years (or 1024) years, or 10-6 seconds.

So a large variation of lifetimes – yet the playground is almost the same size, its the energy levels that are different, but only by a small factor. The greater amount of the wave function that is outside the nucleus, the shorter half life.

What really happens? Is it that the particle keeps inside the nucleus, and as soon as it randomly happens to walk out it is released? In ‘real QM’ the wave function only gives a probability for finding the alpha outside the nucleus, so in some sense its ‘constantly’ out there. But in a realist theory the alpha has a real velocity inside and around the nucleus. This could perhaps be a real difference – perhaps if we postulate a fixed speed of the alpha on a random walk through the probability field, we can connect the lifetime to the percentage of the wave function that is outside the nucleus. See

Unpredictable Tunneling of a Classical Wave-Particle Association

So if a certain percentage of paths is outside, and the particle covers … do the calculation – random walk – step length is some distance much less than the nucleus size, speed v, then typical time to get out would be defined.  perhaps with the speed held constant, we can determine step length by looking at the size of the region of probability outside the nucleus, we can determine the speed/step length that is implied. Someone must have done this?

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/GamowModelForAlphaDecayTheGeigerNuttallLaw/

So in the playtime circa 1900 flat spacetime where QM currently works, there are no non – local effects and QM makes sense. This is why most theorists like the quantization of gravitation program – it would bury the annoying real 4D version of spacetime underneath many levels of obscure mathematics.

Einsteins Aether as the Inviscid Fluid for Brady’s Sonons?

The Aether

Einstein:

We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. [1]

Brady:

Brady, in the paper “The irrotational motion of a compressible inviscid fluid” hypothesizes something different – that the universe is made of a non – relativistic compressible fluid, and that this fluid generates General Relativity.

Einstein’s inertial medium behaves as a nonrelativistic barotropically compressible inviscid fluid.[2] 

Although my model of the electron and quantum effects is very similar to Brady’s, I diverge with him on the essence of the aether. I hypothesize that Brady and Einstein’s ether are the same thing, so that instead of Brady’s concept of generating GR from aether, we instead start with Classical General Relativity (with ‘no matter’, so the stress tensor T = 0), and then  create Sonons as solutions of GR. The aether is that of Einstein’s GR.

Einstein’s Aether in Fluid Dynamics terms

Einstein’s aether is inviscid – which means it has no viscosity (rocks travelling through empty space experience no drag…). Is it compressible? Certainly – this is what constructs such as black holes are. Is it irrotational? – that is a not a property that we need to determine, since without viscosity, an irrotational flow will stay that way.

Truly Inviscid?

No. GR is non-linear, which makes the inviscid property only an approximation – it’s a good approximation, though! Waves generated on an ocean or an oil puddle in a lab travel a limited distance, while the waves of GR can easily travel the universe. But they don’t travel ‘forever’.

Consider now the construction of a Brady like sonon out of pure GR. We follow Brady’s paper until section 1.1, where he states:

When an ordinary vortex is curved into a smoke ring, this force is balanced by Magnus forces (like the lift of an aircraft wing) as the structure moves forward through the fluid [10]. However a sonon cannot experience Magnus forces because it is irrotational, and consequently its radius will shrink, causing the amplitude A in (5) to grow due to the conservation of fluid energy. Nonlinear effects will halt the shrinking before A reaches about 1 since the density cannot become negative.[3] 

Intriguing. Look now at a completely classical general relativistic object – a spinning  Kerr solution. We have a tightly spinning GR object that can shrink no further.  Since we are trying to model an electron here, we use the standard black hole values (for an electron model this is a ‘naked’ a > m Kerr solution [6])

Brady’s sonons interact with the surrounding aether – how would that work in GR? We are after all taught that all GR objects like black holes have no hair. But of course they can have hair, its just that it will not last long. That’s the point here. Sonons can and will stop interacting if the background incoming waves die down below a certain point. But above a certain point black holes become perturbed, and things like ‘superradiance’  as Teukolsky and others discovered come into play.

Indeed, as long as there are incoming waves, it seems that objects made of GR are highly reactive, and not boring at all.[4][5]

So pure GR has at least the ability to interact in interesting ways, but are the numbers there? What frequencies do we need for Brady like Sonons constructed from GR (I’ll call them geons from now on) to get to the point where there are electromagnetic strength interactions are taking place?

Bradys interactions occur with mass transfer – the compressible fluid carries away mass to and from each Sonon in a repeating manner. Not a problem for any GR ‘blob – geon’.  If they interact, then energy must be flowing in and out – that’s the definition of interaction.

An Electron Model

A previous post here - An Electron Model from Gravitational Pilot Waves  outlines the process.

We take a small region of space (e.g.  containing a Kerr solution) and assume that this region of space is exchanging gravitational energy with its surroundings.  Call it an geon-electron.

Assuming that the exchange takes place in a periodic fashion, the mass of this geon-electron (energy contained inside of the small region of space) is given as

me(t) = me*((1 – f) + f*sin(vt))

where v is some frequency, and f is the proportion of mass that is varying, so f is from 0 –> 1.

This varying mass will give rise to changes in the gravitational potential outside the region.  But gravitational effects do not depend on the potential, rather they depend on the rate of change of the potential over spacetime intervals.   So it’s not the potential from this tiny mass that is relevant, it is the time derivative of the potential that matters.

Potential = -G*me(t)/r

Look at the time derivative of the potential

dP/dt = -G*me*f*v*cos(vt)/r

This gradient is what one can think of as the force of gravity. This force rises linearly with the frequency of the mass oscillation.

The EM force is some 10^40 times that of gravity, so we just need to use this factor to figure out an order of magnitude estimate of the frequency of this geon mass exchange rate.

This is detailed in the ‘Coulomb Attraction’ section of an earlier post.

Using de Broglie’s frequency – he considered the Compton value of 1.2356×1020 Hz as the rest frequency of the internal clock of the electron, one arrives at an electron model with these properties:

  • Entirely constructed from classical General Relativity
  • Frequency of mass exchange is the Compton frequency
  • Electromagnetic effects are a result of GR phenomenology
  • Quantum effects such as orbitals and energy levels are a natural result of these geons interacting with their own waves, so QM emerges as a phenomenon too.

 

Einstein’s Vision:

"I published the paper on the relativistic dynamics of the singular point indeed a long time ago. But the dynamical case still has not been taken care of correctly. I have now come to the point where I believe that results emerge here that deviate from the classical laws of motion. The method has also become clear and certain. If only I would calculate better! . . . It would be wonderful if the accustomed differential equations would lead to quantum mechanics; and I do not regard it as being at all out of the question" (Ref: Miller, 62 years of uncertainty)

The State of Physics today
--------------------------

Obviously a sea change in fundamental physics would be needed to allow for anything like these ideas to be considered. In fact its not that the ideas here might be correct - but rather that Brady and others who toil on actual progress in physics are sidelined by the current 'complexity is king' clique that is the physics community today.

The physics community is more than it ever has been in the past, a tightly knit clique. This may be the fault of the internet and the lock in group think that instant communication can provide. 

This clique gives rise to ideas like 'quantum mechanics is right' and other absurdities, such as the millions of hours spent on String Theory, when it's 'not even wrong'.

Tests and Simulations

Given the entrenched frown on the subject of alternative bases for the underpinnings of our physical world, we need to look for experimental evidence to support these kinds of theories.

The work of Yves Couder and his lab in one kind of essential experiment. They have shown conclusively that quantum like behaviour can emerge from classical systems.

Another path – one that in my opinion has been somewhat neglected in this field is that of numerical techniques.

Here I outline some steps that might be taken to construct a GR based model of an electron. Excuse the more colloquial manner, I am making notes for a future project here!

Numerical Plans

There are only about 22 Compton wavelengths within the Bohr radius. So if one goes to a 100 Compton wavelength simulation zone, with 1000 grid points on a side, thats 1e9 grid points, and each point needs only four 8 byte doubles, so 32 bytes, so 32 GB.

The equations to solve on this simple grid are those of fluid dynamics: Compressible Isothermal Inviscid  Euler equations.  : As from I do like CFD.

Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 10.08.23 PM

 

With a 32GB data set, 1e9 data points, and about 1000 computer FLOPs per visit, we have 1e12 FLOPs per time step, and an algorithm that gets 10GFlops, I get about a minute per time step.  Each time step needs to cover about 1/100th of the Compton time, or about 1e-22 secs, and we need to let light cross the atom (3e-19 secs) hundred times to get things to converge, or about 3e-17secs, so 300,000 time steps. (Better speed up the algorithm! Should be easy to get 20GFlops over 8 processors, and perhaps cut Flops/grid point down, which could mean a day or so on a 8 core Intel).

Computer Model:

Note on the Fine Structure Constant (useful in a numerical model)

The quantity  was introduced into physics by A. Sommerfeld in 1916 and in the past has often been referred to as the Sommerfeld fine-structure constant. In order to explain the observed splitting or fine structure of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, Sommerfeld extended the Bohr theory to include elliptical orbits and the relativistic dependence of mass on velocity. The quantity , which is equal to the ratio v1/c where v1 is the velocity of the electron in the first circular Bohr orbit and cis the speed of light in vacuum, appeared naturally in Sommerfeld’s analysis and determined the size of the splitting or fine-structure of the hydrogenic spectral lines. [*]

See also the Wikipedia physical interpretation section.

 

Cosmic serendipity – not censorship

Cosmic Censorship:

Weak or strong, the cosmic censorship conjecture states that naked singularities can’t be seen, otherwise everything will break down, it would be really bad and worst of all theorists would be confused.

Hawking and Ellis, in The LargeScale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge 1973)
Hawking and Ellis, in The LargeScale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge 1973)

But it turns out that singularities very likely don’t actually exist in a real universe governed by GR. Any lumpy, non symmetric space time can have all the spinning black holes it wants – at any angular momentum, even with   a > m (angular momentum greater than the mass in suitable units), as the Kerr solution + bumps (bumps are incoming GR full bandwidth noise), will have no paths leading to any singularity! So the curtain can be lifted, the horizon is not needed to protect us.

Cosmic Serendipity Conjecture:

In any sufficiently complex solution of GR, there exists no singularities. I am not talking about naked singularities here, I mean any and all singularities.

The complex nature of the interaction of GR 720px-Particle_trajectories_around_a_clockwise_rotating_black_hole.svgat the tiny scales where the singularity would start to form stop that very formation. In other words, the singularity fails to form as the infalling energy always has some angular momentum in a random direction, and ruins the formation of a singularity.

In all likelihood actual physical spinning black holes in a turbulent environment (normal space) will have no singularity.

I will let Brandon Carter speak now:

“Thus we reach the conclusion that at timeline or null geodesic or orbit cannot reach the singularity under any circumstances except in the case where it is confined to the equator, cos() = 0…..Thus as symmetry is progressively reduced, starting from the Schwarchild solution, the extent of the class of geodesics reaching the singularity is steadily reduced likewise, … which suggests that after further reduction in symmetry, incomplete geodesics may cease to exist altogether”

Kerr Fields, Brandon Carter 1968.

Not cosmic censorship, but almost the opposite – singularities can’t exist in an GR universe (one with bumps) because there are no paths to them.

We have all been taught that singularities form quickly – that when a non – spherical mass is collapsing, GR quickly smooths the collapse, generating a singularity, neatly behind a horizon. Of course that notion is correct, but what it fails to take into account is that in a real situation, there is always more in falling energy, and that new infalling energy messes up the formation of the singularity.

While there may be solutions to Einstein’s equations that show a singularity (naked or not), these solutions are unphysical, in that the real universe is bumpy and lumpy. So while the equations hold ‘far’ away from the singularity, the detailed Gravity in the high curvature region keeps it just that – high curvature as opposed to a singularity.

The papers of A.Burinskii  come to mind, e.g.:

Kerr Geometry as Space-Time Structure of the Dirac Electron

Conclusion

I am willing to bet that this conjecture is experimentally sound, in that there are no experiments that have been done to refute it. (that’s a joke I think).

On the theory side, one would have to prove that a singularity is stable against perturbation by incoming energy, which from my viewpoint seems unlikely, as the forming singularity would have diverging fields and diverging response to incoming energy, which would blow it apart. Like waves in the ocean that converge on a rocky point.

pic15

–Tom

An Electron model from Gravitational Pilot Waves

Abstract

An electron model is presented where charge, electromagnetic and quantum effects are generated from pilot wave phenomena. The pilot waves are constructed from nothing more than gravitational effects. First the general model of the electron is proposed. Then the physical consequences are laid out, showing that this model can generate large electron – electron forces, which are then identified with the Coulomb force. Further, quantum mechanical effects are shown to emerge from this model.

Electron model:

An electron is modelled as a small region of space which has a varying mass. The origin of this varying mass will not be discussed here. The mass of the electron is given as

me(t) = me*((1 – f) + f*sin(vt))

where v is some frequency, and f is the proportion of mass that is varying, so f is from 0 –> 1

This varying mass will give rise to very large changes in gravitational potential – essentially the time derivative of the mass will be a potential that has a slope proportional to the frequency. Assume that this frequency is very high, and you can see potential for some huge effects to come into play, as compared with the tiny gravitational field of a normal mass the size of an electron.

Throughout this paper only classical physics will be used, and on top of that, the only field used will be that of gravity (GR).

I said that the mechanism for this time - varying mass will not be discussed, but here are two possibilities. One possibility is that electrons are some sort of wormhole, with some portion of their mass disappearing into and out  of this wormhole, like some mass bouncing between two open throats. The other more simple way this could happen is if the electron was simply losing mass off to infinity - and getting it back - in a periodic fashion.

Coulomb Attraction

So how would two of these time varying mass electrons interact?

I will use the 2014 paper “Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics“ as a starting point. 

Please open up that paper and have a look:

In section 4.3 – 4.4, the authors use analogy of two vacuum cleaners(!) to come up with a mechanism for an “inverse square force of attraction between the nozzles”.

Screen Shot 2014-05-17 at 11.48.22 AM

Where ρ is the density of air and Q is the volume of air flow at each nozzle. I will use this train of thought to come up with a similar inverse square relation for my electron model.

In the equation above, ρ*Q gives the mass intake of one nozzle. In my model ρ*Q is thus the same as time rate of change of the mass of the electron, which averages out to f*me*ν, where

f = fraction of electron mass that is varying (f = 1 – me(min)/me)),

me == rest mass of electron,

and

ν = frequncy (greek nu).

So we have f*me*ν == ρQ, substituting into (8) from Brady and Anderson, we get

dp/dt = f*me*ν/(4πr^2)*Q

Where Q is still some volume flow, in m^3/sec. What, though is the volume flow for an electron – its not sucking up the surrounding air! One possibility is to model Q for my electron model as a spherical surface at some ‘electron radius’, with a speed of light as the velocity. So we have Q = 4πre^2*c and we get the force equation:

dp/dt = f*me*ν*(4πre^2*c)/(4πr^2)

This is the force on an electron nearby another electron at distance r in the model.

This should equal the Coulomb force law: (ke is the coulomb constant)

f*me*ν*(re^2*c)/(r^2) = ke*q*q/r^2

f*me*ν*(re^2*c) = ke*q*q

Now the fraction f, the frequency ν and the re are all unknowns. But lets use the classical electron radius for re, and a fraction f equal to the fine structure constant. Then we get solving numerically for ν the frequency… which is about 1000 times the Compton frequency. (So close to it in some ways)

ν = 1.5×10^25 Hz 

There are of course other options, as the effective radius of this electron is not known and also the mass fraction is unknown. So this result is more for scale’s sake than anything. Still I will use these numbers for the rest of this paper.

Also interesting is to derive the value of the coulomb force between electrons – simply calculate (leave f alone for now),

f*me*ν*(re^2*c)

This gets to about a factor of 1000 or so away from the correct answer for ke*q*q. But not bad considering that I present no reason why to choose the Compton values for radius and frequency, other than a first jab in the dark.

In section 4.5 – 4.10 the authors show how these pulsating bubbles follow Maxwell’s equations to a good approximation. In the model of the electron presented here, that approximation will be orders of magnitude better across a very large parameter space, as the GR field is much better behaved than bubbles in water, to put it mildly.

Its also easy to see that the resulting model is fully compatible with relativity and GR. Its after all made entirely out of gravity.

Quantum Mechanical Behaviour

The electrons modelled here, which only contain a varying mass, can produce electrical effects that exactly match that of the electric field. As the Brady and Anderson paper continues in part 5, so will we here.

In actual fact, since these electrons have been modelled using the same sort of pilot wave phenomena as Brady and Anderson use, there is not much further to do. QM behaviour erupts from these electron models if you follow sections 5, 6 and 7.

Pilot wave behaviour is outlined in the Brady and Anderson paper.

Conclusion

Electrons made with this model exhibit all the expected forces of electromagnetism, all without introducing electric fields at all. Electrical behaviour is then seen as a phenomena of Gravity, rather than its own field.

These electrons also behave according to the laws of QM, all by generating QM effects using pilot wave mechanics.

From the Brady and Anderson conclusion:

"These results explain why droplets undergo single-slit and double-slit diffraction, tunnelling, Anderson localisation, and other behaviour normally associated with quantum mechanical systems. We make testable predictions for the behaviour of droplets near boundary intrusions, and for an analogue of polarised light."

This I believe shows a possible way to unify Electro Magnetism, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

Appendix

There would be much work to do to turn this into a proper theory, with some things needed:

1) What happens with multiple electrons in the same region? A: I think that the linearity of GR in this range assures that the results are the same as EM. It would show a path to finding the limits of EM in areas of high energy, etc.

2) How do protons/quarks work? A: It would seem that quarks might be entities with more complicated ways of breathing mass in and out. This is something that is apparent from their larger actual size, which approaches the maximum size allowed to take part in the geometrical pilot wave, which may run at the compton frequency.

3) Why is charge quantized? A: To me, it seems that the answer to this may be that electrons have quantized charge and protons/quarks are using feedback to keep to the same charge. What about electrons, why are they all the same? I think that’s a puzzle for another day, but perhaps a wormhole model of the electron could be made where the frequency and magnitude of the varying mass would be set from GR considerations.

I don’t expect this model to be instantly accurate, or to answer all questions right away, but the draw to unify EM, QM and Gravity is strong. Any leads should be followed up.

See also
 Oza, Harris, Rosales & Bush (2014)Pilot-wave dynamics in a rotating frame
MIT site: John W.M. Bush
Is quantum mechanics just a special case of classical mechanics?
Monopole GR waves
Other posts on this site as well..

–Tom Andersen

May 17,  2014

QM from waves – pilot waves.

I start with a screen grab from the video below. Yves Couder and friends are clearly looking at hidden variable theories:

Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 8.40.20 AM

Screen Shot 2014-03-09 at 6.46.17 PM

Here is a 3 minute movie with the above slide:

The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets

Here is a paper about eigenstates, etc… Self-organization into quantized eigenstates of a classical wave driven particle  (Stéphane Perrard1, Matthieu Labousse, Marc Miskin, Emmanuel Fort, and Yves Couder).

Compare that with my hastily written post.

See also (pointed out by  Warren Huelsnitz) :

 “Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics

Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Drop

“Couder could not believe what he was seeing”.

Here it was sort of a eureka moment at home on a Sunday afternoon.

Here is a link to the whole show.(45 mins)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KByhu3HKy5s

Valentini:

Valentini (along with me) thinks that QM is wrong, in that its not the ‘final layer’. His de Broglie arguments are powerful and hit close to home for me. I have read most of David Bohm’s papers and books since discovering him as a 4th year undergrad back in the 80s. Bohm’s ideas launched mine. Note that much of physics is built on the assumption that with QM somehow ‘this time its different’ – that any future theory will need to be QM compliant or it is wrong. As if QM was somehow as certain as the (mathematical and hence solid) 2nd Law or something. This leaves no room for argument or dissent. Perfect conditions for a paradigm change!

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/search/node/valentini

EG:

This is the presentation that outlines things as he sees them. I see things that way too, although I am of the opinion that the pilot waves are GR ripples.

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/Flash/3f521d41-f0a9-4e47-a8c7-e1fd3a4c63c8/viewer.html

Is Quantum Mechanics Tried, True, wildly Successful, and Wrong?

Quantum Theory at the Crossroads
Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference

A relaxing read:

Not even wrong. Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory?

“De Broglie’s law of motion for particles is very simple. At any time, the momentum is perpendicular to the wave crests (or lines of constant phase), and is proportionally larger if the wave crests are closer together. Mathematically, the momentum of a particle is given by the gradient (with respect to that particle’s co-ordinates) of the phase of the total wavefunction. This is a law of motion for velocity, quite unlike Newton’s law of motion for acceleration. “ -

Antony Valentini, Beyond the Quantum

4D Spacetime as a media for the Hilbert Space of QM

If QM runs as wiggles in GR, we have a possible way to get collapse, and have a linear QM theory that breaks down over long times or with too many signals in one place.

In other words:

Each QM state vector is represented NOT only as a vector in a Hibert Space, but are really ‘real’  arrangements of (usually small scale) GR waves.

Since GR waves behave linearly over a large range of frequencies and amplitudes, these waves do not interact, and can be represented well as they are now in QM – by a Hilbert Space.

Collapse occurs when this linearity is compromised.

Thus there is a limit to entanglement and Quantum computing. The collapse of the wave function is a physical happening independent of observers. It occurs when these waves self – interact.

Indeed – with a theory where the QM states can only interact in a linear fashion, we have absurdities such as infinite computing power combined with massive Hilbert Spaces.

This should be quantifiable. In other words the collapse can be simulated on a computer system without Bohr like handwaving or the Many World’s trillions of universes per second per cubic cm coming into existence to avoid a true collapse (ok I know its more than trillions per second…).

To estimate the conditions for collapse: Take the likely amplitude of a single quantum wave (by looking at this mass – difference theory that I have for instance) and then see how many can pile into the same place before non-linear interference occurs – which would start a collapse. So collapse occurs when a simple isolated system interferes with a system with many more moving parts – an observation.

Entanglement/EPR/Bell outside the light cone is handled by non-local topology “worm – holes” in GR.

-Tom

How to make Dark Matter

I don’t divulge the recipe until later, lets start with the most undark matter we can find – CERNs protons.

CERN has proton – antiproton collisions going on at 7 TeV. There are collisions that generate up to a few TeV of photons.

Lets look at that from a viewpoint of classical physics, with some General Relativity added in the right place.

We have a few TeV of photons, these are generated in an extremely short period of time. We have two protons approaching and hitting (basically head on to get 2TeV of gammas). They are travelling at c. So that’s an interaction time of 2fm/3e8 m/s – 1.5 e-24 seconds.

So what happens gravitationally?

I have recently read a paper Monopole gravitational waves from relativistic fireballs driving gamma-ray bursts by Kutshera (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309448) that talks about this effect for, well exploding stars.

We have in a small area a mass of 7 TeV, of which about half leaves via gammas, the rest is in ‘slower’ particles like those higgs bosons, etc. This drop in mass results in a monopole gravitational wave. How big:

The force of Gravity is usually determined by the masses of the objects involved. But gravity is a local phenomenon (Einstein’s vision, not Newtons), and the field is actually a gradient of the potential.

So we have a potential change from 7 TeV to 5 TeV as seen by an observer near the collision as 2 TeV of gammas go whizzing by in a time span of 10-24 secs. Lets take the observer to be just outside the interaction area, say 10 fm away.

The gradient of the potential changes as the mass changes, which means its time dependent. We need the gradient.

Look at the Gravitational potential  of the observer before and after the wave passes.

Before G(7 TeV)/10fm and after we have G(5 TeV)/10fm. So that’s an potential difference of G(2TeV)/10fm acting over a time of 1e-24 seconds, which means that we have a gradient of (some math. )SI units! Observer is a proton 10fm away,

I get 8.1×10-20 Watts – i.e. the observer proton sees its energy rise at a rate of 10-19 watts for 1e-24 seconds, it gets a boost in the away from the interaction, which raises its energy by a mere  5e-25eV.

Not much. But what I think is missing is that this sort of effect has to be looked at on a much smaller scale, and repeating, in that this monopole gravitational energy is coming in – then bouncing back out. The proton is thus an engine to this coherently at 1e40Hz or more, which makes other protons/electrons feel a force (they are bouncing this gravitational monopole radiation back and forth too) of the same size as the coulomb force. So this is the coloumb force. Electromagnetism as a phenomena of General Relativity. If you re-do the math with 10-47 or so seconds as the period then you start to see coulomb level forces at play. (Taking away accelerator energies ‘only’ adds a few zeros to the huge frequency requirement for mass exchange.)

The coloumb force rides above this – its a meta field ontop of this gravitationally built monopole system.

I think that electrons do this in a native, compact manner, likely using topology, while protons employ a complicated-ish ‘engine’ built of springs and struts made of GR that produce the same force as an electron. The strength of this force is determined by a feedback mechanism to balance that of the electrons.

Could dark matter be unlit(inactive/relaxed) protons? In other words protons that are not near an electron, and thus stop vibrating and being a charged particle. No near electron means no feedback means no charge. So perhaps looking for dark matter using a dense matter system like a block of germanium is bound to fail. We need to look using some sort of empty space experiment that gets to the vacuum conditions of interstellar (as we know dark matter exist on an interstellar scale).

An experiment might be to create a very hard vacuum starting with a hydrogen plasma, then as you pump down, look for some sort of indication that the charge of the remaining protons and electrons in the gas has gone down. You might look at the response of the p/e left in the chamber to photons – there will be less scattering as you pump down, but if the scattering falls off a cliff faster than your pumping rate you have made dark matter.

What is the distance at which this effect might happen at? In other words how far apart do electrons and protons have to be before the charge effect starts to stall? I am not talking about the range of photons – that’s infinite, but about the range of this effect – where will protons start to lose the signal from electrons, and calm down? 1m, 1micron? What is the density of gas in quiet parts of the galaxy? Intergalactic space is 1 atom/m3, I would say 1e6x this level is likely for some wastelands in the milky way. (we need dark matter in the milky way to get our velocity curves right!) So that’s 1 per cm3.

What’s the best vacuum you can make?

Ultra-high vacuum chambers, common in chemistry, physics, and engineering, operate below one trillionth (10−12) of atmospheric pressure (100 nPa), and can reach around 100 particles/cm

That’s about the right density. So has anyone ever measured laser scattering in such a chamber as a function of pressure? Corrected for pressure, we would get a horizontal line in a suitable graph. Boring stuff, it would seem, so likely not measured. The mean free path is 40km in these chambers.

Some problems solved by this ‘dark matter is matter gone dark’ hypothesis:

1) Early universe. It has been determined that the early universe must have had a mass that was much larger than the observed mass today. This is solved with dark matter, but that dark matter would have had to take part in things. If it were instead all just regular matter, there is no problem.

2) Early universe clumpiness: Its been really hard to come up with galaxies born so quickly. Yet they can be seen with telescopes. With all the matter in the early universe taking part, clumps are easier to make.

3) The lack of dark matter peaks at galactic cores. This one stumps the experts – physicists were sure that dark matter would accumulate at galactic cores, but it does not. If you have matter lighting up as it moves close to the core, then the radiation given off by this newly lit matter would keep things expanded, furthermore it is seen at the core, and so does not count as being dark. (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2011-29)

Early universe CMB

This is the way things are thought to work.

If all the matter was lit, then the He4/Li levels would be not what is observed. ==> Some kind of non interacting matter was needed.

The CMB is too smooth. Dark matter is needed to make galaxies:

Dark matter condenses at early epoch and forms potential wells, the baryonic matter flows into these wells and forms galaxies (White & Rees 1978). (Ref: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept09/Einasto/Einasto4.html)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.