Archives For quantum

An Electron model from Gravitational Pilot Waves

May 17, 2014 — 2 Comments

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

In electromagnetism, Front Page, Particle Structure, physics , , ,
permalink

What is Quantum Mechanics

July 2, 2012 — 1 Comment

How is that even a question?

Previous posts have all not mentioned quantum effects at all. That’s the point – we are building physics from General Relativity, so QM must be a consequence of the theory, right?

Here are some thoughts:

QM seems to not like even special relativity much at all. It is a Newtonian world view theory that has been modified to work in special relativity for the most part, and in General Relativity not at all.

There are obvious holes in QM – the most glaring of which is the perfect linearity and infinitely expandable wave function. Steven Weinberg has posted a paper about a class of QM theories that solve this problem. In essence, the solution is to say that the state vector degrades over time, so that hugely complex, timeless state vectors actually self collapse due to some mechanism. (Please read his version for his views, as my comment are from my point of view.)

If one were to look for a more physical model of QM, something along the lines of Bohm’s hidden variables, then what would we need:

Some sort of varying field that supplies ‘randomness’:

  • This is courtesy of the monopole field discussed in previous posts about the proton and the electron.

Some sort of  reason for the electron to not spiral into the proton:

  • Think De Broglie waves –  a ‘macroscopic’ (in comparison to the monopole field) wave interaction. still these waves ‘matter waves’ are closely tied to the waves that control the electromagnetic field.
  • Put another way – there is room for many forces in the GR framework, since dissimilar forces ignore each other for the most part.
  • Another way of thinking about how you talk about multidimensional information waves (hilbert spaces of millions of dimensions for example), is to note that as long as there is a reasonable mechanism for keeping these information channels separate, then there is a way to do it all with a meta field – GR.

Quantum field theory:

  • This monopole field is calculable and finite, unlike the quantum field theories of today, which are off by a factor of 10100 when trying to calculate energy densities, etc.
In electromagnetism, Front Page, general relativity, physics, quantum mechanics, The state of Physics, Uncategorized , , , , ,
permalink

A model for the weak interaction

November 14, 2011 — Leave a comment

Take this size of an electron as the ‘black hole’ size. That is about 10-55 m I think. Then for a solid, we have about 3.35*1028 molecules water per m cubed, h2O, so 7e**29 electrons / m**3 – say 1e30 electrons per cubic metre. With a 1.48494276 × 10-27 m / kg conversion constant for the Schwarchild radius of an object measured in kg, and an electron mass of 9.10938291(40)×10−31, we get diameter of 2.6 10-58m, so cross section is 7e-116 and then the total area of a cubic metre of water is about 1e-85 m**2/m

So what is the neutrino cross section.

Say neutrinos only interact with electrons when they hit the actual black hole part. Also assume that neutrinos are much smaller than electrons.

How many meters of water would a ray penetrate before hitting an electron within its -black hole radius?

1e-85 m**2, which works out to a coverage of one part in 1e85, so 1e85 meters would ensure a hit.  This is vastly larger than the real distance, which is only a few light years, 1e17 m or so.

So I guess that this idea is very wrong on some counts.

If you use the radius of the electron as a kerr naked ring singularity, you get 1e-37 metres, or  1.616199 × 10-35 meters, ie te planck length. 

Then with these planck length sized electrons, you get about 1e-70 – which is about 1e-40 m**2/metre of water, still not enough, but closer.

 

Funny how the kerr radius of an electron mass naked singularity is the planck mass.

 

Trying a compton size of 2e-12m instead of 2e-56, makes the

 

 

In Unfinished , , , , ,
permalink

An Experiment with Monopole Gravitational Waves

October 16, 2011 — 4 Comments

Thought experiment, that is…

Take a gravitational well created by any object. Simple Schwarzschild solution. There is a test particle at some distance r away from the source.

Now imagine that the source disappears. Really just ‘goes away’ – violating the conservation of stuff. (The source mass of course could be going away for a temporary time,  quantum – style, or could be using a wormhole device to disappear – I’m not concerned here with the how or why this would happen).

The source disappears over a short time. (This would create a monopole gravitational wave).

There are two potential energies for the test mass – the potential energy when its in the well, and then the potential energy when the well is gone. The difference is of course just G*MsMt/r. During the disappearance of Ms (source mass) the total energy of the test particle would remain the same, so the kinetic energy of the test particle would rise as the PE tended to zero.

So that’s 1/2MtV2 = GMsMt/r

V = sqrt(2GMs/r) – the escape velocity – makes perfect sense. (it would be towards the place where Ms was, but everything here is talked about in such a short period of time that the test particle never gets to move much)…

So now, imagine that the source mass (Ms) appears again. If you left everything else alone, the test particle would of course slow back down and again be parked stationary in the potential well.

So lets change that. Say, in this world of disappearing masses, that now, in an act of symmetry, the test particle has taken its turn and has now ‘gone away’ during the re-inflation of Ms. So now you have Ms back, and the test particle magically appears in the well. Lets not worry about the energy needed to get back into the potential at this point.

Of course, now we are back at the initial conditions, and we repeat:

  • Ms – disappears.
  • Mt has a KE boost of the escape velocity.
  • So Mt is getting a KE boost of the escape velocity at each cycle.

In fact, repeat the whole process at about 1065 hz. (see this post for a calculation of this frequency) (2014 edit – Perhaps this frequency is way off… see May 2014).

Then you have the capability to produce an acceleration of 1042 TIMES the normal classical gravitational acceleration on an object. Take Ms and Mt to both be the mass of the lightest charged particle, the electron. In the example above, I guess one of the particles is a positron since there is a net attraction. Attraction vs repulsion is a phase thing here. If both particles disappear and re-appear at the same time (well with speed of light taken into account between them), then you would have repulsion.

This is the source of the electric charge: the Coulomb field is a consequence of Gravity – a phenomenon, not a fundamental field.

Obviously not a complete model at this point!

Here are some nice things about this:

  • Obviously covariant, GR friendly (as long as you can stomach the varying mass thing).
  • If correct, things like the Maxwell equations should drop out. That would be a telling feature.
  • It forms a way to unify gravity with the other forces of nature.
  • It does not use the well worn QFT as a starting point, which has never really amounted to much.
Maxwell Equations
We now have a coulomb strength field with repulsion and attraction (caused by different phase locking). This is set in a covariant GR framework. Maxwells equations can be determined from Coulomb’s law and Special Relativity : see for example this paper by Richard E Haskell.
Questions:
  • Why the phase lock?
  • What about QED and its exact predictions?
  • What is the mechanism that controls the mass swings?
  • What about the ‘other’ properties of the electron – the gyromagnetic ratio, etc.
  • Can this model be used for nuclear forces as well?
  • What about quantum effects? Can time and energy be used at these scales?
Hints to answers:
  • Perhaps phase lock is the wrong way to think about the interaction, and something more like QED provides a better way to think about repulsion vs attraction, etc.
  • QED is modeled with the exchange of precisely timed phase clocks – the physical model of this may be the pulse exchanges outlined above.
  • General Relativity does not tell us how space is connected. It may not be simply connected.
  • The gyromagnetic ratio of the electron can be found to be 2 from several papers on gravitational models of the electron – those papers assume a classical model for charge, but still may hold. The extremely high frequency of this effect means that on a scale of even femtoseconds we have 1028 oscillations – likely can ignore many effects, and again treat the electon as if it has a classical charge.
  • Nuclear forces may be a result of real, actual,  particles interacting at distances close enough that non – linear effects and the full theory of General Relativity need to be taken into account. Perhaps get numerical relativists to work on this.
  • Quantum mechanics may be a phenomenon of a multiply connected GR universe, with all the fast clocks and wormhole like behaviour providing enough room to create a (now extant) hidden variables theory of QM.
  • Perhaps the Proton participates in this dance with a much more complicated set of machinery – and is – say not multiply connected, or has a different structure, etc.
Obviously a big pill to swallow. But it does head down the road to integrating the forces of nature.
Tom Andersen
Meaford, On Canada
October 16, 2011 (with personal notes from 1995 – 2011)
In general relativity, Particle Structure, physics, pilot waves , , , , ,
permalink

All physical theories are wrong. Where will Quantum Mechanics fail?

December 4, 2010 — 2 Comments

History has showed us that all physical theories eventually fail. The failure is always a complete failure in terms of some abstract perfectionist viewpoint, but in reality, the failure only amounts to small corrections. Take for instance gravity. Newton’s theory is absurd – gravity travels instantly, etc. But it is also simple and powerful, it predictions working well enough to put people on the Moon.

Quantum Mechanics, it would seem, has a lot of physicists claiming that ‘this time is different’ – that QM is ‘right’. Nature does play dice. There are certain details of it yet to be worked out, like how to apply it to fully generalized curvy spacetimes, etc.

Lets look at what would happen if it were wrong. Or rather, lets look at one way that it could be wrong.

QM predicts that there are chances for every event happening. I mean in the following way – there is a certain probability for an electron (say) to penetrate some sort of barrier (quantum tunneling). As the barrier is made higher and or wider, the probability of tunneling goes down according to a well defined formula: (see for example this wikipedia article). Now, the formulas for the tunneling probability do not ‘top out’ – there is a really, really tiny chance that even a slowly moving electron could make it through a concrete wall. What if this is wrong? What if there is a limit as to the size of the barrier? Or put another way – what if there is a limit to probability? Another way to look at this is to say that there is a upper limit on the half life of a compound. Of course, just as Newton’s theory holds extremely well for most physics, it may be hard to notice that there is not an unlimited amount of ‘quantum wiggle’ to ‘push’ particles through extremely high barriers.

Steven Weinberg has posted a paper about a class of theories that try to solve the measurement problem in QM by having QM fail. (It fails a little at a time, so we need big messy physics to have the wave collapse). I agree fully with his idea – that we have to modify QM to solve the measurement problem.

In Front Page, physics, quantum mechanics, The state of Physics , , , , ,
permalink