Dark Matter

[mpc755]

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND it's associated wave in the dark mass.

[K^2]

As someone who spent a number of years studying particle physics are you able to understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit?

Just the opposite. Particle always travels through both slits, even if you detect it moving through just one of them. Because a particle, any particle, is just an excitation in the field, and Lagrangian on the underlying field will allow propagation along every possible path. What you observe in a measurement is a separate story and has very little to do with how the particle got there.

The basics of this are taught in the introductory Quantum Mechanics. The details of how it actually works are, typically, part of a graduate level Quantum Field Theory course.

[mpc755]

What you observe in a measurement is a separate story and has very little to do with how the particle got there.

It has everything to do with how it got there.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND it's associated wave in the dark mass.

The particle is always detected traveling through a single slit because it ALWAYS travels through a single slit.

It is the associated wave in the dark mass that passes through both.

[K^2]

It has everything to do with how it got there.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND it's associated wave in the dark mass.

The particle is always detected traveling through a single slit because it ALWAYS travels through a single slit.

It is the associated wave in the dark mass that passes through both.

Pseudo-scientific baloney. Don't try to argue about QM with a physicist until you actually learn some physics.

[mpc755]

Pseudo-scientific baloney. Don't try to argue about QM with a physicist until you actually learn some physics.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium†which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty spaceâ€Â.â€Â

The “subquantic medium†is the dark mass.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.â€Â

A “fluidic pilot-wave system†is the dark mass.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,†Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys  who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way  actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.â€Â

What waves in a double slit experiment is the dark mass.

[SAI Peregrinus]

DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave mechanics has NO MASS for the waves (like light, they're waves with no medium). It's a non-local hidden variables theory, and has nothing whatsoever to do with dark matter/dark mass/aether. It has some promising classical analogues, such as the oil drop experiments, but it's totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Indeed, its predictions are identical to those of normal quantum mechanics. The name is irrelevant so long as the math is identical, which it is. Personally I quite like Bohmian mechanics, but there's no reason based on evidence to prefer it to the Copenhagen interpretation, Everettian mechanics, or the like. And it does no more than any of those to predict the various observed phenomena currently attributed to dark matter, so it doesn't even solve the problem!

[mpc755]

DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave mechanics has NO MASS for the waves (like light, they're waves with no medium). It's a non-local hidden variables theory, and has nothing whatsoever to do with dark matter/dark mass/aether. It has some promising classical analogues, such as the oil drop experiments, but it's totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Indeed, its predictions are identical to those of normal quantum mechanics. The name is irrelevant so long as the math is identical, which it is. Personally I quite like Bohmian mechanics, but there's no reason based on evidence to prefer it to the Copenhagen interpretation, Everettian mechanics, or the like. And it does no more than any of those to predict the various observed phenomena currently attributed to dark matter, so it doesn't even solve the problem!

I'm not discussing de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave mechanics. I am discussing de Broglie's double solution theory. de Broglie-Bohm theory is incorrectly named as de Broglie disagreed with it. It should be called Bohmian mechanics.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS

A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION

by

LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeared subsequently in The Physical Review [3]. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of the pilot-wave, considering the W wave as a physical reality* He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927.3 My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de VAcademic des Sciences [4], the objections, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the W wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory."

In the following de Broglie is agreeing with Bohm (and Vigier) in terms of the wave of wave-particle duality being a wave in a "subquantic medium".

“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium†which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty spaceâ€Â.â€Â

How you are able to interpret "subquantic medium" as not being a medium is beyond comprehension.

I recommend watching all of the following video. The part having to do with 'exposed variable theories' is at the 2:10 mark.

'The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets'

Due to conservation of momentum the downconverted pair are propagating with opposite angular momentums.

Each of the pair is able to determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum.

Entanglement is each of the pair being able to determine the state of the other.

de Broglie's double solution theory is an exposed variable theory.

'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

In a double slit experiment it is the mass which fills 'empty' space that waves.

The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the mass that fills 'empty' space.

Edited August 25, 2015 by mpc755

[K^2]

Could you, please, run through derivation of baryonic excitation spectra for some of the lighter baryons? Also, if you could derive decay constants and structure functions for some light mesons using this "subquantic medium" model, that'd be great.

What you are grasping onto here is known in the academia as a duality. Examples of notable dualities of Quantum Mechanics include such things as Holographic Interpretation, String Theory, and to a lesser extent, Supersymmetry. These things are regarded as nothing more than mathematical curiosity until they can start making actual predictions.

To the date, Standard Model is the only one that makes correct predictions for almost everything. No other duality has been found to work better. Or, indeed, even come close to replicating results of Standard Model.

Scientific Theory must make testable predictions, and these predictions must pass the test. Everything else, as the classic noted, is stamp collection.

[mpc755]

Could you, please, run through derivation of baryonic excitation spectra for some of the lighter baryons? Also, if you could derive decay constants and structure functions for some light mesons using this "subquantic medium" model, that'd be great.

What you are grasping onto here is known in the academia as a duality. Examples of notable dualities of Quantum Mechanics include such things as Holographic Interpretation, String Theory, and to a lesser extent, Supersymmetry. These things are regarded as nothing more than mathematical curiosity until they can start making actual predictions.

To the date, Standard Model is the only one that makes correct predictions for almost everything. No other duality has been found to work better. Or, indeed, even come close to replicating results of Standard Model.

Scientific Theory must make testable predictions, and these predictions must pass the test. Everything else, as the classic noted, is stamp collection.

Or, you could understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

You do understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes, correct?

There is a boat AND a bow wave.

It's that simple for wave-particle duality.

There is a particle AND a wave in the mass which fills 'empty' space.

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that boats move through and displace the water if you insist on not understanding boats move through and displace the water.

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave if you insist on not understanding a moving particle has an associated wave in the mass which fills 'empty' space.

Do you need to see a derivation of the bow wave to understand boats move through and displace the water?

Edited August 25, 2015 by mpc755

[K^2]

Or, you could understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

Bell inequalities prove it does not. So give it a rest. Particle always travels through both slits, or QM wouldn't work. And before you say anything, QED predicted anomalous gyromagnetic ratio to 12 decimal places. When you can beat that with any of your crazy nonsense, you can come back and share your knowledge. Until then, you're just another crackpot.

[mpc755]

Bell's inequality has to do with hidden variables.

I recommend watching all of the following video. The part having to do with 'exposed variable theories' is at the 2:10 mark.

'The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets'

Due to conservation of momentum the downconverted pair are propagating with opposite angular momentums.

Each of the pair is able to determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum.

Entanglement is each of the pair being able to determine the state of the other.

de Broglie's double solution theory is an exposed variable theory.

'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

In a double slit experiment it is the mass which fills 'empty' space that waves.

The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the mass that fills 'empty' space.

[K^2]

Bell's inequality has to do with hidden variables.

Ayup. And if particle passed through just one of the slits, and we don't know which because we didn't measure it, it's a hidden variable in your model. It's trivial to set up a multi-stage double-slit experiment which is absolutely identical to a two spin Bell inequality. With the same exact outcome.

So again, Bell Inequalities actually prove that particle passes through BOTH slits. It's a requirement to get measurements we are getting from a huge number of experiments. Ranging from actual double-slit experiments and its variations, like delayed choice quantum eraser, to more abstract things like quantum computing, quantum encryption, and even quantum teleportation. All of which rely on the same underlying principles.

Now, instead of watching some videos, I would suggest you actually open up a textbook. It takes a bit longer, but that's how you actually learn things.

[mpc755]

If the particle passed through both slits it would be detected in both slits. Double slit experiments have been performed with C60 molecules. That's 60 interconnected atoms. If it passed through both slits atoms would be detected in both slits.

That doesn't happen.

The C60 molecule is always detected as a single entity, all 60 atoms, because it is always a single particle. It is the associated wave in the dark mass that passes through all of the slits.

[K^2]

If the particle passed through both slits it would be detected in both slits.

And if Earth was round, water would wash off of it, so clearly, Earth is flat.

You are falining to move past the most basic of principles here. Double slit experiment is a classic example specifically because it breaks expectations. But it's not designed to teach you much of anything beyond that. To understand why it works, you need to actually learn Quantum Mechanics. Not just the cool thought experiments and videos on the internet. But the mathematics and physics behind Quantum Mechanics.

Once you understand the core Quantum, a touch of Field Theory (at least Classical,) and some basic Quantum Information Theory, I could start explaining why you can only measure the particle passing through one slit.

[mpc755]

No one thinks the particle travels through both slits.

Some say it exists in all of configuration space. There is the nonsense of many worlds. The Copenhagen Interpretation says it is meaningless to discuss where the particle is prior to detection.

Only you say the particle travels through both slits.

If it did you would detect it in both.

[Brotoro]

The Dunning–Kruger is strong in this one.

[K^2]

No one thinks the particle travels through both slits.

Nearest Quantum book off the shelf. Peskin and Schroeder, Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Chapter 9 - Functional Methods. Page 276.

Recall that in quantum mechanics there is a superposition principle: When a process can take place in more than one way, its total amplitude is the coherent sum of all the amplitudes for each way. A simple but nontrivial example is the famous double-slit experiment, shown in Fig. 9.1. The total amplitude for an electron to arrive at the detector is the sum of the amplitudes for the two paths shown. Since the paths differ in length, these two amplitudes generally differ, causing interference.

Here is another one. This is from Modern Quantum Mechanics by Sakurai. This is a standard graduate level text. From section 2.5, Propagators and Feynman Path Integrals, p117.

In classical mechanics a definite path in the xt-plane is associated with the particle's motion; in contrast, in quantum mechanics all possible paths must play roles including those which do not bear any resemblance to the classical path.

Now, Sakurai doesn't talk about double-slit specifically, but he applies the above to Aharonov-Bohm effect, which also relies on particle taking multiple paths at once. Section 2.6, Potentials and Gauge Transformations, p138-139.

All this is for a particular path, such as going above the cylinder. We must still sum over all possible paths, which may appear to be a formidable task. [...] As a result, the contributions due to A=/=0 to all paths going above the cylinder are given by a common phase factor; similarly, the contributions from all paths going below the cylinder are multiplied by another common phase factor. [...] The probability for finding the particle in the interference region B depends on the modulus squared of the entire transition amplitude and hence on the phase difference between the contribution from the paths going above and below.

I could probably go on. But that's just two standard texts I've picked up at random.

Particles taking every available path at once, including going through both slits of a double-slit experiment is a scientific fact. It's also common knowledge among anyone who actually studies the field. And it surprises us just as little as roundness of Earth surprises modern people. Ugh, most modern people.

[mpc755]

Not one of those quotes says the particle goes through both slits simultaneously.

If it did you would detect the particle in both slits.

They all talk about the sum of the paths. They do this because mainstream physics is too screwed up to realize there is a particle AND a wave.

Email your favorite physics professor and ask them if the particle physically travels through both slits simultaneously in a double slit experiment. The answer will be 'no'. You are mistaking the sum of the paths, which is nonsense in its own right, with the particle physically traveling through both slits.

If you do not want to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature then that is your choice.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through both.

Edited August 25, 2015 by mpc755

[PB666]

I don't know if this link has been posted but here it is.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150824-what-is-the-universe-made-of

[mpc755]

I don't know if this link has been posted but here it is.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150824-what-is-the-universe-made-of

The following is incorrect:

"The effect is called "gravitational lensing" and it can be used to figure out where the clouds of dark matter are."

There are no such things as "clouds of dark matter". 'Empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. What is mistaken for the "clouds of dark matter" is the state of displacement of the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

The following is incorrect:

"The first way is to observe dark matter in action in the cosmos."

The first way to 'observe' dark matter is in a double slit experiment, it's what waves. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.

"These make intricate patterns known as the "cosmic web". This web is tied together with dark matter."

The web is the state of displacement of the dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing the dark matter.

[Z-Man]

If you're so convinced that in the double slit experiment, the particle really only goes through one of the slits, please give an example where this has observable consequences that the standard implementation of QM cannot explain. For example, can you determine which slit it goes through and still not lose the interference pattern?

[mpc755]

If you're so convinced that in the double slit experiment, the particle really only goes through one of the slits, please give an example where this has observable consequences that the standard implementation of QM cannot explain. For example, can you determine which slit it goes through and still not lose the interference pattern?

That's called weak measurement.

'1st place: Shifting the morals of quantum measurement'

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/dec/16/physics-world-reveals-its-top-10-breakthroughs-for-2011

"Using an emerging technique called "weak measurement", the team is the first to track the average paths of single photons passing through a Young's double-slit experiment – something that Steinberg says physicists had been "brainwashed" into thinking is impossible."

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

'New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

The following is what is incorrect in quantum mechanics.

"David Deutsch of the University of Oxford, UK, is not convinced that the experiment has told us anything new about how the universe works. He says that although "it's quite cool to see strange predictions verified", the results could have been obtained simply by "calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics". ... "

Yes, you can obtain the results by "calculating them using a computer", however, that doesn't explain what is occurring physically in nature.

" ... "Experiments are only relevant in science when they are crucial tests between at least two good explanatory theories," Deutsch says. "Here, there was only one, namely that the equations of quantum mechanics really do describe reality.""

Equations do not describe what is occurring physically in reality.

A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark mass. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave which passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Strongly detecting the particle causes a loss of cohesion between the particle and its associated wave, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and it does not form an interference pattern. Weakly detecting the particle allows for the particle and its associated wave to maintain some of their cohesion, allowing the particle to still form an interference pattern.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the dark mass.

Edited August 25, 2015 by mpc755

[K^2]

Not one of those quotes says the particle goes through both slits simultaneously.

If it did you would detect the particle in both slits.

First base. You're really stuck on that Earth is Flat side of thinking, aren't you?

Email your favorite physics professor and ask them if the particle physically travels through both slits simultaneously in a double slit experiment.

Is it Ok that I've actually done research in particle physics? And have on occasion read lectures on Quantum Mechanics, including Quantum Field Theory, to graduate students while my adviser was out of town? I'm just trying to figure out why you expect a generic "Physics Professor," to have better grasp of Quantum Mechanics than I do. Now, a full Professor in Theoretical Particle Physics will most certainly have more experience than I do, but we're also talking about the basics, and so they won't tell you anything different.

Every particle always travels along every possible path. It's foundation of modern field theory. A particle does travel through both slits in double-slit, which is precisely why you have to sum up trajectories through both slits

They all talk about the sum of the paths. They do this because mainstream physics is too screwed up to realize there is a particle AND a wave.

And you're back to crack-pottery. If you think you have a theory that works better than Standard Model, give me a computation. Of something. Anything. How about mass of pion? Just approximately. Say, to within 10%? It's really easy. Any graduate student can do it using Standard Model.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through both.

Again, you are back to an idea that there is a precise position for a particle, we just don't know it. That's hidden variable. And it's been thoroughly disproven. Things like Quantum Teleportation wouldn't work if this was the case. And we do have Quantum Teleportation. It's a thing that people have actually been able to carry out.

You are really acting no different than Flat-Earthers arguing that Earth isn't round in the age of satellite communication. You just happen to have picked a more obscure field, so there aren't as many people to call you out on it. I happen to have spent many years actually studying Quantum Mechanics, learning from people who do this sort of thing for a living. There isn't a part of it where you aren't wrong.

And again, the only way you can prove that you are right is by carrying out a computation. Scientific theory must make quantifiable predictions. Make one. I'm not even asking you to compute something new or unexpected. Just confirm a few well established quantities. I've given you a number of examples. Take your pick.

[mpc755]

Every particle always travels along every possible path. It's foundation of modern field theory. A particle does travel through both slits in double-slit, which is precisely why you have to sum up trajectories through both slits

If the particle physically travels through both slits it would be detected exiting both slits.

In every double slit experiment ever performed where detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark mass passes through both.

Edited August 26, 2015 by mpc755

[K^2]

If the particle physically travels through both slits it would be detected exiting both slits.

Non sequitur. There is absolutely no reason why you should observe detector signal from both. And if you actually do the math on particle-detector interaction, it'd be clear why.

Speaking of which, I still don't see you deriving anything. I need numbers from you before you can keep claiming to have some advanced knowledge.