Posts Tagged ‘Quantum Waves’

(Aaronson) Misleading “Quantum Talk”

December 8, 2019

Of Those For Whom Despising Others Fosters One’s Sense Of Existence:

Aaronson, a renowned Quantum Computation expert thought funny to pretend that what he studies (programming Quantum amplitudes) is the end-all, be-all of the universe. So this is out in a cartoon, complete with arrogant child and even more stupid mom. Although the fact the mom is stupid is not revealed by the cartoon, quite the opposite. When does she go wrong?

Besides having no eyes to speak to, or from? So here is the cartoon. It starts pretty well. It ends up as badly as possible, with plenty of lies about Quantum Mechanics and unsupported assertions that consciousness has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics (when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, including that QM is at the core of biology). Anyway here is the silly cartoon, from a respected Quantum Computational authority:

I condescend and lie, therefore I think, hence I exist? Too many physicists have succumbed to that temptation, due to their otherwise modest position in society.

There is a partially correct message above not well known by the unwashed multitudes: yes, Quantum Mechanics compute with complex amplitudes. Why is that? Let me reveal it: consider light. It’s the simplest Quantum phenomenon,and it requires Complex Numbers to be described as compactly as possible. Light is made of entangled electric and magnetic fields at an angle to the propagation direction. More precisely: E is the electric field vector, and B is the magnetic field vector of the EM wave. For electromagnetic waves E and B are always perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The direction of propagation is the direction of E x B.

Electromagnetic waves are the solutions of Maxwell’s equations in a vacuum, which abstract the experiments pioneered by at least half a dozen physicists (Monge, Ampere, Faraday, Fresnel, etc.).

E (and thus B!) can rotate, or be in any directions, as long as they are perpendicular to each other and light wave propagation. However one can also fix E, by letting the light through a grid. This is a standard experiment, it’s use in polarized sunglasses, etc.  However it’s very deep, deeper than Aaronson can understand, or that present physics understand: this means the light is somehow extended… If if it’s a single, proverbial photon.

Any light wave coming from the left. The first vertical grid forces the E electric field of the light vertically (any other direction gets captured by the vertical grid). The second horizontal grid kills the vertically polarized light.

In general, the electric field E can adopt any direction or rotate. To depict this mathematically, there is a handy instrument: the Complex Number field, which is the one and only generalization of the Real Number field [1]. Light is also the simplest Quantum phenomenon known. Thus, to fully depict the simplest Quantum, one needs Complex Numbers. More Quantum will naturally mean more Complex Numbers.

Aaronson claims that “physicists had a customs when describing these matters with outsiders, they want to avoid being… too graphic too explicit … too *gulp* mathematically correct“.

The Schrodinger Cat, and nonlocality are caused by “talking to outsiders”? This is what Aaronson says explicitly lower down in the cartoon. This is hogwash bullshit. Physicist didn’t understand much of the very basics of the Quantum Mechanics they were in the process of inventing. Even the most trivially blatant features of Quantum mechanics were not understood for more than a generation, although they were the first thing one wrote on the subject. Let me explain.

The basic equation (De Broglie-Schrodinger) reads basically as:

i(change W relative to time) = (change acceleration of W) + (W)(A)

More “mathematically”: i dW/dt = ddW/dxdx + AW

Where W is a complex wave, and A a potential W interacts with (say the electromagnetic field for an electron) [2].

It’s obvious from this most basic equation, that W reacts to the potential A. However, it took 33 years or so to notice this: Bohm and Aharonov did it… and all the big geniuses of Quantum Mechanics, even Einstein and De Broglie, let alone Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Pauli, Born, the hyper arrogant Von Neumann, Dirac, etc… Didn’t notice it.

Notice Aaronson describes physicists as “insiders“. In other words, physicists make a tribe… just like many philosophers around “French Theory” have claimed…

However, the real truth is that physicists were too ignorant to describe WHY the COMPLEX Quantum Wave well to “outsiders“, because there was not enough inside the heads of these insiders. But here I come.

So I take my right arm, and project it forward, like your standard Kung Fu master. I open three fingers. My index points in the direction of motion of my arm, ready to punch inside the eye of the tribal physicist “insider”. My major points perpendicular to the index (because physicists insiders get my symbolic finger; it also represent the E field above). My thumb, representing the B field, is perpendicular to the other two extended fingers. At this point the whole assembly of these three fingers progressing forward can be described by three real numbers. But then I impose a rotation of the entire hand: there is your Complex Numbers field. The rotation requires the complex numbers

Some could sneer that one complex number is a pair of real numbers with weird multiplication rules, so we don’t really need Complex Numbers, bla bla bla… But Mathematics is not just a language: mathematics is the most compact, most efficient language: it does that by compactifying the logic maximally.

What does Patrice mean by “compactifying the logic”? How to measure that? Simple, count the symbols: the fewer symbols, the most compact… [3]

***

Aaronson claims that “classical events have probabilities and quantum events have amplitude“. That’s false. They have probabilities too (from the square root of the norm squared of the amplitude). Before Aaronson showed he had no modesty, didn’t know the history of physics and was a tribalist. Now he throwing through the window not just the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, but also the entire Theory of Measurement, and what the refined analysis of what an “event” is.

A basic axiom of Quantum Mechanics is that an unobserved event is not an event. As long as one has “amplitudes”, the quantum system computes quantum mechanically, but one had no “event”. “Event” happens after the collapse, when there are no more amplitudes. I call that singularization. Other more or less equivalent concepts are “collapse” and “decoherence” (collapse frightened the children so they opted for decoherence as they became snowflakes).

So what Aaronson presents as the one and only axiom of Quantum Physics is actually a self-contradicting ERROR.

Actually Wikipedia offers nine different complicated and independent axioms for Quantum Mechanics.

So why does Aaronson speak only of amplitudes? Because it’s all he needs for his job, computer programming. Forget physics: Aaronson doesn’t seem to know the difference between “amplitudes” and “waves”: waves have “amplitudes”, but do not reduce to “amplitudes”. Moreover, Quantum waves don’t behave like classical waves with their (only) local behavior: Quantum waves are global. In the author’s own SQPR,, the waves propagate at an enormous speed, tens of trillions of trillions times faster than the speed of light (so they appear “instantaneous” as the present Quantum mechanical axiomatics has it…)

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/quantum-waves-are-real/

The  (so-called “Heisenberg”) Uncertainty Principle is a direct consequence of De Broglie hypothesis. Yet, the basic idea is pre-Quantum… Or rather Quantum in the pure electromagnetic sense… as I said, the very basics of Quantum mechanics is electromagnetics, thus optics. Let me explain a bit more.

To find out where something is, one shines a light on it, one hits it, say, with light. However the light’s precision is greater, the shorter its wavelength (otherwise light turns around objects for the exact same reason as radio waves do). But the energy of the light is proportional to its frequency which is inversely proportional to its wavelength. So the more precise one tries to ascertain where an object is, by looking at it, the greater the kick one imparts to it. It’s obvious one will get an uncertainty, and, at this point, one doesn’t even need De Broglie’s equation, the relation between wavelength and momentum, but plain 19th century physics, mostly that light has momentum… the very same property tremendous genius Jules Henri Poincaré used in 1899, to demonstrate E = mcc, the famous mass-energy relationship usually attributed to fluffy parrot Einstein, then a young brat who tried to make us believe he invented all of physics besides telling God how to organize the universe (as Quantum Founder and nobel Niels Bohr told him).

To get the best numbers of the exact inequality, one needs De Broglie…

Notice that what is important here is WAVES, not just amplitudes. And the relationship between momentum, energy, and wave frequency, direction. Right the waves are complex and they have amplitudes.

By the way, Waves are not all one needs for Quantum Mechanics: SPIN, for example comes from a different logical source, purely geometrical. Spin was discovered by another tremendous French genius, Elie Cartan, before World War One. A generation later, Spin surfaced in Dirac’ s fertile mind: Dirac wanted the most simple equation possible to describe the electron… That required a new space, to enable spinors to live on it… (The mathematics of all this are not well understood at the deepest level; it’s a bit as if one took the square root of space, I have not much clue beyond that, nor does anyone else…)

Aaronson also claims that Quantum nonlocality is just a matter of amplitudes. Well, it’s not. Between the EPR paper of 1935 and Bell’s inequality of 1966, there were 33 years during which physicists were perplexed more than perplexed: they ignored nonlocality all together (until Bohm-Aharonov). Experimental tests started much later, and some physicists have received the greatest prizes for it … Albeit not the Nobel… which was attributed for realizing the Bose-Einstein condensate, some 70 years after it could become theoretically imaginable…

With the end of his silly cartoon, Aaronson demonstrates he doesn’t know physics (the beginning is pretty good though…), and it is teaching lies.

Aaronson demonstrated that he may have had a condescending mechanical mom without eyes, and the arrogance simpletons comes with, by definition.

***

Authorities (such as politicians, economists, media owners and physicists in position of authority) have several reasons to lie. Yes it manipulates people but more precisely:

  1. It prevents people to access to truth, thus power.
  2. It confuses people, leveraging on 1).
  3. It fills the public with awe, because, confused and powerless, they view the authoritative figure as quite a bit of a magician, because lying enables the authority to apparently master the (otherwise) incomprehensible.
  4. In manipulating We The People into submission, it is crucial not to reveal that the incomprehensible has been made incomprehensible by the authorities, by deliberate design of an immense distraction (following the misleading Aaronson, good luck trying to deduce nonlocality from “amplitudes”: there are “amplitudes” in my bathtub, but that doesn’t make nonlocal… So this is an impossible task, which Aaronson pretends to have mastered; economist and politicians, bankers and other high finance types, even ecologists on government payroll, do the same. day in, day out, 24/7: outrageous lying, to confuse the multitude)

All too many “intellectuals” in recent decades have been for sale…

Teaching Quantum Physics to all is teaching the universe as it is to all. Knowing Quantum Physics enriches one’s arsenal of understanding schemes, all over. So teaching it correctly is a mission civilisatrice. When humanity is more intelligent in the future, it will be in part because of this. For example the meta observation that everything is made, in the small, of waves is most enlightening, and impact sensibilities…

Thus la trahison des clercs, here lying about the nature of the Quantum, while posing as an “insider” is the sort of pseudo-intellectual posturing humanity really doesn’t need. This sort of deliberately dishonest and malicious posturing has brought deplorable racism such as imposing the notion that fearing Wahhabism is racist… and has distracted from the most major problems at hand such as global plutocratization and the man-made mass extinction.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

P/S: A friend of mine, a professional university researcher in Quantum Computing, long working for a GAFAM, sent me the cartoon above, in an apparent slight to my essay on brain modularity making consciousness necessary. I am grateful as the paper was intelligently stupid.

***

[1] Quaternion make a non-commutative division algebra.

***

[2] i is the square root of (-1), a rotation by 90 degrees in the complex number field. I put Planck constant = 1… As I am limited by the WordPress software, I denote the second (partial) derivative relative to space as dd/(dx)(dx) which is what it is… but different from the usual symbolic… which also use the psi Greek letter instead of W…

***

[3] Maxwell equations initially covered an entire page. Now they can be reduced to nine symbols: dF = 0 and d*F = A.

To understand that, you have to learn more advanced differential geometry: exterior differentiation, the * operator, etc. But will admit, that’s compact… And thus in the only sense that makes sense, MOST intuitive.

“Fuzzy” Dark Matter & Sub Quantum Physical Reality (SQPR)

October 17, 2019

Abstract: An early Quantum universe would have appeared “fuzzy”, and striated, from Quantum self interference… If one adopts one basic consequence of my own SQPR theory: Dark Matter is made of ultra-light, ultra-low momentum particles. A team of physicists at prestigious institutions by adopting this conclusion of SQPR, one gets a drastically different looking model explaining the filament nature of galaxy distributions. (This completely new approach is indirectly rather supportive of SQPR… and very different from the usual LCDM; it should be testable soon, with new telescopes under construction…)

***

According to official, ruling Big Bang theory, Dark Matter was the starting ingredient for coagulating the very first galaxies in the universe. According to that “LCDM” model, shortly after the Big Bang, particles of Dark Matter clumped together in gravitational “halos,” pulling surrounding gas into their cores, which over time cooled and condensed into the first galaxies. [1] 

Thus a curious situation: Dark Matter is considered the backbone to the structure of the universe, while physicists know very little about its nature, because the DM “particles” have so far evaded detection.

Now scientists at MIT, Princeton University, and Cambridge University have admitted the obvious, namely that the early universe, and the very first galaxies, would have looked very different depending upon the exact nature of Dark Matter.  They simulated what early galaxy formation would have looked like if Dark Matter were “fuzzy,” rather than cold or warm. “Fuzzy” here has a precise definition: it means very low momentum DM “particles”. Such “fuzzy” particles are what my own theory, SQPR is full of, as a consequence of my hypothesis that Quantum Mechanics is LOCAL.

Left is the conventional distribution of galaxies prediction of the conventional Big Bang (“LCDM”). Center is that with “warm” dark Matter. Right is the Quantum “fuzzy” DM model (compatible with SQPR).

Light Mechanics, electromagnetism, is local: this is also called Relativity (Poincaré named it thus). QM being a generalization of Light Mechanics, it is natural that it would be local too: this is the fundamental axiom of SQPR

In that most widely accepted scenario, the so-called LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model of the early universe Dark Matter is Cold: it is made up of slow-moving particles that, aside from gravitational effects, have no interaction with ordinary matter (SQPR readily explains why DM doesn’t interact but gravitationally). 

In LCDM, Warm Dark Matter is thought to be a slightly lighter and faster version of Cold Dark Matter (it has been heated by galaxies). 

Fuzzy Dark Matter, is, for official physics, a new concept, something entirely different, consisting of ultralight particles, each about 1 octillionth 10^(-27) the mass of an electron (the Cold Dark Matter particle of LCDM are far heavier — about 100 times more massive than an electron). Repeat: the proposed mass for Dark Matter particles in this new simulation is the mass of an electron divided by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Now we are talking. This is the sort of numbers my own theory, SQPR considers.

The Millennium Simulation (below) is an example of an over 10 billion particle simulation that tries to reproduce the cosmic web of dark matter upon which exist galaxy clusters, filaments, and voids we see today. The LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model of the universe assumes a flat universe now dominated by a cosmological constant Lambda, Einstein’s Cosmological Constant (Dark Energy?). As I said, the cosmological large structure formation is dominated by cold (non-relativistic) dark matter.

A view of the distribution of dark matter in our universe, based on the Millennium Simulation. The simulation is based on our current ideas about the universe’s origin and evolution. It included ten billion particles, and consumed 343,000 cpu-hours (Image: Virgo Consortium)Researchers found that if Dark Matter is cold, then galaxies in the early universe would have formed in nearly spherical halos, with ten times too much mass there. But if the nature of Dark Matter is fuzzy or warm, the early universe would have looked very different, with galaxies forming first in extended, tail-like filaments. In a fuzzy universe, these filaments would have appeared striated, like star-lit strings on a harp… As observed.  

As new telescopes come online, with the ability to see further back into the early universe, scientists may be able to deduce, from the pattern of galaxy formation, whether the nature of dark matter, which today makes up nearly 85 percent of the matter in the universe, is fuzzy as opposed to cold or warm.

“The first galaxies in the early universe may illuminate what type of dark matter we have today,” says Mark Vogelsberger, associate professor of physics in MIT’s Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. “Either we see this filament pattern, and fuzzy dark matter is plausible, or we don’t, and we can rule that model out. We now have a blueprint for how to do this.” [2]

Fuzzy Quantum Waves:

While dark matter has yet to be directly detected, the hypothesis that describes dark matter as cold has proven successful at describing the large-scale structure of the observable universe. As a result, models of galaxy formation are based on the assumption that dark matter is cold.

“The problem is, there are some discrepancies between observations and predictions of cold dark matter,” Vogelsberger points out. “For example, if you look at very small galaxies, the inferred distribution of dark matter within these galaxies doesn’t perfectly agree with what theoretical models predict. So there is tension there.” This is a euphemism: According to LCDM, the heavy DM particles should sink towards the core of galaxies, and this is exactly what is not observed. 

Enter, then, alternative theories for dark matter, including warm, and fuzzy, which researchers have proposed in recent years.

“The nature of dark matter is still a mystery,” Fialkov says. “Fuzzy dark matter is motivated by fundamental physics, for instance, string theory, and thus is an interesting dark matter candidate. Cosmic structures hold the key to validating or ruling out such dark matter models.”

Fuzzy dark matter is made up of particles that are so light that they act in a quantum, wave-like fashion, rather than as individual particles. This quantum, fuzzy nature, Mocz says, could have produced early galaxies that look entirely different from what standard models predict for cold dark matter.

“Even though in the late universe these different dark matter scenarios may predict similar shapes for galaxies, the first galaxies would be strikingly different, which will give us a clue about what dark matter is,” Mocz says.

To see how different a cold early universe could be, relative to a fuzzy early universe, the researchers simulated a small, cubic space of the early universe, measuring about 3 million light years across, and ran it forward in time to see how galaxies would form given one of the three dark matter scenarios: cold, warm, and fuzzy.

The team began each simulation by assuming a certain distribution of dark matter, which scientists have some idea of, based on measurements of the cosmic microwave background — “relic radiation” that was emitted by, and was detected just 400,000 years after the alleged Big Bang. Dark matter doesn’t have a constant density, even at these early times. There are tiny perturbations on top of a constant density field. Those perturbations would gather more Dark Matter, nonlinearly.

The researchers were able to use existing algorithms to simulate galaxy formation under scenarios of cold and warm dark matter. But to simulate fuzzy dark matter, with its quantum nature, they needed to bring in the Quantum.

A cosmological map of Interfering Quantum strings:

To the usual simulation of cold dark matter were added two extra equations in order to simulate galaxy formation in a fuzzy dark matter universe. The first, Schrödinger’s equation, describes how a quantum wave evolves in the presence of (potential) energy, while the second, Poisson’s equation, describes how that (self-interfering) quantum wave generates a density field, or distribution of Dark Matter, and how that distribution leads to (uneven) gravity — the force that eventually pulls in matter to form galaxies. They then coupled this simulation to a model that describes the behavior of gas in the universe, and the way it condenses into galaxies in response to gravitational effects.

In all three scenarios, galaxies formed wherever there were over-densities, or large concentrations of gravitationally collapsed Dark Matter. The pattern of this Dark Matter, however, was different, depending on whether it was cold, warm, or fuzzy. 

In a scenario of cold dark matter, galaxies formed in spherical halos, as well as smaller subhalos. Warm Dark Matter produced  first galaxies in tail-like filaments, and no subhalos. This may be due to warm dark matter’s lighter, faster nature, making particles less likely to stick around in smaller, subhalo clumps.

Similar to warm dark matter, fuzzy dark matter formed stars along filaments. But then quantum wave effects took over in shaping the galaxies, which formed more striated filaments, like strings on an invisible harp. This striated pattern is due to constructive interference, an effect that occurs when two waves overlap, similarly to the famous Double Slit experiment. When constructive interference occurs, for instance in waves of light, the points where the crests and troughs of each wave align form darker spots, creating an alternating pattern of bright and dark regions.

In the case of fuzzy dark matter, instead of bright and dark points, it generates an alternating pattern of over-dense and under-dense concentrations of dark matter.

“You would get a lot of gravitational pull at these over-densities, and the gas would follow, and at some point would form galaxies along those over-densities, and not the under-densities. This picture would be replicated throughout the early universe.”Vogelsberger explains.

The team is developing more detailed predictions of what early galaxies may have looked like in a universe dominated by fuzzy dark matter. Their goal is to provide a map for upcoming telescopes, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, that may be able to look far enough back in time to spot the earliest galaxies. If they see filamentary galaxies such as those simulated by Mocz, Fialkov, Vogelsberger, and their colleagues, it could be the first signs that Dark Matter’s nature is fuzzy.

“It’s this observational test we can provide for the nature of dark matter, based on observations of the early universe, which will become feasible in the next couple of years,” Vogelsberger says.

SQPR predicts less “fuzzy” Dark Matter in the earlier universe. However, a lot of the effects described by the MIT team would nevertheless happen, and for the same exact reasons. So the apparition of striated structures would not be surprising… even if LCDM was completely wrong. 

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] There is a famous theorem that Newton needed for his celestial mechanics and tried to prove (and may have succeeded to prove; it’s controversial whether he did or not) according to which a ball of mass M acts gravitationally as a point of mass M.

***

[2] Vogelsberger is a co-author of a paper appearing (October 2019) in Physical Review Letters, along with the paper’s lead author, Philip Mocz of Princeton University, and Anastasia Fialkov of Cambridge University and previously the University of Sussex.

 

 

QUANTUM WAVES ARE REAL

May 18, 2016

Demolishing The Quantum COPENHAGEN MISINTERPRETATION With Its Own Instruments:

The nature of reality fascinate true philosophers. Do we have to understand the Quantum to understand dreams? The naive will say no. But, well, in truth, probably. The brain is no analogue computer, it’s a QUANTUM computer. So, to understand dreams, one has to try to understand the quantum. However, to go deeper than the foundations of physics is, by definition, to suggest new physics.

I have said for years, nay many decades, that Quantum Waves are real, and obsolete physics are not. OK, just kidding, obsolete physics is heavy. I should not joke: physicists are rarely amused about the foundations of physics: they know they don’t work.

Universe Is Not Empty: It’s Full Of Stiff, Superluminal Quantum Waves

Universe Is Not Empty: It’s Full Of Stiff, Superluminal Quantum Waves

[The picture, made in 2013 by a fundamental physics institute in the Netherlands, was obtained by statistical sampling. Some call that technique a “Quantum Microscope”.]

Quantum Waves are of course real objects. Proof? Well, experimental proofs are coming.

However, I will roll here a slick philosophical proof which I have seen, or even alluded to, nowhere. It’s disarmingly simple, of the order, in the way of baffling simplicity, of the celebrated, 26 centuries old, “this sentence is false” (the precise mathematical dressing of that brain twister is known as the first Godel Incompleteness Theorem).

The first mention of the Copenhagen Interpretation was in Heisenberg’s 1930 book on Quantum Mechanics which, he wrote, “contributes somewhat to the diffusion of that ‘Kopenhagener Geist der Quantentheorie’ [i.e., Copenhagen spirit of quantum theory] if I may so express myself, which has directed the entire development of modern atomic physics”.

So here I am fighting a “spirit” (“Geist”). (When confronted to the De Broglie-Bohm theory in the 1950s, the ex-Nazi Heisenberg called the “Copenhagen Geist” and “Interpretation”… a term he came to regret… Nowadays, people attached to sanity have to fight the “Many Worlds”/”Multiverse” Interpretation, a collective madness worse than smoking.)

Even the most closed minded physicist recognizes that (“elementary”) particles are (“somewhat”) real. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, the property of “wave” and that of “particle” are viewed as “dual” or “complementary” (one or the other).

However the Copenhagen Interpretation then proceeds to contradict said duality. Indeed, if the wave-particle duality is correct (as the Copenhagenists claim), then obviously, if particles are real (something has got to be real!), then surely waves are real.

However the Born Interpretation of the Quantum waves is that they are PROBABILITY waves. But a probability wave is not real. Hence a blatant, fuming, red hot, grotesque, contradiction.

This is an extremely elementary philosophical reasoning, however, it seems to have escaped ALL the physicists who considered the subject. (Do parrots think? Yes, they do… all the same.)

Reciprocally, if one admits that the real world is really made, somehow of particles, then the reasoning I just made suggests that the Quantum Waves are real.

Here is a completely independent demonstration of the latter: it turns out matter is mostly, all the time, launched in dynamical quantum processes. Actually most of the mass is generated by quick motions of quarks and gluons within hadrons, thanks to Poincaré’s relationship, Energy = Mass (“E = mc2”) . During these displacements, matter is under the form of Quantum Waves (or of dynamical quantum fields, as some will want to say, to sound real cool). An example is electronic orbitals in atoms: they have substance… because they are delocalized waves. Thus, matter is clearly made, 99.999% of the time, of delocalized quantum waves.

Patrice Ayme’

EINSTEIN’S ERROR: The Multiverse

March 26, 2015

In 1905, his so-called Wonder Year, Albert Einstein presented a theory of the photoelectric effect. The new idea came in just two lines. However I boldly claim that Einstein’s theory of the photoelectric effect, although crucially correct, was also crucially wrong.

I claim that Einstein talked too much. His intuition was not careful enough, and too tied up with old fashion particles. Quantum Mechanics, one of the inventors Einstein was, questioned the very nature of elementary particles. Einstein imposed, at the outset, a solution, which, I claim, was erroneous.

What Einstein ought to have said is that electromagnetic energy was absorbed in packets of energy hf (h was Planck’s Constant, f the frequency of the light). That explained immediately the photoelectric effect. It was just enough to explain the photoelectric effect.

My Intuition Is More Informed Than Yours

My Intuition Is More Informed Than Yours

***

PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT EXPLAINED SOLELY AS RECEPTION QUANTIZATION:

An electron receiving energy from light, receives a packet hf. If f is too small, the electron cannot be emitted: the electron needed some energy, say A, to escape the material. One needs hf > A.

Nor can an electron just pile up energy from light until the stored energy exceeded A. Why? Because energy is RECEIVED in such packets, and only these packets. It was hf, or nothing.

That explanation of the photoelectric effect was both necessary and SUFFICIENT. Such an explanation is exactly the symmetric statement of the one made by Planck in 1900.

(Planck did much more than that, he had to invent his constant, and it is astounding that he did not explain the photoelectric effect, as he had done 99% of the work).

Should Einstein have said what I said, he would have explained the photoelectric effect, instead of putting all of physics on an erroneous path.

***

EINSTEIN LOCALIZATION, AN ERRONEOUS HYPOTHESIS:

However, Einstein instead said something prophetic he had no reason to proffer.

Here is Einstein statement from 1905, translated from German:

“Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta LOCALIZED AT POINTS IN SPACE, MOVING WITHOUT DIVIDING and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.”

[I emphasized what I view as the grievously erroneous part.]

With Planck’s E = hf, this is what gave Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921. So not only Einstein got it wrong, but so did the Nobel committee.

(Planck objected strenuously, because he never meant for the Electro-Magnetic field to be quantized outside the blackbody cavity. I agree about quantization upon reception, as that explanation works. My objection is that Einstein had no proof of what he advanced about LOCALIZATION.)

Einstein claimed that light is made of “quanta localized at points in space, moving without dividing”. Thus, Einstein invented elementary particles. Einstein had no reason for of this fabrication, whatsoever, and did not need it, as I said.

***

THE POISONOUS WAVE-EIGENSTATE SALAD:

Fast forward thirty years. By then, thanks to the likes of Dirac (inventor of Quantum Electro Dynamics, who stumbled on Cartan’s Spinor Space and Antimatter) and Von Neumann (Functional Analysis maven), etc. the Quantum formalism had been sculpted like Mount Rushmore in the mountains of natural philosophy.

The formalism consisted in claiming that the elementary particles invented by Albert were vectors in a (Hilbert) space whose basis was made of the possible results of the experiment E.

The mathematics worked well.

However, IF Einstein’s initial invention was false, so was the picture of reality it conveyed.

And indeed, as we saw, Einstein had no reason to claim what he did: he violated Newton’s “Hypotheses Non Fingo” (“I do not FABRICATE hypotheses”… my translation).

Isaac Newton: …”I do not fabricate hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”

***

DEMOLISHING THE MULTIVERSE ERROR:

Galileo, to expose his ideas more pedagogically, set-up a trialogue, between “Simplicius” and two others (one being Galileo himself).

I pursue my exposition of what those who believe in the Multiverse cannot dare to articulate, as it would expose their utter confusion, and more:

Simplicius: So you say that Einstein fabricated localized Quanta, out of his fertile imagination, and that axiom wrecked all of physics?

Patrice Ayme: Exactly. I would prefer to call it not fertile, but obsolete, imagination. After Einstein had fabricated his seemingly innocuous hypothesis, the localized elementary particle, the next step was to identify it with the wave function.

Simplicius: Do you not insist that the world is mostly made of Quantum Waves?

PA: Yes but “Wave Functions” are just fist order approximations of “Quantum Waves”. “Wave Functions” cannot be real, they are mathematical artefacts.

Simplicius: How come?

PA: Wave functions are made of end states, the so-called eigenvectors, the end products of experiments. That makes wave functions intrinsically teleological, made up of the future. You may as well identify human beings to their tombstones, that’s how they end up.

Simplicius: What is the connection with the Multiverse?

PA: Wave functions are intrinsically multiversal, they are made by adding different outcomes, as if they all happened. But only one can ever happen, in the end. However, when in flight, we are been told that (Einstein’s) localized particle is made of as many pieces of universes as there are eigenstates.

Simplicius: So you conclude that Einstein’s localized quantum hypothesis plus the basic Quantum Formalism implies that the simplest elementary particle is made of pieces of different universes that will happen in the future?

PA: Exactly. Einstein, in conjunction with the Hilbert formalism, invented the Multiverse. This is what Everett observed, and, at the time, it made the inventors of Quantum Mechanics (minus Planck and Einstein) so uncomfortable that Everett was booted out of theoretical physics, an even his adviser Wheeler turned against him.

Simplicius: But did not Einstein demonstrate with the EPR thought experiment that “elements of reality” could not be localized?

PA: Exactly. With a little help from Karl Popper, maybe. Entanglement has been experimentally shown to not be localizable with the metric used in General Relativity. So light quanta themselves not only are not points, something that was obvious all along, sorry Einstein, but also, the speed of light is an emerging metric for the Universe.

It has been a conspiracy all along.

Simplicius: Conspiracy?

PA: Yes, there is a famous mistake in Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics. He insists that a photon interfere only with itself. That is demonstrably false (radio interference and independent lasers playing double slit). Dirac had to say that to NOT make the Quantum Waves themselves the main actors.

Simplicius: Why would physicists conspire to push false physics?

PA: Because, if they admit that their physics is false, and have nothing better to propose, they are losing status. (Whereas I improve mine by showing why they are wrong.)

Another point is that the “Multiverse” is suitably mysterious and absurd to impress common people. It is obviously the greatest miracle imaginable, so those who have penetrated this secrecy are very great men.

WHAT IS GOING ON?

We saw Einstein’s hypothesis of localization led to the Multiverse. As the Multiverse is unacceptable, so is the localization hypothesis.

But we already knew this in several ways (diffraction, 2-slit, and other non-local wave effects; plus EPR style experiments, let alone the QM formalism itself, which also predicts non-localization).

The intuition of the real sub-quantic theory depends, in part, on such facts.

Patrice Ayme’