Posts Tagged ‘SQPR’

Dark Matter Proves Quantum Mechanics Wrong, SQPR Right

June 29, 2020

We live in barbarian times when oligarchs block intelligent discourse to the masses. As in the past, even intelligent physics gets blocked. The NYT has 6 million subscribers (including me, and blocked the following comment to an article on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics)

What if the proof of SQPR (Sub Quantum Physical Reality) was already cosmically in full sight? Let me explain. Each Quantum process comes with a (Hilbert) space. Within it, the wave one computes probability with, the Quantum Wave, evolves with time as a one parameter group. Time is not treated like space [1]. The Quantum Wave collapses suddenly, all over, when a probability is extracted from it. Multiverse theory claims that each outcome is its own universe (that means zillions of universes inside a proton). A potential way out is instead to assign a reality to the Quantum Wave. That means attributing to the QW some mass-energy (however minute), wherever it is to be found, and an objective collapse propagation speed to the QW (it has to be greater than 10^23 c).

Rotation of curve of Spiral galaxy Messier 33 (Triangulum, the third largest galaxy of the local group after Andromeda and the Milky Way). The galaxy rotates as if it were an increasingly denser plate the more one gets away from the center…

The full SQPR is nonlocal (in the sense of that experimentally demonstrated superluminal entanglement). An immediate consequence of this picture is that, in some large geometrical situation, a mass-energy residue will form …which will behave exactly like Dark Matter; so Dark Matter would be a proof of the objective collapse theories! The difference between this and the De Broglie guiding wave theories is that the assignment of (minute) mass energy to the guiding linear wave… and making the “particle” into the central nonlinear part of the QW. 

We need a SQPR (Sub Quantum Physical Reality). Yale’s Devoret and Minev found that some Quantum Jumps are preceded by a preparation phase which can be reversed, thus demonstrating SQPR [2]. 

Patrice Ayme

***

The New York Times censored the preceding comment (while accepting six hundred eighty-five other comments). 

Probably checking out with Harvard, Columbia and Princeton, all plutocratic universities, to see if somebody there can get the Nobel for the idea, instead of yours truly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/magazine/angelo-bassi-quantum-mechanic.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=The%20New%20York%20Times%20Magazine

***

[1] Time and space are not treated the same in Relativity either (their signature is different). However, in Quantum Mechanical formalism, the situation is worse; time is a one parameter group, not at all like space…

***

[2] That is if the “Quantum Trajectories” approach is fully validated…

***

PP/S: oops, immediately after this was published, New York Times published my comment.

What’s Wrong With All Too Particular Particle Physics Vs Doing Foundations Right

May 21, 2020

What’s Wrong With All Too Particular Particle Physics, What’s Right With Foundations

A famous particle physicist was particularly proud of this statement, which she impregnated her students with: “to be happy as a model builder in particle physics, I had to be O.K. with something like mounting a moose head on a wall and putting a purple scarf on it and not worrying about why it was wearing a purple scarf.” Yeap! 

She fell to her death on a hiking trail in August 2019! Of course she was the moderator of a gigantic group of hikers, more than 100, 000 of them. Not that I would make fun of people who fall off cliffs, as it happened to me more than once, and I was saved by the rope or a miracle… Simply, some people are born leaders, born to “moderate” others. And I hate “moderators”: the truth is always viewed as immoderate as some point, especially when it starts to emerge, like a fragile bud. “Moderators” have always been anxious to crush me. I still remember a long exchange with an electronic magazine publisher, who explained to me that he absolutely agreed with me, and that truth always win, so I didn’t have to worry, in the long run. But those European bankers who were so respected absolutely wanted me removed for suggesting bankers had helped Hitler… That was a bit more than a decade ago…

Lots of vegetables in that soup

So the moderating super genius physicist lady fell off her trail. Do we need high energy “modellers”, are they essential workers? Yes they are (but they can work from home). They are certainly more essential than plain old fashion models… But they shouldn’t have become that fashionable… Nor should they have been allowed to fashion physics into generalized modelling (presumably to look pretty to scientific advisors who are themselves advised to develop preferably science which can turn into death rays of some sort; the Pentagon is deploying combat lasers… Table top accelerators of fermions would be most welcome…)

Physics, and thinking in general, should be about brains, deepest and most immoderate. Fortunately, the COVID crisis is showing that thinking at warp speed is not just useful: there is nothing like it.

Instead, modelling physics has turned into a morass of moose heads with pretty bows of different flavors, colors, and, let’s say it outright, smells. And it smells funny, indeed. The “Standard Model” (SM) groups together fifteen or so “elementary particles”. To make it work, it needs something called the Higgs field. It’s a field which permeates space and “gives mass” to the otherwise massless particles of the SM. That’s all fine, except for one fact. We already have E = mcc… Poincare’ s energy has inertial mass observation. So one can generate mass from just energy… And this is what is happening with nucleons, inside which gluons and quarks zoom around. The zooming around of the putative gluons and quarks generate most of the mass.

So here we have the same philosophical problem as with the Big Bang and “cosmic inflation”: one effect, two independent causes. Let me repeat slowly: we have a way to generate mass, from energy directly. Why do we need another effect to generate mass? Oh, because it’s a consequence of the Standard Model, which otherwise would give no mass to particles. Besides the “Higgs” boson (so-called “Higgs”, from one of seven discoverers, not all Anglo-Saxon, of the idea… but it’s a good Anglo-Saxon sound: Higgsss…) was “found”.

***

And therein another question: what is an elementary particle? A bump on a graph. Which is bumpy enough. In the eye of the beholder. Smaller than that, and it’s “virtual”. Actually the computations mostly involve “fields”, which are like fields of wheat, except the individual plants are continually shimmering in and out of existence and prominence… That’s why it’s called “Quantum Field Theory” (QFT)… What does “Quantum” means? It means energy is transferred “particle” to “particle” in lumps (Hertz-Planck-Einstein)… But also, everything, during transfers, is about waves (Wave theory of light, Huyghens-Young-Arago-Faraday-Maxwell and “Matter Waves”, De Broglie). Waves of what? We don’t know, we have to do with… waves of probability said Born (he got the Nobel for this interpretation). Waves of probability makes reality tears its hair, full of dead live cats…

One would think that physics, properly done, would consist into finding out what the “particles” and “waves’ and all the metaphysics around both… as the main field of inquiry. But not really, for most physicists. better to decorate moose heads to impress the Beotians. The head of CERN’s theoretical physics division in the 1960s, begged to differ and derived the Bell Inequalities (named after himself, but here deserved). That showed Quantum Physics, in some circumstances, was NONLOCAL. 

The simplest argument for nonlocality is philosophical: Quantum Physics is about waves, waves are intrinsically non local. 

Now nature is also about points; the “particles”. Energy may transfer as waves, it ends up at points. How to go from the wave to the point? That’s called the collapse, the famous Quantum Collapse. Related to the collapse, and a simpler example, are Quantum Jumps. 

One would guess that physics, at its best, would inquire about those notions… And that means not just through thought experiments, but actually experiments. 

Research from Yale University, led by Michel Devoret, a senior french physicist, newly published in Annals of Physics, established that we can reconcile how we describe measurements in classical physics and what is really going on in quantum physics. This has opened a new world: Quantum Jumps go through a preparation period, and such preparation can be inverted, it seems. 

Revealingly, Devoret is from the APPLIED physics department… Although what he does is most fundamental![1]

In SQPR, Sub Quantum Physical Reality, the obvious is proposed: the waves are “real” (not just knowledge waves as in the cat paradox). Although extremely fast, the transition from extended wave to point is progressive, it involves a Quantum Field. And such transitions could be reverted. The general picture also fosters an understanding of what is really going with QFT…    

Physics, and thinking in general, should be about brains, deepest and most immoderate. Fortunately, the COVID crisis is showing that thinking at warp speed is not just useful: there is nothing like it.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] It is revealing that Devoret research is implicitly looked down by the Optimates of theoretical physics. It should not be the high energy particle zoo which should be the first focus of research, because it uses and takes for granted Quantum Physics notions which have not been as examined as they deserve.

It is also telling that Frenchmen working in top US universities are not financed in France: the French establishment , the government, the Deep State, the higher spheres of conniving academia and the increasingly unsophisticated population, product of this miasma, does not view ultimate research as crucial to the survival of civilization. They learned nothing most important from French history.        

FREE WILL SHOWS QUANTUM PHYSICS IS INCOMPLETE

February 15, 2020

Present Day Quantum Physics Is Entangled With Photon Awareness, While Contradicting Free Will, In A Most Peculiar Way…

Abstract: The Axiomatics of the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum is written as if photons were aware of slits-at-a-distance… And as if photons acted accordingly (as if photons cared about slits!)… But the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum provides NO mechanism for photons to take care of slits. This is absurd in two ways. It’s as if an anthropomorphic Mr. Photon was supposed to be telepathetic. Another problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum (“CIQ”) is that CIQ Quantum Physics, being deterministic, denies Free Will.

Conclusion: Quantum Theory is not the final story. Guiding Wave theories with delayed causality, such as SQPR, are necessary to reduce the nonsense.

***

We act, we decide, we initiate actions. Can we insert this faculty for action of our own Free Will, this human agency, into the general picture of nature (“physics”) that we presently have? No! Because physics as we know it is deterministic… And we are not! (Quantum Physics, contrarily to its repute, is deterministic… as long as its nonlocal effects are not considered…) 

Thus the humanity-as-an-independent-agent question leads to the depths of the human mind and its relationship with physical reality, throwing up profound connections to the mysteries of entropy (disorder augments… something biology violates) and the arrow of time (time flowing one way… although fundamental physics flow both ways, contradicting even entropy as fundamental). Even reality gets questioned (what is it?) and consciousness (what could it be?) Surprising answers are readily discernible. 

Quantum fields don’t have any agency. Atoms don’t, do bacteria?” asks physicist Sean Carroll from the California Institute of Technology. “I don’t know, but human beings do. Somewhere along that continuum it sneaked in.

Quantum Determinism a la Copenhagen Means We Have No Freedom Of Choice

Well, it is not even as simple as believing “agency” sprouts between things more complicated than atoms and human beings. Let me make a ridiculously simple observation. 

Take the 2 slit exp. This phenomenon is the conceptual heart of Quantum Physics. If we take the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum (CIQ, pronounced “SICK”), at face value, something astounding occurs: it looks as if an electron, or a photon, has AWARENESS. 

Indeed, according to Einstein, a photon in flight is a localized concentrated “quantum” (Einstein wrote about “Lichtquanten”, light quanta; they got named “photons” 20 years later). 

The following is exactly what Albert wrote, in his otherwise beautiful Nobel Prize winning paper on the photoelectric effect, and has been viewed as definitive truth ever since: “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…” (I view this Einstein unsupported opinion as a grave error which the herd has made ever since… But I am going to proceed, for the sake of argument, as if this ridiculous idea were true, in the next few lines!)

When one cuts two slits in a screen, a photon (going through just one slit, according to Einstein) somehow knows about the other slit. How? Certainly not by having Mr. Photon look over at the other slit. So, then, what is the root, the nature of this photon “awareness”, Einstein and his followers want us to believe in? 

A photon is aware of the other slit: could such an elementary particle’s awareness at a distance be the fundamental “element of consciousness“? (I am sarcastically parroting terminology of Einstein in 1935, introducing the notion of “elements of reality”) 

A shallow philosopher could chuckle that all consciousness comes from sensation, which comes from senses… And obviously the photon has no senses… Except, somehow, according to Einstein and CIQ, the photon (or any fundamental particle) senses the other slit at a distance (always under Einstein’s locality-of-the-quantum hypothesis, which permeates modern physics, a pervading poison gas)… So, according to them, the photon has a sense, somehow. 

Experiments With Bouncing Droplets such as these three above, were started in Paris in the Twenty-First Century. They provide with the first analogy to guide De Broglie’s Pilot Wave Theory of 1927 and the much more sophisticated SQPR… A problem for the Pilot Wave Theories being that we have NO mathematical models… As mathematicians prefer often to focus on silly problems posed by infinities, the modern analogue of the worry an infinite number of sitting angels on pinheads posed to Middle Age Catholic bishops….

The surface waves generated by the silicon oil droplets above are analogous to quantum mechanical waves that guide the dynamics of quantum particles. While the droplets move like quantum particles, they behave like quantum waves.”… says award winning photographer and physicist Dr Aleks Labuda, who took the picture above.

Guiding Wave (GW) partisans, such as yours truly, don’t have the problem of the telepathic, all aware photon endowed with Free Will: the Guiding Waves go through both slits of the 2 slit experiment, and thereafter “guides” the photon accordingly to the presence of these two slits. (The experimental models of the 2 slits, with bouncing liquid balls, exists… and thus have attracted great hatred from partisans of the Copenhagen Interpretation, such as from the grandson of Niels Bohr, himself a physicist. I will not put links, so as not to confuse readers…)

So, basically, if one rejects a strange photon “awareness”, implicitly assumed by CIQ, one is immediately led to Guiding Waves theories. To this people familiar with the Foundations of Quantum Physics may retort that a GW theory such as De Broglie-Bohm is indistinguishable from CIQ. Right. But I don’t think De Broglie-Bohm Guiding Wave can withstand the EPR 1935. Moreover, my own theory, SQPR, is distinguishable from CIQ: SQPR produces Dark Matter… CIQ doesn’t.

In any case, a GW theory is a mechanical, non local, field of awareness (Bohm makes it into a Quantum Potential). [1]

***

With Quantum Physics, we find ourselves back into the ultra-deterministic setting of the Eighteenth Century… But now with a theory which claims to understand everything (whereas in the 18C-19C, some pieces were missing, and not just the two clouds on the horizon  Lord Kelvin saw in the distance…) So the Quantum should explain Consciousness, Free Will… As it explains the universe. But, clearly, it contradicts Free Will… EXCEPT, if one considers nonlocal effects. Nonlocal effects violate local determinism.

The preceding essay stands as a testimony of the usefulness of the philosophical approach to dig deeper into what physics should become in the (hopefully) near future [2]. Not that it was ever different each time physics jumped ahead. All revolutions in physics have been revolutions in philosophy… and the most general revolutions in philosophy often preceded revolutions in physics and science in general [3]. For example, the Renaissance of the Eleventh Century preceded the Buridan (and his schools!) astronomical, physical and mathematical revolution after 1350 CE. In turn it may have accelerated the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Century philosophical Renaissance which clearly led to the Seventeenth Century scientific and technological revolutions, an ambitious protest against more modest understanding.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] One thing that makes SQPR different from De Broglie-Bohm (DBB), is that SQPR supposes the Guiding Field proceeds, expanding or collapsing, at an extremely fast… but NOT infinite… speed. Another is that the Guiding Field carries minute, but non zero mass-energy. Both effects together predict the Dark Matter effect… Also SQPR makes Quantum Entanglement a mass-energy conveyor, hence non-magical, another deviation from both CIQ and DBB…

***

[2] Quantum Computers exploit the Foundations of the Quantum… but not through the brute force of Quantum Field Theory and its (glaringly very incomplete and haphazard) “Standard Model” ….the one with no model for Dark Matter or Dark Energy. So Quantum Computers bring the foundations, such as Quantum Entanglement, crucial for their operations, into focus… Hence expect foundations to become ever more crucial in the common Zeitgeist…

***

[3] This is particularly blatant reading Descartes, who justified his enormous advances in mathematics with a cocktail of philosophical and psychological observations of the most judicious types. Just as I question infinity, Descartes questioned the sort of proofs mathematicians had been satisfied with for two millennia… and did something about it (by inventing Algebraic Geometry)….

“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.

 

 

TIME CLOSED LOOPS + QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT => Contradiction. Bonus: SQPR EXCLUDES TIME TRAVEL

July 29, 2019

In General Relativity, there are time-like curves. In Quantum Mechanics, there is Entanglement. So consider this: two particles A and B separating, while they are still entangled. Suppose A is on a time like curve. Suppose A takes 1,000 seconds in B proper time to go around its time like loop.  Suppose we activate entanglement at 999 seconds. Then, A cannot show itself exactly as if it was before, having completed its time like loop, because the entanglement with B has disappeared… No problem will the Copenhagen Interpretation fanatics sneer, we just create a new A, with a new entanglement…

Whatever. Hard to argue with the unbalanced.

Mixing time closed loops and Quantum Entanglement is a deadly mix for the conventional physics of General Relativity and the Copenhagen Interpretation….

The fact is entanglement doesn’t resist time-like loops. Ergo, those can’t happen. Or then entanglement doesn’t resist the (proper) time needed for a time-like loop: thus my own SQPR theory appears in its full glory.

Let me give another logical axis on the subject: While particle A goes along the putative closed time loop, entanglement with B, the particle A is entangled with, from an action at B, at any moment, can break the entanglement with A, breaking the time loop with an event (what I call a “Quantum Interaction”) extraneous to it.

In any case, one, or both of the two pillars of Twentieth Century physics collapses…

One may naturally ask what happened in my own Sub Quantum theory, SQPR.

In SQPR the entanglement from B to A is not instantaneous (contrarily to the usual Quantum Mechanical formalism, which has the entanglement propagating instantaneously, just as Newtonian Mechanics had gravitation instantaneously propagating… until Laplace made gravitation into a field with a finite propagation speed, 80 years later, or so (that implied gravitational waves, as Laplace pointed out in the first edition of his book).

This being said, that finite propagation speed doesn’t mean the entanglement can’t break the loop. Generally it will: entanglement moves at 10^23c, whereas a typical time loop is found around a Black Hole, over small dimensions. Hence SQPR gives a definite answer: time loops can’t exist. Indeed an object is a continual succession of delocalization-relocalization-entanglement-collapse entanglement. Hence any inchoating time loop would broken instantaneously… So the scenario pushed by some specialists of Relativity, and spread by Hollywood, that Black Holes would enable time travel is impossible.

Philosophically, the approach is interesting: generally General Relativity, Celestial Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics are viewed as having nothing to do with each other. That traditional view is well-known. A famous theoretical physicist was proclaiming it as recently as last week. As I heard it again, last week, I was pondering how can one be so famous, and so wrong in the precise field in which one is famous… (In a nutshell: General Relativity comes from Relativity, which itself comes from Photon Mechanics, also known as “Electrodynamics”, which is the simplest form of Quantum Mechanics…)

Then it dawned to me that this stupid meta-idea, that General Relativity and the Quantum have nothing to do with each other, is so well anchored that none of the fools out there may have thought to force them in the same logical box… Moreover, entanglement appeared only in 1935, with the EPR paper (and Schrodinger naming entanglement “entanglement”, directly in English), so it escaped the furious debates between De Broglie and Einstein on one side and Bohr, Heisenberg, and the entire Copenhagen school, on the other… Thus, I added entanglement to loops… No need to “shut up and calculate…”

Distant ideas gather much energy, when they are made to crash into each other…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Some may sneer: how likely is it that Patrice fell on a major idea in physics so obvious that even normal physicists can understand it? Well, it would not be the first time something similar happens. Actually, way worse has already happened. And no, I am not alluding once again to the discovery of E = m by Jules Henri Poincaré in 1899, and attributed to Einstein…

Remember the Bohm-Aharonov effect? This says that a change of potential P will have an effect on Quantum Mechanics driven particles, even if the field F that P gives rise to (F = dP) is unchanged. That was thought of in 1959, and immediately checked experimentally on electron interference through the famous 2-slit. The idea should have been obvious. The most basic equation on Quantum Mechanics is the De Broglie-Schrodinger equation (usually attributed only, erroneously, to the latter…) This is basically: i(dwave)/dt = P. So the variation of the wave as a function of time, multiplied by the square root of (-1) is equal to… the potential. All the immense minds of QM, including Einstein, De Broglie, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Sommerfeld, Born, Von Neumann, Ehrenfeld, Fermi, the Curies, Dirac, Feynman, Yukawa, Schwinger, Tomanaga, Wigner, Weyl, etc. look at the equation, and didn’t realize the potential mattered…

The Aharonov–Bohm effect was chosen by the New Scientist magazine as one of the “seven wonders of the quantum world… Out of vengeance, probably, the rogue David Bohm, and Aharonov, didn’t get the Nobel anymore than those who discovered the spin of the electron…

***

The conclusion you escaped so far: Recently discovered (June 2019) Sub Quantum Mechanics, in conjunction with Quantum Entanglement, introduces an arrow of time at a Sub Quantum level…. making all previous considerations on the subject obsolete… 

Dark Matter Theories Enlighten Obscure Concept of Explanation

July 14, 2017

I have struggled with the Foundations of Quantum Physics for decades. Yes, struggle is the meaning of life, as our irascible friend the close-minded Jihadist said, and Albert Camus, too, maybe stimulated by the former, among his colleagues, the Natives of Algeria. I did the deepest studies, I could imagine, plunging in esoteric fields, so deep, I was laughed at, by those who prefer the shallows. Long ago. For example, I thought Category Theory (referred by its critics, then, as “Abstract Nonsense“) should be useful. Then even mathematicians would veil their faces, when Category Theory was evoked. Now, Category Theory is very useful, both in pure mathematics and physics.

The deepest mystery in physics is to understand the Quantum.

Some have sneered:’oh, you lunatic, there is nothing to understand.’ Let them sneer, they are amusing, in their obscurantism. This was always the answer of those who wanted to understand nothing new, in the last ten million years. But the rise of advanced animals is the rise of under-standing. Standing under the appearances of the universe. It is a case where we have to understand what understanding means. 

Giant Galaxy, 1,000 times brighter than Milky Way, ten billion year old, discovered July 2017. It is seen as portions of ring from gravitational lensing by (I suppose) a galactic cluster in between…)

An incontrovertible mystery in physics is Dark Matter. Since the 1930s, we know that there is a massive contradiction between galaxies and gravity. (Between rotations and motions  of galaxies and the theory of gravity, more exactly; be it Newtonian, or its slight modification, Einsteinian gravity.)

So far, physicists have trained less and less conventional explanations of Dark Matter. My own SQPR (SubQuantum Patrice Reality), built to explain the Quantum, provides readily with an explanation of Dark Matter.  It’s completely out of the plane of conventional physics (if you condescend to consider Quantum Field Theory conventional…)

The Superfluid-Anyon model of Dark Matter (“SAD”) supposes that there is a type of particle (anyon) with a strong self-interaction, making a superfluid. In my own theory, SQPR, none of this is supposed.

Some will sneer that I suppose the existence of some properties which give rise to Quantum Physics, and this is what SQPR is. Didn’t Newton, assuredly a greater creature, proclaimed he didn’t make up hypotheses? Right. (Actually the Universal Attraction law was not hypothesized by Newton but by French astronomer Ishmael Bullialdus. So easy for Newton to say; Newton also hypothesized that light consisted of particles, and that he had proven strict equivalence between Kepler’s law and mechanics plus gravity…)

However, to under-stand Quantum Physics, to stand under it, one will have to suppose new, underlying hypotheses explaining the physics of the Quantum. If fundamental, paradigm shifting progress in physics is possible, this is how it will happen.

The leaner those hypotheses, the better. The heliocentric theory of planets’ orbits made FEWER hypotheses than those who believe “heavenly bodies” were special. Why so special? How special? The natural thing

An enormous meteorite, streaked through the skies in a fiery manner, and landed in Northern Greece. It was visited for centuries. Clearly space was full of rocks, no crystal balls…  

Considering other evidences (distance of the sun, computed to be large, thus the sun, enormous), the heliocentric theory was most natural.

Dark Matter may well be the equivalent of that theory. My own SQPR predicts a slow apparition, and built-up of Dark Matter. The latest observations (2017) of Dark Matter and ancient galaxies show no Dark Matter say ten billion years ago.

SAD does not predict that: it predicts Super Fluid Anyon Dark Matter was always there.

Science does not just teach facts and how to organize them in theories. I also teaches what explanations are.

Ex-planation is generally viewed as meaning to spread out. But there is a more striking etymology: An explanation is how to get out (ex) of a plane. In other words, acquiring a further logical dimension.

There is no fundamental new dimension, logically speaking, by supposing one more type of elementary particle. But deducing observed facts from effects which go beyond Quantum Physics would be really a new dimension of logic.

I make hypotheses, but fewer. And they are more natural. That’s the key. When one thinks about it, it was more natural to suppose that, out there in the heavens, matter was as we knew it. Similarly, out there in the Quantum, it is more natural that interactions are as we know them: at finite speed, to preserve causality. This is the most fundamental intuition of SQPR: it supposes that the Quantum Interaction (because spooky action at a distance is still an interaction of some sort) has preserved that fundamental property we observe in all interactions…

By the way, some of the skeptical ones come around, and they sneer that all this science is a wild goose chase after a goose which does not exist. They are mistaken: we are chasing after ourselves. We are chasing after how we explain things.

Even attempted scientific explanation are real, and fruitful. Because scientific activity, even when mistaken, consists in chasing after how we could explain things.

Patrice Ayme’

***

Technical description of SAD from Theory of Dark Matter Superfluidity:

…”a novel theory of DM superfluidity that reconciles the stunning success of MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) on galactic scales with the triumph of the ΛCDM (Cold Dark Matter) model on cosmological scales (where MOND fails miserably: MOND modifies gravity at some specific distance, way too small for galactic clusters; whereas ΛCDM leaves gravity alone, just adding mass, lots of mass, mass by a factor of ten…).

In the SAD model, the Dark Matter component consists of self-interacting axion-like particles which are generated out-of-equilibrium and remain decoupled from baryons throughout the history of the universe. Provided that its mass is sufficiently light and its self-interactions sufficiently strong, the DM can thermalize and form a superfluid in galaxies, with critical temperature of order ∼mK. The superfluid phonon excitations are assumed to be described by a MOND-like action and mediate a MONDian acceleration on baryonic matter. Superfluidity only occurs at sufficiently low temperature, or equivalently within sufficiently low-mass objects…