Quantum physics, fibre theory E-Book

Patrice UGUET

• Herausgeber: Publishroom
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 73

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Beschreibung

Patrice Uguet is an independent researcher, engineer by trade. A true realist.


He looks for explanations and descriptions of still unexplained quantum phenomena.

We discover with great surprise and great pleasure what entanglement could actually mean.


He tries to rationally solve the EPR paradox and nonlocality.

A new fibre theory is slowly born, structured, logical, elegant.

He brings a new light to the current quantum physics notions that are vague or unexplained: the gravitational force, the expansion accelerating or dark matter.

His realistic description of time passing by is quite singular.

Leseprobe

PatriceUguet

Quantum physics Fibre Theory

Gravitational force… Expansion, dark matter,time.

Foreword

The reader’s attention is brought to the fact that this book was written by an independent researcher, who is not a physicist by trade.

There are bound to be many imprecisions in thetext.

I apologise beforehand to physicists and ask that they please be lenient.

However, going past these few imprecisions and inaccuracies, we might just find a great and beautifulidea.

This book presents a theory. There have been no laboratory experiments conducted to prove any of it whatsoever.

Theories are born from a questioningmind.

Theories are built in order to explain known or unknown phenomena.

In the beginning, every theory is likely to be wrong or baseless.

In the beginning, we don’t know if the theory is right or wrong, but it has the merit of existing.

Theories can be born from intuitiononly.

Theories can bring monumental and tangible results without ever having been proven.

Theories can come with previsions which, if proven right, can prove the theory itself.

Theories can come with tangible proof that confirms the theories.

Chapter 1: EPR paradox and nonlocality

1. What’s wrong with quantum physics?

The founding fathers of quantum physics have slowly discovered unexpected treasures, which were hard to understand and even harder to accept.

Einstein was the greatest discoverer of all time, because he managed to understand extremely complex natural phenomena, and expressed them plainly and simply.

The simplicity of his explanations is inversely proportional to the complexity of his studies’ subjects.

The best proof of this simplicity is his legendary E=mc² formula, which has been used by the whole world for more than 100 years and stated clearly that energy and mass are equivalent, since c is a constant.

Einstein also discovered that everything is relative and that things can change depending on where the observer stands.

He discovered that space could bend because of amass.

He was also interested in the infinitely small.

He was one of those who discovered that matter is actually made of discrete particles and he understood that some phenomena we considered compact flows were actually made of grains of matter called quanta, which gave the phrase quantum physics.

Einstein always remained realistic in his thinking: his discoveries could always be explained with understandable considerations and analyses.

He believed that if a phenomenon was inexplicable or incomprehensible, it meant our knowledge of science wasn’t complete but that, as it would progress, science would be able to explain everything.

He never accepted philosophy or belief as a way to explain physical phenomena, or that said phenomena could be accepted without being explained.

Contrary to some of his peers, he never believed in “that’s how it is and it works so there’s no use in trying to understandhow”.

Except that’s exactly what happened with Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrödigner and Werner Heisenberg’s Copenhagen interpretation.

With the success and positive results of the brand new quantum physics, the Copenhagen interpretation recruited more and more extremely talented people, who believed that there was no point in trying to explain some phenomena, and that proving their results was enough, rather than understanding them. “Shut up and calculate.”

This vision, which can be called non-realistic, slowly started prevailing.

This is a shame because, by becoming the norm, this school of thought stopped all realistic research and thwarted every attempt at explaining the new phenomena.

This got to the extent that all physicists stopped looking for realistic explanations to quantum phenomena and settled for “it is how itis”.

Of course, Einstein held on to his belief that everything had to have an explanation and that if it didn’t, it meant science wasn’t advanced enough to findit.

He was never against the results and discoveries of quantum physics, on the contrary he participated in them, but he tried to explain everything.

He put his faith in realism.

This opposition between Einstein and Niels Bohr occupied the early days of quantum physics for a long while.

This quarrel of ideas gave us some famous sentences, such as Einstein’s “God does not play dice” and Bohr’s reply “Einstein, stop telling God what todo”.

Through his entire life, Einstein never stopped looking for explanations to quantum phenomena, in particular to what was called “nonlocality”.

Because of Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen’s interpretation, we stopped looking for the true nature of quantum physics and its components, such as photons and electrons.

Probably being lazy, we stopped at what we knew, without looking further, because it worked.

The great minds of the time completely locked down research and never accepted any questioning of their theories. They even fought againstit.

Great physicists such as Niels Bohr, who built the first quantum model of a hydrogen atom and the first quantum theory about chemical elements; Werner Heisenberg who proposed to use mathematical matrices for quantum formalism and formulated the uncertainty principle which states that a particle’s speed and its position can’t both be precisely determined, refused to keep the search for answers going.

And thus, their great discoveries were never explained.

Niels Bohr even ended up looking for explanations that sometimes looked more like philosophy or faith than actual demonstration, such as complementarity.

Yet, some of the greatest minds of the time adhered to Copenhagen’s interpretation, such as Wolfgang Pauli, Paul Dirac and many others.

It seems all the researchers of the time stopped wanting to understand the why and how, pressured by the Copenhagen’s interpretation’s prevailing theory.

Only one man, without school of thought, without a mentor and without any disciples, kept screaming into the void, relentlessly looking for the meaning of quantum physics: Albert Einstein.

He never accepted that a theory could be separated from the reality it describes.

However, he was the one to discover the phenomenon of quantum entanglement in1935.

This is the phenomenon that shifted everything, and the realist he was could never accept the theoretical consequences it brought forth.

How to explain that two particles could still be bonded, even after being separated in space, and could react to each other?

He could accept everything, except how instantaneously the particles reacted. It meant that a message, whatever it was, could travel faster than light. Except this was unacceptable, scientifically speaking.

He kept looking for a way to explain this nonsensical phenomenon. The others stopped altogether.

However, the scientific community couldn’t accept this simultaneity either. They knew it existed but couldn’t accept it. The very existence of this simultaneity was questioned.

A great deal of research was conducted for almost a century trying to prove it even existed.

In 1964, Irish physicist John Bell established a theory, with inequalities that, if violated, would prove this simultaneity and the absence of hidden variables. (The hypothesis was formulated by Einstein to explain this simultaneity)

It was French physicist Alain Apsect who demonstrated in 1982, in his Institut d’Optique lab in Paris, the violation of Bell’s inequalities, which meant that, experimentally, the simultaneity was proven.

In 2022, Alain Aspect received the Nobel Prize in physics for hiswork.

The scientific community concluded that Einstein was wrong and closed the case. Today, most of the scientific community believes that “Einstein was wrong”.

No.

Einstein was not wrong in looking for a credible explanation.

No such explanation had ever been developed, so much so that we had to make up a new word in order to actualise how incomprehensible this phenomenon was: “nonlocality”.

This phenomenon was no longer explainable with local theory, unlike every other physics theory, so we invented nonlocality.

However, even if Aspect’s experiments confirmed unambiguously that Bell’s inequalities were violated, which disproved the local hidden variables scenarios, a lingering taste of unfinished business and missing definitions remains.

For a realistic mind, proving that there are no hidden variables isn’t enough to start leading a complex and kind of esoteric reflection about an alleged nonlocality.

The word “nonlocality” itself seems to prove there is no realistic concept behindit.

Is it really reasonable to settle on the fortuitous nonlocality conclusion?

In the upcoming chapters, we will try to prove that there is a realistic explanation to these phenomena, a very simple idea that could change many of the existing concepts, and is the subject of thiswork.

2. One problem remains: instantaneity

Actually, John Bell’s thinking and Alain Aspect’s experimental proof helped resolve a kind of philosophical problem pertaining the way we approach quantum physics, but they never answered the following question, which was the main focus:

“In a quantum entanglement, how can we imagine, understand, analyse, the fact that particles, away from each other, could exchange an information, whatever it may be, instantaneously?”

It isn’t a supposition.

It’s an observation.

It shouldn’t be possible, considering the basis of special relativity, but it’s an indisputablefact.

In short, the instantaneity of the phenomenon is the problem.