/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5773793
>hurdur non-locality derp
That's what he is arguing, or rather, stating, against. So take your esotericism and preach somewhere else.
Or, along friendlier lines, at least consider that non-locality can be explained by non-causal interpretations of spatially extended hidden variables:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem#Locality_versus_non-contextual_hidden_variables

The hidden variables are not so abstractly hidden in this model. But they might not be measurable. Im still figuring that part out.
http://classicalfluidparticlephysics.tumblr.com/post/50079617935/fluid-dynamics-mechanics

And the author's answer:
>>http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1255
>>Ross Anderson Says:
>Comment #57 February 6th, 2013 at 9:48 am

"Nex #49: thanks; this is exactly our intention – to see how far a classical model of QM can be taken. It was really surprising to get a decent model of the electron; what more can we do?

Ajit #51 and Slava #35: in the sonon model, two particles are entangled if their \chi waves are phase coherent.

Slava #52 and Lubos #47: You are right to say that a lot more work is needed before mainstream physicists will accept the sonon model as an explanation for QM. Lubos, you say we need to do 1000 times more work. For reference, Robert spent 50% of his time last year working on this and I spent perhaps 5%, so call it half a year. Spending 500 person-years on classical models of QM would cost $50m and would presumably need a DARPA BAA spread over a dozen universities for five years. I can’t see us making that sale just yet. Slava, I fully agree that Robert’s model is our best argument; you want us to extend it to cover the standard model, the exchange interaction, the gyromagnetic ratio, superconductivity and much else. Again, this is a lot to ask at this stage. But would you be prepared to take sonon theory more seriously if we came up with further non-trivial results, such as on superconductivity or the weak interaction?"

Quote the author agreed to in a blog:
>>http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1255
>>Nex Says:
>Comment #49 February 6th, 2013 at 3:33 am

"Very interesting paper. This soliton model is something I would like to see thoroughly explored as I am always interested in classical models of QM behavior, I certainly agree that inability of deriving QM from classical physics might simply be a failure of imagination.

As for Bell inequalities, the paper does not deny them, but claims another loophole due to the fact solitons in this model propagate in common density wave background so to speak (if I am getting it right), but I agree they should explain in much more detail how this loophole works and why it lets them circumvent Weihs and Salart experiments."

>>5756373
>https://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/pure/staff/speight/talks/odense.pdf
I cursorily searched the presentation but couldn't find something equivalent to the sonon. Specially as the work is all done using the General Relativity differential geometry approach and not the simpler equivalent Fluid Dynamics. I will need to study such equivalence to further a better argument, but both approaches should reach similar conclusions should a structure like the sonon be found.

>>5756358
Did you visit the blog? Check out the video on the dolphin's air rings, they are pretty sturdy to the water being stirred. That illustrate the analysis.

>>5756356
There are no irrotational flows anywhere on the model. They are just prohibited by previous assumptions. Unless you mean irrotational vortexes which don't assume external forces.

>>5756355
Besides, I don't think there are the mathematical tools to find a derivation that is equivalent.
Maybe you can transform the sonon as from the fluid into general relativity, but would you be able to deduce it from general relativity and the scalar directly? I mean the Bessel function equivalent solution general relativity.

>>5756343
The analogy is true. But unless you analyze the very structure of the sonon you cannot comprehend light-speed interactions in non-relativistic entities. That is an essential part of the results.
For example, if you set a gravitational field with a relativistic scalar field with a gaussian shape, although the equations are equivalent to a gaussian density field in the fluid, neither will interact with other similar fields at light speed. I guess that is why the analogy isn't equivalent. Unless you really model structures like the sonon in the general relativity and relativistic scalar field, which would work, but not nearly as intuitive because of frame dragging, time dilation, lorentz covariance...

>>5756328
He is citing Meads Model [described in 15] which is completely local but can agree with Bell's inequality by the property of time reversal symmetry. He raises the possibility of light speed interactions in sub-relativistic sonons too.

>>5756315
I haven't read that paper. But do you understand the fluid is not relativistic? It is a Classical Fluid that follow Galilean invariance not Lorentz'.
The electric and magnetic fields interact as a carrier-modulation relationship under the fluid conception.

>>5756164
b) Closed systems of sonons are deterministic. Its future state completely determined by a past state. And conversely a present state (or measurement) also determines a past unknown state, which can be interpreted as non-locality.

Sonons have both an infrasonic modulation wave and a sonic carrier wave. Non-local interactions can be mediated by these waves at the speed of light.

This is what the article has to say:
"Nevertheless, the time-reversed motions are valid solutions if decoherence can be controlled. See Mead’s analysis [14] from first principles on the interactions between classical oscillators through forward and time-reversed waves which are solutions to the (time-symmetric) wave equation. Interacting sonons obey similar equations. Provided phase coherence can be maintained during the transition, Mead shows that the interaction produces effects which are closely analogous to the quantisation of the photon, among other observed phenomena.

Mead’s model is related to Cramer’s more general transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics [15], which was designed to be consistent with experiments on Bell’s inequality [16, 17, 18] by exploiting the property that the equations are symmetric under time reversal. Cramer’s model is completely local and time reversal symmetric, symmetries which are shared by Euler’s equation. It might be possible to interpret the motion of sonons (still consistent with experiments7 on Bell’s inequality) in a different way, without needing to invoke the time-reversal symmetry, by exploiting the fact that spin-related information is carried by the carrier waves. This transmission of information is not usually considered in the interpretation of the experiments.
R.J. Anderson and R.M. Brady. Why quantum computing is hard – and quantum cryptography is not provably secure. ArXiv [quant-ph]1301.7351, 2013."

>>5756317
referenced papers:
[15] J.G. Cramer. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 58(3):647, 1986.
[18] J.S. Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected papers on quantum philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

>>5756254

c) >>http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.7540.pdf page 8
>"A fluid medium was not considered at the
time because it cannot support transverse waves,
which were thought to be needed to model po-
larised light. However, this assumption cannot
be justified because a compressible inviscid fluid
supports, not transverse waves, but waves of
modulation which obey Maxwell’s equations."

>>5756164
Hello! Thank you for the input.
a) The presented theory is not a tensor rank (0,0) with relativistic particles. There are no particles, but spatially extended structures. There is the fluid density and pressure, which are independent from each other. But there is also a radial oscilation of flow currents.
d) Yes they are stable under different fluid irrotational states. Most changes caused by external fluid arrangements change the general structure of the sonon to a new state that is also stable. They are shaped as a torus, so they might increase in radius, width and height, but remain toroidal.
c)The electromagnetic field is not an independent scalar field. It is a transformation over the fluid's mean flow decomposed into two wave components. Photons are not particles nor simple waves. They present a carrier wave and modulation wave that determine the full radiative process.

>>5756017
Dude I really feel you. Seriously I have many things in common. Others even worst.
But there are solutions. I will say one big solution. But first you have to promise to forget any prejudices or feelings of superiority against social ideas you don't agree with.

Think of this analogy.
de Broglie–Bohm theory of Quantum Mechanics is completely consistent with the Copenhagen approach.
But its formulation is non-relativistic and is not expanded to Quantum Field Theory. Is that a reasonable argument to dismiss it as >>5756015
>aphasic irrational animal drooling provably irrelevant prejudices and randomly chosen garbage that is completely incompatible with experiment.
If its structure is analogous to Quantum Mechanics it can clearly be expanded, and it was:
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Taylor, J., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N., J. "Quantum Mechanics in Multiply-Connected Spaces", Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 2997–3031 (2007)
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N., 2004, "Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory", Phys. Rev. Lett. 93: 090402:1–4.
That took some arduous work but the theory was clearly applicable to the concepts related to Quantum Mechanics.
Yes. It was thought impossible, only out of confirmed shortsightedness:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation#Relativity
>"Initially, it had been considered impossible to set out a description of photon trajectories in the de Broglie–Bohm theory in view of the difficulties of describing bosons relativistically.[18] In 1996, Partha Ghose had presented a relativistic quantum mechanical description of spin-0 and spin-1 bosons starting from the Duffin–Kemmer–Petiau equation, setting out Bohmian trajectories for massive bosons and for massless bosons (and therefore photons).[18] In 2001, Jean-Pierre Vigier emphasized the importance of deriving a well-defined description of light in terms of particle trajectories in the framework of either the Bohmian mechanics or the Nelson stochastic mechanics.[19] The same year, Ghose worked out Bohmian photon trajectories for specific cases.[20] Subsequent weak measurement experiments yielded trajectories which coincide with the predicted trajectories.[21][22]"

>>5756095
Wait a minute. The article implies the reader that knows about General Relativity wouldn't make such question because acoustic metric is well known and clearly applicable in the context.
What is gives is a general outlay of all the common properties of many Modern Physics foundations and shown how they all can be derived from Classical Physics Fluid Dynamics using the concept of the sonon.
It is not an exhaustive work trying to derive every single concept of Modern Physics step by step. It is outlining how it can be done giving many important examples. Such presentation would take years, if not decades of work.
The author don't ask you to abandon every theory before his.
He is presenting a comprehensive foundation for those theories for your consideration and even contribution. >>5756083 for example acknowledges the system derives Lorentz covariance, but then challenges about General Relativity.
But the article already argued in favor of many other Modern Physics topics, like quantum mechanics, Electromagnetism and gravitation.
Of course I don't expect everyone to immediatley acknowledge this approaches role as the foundation for everything. But there are enough arguments for its potential. Just like all great scientist that had the first grasp of Einsteins Special Relativity had many important reservations on it, but recognize its potential. Or as Schrodinger and Einstein himself never got rid of their reservations against Quantum Mechanics but recognized its potential and accomplishments.

>>5756083
That can be done following the methods of acoustic metric:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_metric
So its not any major hurdle.

>>5756063
It would take some days work to expand the described case of a free particle to a couple of examples with general shaped potentials. But given the equations form it should be pretty straightforward. That is what I was arguing for. Not just "read the paper" or "it is so obvious".
Of course it is against your previous arguments to make the extra effort to look deeply at the equations forms, so I would have to explicitly do all the straightforward work right in front of you before you even contemplate the possibility I am right.

>>5756015
Sheesh man, is your wife back at the hospital? Miss your puchbag is that it?
Stop ranting and give some actual arguments.
These guy >>5755930 is at least trying. Even if his arguments only reflect his inability to grasp in full the mathematical formulation of the concepts.
You are just a dick.

>>5755930
>he only shows that the particle follows a plane wave
No, he shows the probability dristribution for the particles postion follow the plane wave GIVEN THERE IS NO POTENTIAL and the you only consider the modulation wave part of the particle, ignoring the full description with the carrier wave included.
As I said >>5755919 if you add a potential the probability distribution changes according to Bohmian trajectories. Its not the particle that follow Bohmian trajectories. Its its probability distribution of the incomplete description.

>>5753418
>Don't be a dick just because it is against the Copenhagen Interpretation. Or because your favorite idolized physicist didn't come up with it first.
>>5755924
Dicks not allowed
>>5755930
Another one being a dick

>>5755903
The ψ wave is not the sonon movement wave. It is the a sonon probalility function. When you decompose the sonon full equation into the "carrier" and "modulation", the modulation follows Bohm trajectories.
But the modulation is spread over possible locations of specific carrier waves. Unless you have the carrier and modulation combine, you only have a probability distribution of the sonon position. So its not the sonon that is following a plane wave. It is the probability distribution of its position. Just like expected in a free-particle example.
If you make the same derivation but add a potential to the Bohm equations, the modulation wave will behave exactly like a quantum mechanical wave. That gives that the actual sonon position probability distribution when you lack knowledge of the carrier wave component.