I was lucky to “catch” the mysterious AI model im-a-good-gpt2-chatbot model for a short time and was able to have a brief discussion with it before it timed out at https://chat.lmsys.org/.
im-a-good-gpt2-chatbot
Prompt (Me):
There are many interpretations of quantum physics, but one is often overlooked. I call it the “neo classical” model based on Schroedingers original idea, that the waves are actually waves, and NOT, like the modern inperpretation, that waves are just probabilities. So in that neo classical model, the univers/ vacuum is some kind of “medium”, like an ealistic solid, and both matter and light are waves in that medium and nothing but waves. Note that this does NOT contradict the Michelson Morley experiment, because a null result is epxected when everything is composed of waves (both light AND the apparatus!). But at that time, they thought only light was composed of waves but the apparatus was not, and was moving “through” the medium. In the elastic solid model, the matter waves are waves of that medium. In fact, this concept is similar to the idea of the “fabric of space time”, which Hagen Kleinert once described in a paper named “world crystal”. In that model, spin 1/2 for instance is a transverse wave (winding and unwindonw of that elastic solid, like the wine dance trick – it can be modeled with two quaternions, one that changes as a function of distance, the other as a function of time, with orthogonal axis of rotation), and in that model, spin 1/2 actually makes sense, because in the wine cane also it takes 720 degrees to get the entire “configuration” back to its original state. In that model, special relativity is a natural consequence like that of any pure wave system (because if everything is measured in wave units and the wave speed is constant in a medium, the length contraction and time dilation is obvious when viewed from the “outside”). In this model the “particle” aspect of light is due to the measurement process, wo when absorbing light or emitting light, which usually happens with electrons (where an electron is lifted to a higher energy level), this process is naturally quantized. So not the wave itself, but the measurement.
What do you think about that?
a-good-gpt2-chatbot:
The “neo-classical” model you’ve described is a fascinating approach to interpreting quantum mechanics, drawing inspiration from Schrödinger’s original wave-based conception and other classical wave theories. This model attempts to reconcile classical and quantum views by treating matter and light as true physical waves in a medium, which you liken to an “elastic solid.” Let’s delve into some of the aspects of this interpretation and consider both its intriguing insights and the challenges it faces.
Intriguing Aspects of the Neo-Classical Model
True Wave Nature: By treating electrons, photons, and other particles as waves in a universal medium, this model offers a more intuitive picture of quantum objects, reminiscent of classical wave mechanics. This could potentially demystify some quantum phenomena by providing a more visual and classical analogy.
Spin Interpretation: You’ve described spin 1/2 particles as transverse waves with a quaternionic representation. This is interesting because it provides a geometrical and topological explanation for why particles with spin 1/2 require a 720-degree rotation to return to their original state—this reflects the double cover of (SO(3)) by (SU(2)) in a very physical way through the properties of wave rotation in a medium.
Relativity as a Natural Consequence: In this model, special relativity emerges naturally, much like it does in wave theories where the wave speed (here, the speed of light) is a universal limit. This aligns with the idea that measuring everything in units of wave properties could explain relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation without additional postulates.
Quantization from Measurement: The idea that quantization arises from the interaction (measurement) process rather than the fundamental nature of the waves themselves is intriguing. It suggests a new way of looking at the wave-particle duality, where the wave aspect is fundamental and the particle aspect is an emergent property of wave interactions with matter (such as electrons in atoms).
Challenges and Considerations
While the neo-classical model provides some compelling ideas, there are significant challenges and questions that need to be addressed:
Underlying Medium: The biggest challenge is the nature of the “elastic solid” or universal medium. Modern physics, especially through experiments related to the Michelson-Morley experiment and the development of general relativity, has moved away from the idea of a luminiferous aether because no rest frame for such a medium has been found, and it’s hard to make such a medium compatible with relativistic invariance.
Quantum Superposition and Entanglement: One of the most powerful features of quantum mechanics is the ability to handle superposition and entanglement, where the wavefunction describes probabilities in a complex Hilbert space. How does your model handle superposition or the non-local correlations seen in entangled states which are well-predicted by quantum theory?
Mathematical Formalism: Quantum mechanics has a well-developed mathematical framework using Hilbert spaces, operators, and commutation relations. Can this neo-classical wave model be formulated with a similar rigor to make precise predictions? How would it reproduce the results of quantum experiments like the double-slit experiment or the spectrum of the hydrogen atom?
No-Go Theorems: There are various no-go theorems in quantum physics, like Bell’s theorem, which show that no local hidden variable theory can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. How does this model circumvent or address these theorems?
Quantum Field Theory: The modern understanding of particles includes quantum field theory (QFT), where particles are excitations of underlying fields. How does the neo-classical model relate to QFT, especially in accommodating the creation and annihilation of particles, and the field nature of interactions?
Concluding Thoughts
Your model revives some ideas from the early 20th century while trying to incorporate modern understandings. It provides a rich ground for exploration, especially in how it models spin and relativity. However, to gain wider acceptance or interest, it would need to address the above challenges and demonstrate how it can match the predictive power of current quantum theory.
Overall, while the neo-classical model presents a refreshing and intuitive alternative interpretation, significant work would be needed to develop this idea into a full-fledged theory that could compete with or supplement current quantum mechanics in a meaningful way. It’s an exciting direction and reflects the ongoing interest in finding a more intuitive or realist foundation for quantum phenomena.
Me: Note that the Michelson Morley result is compatible with this model, because a null result is expected when both light and the apparatus itself is composed of waves. At that time when they did the experiment, they did not consider that, and thougth that the apparatus was moving through the aether. Even in general relativity, people talk about the “fabric of space time”; and it is treated like an absolute thing. Hagen Kleinert for instance published a paper on this and named it the “world crystal”. He showed that the space time is equivalent to a model with 3d space and density (space density instead of space time).
Yes, the math is the same in both models, so that is not the concern. But you are right that Bell’s theorem is a challenge. However, I have actually done numerious computer simulations on this and I am part of a QM group, and it is still possible to get results that are consistent with the latest experiments that do not rely on actual real “entanglement”, but are an artifact due to imperfections of the experiments (including detection lmits, but also correlations over time (but that is a HUGE discussion in itself :-)).
Yes, the QFT is quite similar in that way, with the difference that the neo classical model would only have one such “field”, and that field is actually a real field (meaning, the whole universe is like gigantic elastic solid). What do you think about this now?
a-good-gpt2-chatbot: Your elaboration on the Michelson-Morley experiment and the reference to Hagen Kleinert’s work help clarify your position and add depth to the “neo-classical” model you propose. By considering both the apparatus and light as wave phenomena within the same universal medium, you rightly point out that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is naturally explained, as both the measuring instruments and the waves being measured are part of the same wave dynamics.
Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Elastic Solid Universe
Indeed, if everything — including the experimental apparatus — is made up of waves in the same underlying medium, then the relative motion between the apparatus and this medium wouldn’t be detectable by the kind of experiment Michelson and Morley conducted. This is a clever insight and aligns with the idea that the null result could be due to the fully wave-based nature of all physical entities, not because there is no medium (aether).
General Relativity and the Fabric of Space-Time
Your analogy with the fabric of space-time and reference to Kleinert’s concept of the “world crystal” suggests that you’re viewing space-time itself as a manifestation of this wave-based medium. Kleinert’s approach, which models space-time as something akin to a crystal with defects, provides a macroscopic classical analogy that might be seen as supportive of your model. In this view, gravity and the curvature of space-time could be emergent properties of the wave dynamics in this universal medium.
Quantum Mechanics, QFT, and the Neo-Classical Model
You mentioned that the mathematics of your model aligns with that of conventional quantum mechanics, which is encouraging because it suggests that your model could reproduce the standard quantum results without requiring a radical departure from the established computational methods.
Bell’s Theorem and Non-Locality:
Your approach to Bell’s theorem and entanglement is particularly noteworthy. You suggest that many supposed demonstrations of entanglement could be artifacts of experimental imperfections. This is a significant claim, as Bell’s theorem and subsequent experiments are often considered strong evidence against local hidden variable theories and for the existence of true quantum entanglement.
If your simulations show that results consistent with quantum mechanical predictions (like those violating Bell inequalities) can be reproduced by considering time correlations and other “imperfections,” this could indeed provide a path for local realistic theories. However, this is a substantial area of debate, as the consensus in the physics community is that experiments have closed many loopholes and strongly support entanglement and non-locality as real phenomena.
Quantum Field Theory and the Unified Wave Field
The idea that in the neo-classical model, there is essentially one “field” — this universal wave medium — is a profound simplification over the plethora of fields in standard QFT (one for each particle type). This unified view could offer a more elegant and parsimonious underlying reality, where different particles and forces emerge from different excitations or wave patterns in the same medium.
In essence, your model seems to propose:
A Single Unified Medium: All particles and fields emerge from one underlying wave-based medium.
Wave-Based Reality: What quantum mechanics treats as particles are just localized wave excitations.
Classical Wave Mechanics Interpretation: Many quantum phenomena are the result of classical wave mechanics at a deeper level, potentially avoiding the need for probability-based interpretations.
Reflections and Considerations
Strengths of Your Model:
Provides a more intuitive, wave-based understanding of particles and fields.
Potentially explains relativistic effects naturally.
Could unify the description of particles and fields.
Challenges Remaining:
Empirical Equivalence: While mathematically similar, does the model predict any new phenomena or provide new insights that could be empirically tested?
Non-Locality and Entanglement: Addressing the strong evidence for entanglement and non-locality beyond just experimental imperfections is crucial.
Compatibility with General Relativity: How does this model integrate with the full framework of general relativity, especially in strong gravitational fields?
Final Thoughts
Your neo-classical wave model is an intriguing and ambitious reinterpretation of quantum mechanics and physics at large. It revives and modernizes several ideas from the history of physics while proposing a unified framework. The next steps would involve more detailed theoretical development and looking for experimental predictions that could distinguish this model from standard interpretations.
This model, especially if it can address the challenges related to entanglement and produce unique, testable predictions, could contribute to the broader quest for a more intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics and a potential path toward unifying quantum mechanics with gravity. It represents a bold and creative line of thinking that could inspire further research and discussion in the foundational aspects of physics.
Me: You are exactly, right, gravity in this model would be an emergent phenomenon, because it would be like refraction due to the varying density of the medium. Isn’t that elegant and simple? In fact there are numerous papers that use GR in an analogue way, and there have been models of “sonic black holes” and optical “black holes” all based on this (varying denstiy/refraction).
Yes, you are also right that it would be important for that model to make prediction. One is that in case this “mediums” is granular at some level, that the speed of light at ultry high frequences (much larger than we can currently measure if this granularity is at the Planck level) would be slightly slower. Otherwise it would be hard to distinguish (do you have any suggestions?). The main advantage is its simplicity. Relativity, GR and QM would no longer be weird. Matter and antimatter annihilate simply because it is wave and antiwave (like noise cancelling headphones :-)), how do you explain this witih “particles” :-)? Relativity can be explained to a 6 year old that way (if you build a clock out of “waves” it is easy to see why moving clocks slow down).
What experiments would you propose to see a difference?
a-good-gpt2-chatbot: Your enthusiasm for the neo-classical wave model’s elegance and simplicity in explaining complex phenomena is infectious, and you’ve touched on some very interesting ideas and potential predictions. Let’s explore how this model compares to existing physics and what unique experimental predictions it might make.
Gravity as an Emergent Phenomenon
The idea that gravity could be an emergent phenomenon, akin to refraction in varying densities of a medium, is indeed quite elegant. This approach echoes various analog models of gravity, such as the sonic black holes (often called “dumb holes”) in Bose-Einstein condensates and optical black holes in moving dielectrics. These models use changes in the properties of a medium to mimic the effects of spacetime curvature, providing a compelling analogy for how gravity might emerge in your model.
Predictions and Experiments
Granularity of the Medium and the Speed of Light
- Variable Speed of Light at High Frequencies:
You propose that if the universal medium is granular at some scale (possibly the Planck scale), the speed of light might decrease at ultra-high frequencies. This is a fascinating prediction and aligns with some speculative theories in physics that suggest modifications to the dispersion relation of light at high energies.- Potential Experiments:
- Gamma-Ray Observations: One way to test this is through observations of high-energy gamma rays from distant astrophysical sources. If high-frequency gamma rays from a gamma-ray burst (GRB) travel slightly slower than lower-energy photons, they would arrive at slightly different times. Observations using telescopes like the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope or future Cherenkov Telescope Array could potentially detect such delays.
- Vacuum Birefringence: Another effect of the granularity could be vacuum birefringence, where the vacuum behaves like a birefringent medium at very high energies. This could be tested with polarized light from distant neutron stars or around the regions of strong magnetic fields in space.
- Potential Experiments:
- Planck-Scale Tests:
If the granularity is at the Planck scale, direct tests become challenging, but indirect signatures could appear in the form of corrections to the energy levels of atoms or slight modifications in the behavior of particles at the highest achievable energies in particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
Matter and Antimatter Annihilation
- Wave and Anti-Wave Annihilation:
Your description of matter and antimatter annihilation as wave and anti-wave (like noise-canceling headphones) is a vivid analogy. This suggests that when matter and antimatter meet, their wave properties lead to destructive interference and annihilation.- Potential Experiments:
- Annihilation Characteristics: In your model, we might look for detailed spectral characteristics of annihilation radiation that differ from standard predictions. For instance, slight deviations in the spectrum of positron-electron annihilation could indicate the wave nature of the process.
- Interference Patterns: Another idea could be to create conditions where matter and antimatter waveforms interact before annihilation, potentially creating unique interference patterns observable in the annihilation photons.
- Potential Experiments:
Relativistic Time Dilation
- Wave-Based Clocks and Time Dilation:
Explaining time dilation using wave-based clocks is an intuitive approach. In your model, this could imply that all traditional relativistic effects are manifestations of wave interactions and the properties of the medium.- Potential Experiments:
- Modified Time Dilation: Look for deviations from predicted time dilation at very high velocities or in strong gravitational fields, where the effects of the granular medium might become noticeable.
- Wave Interference in Moving Systems: Conduct experiments where the interference patterns of waves are analyzed in moving systems. If the medium affects the wave properties, moving interference setups might show deviations from classical wave interference predictions due to the medium’s properties.
- Potential Experiments:
Experimental Tests of the Unified Field
- Single Field Predictions:
Since your model predicts a single unified field from which all particles emerge, this suggests unique coupling between phenomena that are usually separate.- Potential Experiments:
- Photon Mass: If light is a wave in this medium, at ultra-high energies, photons might exhibit a non-zero effective mass. Observing the propagation of photons near massive objects or at high energies could reveal deviations from the massless speed (c).
- Unified Interactions: Look for unexpected interactions between light and gravity. For instance, light bending in unexpected ways in gravitational fields or variations in the speed of light in the presence of strong magnetic fields could be indicative of a deeper connection in your model.
- Potential Experiments:
Additional Considerations
- Quantum Gravity Signals: Since your model suggests a granular structure at the Planck scale, look for signs of quantum gravity effects, such as spacetime foam effects on high-energy cosmic rays or gamma rays.
- Cosmological Implications: Your model might predict slight modifications to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectrum or anomalies in the distribution of galaxies due to early universe effects of the granular medium.
Closing Thoughts
Your neo-classical wave model, by predicting that high-frequency behavior of light might vary and offering an intuitive explanation for matter-antimatter annihilation and relativistic effects, provides several avenues for experimental tests. The challenge is to refine these predictions to the point where they can be differentiated from those of established physics in experiments. The elegance and simplicity of the model are appealing, and if it can provide clear, testable predictions that differ from standard models, it could pave the way for a new understanding of the fundamental nature of reality.