Wave-Particle Speculation

[DanMP]

To answer your question particles are field excitations. The pointlike characteristics is where the wavefunction is a quanta of energy. That is your particle. The wavelike characteristics is the probability distribution of finding the above quanta at a given location.

 

So when you get right down to it there is no need for Wave-particle duality once you treat the particle as a field excitation. Which is what the above paper is describing

If particles are "field excitations", what (and how) is creating those excitations?

 

Bogie, your ideea is interesting. I have a somehow similar one, but I will not present it now because I have to post at least 2 other theories/ideas first (the background).

[bogie]

No

 

Please read my post#20 very carefully.

 

I am not saying you are right or wrong nor am I proposing alternatives.

 

I am examining it for logical self consistency and consequences.

 

I think this is a good thing to do because there is a danger of 'running away with oneself' when proposing a hypothesis.

 

 

You have made contradictory statements that the particle and wave are at the same point at the same time and that the wave arrives before the particle.

 

Please clarify this as they cannot both be right.

 

Incidentally your description of wave-particle sounds something like the wavelet or wavicle models.

 

Incidentally it is a mistake to fall into the trap of thinking that light has to be either a wave or a particle.

 

It has some characteristics (but not all) of each, but is actually more complicated than either.

 

Another example of such a physical phenomenon is that of (ordinary) glass.

 

Glass has some characteristics of a solid and some of a liquid but not all of either and is in fact more complicated than either.

 

I read you post #18 again, and my response to it in post #20, and I don't see any inconsistency in my response.

 

 

Edit: I want to add to the thread, not specifically to that last response, but I guess here is as good as later. It is a follow on to my reply to Strange in post #7 about the single particle two slit delayed choice quantum erasure experiment presented by Kim et al., at this link:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment_of_Kim_et_al._.282000.29

 

Does the photon registering at D0 know which path its twin will take or not?

 

That philosophical question arises since the path the twin takes isn't determined until after the Glan-Thompson prism spits each photon into two paths. The pattern that forms at D0 always correlates with the screen pattern of the twin, regardless of which screen the twin hits. So if the twin hits D1 or D2 which always results in an interference pattern, there will always be an interference pattern at D0, but if the twin hits D3 or D4 which never causes an interference pattern, there will never be an interference pattern at D0.

 

To imply some knowledge on the part of the photon really takes us off the road, IMHO. If you think of the photon as being either a wave or a particle but not both, and if you make the claim that the delayed choice somehow has anything to do with where and when the interference pattern forms, we will disagree.

 

My conclusion is that the photon certainly never knows where its twin will end up, and therefore never knows whether to form an interference pattern at D0 or not. If instead you consider the speculation that a photon is a wave-particle, i.e., to be both a wave and a particle at the same time, you can always predict the results. There will be an interference pattern formed if there is both a blue path and a red path to the detector; see the diagram:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg

Edited January 26, 2017 by bogie

[Mordred]

.

 

My conclusion is that the photon certainly never knows where its twin will end up, and therefore never knows whether to form an interference pattern at D0 or not. If instead you consider the speculation that a photon is a wave-particle, i.e., to be both a wave and a particle at the same time, you can always predict the results. There will be an interference pattern formed if there is both a blue path and a red path to the detector; see the diagram:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg

This statement is accurate we do treat the Wave-particle duality at the same time. That truth is this dual nature doesn't seperate after interference.

 

This detail is often misimplied in heuristic descriptions. For example after the slit interference the photon doesn't stop being both a wave and particle. The slit interference doesn't change the wave-particle duality nature.

 

This is one of the artifacts of trying to explain complex objects such as a particle in heuristic terms.

 

The particle knowing the final location ahead of time is another heuristic artifact. I like to use the term myth.

 

The paper I posted "There are no particles only fields" mathematically describes this.

 

The quanta portion of the wave [latex]E=\hbar w [/latex] is the portion that exhibits the pointlike characteristic.

 

 

From what I have read so far is that you are getting into some very advanced details beyond the heuristic descriptions. This is good and rather refreshing lol.

 

Truthfully from what I have read so far the only details lacking is how to describe these advanced descriptives. This is nearly impossible to fully describe accurately with strictly verbal descriptions.

 

The most appropriate arena mathematically speaking to describe the above is QFT. This is a rather intense study as you have to be clear on the term "boundary confinement" of the above formula. The boundary confined region of quanta above will start spreading out after it passes the slit.

 

The other key note is that the slits cause interference. There is two types of interference constructive and destructive.

 

Loosely put in QFT this would be described by creation/annihilation operators. (careful there is lots more involved) ie again boundary confinement.

 

Now lets define the boundary condition for a pointlike characteristic. I can do this simply with a key statement. Without dropping into QFT math

 

the Compton wavelength is the distance at which the concept of a single pointlike particle breaks down completely. in other words the Compton wavelength defines the boundary of an excitation where the wavefunction will exhibit pointlike characteristics.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mordred

[bogie]

This statement is accurate we do treat the Wave-particle duality at the same time. That truth is this dual nature doesn't seperate after interference.

This detail is often misimplied in heuristic descriptions. For example after the slit interference the photon doesn't stop being both a wave and particle. The slit interference doesn't change the wave-particle duality nature.

This is one of the artifacts of trying to explain complex objects such as a particle in heuristic terms.

The particle knowing the final location ahead of time is another heuristic artifact. I like to use the term myth.

The paper I posted "There are no particles only fields" mathematically describes this.

The quanta portion of the wave [latex]E=\hbar w [/latex] is the portion that exhibits the pointlike characteristic.

From what I have read so far is that you are getting into some very advanced details beyond the heuristic descriptions. This is good and rather refreshing lol.

Truthfully from what I have read so far the only details lacking is how to describe these advanced descriptives. This is nearly impossible to fully describe accurately with strictly verbal descriptions.

The most appropriate arena mathematically speaking to describe the above is QFT. This is a rather intense study as you have to be clear on the term "boundary confinement" of the above formula. The boundary confined region of quanta above will start spreading out after it passes the slit.

The other key note is that the slits cause interference. There is two types of interference constructive and destructive.

Loosely put in QFT this would be described by creation/annihilation operators. (careful there is lots more involved) ie again boundary confinement.

 

This is a very thoughtful and generous response; a lot for someone untrained to wade through. It will take me some time to give what would be even a reasonable response. I do note the reference to learning QFT, and I have looked, but given my model, which I try to make internally consistent, I always find things in there that don't seem right to me, and I don't mean I am right and QFT is not; I mean that I don't add anything to the model, which is effectively housed in my pea brain, unless I can fully integrate it. So let me think and do a little looking.

 

In the meantime, would it be appropriate to add some related pieces about the wave energy density speculations that I consider internally consistent, but that might be at odds with what QM says, due to my incomplete understanding of QM?

[Mordred]

This is a very thoughtful and generous response; a lot for someone untrained to wade through. It will take me some time to give what would be even a reasonable response. I do note the reference to learning QFT, and I have looked, but given my model, which I try to make internally consistent, I always find things in there that don't seem right to me, and I don't mean I am right and QFT is not; I mean that I don't add anything to the model, which is effectively housed in my pea brain, unless I can fully integrate it. So let me think and do a little looking.

 

In the meantime, would it be appropriate to add some related pieces about the wave energy density speculations that I consider internally consistent, but that might be at odds with what QM says, due to my incomplete understanding of QM?

 

 

Absolutely its best to address the parts you don't fully understand first and foremost. From what I've seen thus far this could very well be the very problem between your speculation and what is already described under QM/QFT. I'm almost willing to wager that this is truly the case. I know you won't fully understand this math but lets take an important equation and well known equation.

 

[latex]E=\pm\sqrt{m^2+p^2}[/latex] now we need to define the wave portion that equates to our point-like characteristic for this we need to add the Dirac Delta function I won't fully detail this function but it is a matrix.[latex]\delta_{i,j}[/latex]

 

set c=1

 

[latex]\int d^4p\delta(p^2-m^2)f(p)[/latex] now a particle is on shell when its mass and four momentum [latex]p^u=(P_o,P)[/latex] because [latex] p^2=m^2[/latex]

 

this is just another way to distinquish between a virtual particle/fluctuation to an excitation (real particle) the delta function itself describes a waveform. see animation image here

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function

 

when the peak reaches a quanta you have a real particle.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mordred

[bogie]

Absolutely its best to address the parts you don't fully understand first and foremost. From what I've seen thus far this could very well be the very problem between your speculation and what is already described under QM/QFT. I'm almost willing to wager that this is truly the case.

Ok then, I'll add some here, and do some thinking and study as well.

(I'm almost willing to take that wager, because you deserve to win if you are right, and I would pay up gladly .

[Mordred]

Start with defining states under QM. Pay close attention to terms such as eugenvalues and eugenstates. You need to define these first before you try tackling QFT. Another key study is the Dirac notation and Dirac Delta function.

 

I will spend some time digging up key lessons for you.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mordred

[bogie]

Absolutely its best to address the parts you don't fully understand first and foremost. From what I've seen thus far this could very well be the very problem between your speculation and what is already described under QM/QFT. I'm almost willing to wager that this is truly the case. I know you won't fully understand this math but lets take an important equation and well known equation.

 

[latex]E=\pm\sqrt{m^2+p^2}[/latex] now we need to define the wave portion that equates to our point-like characteristic for this we need to add the Dirac Delta function I won't fully detail this function but it is a matrix.[latex]\delta_{i,j}[/latex]

 

set c=1

 

[latex]\int d^4p\delta(p^2-m^2)f(p)[/latex] now a particle is on shell when its mass and four momentum [latex]p^u=(P_o,P)[/latex] because [latex] p^2=m^2[/latex]

 

this is just another way to distinquish between a virtual particle/fluctuation to an excitation (real particle) the delta function itself describes a waveform. see animation image here

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function

 

when the peak reaches a quanta you have a real particle.

I thought I had enough homework already, but those equations/expressions don't look too tough.

 

Here is a visual that I like because it is much like I envision the wave-particle; of course the wave particle is in three dimensions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uncertainty_principle.gif

[Mordred]

that is definitely related and the main reason why Quantum field theory has difficulty with relativity.

 

I used a basic example for the above equations with the intention of as simple as possible in order to show a basic example of how a particle is defined.

 

Here try this from another thread and it relates to the above equations

 

Then perhaps you should clarify what you are truly stating as the energy/mass relations also apply to any field as well

Clarify this statement as reading your replies your being inconsistent

All particles are essentially field excitations under boundary binding conditions. ie a quanta in a finite (point-like )region.

 

Mass and energy is literrally different mathematical treatments to describe the properties of what is commonly referred to as particles.

 

mass is resistance to inertia change

energy is the ability to perform work.

A field being an abstract device to describe any collection of objects/events

 

They are fundamentally two properties of the same thing. Much like an object has properties of length/volume (3d object)

 

Or density/pressure and temperature.

 

OK I recognize this is far too advanced for most people but lets look at a Spinless particle under QFT treatment.

 

the state of a system is governed by the Schrodinger equation

[latex]i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} |\psi,t\rangle=H|\phi,t\rangle[/latex] where H is the Hamilton for the notation [latex]\langle | | \rangle[/latex] this is the Dirac bra-ket notation which is a convenient vector notation.

 

so a simple system with no forces acting upon it of a spinless non relativistic particle is

 

[latex] H=\frac{1}{2m}P^2[/latex]

 

where m is the particles mass and P the momentum operator.

 

in the position basis the first equation becomes

 

[latex] i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi (x,t)=\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\psi(x,t)[/latex]

 

where [latex]\psi(x,t)=\langle x|\psi,t\rangle[/latex]

 

to generalize this spinless particle above in relativistic motion take

 

[latex] H=+\sqrt{P^2c^2+m^2c^4}[/latex]

 

[latex]H=mc^2+1/2m P^2+...... [/latex] the ..... denoting higher order corrections

 

with the Hamilton and Schrodinger the above becomes

 

[latex]i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi(x,t)=+\sqrt{-\hbar^2c^2\nabla^2+m^2c^4\psi(x,t)}[/latex]

 

there I just described a spinless particle in both relativistic and non relativistic treatment. However the last equation requires some limits to avoid infinities. Without going into detail as the above is tricky enough to understand we end up with the Klein_Gordon equation

 

[latex]i\hbar^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}\psi(x,t)=(-\hbar^2c^2\nabla^2+m^2c^4)\psi(x,t)[/latex]

 

the point being is the above shows a particle is not some bullet but a field excitation. how we measure that field excitation requires observer treatments described by relativity.

 

How one measures a field of the above spinless objects are also under observer corrections via the redshift equations regardless of whether you are measuring a vacuum/field/object/particles the observer influence is always a factor.

 

One can correlate the above to any particle via its spin ie electrons spin 1/2 etc

Now what I didn't include in the above is the i is a planewave used for HUP itself. ie your virtual particles and internal ziggly lines on Feyman diagrams. This is the portion that has insufficient momentum to perform action.

 

So i is called imaginary as in virtual

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mordred

[bogie]

that is definitely related and the main reason why Quantum field theory has difficulty with relativity.

I used a basic example for the above equations with the intention of as simple as possible in order to show a basic example of how a particle is defined.

Here try this from another thread and it relates to the above equations

Now what I didn't include in the above is the i is a planewave used for HUP itself. ie your virtual particles and internal ziggly lines on Feyman diagrams. This is the portion that has insufficient momentum to perform action.

So i is called imaginary as in virtual

Or maybe I should just breeze through the 400 plus pages at https://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~frederic.paugam/documents/enseignement/master-mathematical-physics.pdf

 

I am pretty far behind and getting up to speed on QFT may do me in. I'm sure you don't have high expectations, but you are definitely a good teacher.

[Mordred]

No I don't expect you to get everything right away. That would be unreasonable. Take your time. There is no time limit on this thread. By the way good article I already have it in my collection. There is still lots in QFT treatment I myself am currently studying. By the way there is far easier books on QFT than the above as you need a strong lie Algebra understanding in group theory to even get past the first chapter.

 

I've always been more classical in my Cosmology studies.

 

I found this is an invaluable aid regardless of physics topic.

 

https://www.amazon.ca/Mathematical-Methods-Physicists-Comprehensive-Guide/dp/0123846544

 

If you can do the math in this book there is literally no physics topic or article where you won't be able to figure out.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mordred

[bogie]

No I don't expect you to get everything right away. That would be unreasonable. Take your time. There is no time limit on this thread. By the way good article I already have it in my collection. There is still lots in QFT treatment I myself am currently studying.

I've always been more classical in my Cosmology studies.

I found this is an invaluable aid regardless of physics topic.https://www.amazon.ca/Mathematical-Methods-Physicists-Comprehensive-Guide/dp/0123846544

If you can do the math in this book there is literally no physics topic or article where you won't be able to figure out.

 

The "good article" was found from your website link. I'll look at the new link, and take my time. Right now I'm working my way through the Hobson paper, and will have some comments for you in a few days, if my wife gives me plenty of space. She is supportive and listens when I just have to talk out loud, but she has no clue of what I'm saying, lol.

[Mordred]

lol my wife is the same so know what your saying lol

[bogie]

I seriously doubt you need to rewrite all of physics. Start with where your speculation becomes distinct. Figure out what math you need to describe the deviation from the mainstream viewpoints.

If done properly I'll bet current mathematics and techniques can describe any valid dynamic etc. If you can't get your variation to work under the math then chances are its not valid.

Though if your not ready for the math end yet. I would suggest studying the mainstream math first. Good model building requires such. Math being the language of physics.

Though we also don't expect an immediate "Standards of a full scientific paper" only that we follow guide lined steps towards such ie some mathematical rigor.

 

The Hobson paper, "There are no particles, only fields", is a good read, and it informs the novice (me) that the "evolution" of quantum field theory over the past 100 years has been laborious and marked by the expected slow growth of a consensus. His paper is a recent expression of the goal (2012 or so) of a QFT where everything is field, and all space is filled with field. I think he feels that the scientific community is almost there.

 

I'm there, except that my accumulated thinking, call it my Wave Energy Density model, has me saying that wave energy is all there is. So if there is anything to my speculations and hypotheses, it is that the wave energy that fills all space equates to "all space is filled with fields". My goal then gets some new direction from Hobson, and that is to quit distinguishing between wave energy density and field, and just consider them to be the same to a certain extent.

 

The reason for this post is to express my feelings about your statement, "I seriously doubt you need to rewrite all of physics". I agree, though there is a reason that I try to go back to the Big Bang, and define the preconditions of it. I'm sure you don't think of our Big Bang as "something from nothing" or "God did it". Therefore any preconditions would be fundamental to the understanding of what "only fields" means, and what "wave energy is all there is" means. We are talking about what fills space, and how much space is there. If it is all field, then the excitation of field would require something that excites the field, i.e., something in space along with field, and I speculate that that something else is wave energy that advances through a background field.

 

The background field is the product of an infinite history of big bangs (I hypothesize an eternal and infinite multiple Big Bang universe), and their remnants; infinite light and gravitational wave energy that fills all space.

 

Given the wave energy composition of the background, I find that a macro level and a micro level of action processes fits nicely. They are strikingly similar in mechanics, in that there are expanding quanta (particular to the given system, a different quantum is peculiar to each quantized system) that intersect and overlap, producing new quanta when the "critical capacity" of energy in the overlap space reaches a quantum (there is a trivial equation for this).

 

Perhaps a hard concept to go along with, but I think that Big Bang arenas expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with an adjacent expanding Big Bang arena. (You might see a "cold spot" like we see in WMAP and Planck data at the location of the intersection, and the overall heat map would feature hemispherical anisotropy, like we have observed in the sky maps.) The galactic material contributed by each parent arena converges due to gravity (quantum gravity of course), forms a Big Crunch, and when the crunch reaches critical capacity, it collapse/bangs into a new expanding Big Bang arena. That is the macro process of Big Bang Arena action that defeats entropy; any imaginable space big enough to host multiple big bang arenas has that process playing out at all times across its space, and that process typifies the Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

 

Go to the micro realm, and quantum action is the process. Quit similar to arena action because a micro level quantum of energy is a locally meaningful wave produced by the convergence of two or more quantum waves, just like two or more Big Bang arena waves converge to produce a new Big Crunch.

 

Particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and so the presence of a wave-particle contains many billions/trillions of tiny wave intersections (quanta, each one is a micro level equivalent to the Big Crunch at the macro level) converging in the oscillating background. The oscillating background is the remnant background of a potentially infinite history of Big Bang arena action, and the light and gravitational wave energy that has always filled all space. The oscillations are the lowest level of wave action, and are produced by the fact that all of the wave energy is continually intersecting as it advances through space, and the oscillations at that lowest level are how the individual waves advance (similar to the Huygens concept of the advance of a light wave).

 

I just wanted to express those speculations and hypotheses, because to me they are the backstory to "all space is filled with fields", and "everything is composed of wave energy". Of course it is more complex and detailed than I have put into this post.

[Mordred]

Would it surprise you to know what your in essence is describing is the zero energy universe model?

 

This model is based on the Heisenburg uncertainty principle and QM's zero point energy VeV (vacuum expectation value) which under QM is the true vacuum minima.

 

It is the only viable universe from nothing model it is often coined the term "Ultimate free lunch" and still considered viable today.

 

Though you should replace your little big bangs with particle/antiparticle annihilations. False vacuum via Guth in early 80's in essence included this mechanism by using quantum tunneling which is rather complex to properly describe in a heuristic manner. A good portion of the many viable inflationary models today 74+ according to Encyclopedia inflationaris (ASPIC Library) use a form of quantum tunneling.

 

Some still consider it an option for dark energy.

 

I have some good papers on it as I've been tracking developments of this model for several years (Its the only viable universe from Nothing model still viable).

 

Other models are cyclic universe or bounce universe. Of these latter categories I lost count on variations.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwj28Z2nvOLRAhUU0GMKHTWBBeAQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fenergy.nobelprize.org%2Fpresentations%2Flinde.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE_StOMiBfekN2NMu-T96x2tLVOrg&sig2=UTLBdme9W6R_3LUsKpjXIw

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwj28Z2nvOLRAhUU0GMKHTWBBeAQFggiMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F0506017&usg=AFQjCNGHOQ2UCshslY2uSKQ0pW4tzZCy4g&sig2=cuRmTpv3FgfNNaE7T3U44g

 

The second is an arxiv paper on the DE aspects.

 

The first is a lecture from Andrei Linde.

 

I have a far better detailed pdf that I will have to dig up.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Mordred

[bogie]

Would it surprise you to know what your in essence is describing is the zero energy universe model?

This model is based on the Heisenburg uncertainty principle and QM's zero point energy VeV (vacuum expectation value) which under QM is the true vacuum minima.

It is the only viable universe from nothing model it is often coined the term "Ultimate free lunch" and still considered viable today.

Though you should replace your little big bangs with particle/antiparticle annihilations. False vacuum via Guth in early 80's in essence included this mechanism by using quantum tunneling which is rather complex to properly describe in a heuristic manner. A good portion of the many viable inflationary models today 74+ according to Encyclopedia inflationaris (ASPIC Library) use a form of quantum tunneling.

Some still consider it an option for dark energy.

I have some good papers on it as I've been tracking developments of this model for several years (Its the only viable universe from Nothing model still viable).

Other models are cyclic universe or bounce universe. Of these latter categories I lost count on variations.http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwj28Z2nvOLRAhUU0GMKHTWBBeAQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fenergy.nobelprize.org%2Fpresentations%2Flinde.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE_StOMiBfekN2NMu-T96x2tLVOrg&sig2=UTLBdme9W6R_3LUsKpjXIwhttp://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwj28Z2nvOLRAhUU0GMKHTWBBeAQFggiMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F0506017&usg=AFQjCNGHOQ2UCshslY2uSKQ0pW4tzZCy4g&sig2=cuRmTpv3FgfNNaE7T3U44g

The second is an arxiv paper on the DE aspects.

The first is a lecture from Andrei Linde.

I have a far better detailed pdf that I will have to dig up.

Thank you for all of that. I will say that there aren't very many models that I haven't reviewed, and those are some of the ones I have compared against.

 

I've always thought of my layman model as the "always existed" model, and have compared it to the models you mention. But I never thought about it from the standpoint of making the multiple big bangs matter/antimatter annihilations. I can see how that could convert it to the ultimate free lunch. Something to think about.

 

Maybe this deserves further discussion, though the speculation about a wave-particle is a little more current in regard to learning QFT. I'm planning a response to the "two slit experiments" section of Hobson's paper first though, because I have to get some things cleared up in regard to his presentation of it.

[bogie]

I got off on an interesting path after your mention of a "something from nothing" universe, as I try to envision the wave-particle in the field context. Not too hard to do actually, since I don't have all that pesky math to deal with, just verbal pictures and visualizations of the mechanics playing out.

 

I went back to the Hobson paper to find the part about matter fields. He posed the question, "If field is all there is, where do electrons and atoms come from? QFT's answer is that they are field quanta, but quanta of matter fields rather than quanta of force fields.", and referenced note 46.

 

 

Note 46: Molecules, atoms, and protons are "composite fields" made of the presumably fundamental standard model fields.

 

OK, of course I have the same problem. If you were to refer to my earlier explanation of my statement, "everything is composed of wave energy" and "particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments", and compare it to the QFT stated goal of showing everything is fields (force fields and matter fields), you would see I have come the conclusion that the wave-particle is a union of force fields and matter fields, orchestrated by the quantum action process.

 

Getting my head on straight on the differences is a good track for me to follow, so in some of my word pictures about visualizations of the quantum action process, I briefly describe matter quanta that make up the wave particle and how the wave portion is emitted by the high density convergences of wave energy within the particle space.

 

The contained energy of the core portion is largely made up of those internal high density convergences at any instant; the convergences feature a small time delay as the energy from two converging parent wave fronts equalizes it self within the overlap space. Each convergence then produces a new expanding wave within the core, and then goes on to form more convergences (quantum action within the particle space is strikingly similar to Big Bang arena action in the landscape of the multiple Big Bang greater universe mentioned earlier). The frequency of the wave-particle's outflowing wave energy is determined by the number of quanta in the core (as if you could do a freeze-frame and count them, lol).

 

Any point in pursuing any of this here in speculations?

[bogie]

Referencing content from previous post ...

I'm getting through the Hobson paper and some of the foot notes to help me understand QFT. I'm liking it. Into matter fields right now.

 

Changing to the cosmology: the links to other models you gave me, and the whole concept of something from nothing has been of interest to me. The best I can do to visualize it is if the landscape of the greater universe is a multiple Big Bang universe, and if each and every Big Bang that forms from the process of arena action is a huge matter/antimatter event like you suggest I consider.

 

There would be very rapid expansion of the hot dense ball of energy at the heart of each event, with some reasonable expectation of the events sending out huge anomalies where large sections are matter and large sections are antimatter, heading out away from the collapses/bang location. In the nearby space, there would be a tremendous amount of annihilation going on, contributing to the rapid expansion, but the anomalies heading out into the surrounding space at relativistic velocities might never encounter their "opposite state" that formed at the outset, and so might not experience annihilation.

 

An imbalance between matter/antimatter left behind vs matter/antimatter spreading out into space from the event means the local mass annihilation will result in some imbalance between matter and antimatter, leaving only the residual matter OR anti matter to cool, form particles, stars, galaxies, etc.

 

We could end up with Big Bang arenas that are composed entirely of antimatter, and some that are entirely matter, with no indication of which is which until they encounter their opposite counterpart somewhere out there as their expansion results in the inevitable arena convergences as they expand.

 

Still, that wouldn't be a "something from nothing" free lunch scenario because of infinite regress, but it does get you past the initial conditions necessary for each individual Big Bang.

[Mordred]

The problem with the above is that matter/antimatter annihilations are detectable on large scales. Models have been proposed of antimatter universe/bubbles etc. However following the above would be a means of detectability which we have never found evidence supporting the above

[bogie]

The problem with the above is that matter/antimatter annihilations are detectable on large scales. Models have been proposed of antimatter universe/bubbles etc. However following the above would be a means of detectability which we have never found evidence supporting the above

Agreed, and more to the thread topic, I hope I am getting the some of the ideas about QFT.

 

In post #42 I was interested in if my conclusions were acceptable in regard to a visualization of quanta, and of the idea that the wave-particle is a union of force fields and matter fields, orchestrated by the quantum action process.

 

I mentioned the term "particle space", and think that it is the place in the fields where the excitation of the various local fields is great enough to transmit the excitation from the local space, and out into surrounding fields, much in keeping with phrases like, "the infinite reach of gravity", or entanglement, wave packets, probabilities of where the actual excitation may be located, and where the "collapses of the wave function" might occur.

 

Any encouragement about that line of reasoning?

[bogie]

Some have told me that my speculative idea about the wave-particle nature of particles is akin to Pilot Wave Theory, and that the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation might be considered as valid as some of the other interpretations. In post #7 I mentioned that situation and said I might comment on how I would differentiate my wave-particle model from the Pilot Wave.

 

The wave-particle idea is not really the same as the pilot wave, and I'll explain to you how I would differentiate it from the pilot wave theory, but it would help with my explanation if you are familiar with this PBS video. I think it does a good job of presenting the de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory:

 

Bohemian mechanics is referred to as being intuitive, solidly physical, and more or less in defiance of the position of Bohr and Heisenberg, and more or less supportive of Einstein's views, where it was clear he opposed fundamental randomness and non-locality; determinism was more to his fancy. I might agree that the wave-particle that I speculate about in this thread is akin to Pilot Wave Theory, with the differences I mention here.

 

Louis de Broglie presented the view that there were real waves of "something" and that they push around real point-like particles. The wave-particle model has some similarities to that, but the "something" that carries waves is speculated about as well, and is said to be an oscillating background composed of waves of the tiniest order.

 

This oscillating background is the product of a universe that has potentially always existed, and where light and gravitational waves fill all space, coming and going from every direction, at every point in space, at the speed of light; every point has a level of wave energy density as a result.

 

More meaningful waves are advanced through that background by the oscillations, much like Huygens depicted the advance of light wave fronts through space; a kind of pinhole effect where every point along the wave front produces a spherical pinhole wave that continually advances the wave front.

 

Pilot Wave theory explains the wave interference pattern in the two slit experiments as the effect of the wave nature of the particle going through both slits, and the point-like particle nature going through just one slit. The result is that there are regular constructive interference peaks that guide the point particle to certain parts of the screen, and away from other parts, giving us the familiar interference patterns of dark and light lines.

 

The wave-particle model says that the wave front of the wave-particle does indeed go through both slits, and the particle portion goes through just one, but that is where the similarity ends. In the wave particle model, when the particle portion, referred to as the dense core of the wave particle, goes through one slit, it continues to be a fully functioning wave particle, and carries with it the dense wave energy core, and the on-going spherically outflowing wave energy component surrounding the core portion.

 

The implications of that has some significance; the wave energy passing through the slits is not equal or the same, not regular or consistent between the slits and the screen. You have to differentiate between the two portions of the wave-particle. The wave energy from the spherically outflowing wave front of the wave particle is equal and the same essentially, as it passes through both slits. However, when the core portion passes through one slit and brings its continuing spherical wave energy outflow with it, because that outflow is produced by quantum action within the core, and that makes the interference pattern between the slits and the screen a whole new ball game.

 

The particle side has much more energy and that decidedly influences the path that the core takes to the screen. Of course the overall pattern will not be lopsided because it is random as to which slit the particle core passes through, but the screen impressions will favor the more central bands of the interference pattern, at the expense of the outer bands.

 

I would think that there would be some possibility that the math that describes the peaks and valleys that guide the particle would be quite different if the equations took into account wave-particle of my model. The effect would likely produce a much more energetic and lopsided nature of the wave energy from the slit that the particle portion passes through, not a consistent set of constructive and destructive overlaps.

 

I would predict that the side hosting the core portion, with its incremental energy from the outflowing spherical wave, would have a greater influence on the path or trajectory of the core portion as it makes its way to the detector. That would favor the more central parts of the interference pattern as opposed to the most divergent parts of the pattern, making the overall interference more centrally congested, at the expense of the outer bands.

 

However, such a mathematical examination will have to wait until and if someone takes the idea to heart, and understands the difference of intensities in the bands that I would think should occur...

Edited February 7, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

I have an old text book I bought used for reference library, Serway-Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, fifth edition

Chapter 37 is Interference of Light Waves

Conditions for interference: The sources must be coherent.

The sources must be of a single wavelength.

 

I am assuming that when we are conducting single particle, two slit experiments, that the light source is a single wavelength.

 

I have a comment about if it is coherent (each transmission of a particle maintaining a constant phase with respect to each other), when we only send one particle at a time: coherency is not an issue in the experiment since it is one particle at a time, and my speculation is that the light wave emitted by the core portion of the wave-particle is coherent and a constant wavelength throughout the life and path of that single particle.

 

In fact, we don't want multiple in phase waves from a multiple particle, constant coherent transmission in this experiment, we only want the individual outflowing wave energy from a single core portion of a wave-particle that is sent individually to the slits. That helps insure that the outflow from a single particle is the only wave energy that passes through both slits. That is the outflowing wave energy emitted by the core portion of an individual wave-particle. It surrounds the core and is coherent, and has a constant in-phase frequency determined by the quanta contained within the core portion, per my speculations.

 

If the interference pattern we are dealing with was only the wave energy that passes through both slits from the broadened wave front at the leading edge of the wave-particle, then we would have a classical Thomas Young wave pattern and the math that goes with in Serway-Beichner.

 

But my speculation is that there is a lot more to that interference pattern than the smooth overlapping pattern we see in the text book. In my view, we get the complexity added when the core portion of the wave-particle passes through its randomly selected slit, and enters the space between the slits and the screen. That is when we get the second set of interfering waves coming from the core portion, and that overlap with the otherwise nice regular pattern.

 

I also found and downloaded an app with a math/physics keyboard so I can type things like

Test:

d sin θ=mλ

I = Imax cos²((πd sin θ)/λ)

 

And finally for now, I have images of my depiction of a wave-particle, the first is from 2013:

 

 

And the second is current:

 

Notice I have realized that the core portion would be in the center of the particle space, not at the leading edge. This is so the wave passes through both slits in advance of the particle which passes through only one slit.

 

And images from back in 2013 when I did my own version of the double slit experiment, which I post here so I can refer to them in subsequent post: double slit, and single slit interference patterns:

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

The current depiction of the wave-particle represents the core portion and the spherical outflow over 10 quantum periods (the ten circles depicted). I use the term quantum period to represent how long it takes the core to produce the outflowing energy from all of its contained quanta.

Updated depiction:

 

There is a duration associated with any depiction of the wave-particle, and that duration is quantified in "quantum periods". Each spherical outflowing wave (circles in the graphic) represents one quantum period.

 

If you missed it earlier, a quantum is the unit of contained energy associated with a given particle, and the mass of the particle is composed of wave energy in quantum increments. That means that there are many quanta in the core portion of the wave-particle. Each quantum is composed of the convergence of many individual waves at a point and a time, within the space occupied by the core portion of the wave-particle.

 

I wanted to show a depiction of the wave-particle in motion, with each quantum period represented by an expanding spherical wave of energy, where the larger spheres are from previous quantum periods, and the smaller spheres (circles) are from the more recent quantum periods. See if you can make out what I mean from this multiple quantum period image:

Edited February 9, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

The spherically outflowing wave energy from the core portion of a photon is light, in my speculative model. The central core has mass. All wave-particles have this spherically outflowing wave energy, but photon wave energy is visible to the human eye at certain frequencies. The spherically outflowing wave energy from electrons, and other particles in the standard model is called gravitational wave energy in this model.

 

I would define mass as being composed of wave energy in quantum increments, like the central core of high density wave energy of the photon that emits light, or the central portion of any particle that emits gravitational wave energy, and of course that includes all massive objects. As such, every particle and object has a net frequency, but only photons have a range of frequencies that are visible to the eye.

 

The outflowing wave energy, in fact all wave energy, even the dense wave energy that makes up the core of the wave-particle, is being advanced by the oscillations of the wave energy background (mentioned recently). That means that there is a level of order below the observable presence of light and gravity waves that serves to advance them over distance. That is the oscillating wave energy background.

 

In my model, the oscillating background represents the lowest order of action, while the multiple Big Bang landscape of the greater universe represents the highest order of action in the universe. Of Course, you could make an argument that the tiny oscillations at the micro level of order have some extremely tiny internal wave energy composition, just like one could argue that the Big Bang arenas that I speculate fill the greater universe could be the quanta of some vast, greater level of order where our observable expanding arena is but a mere quantum wave of energy making up the composition of things at that higher level, but neither of those cases are required to explain the nature of the universe as I see it, and so are not considered real.

 

[bogie]

Aside from fleshing out a myriad of details about my wave-particle speculation which I fear will become an over reach on my part, I have presented an overview of my non-standard thinking, and thank you to the forum for permitting it.

The mathematics that are missing make it nothing more that layman speculation. Perhaps it is just me justifying not putting in the rigor to learn the math of the current consensus theories, and the new but popular theories, but I view my speculations as quite simple, mathematically, compared to those developed by the scientific community. My view is that at the heart of it, we have spherical energy waves expanding all over the place, they intersect and overlap, the energy in the overlap becomes sufficient to equal a new quantum in the local environment, the overlap becomes an expanding quantum wave of energy that goes on to intersect and overlap. (I like to say "spherically" in the spirit of the famous story of the "spherical cow" on the Internet).

Here is an image I have used to depict the sphere/sphere overlap leading to the production of a new quantum:



In the past I had some help putting that into Tex format so let's see if it works here:

[latex]\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capR}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_R}=[/latex][latex]\frac{1/3\pi H^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi R^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi H ^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi R^3}[/latex]

This simple equation, though it could be simplified further if I didn't like seeing the pieces that correspond with the graphic, is the gist of my idea about meaningful waves and quantization, and it applies to both the micro and macro levels that I have presented.

Thanks for allowing me to get that all out here.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Phi for All
LaTex code correction