Electron waves bye-bye

[Fred56]

Electrons, being fundamental particles, have spin and wavelength. They are “matter waves”.

We know that things, objects, can move “left” and then “right”, and we know they can't or don't move “left and right”. This seems some impossible trick this humble particle that has brightened our lives for a century, blithely does despite our insistence. Why do these “quantised” entities jump through such implausible quantum hoops? What are they doing that we don't or can't (perhaps ever) see?

[Martin]

there will be some tentative answers in a forthcoming book from Cambridge University Press called

Approaches to Quantum Gravity: towards a new understanding of space time and matter edited by Oriti

 

I have seen some of the chapters of the book. unless cambridge cancels it, which would be a sad waste of all the (20 or so) authors' efforts, it should be out in 2008.

 

the common aim these authors share is to say that space time and matter particles emerge at our scale from some more fundamental entity.

 

So then the aim is to define a fundamental entity from which geometry and matter arise and to describe dynamic rules by which that entity evolves.

 

The aim goes beyond string, because string does not include a quantum state of the geometry of the universe---it includes matter and forces but not space itself (the space the strings vibrate in is ASSUMED in string thinking, and must have special rather complicated properties).

 

So a couple of string thinkers were invited to contribute to the book, and their chapter is included, but the main bulk of the chapters is by nonstring people pursuing research that was not even around in the 1990s when string was most popular.

 

It'll be an interesting book. Mostly about work in progress. None of it experimentally verified yet. So nothing here is to be BELIEVED (unless you like to believe things on faith).

 

OK NOW HERE IS ONE PROPOSED ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, out of several that will be presented in the book. You say:

... we know they can't or don't move “left and right”. This seems some impossible trick this humble particle that has brightened our lives for a century, blithely does despite our insistence. Why do these “quantised” entities jump through ...

 

One answer, that Lee Smolin and a team of people have been working on since late 2005 represents both geometry and matter as a ball-and-tube network. So basically it is a WEB of relationship. And particles of matter are KNOTS in that web.

Everything is in ordinary 3D. There are NO EXTRA DIMENSIONS.

And you know from your own experience with tangled twine or electric cord or hose that knots or tangles don't have any definite location. You can loosen a snarl in one place and spread it out, and hope it cancels with an snarl somewhere else. But you dont have it in any one place until you, in effect, make a MEASUREMENT. Pull things tight to find out where the knot has gone, or if it has canceled out some other tangle.

So in this ball and tube approach, the ball and tube (like tinkertoy or molecule models) is not really there---that is just a mathematical diagram to understand it with. But what is there is knots, and twists, and braids, and tangles---in a skein of pure geometric relationship. We dont hope to know what it is made of, just what it acts like---that's the idea of a mathematical model.

Now the question they are asking is does this model reproduce the Standard basket of particles? and what evolution rules shall we give it? And they already have some guesses about the evolution rules and then the question is does that reproduce the spacetime dynamics of General Relativity and Matter at large scale? Does the appearance of familiar spacetime geometry and matter emerge at macro-scale from this microscopic dynamic model?

 

AND THAT IS JUST ONE APPROACH. I have given one example of the kind of fundamental entity that is explored in non-string Quantum Gravity and Matter theoretical work.

 

I think at the end of the QGM road there will be a much better understanding of Quantum Mechanics itself. Why particles have this kind of elusive, not entirely deterministic behavior. I think people will be uncovering a BASIS for that. But maybe you can see intuitive how, if matter consists of topological features (knots braids etc) in what underlies geometry, then matter would not necessarily all the time have a definite exact location. Which was the main thing you were asking about, I think.

 

And bear in mind that it will take a while before these nonstring QGM approaches get sorted out and one or more come to the forefront and get tested. So there are things to know about here, but nothing as yet to BELIEVE unless you just emotionally want to believe in something. I kind of don't believe in believing but I like to know what ideas are in the running.

 

If you want links to some of the chapters in Oriti's book, or to the audio and slides to the related Loops '07 conference talks, let me know and I will dig them up.

 

Hope this helps, Fred.

[ironizer]

This is closer proof of God's unfathomable intelligence.

[Martin]

Thanks ironizer. That is the perfect comment on my post.

May I hope that you disagree with everything I said?

(Differences of opinion obviously contribute greatly to this kind of forum.)

[Fred56]

Ok , sorry I haven't posted for a bit, I've been looking at a fair bit of stuff -everything from dark matter to condensed matter and a lot in between as well. I haven't actually come across that much about double-slit experiments, but I know (obviously) about the "problem" -I've done the experiment. There are certainly some weird and wonderful ideas "out there", sometimes I come across something that appears to be based on fundamental, or fractal, time and distance -I am skeptical but obviously there is absolutely no problem with building a "time/distance" model of some kind, as long as you remember that time is a virtual quantity, I guess.

[YT2095]

time isn`t "Virtual" it`s quite real.

it`s only seemingly "Virtual" to us because we can only exist in frames of time as 3D beings.

Time is what stops all things and events from happening at Once.

IF you could see yourself as a 4D entity saw you, it would be a continuous line from your birth to death as a single Solid "Line" (albeit YOU shaped, or at least all the shapes you`v been during your life).

[Fred56]

time isn`t "Virtual" it`s quite real.

You mean there are real time particles of some kind, that time is a fundamental property like mass or entropy?

[Farsight]

... One answer, that Lee Smolin and a team of people have been working on since late 2005 represents both geometry and matter as a ball-and-tube network. So basically it is a WEB of relationship. And particles of matter are KNOTS in that web. Everything is in ordinary 3D. There are NO EXTRA DIMENSIONS. And you know from your own experience with tangled twine or electric cord or hose that knots or tangles don't have any definite location. You can loosen a snarl in one place and spread it out, and hope it cancels with an snarl somewhere else. But you dont have it in any one place until you, in effect, make a MEASUREMENT. Pull things tight to find out where the knot has gone, or if it has canceled out some other tangle...

 

Sounds familiar. Hey ho. And nobody's read my paper.

[YT2095]

You mean there are real time particles of some kind, that time is a fundamental property like mass or entropy?

 

what like Gravity has particles you mean?

it`s a fundemental as gravity yes, doesn`t mean it has to have Particles though

it has an Effect, like gravity or Magnetism or other stuff we can weigh or touch, doesn`t mean it isn`t Real

[Osiris]

time isn`t "Virtual" it`s quite real.

it`s only seemingly "Virtual" to us because we can only exist in frames of time as 3D beings.

Time is what stops all things and events from happening at Once.

IF you could see yourself as a 4D entity saw you, it would be a continuous line from your birth to death as a single Solid "Line" (albeit YOU shaped, or at least all the shapes you`v been during your life).

 

The way you are portraying it to be, is that we'd be a gigantic irrecognizable *unchangeable* blob in 4D, because not only do we move our body parts, we also move from place to place.... think about all the corners you've been to all over your house (and not only you, other family members)... and then all the places elsewhere you've traveled. We would also pass through matter as video game characters limbs sometimes go into walls... think about how it would look when you walk into your car, close the door and drive some 50 miles, then you get out of the car... the car would also have a 4d as well... what this would look like is us going through the car blob, and then coming out of it...

 

My answer to this is that time is not recorded by nature.

 

But I would agree on your statement, is that it agrees with determinism... which in my opinion I think is how this universe is... deterministic.

[Fred56]

Aha, we have exposed an empiricist! What have you to say, you analog being you...

In the quantum world information gets "lost" apparently...

That doesn't happen to you guys though, does it? maybe you should stay in the deterministic universe (where it's safer)...

Time is what stops all things and events from happening at Once.

I see. What about entropy and expansion?

[YT2095]

The way you are portraying it to be, is that we'd be a gigantic irrecognizable *unchangeable* blob in 4D, because not only do we move our body parts, we also move from place to place.... think about all the corners you've been to all over your house (and not only you, other family members)... and then all the places elsewhere you've traveled. We would also pass through matter as video game characters limbs sometimes go into walls... think about how it would look when you walk into your car, close the door and drive some 50 miles, then you get out of the car... the car would also have a 4d as well... what this would look like is us going through the car blob, and then coming out of it...

 

yeah, more or less, that about sums it up quite nicely, you Would indeed seem like the Whole picture of you life all in one go, you would have to take a single Slice of any part of that picture to interact with you in that Particular Now.

 

 

 

My answer to this is that time is not recorded by nature.

 

you would have no way of Knowing as a 3D being, you can only ever be in the NOW.

 

 

I see. What about entropy and expansion?

 

what about them? they are subject to the same rules

we only experience our Own aspect of them.

[Osiris]

Aha, we have exposed an empiricist! What have you to say, you analog being you...

In the quantum world information gets "lost" apparently...

That doesn't happen to you guys though, does it? maybe you should stay in the deterministic universe (where it's safer)...

 

How does information being lost take away from determinism?

 

And by the way, I don't think it has been declared that indeterminism is true and determinism is false.

 

yeah' date=' more or less, that about sums it up quite nicely, you Would indeed seem like the Whole picture of you life all in one go, you would have to take a single Slice of any part of that picture to interact with you in that Particular Now.[/quote']

 

It's hard for me to agree with this idea. It reminds me of some feature in macromedia flash... have you been playing with that lately?

 

Ok... so, the problems I have with this is...

 

1. Why aren't we bumping into those other Us's from the future in front of us? I will answer this one... because they are in another "When" ... am I right?

 

Then 2. Each single instance/frame or whatever you want to call it, is frozen. This whole universe you are talking about is frozen, and there is no motion... no laws of physics in a single slice. So, my problem with this is, that when all of it is put together... what all the slices appear to be, is an illusion of a universe having a set of laws of physics.... but why? Does this imply a God ?

 

3. General Relativity tells us that in different parts of the universe, time is slower/faster than in other parts of the universe... what would this imply? Higher FPS(Frames per Second) or Slices per Second rates in some parts of the universe and lower in some?

 

4. If everything is frozen in each single slice... how do we think? Does our conciousness traverse each slice and that is the only single thing that does not appear as a blob? Or again, is each of our thoughts a mere illusion, and we are just made believed to be thinking, but we are just merely experiencing something that is being played out and written by some mysterious supreme being?

 

5. Occam's Razor would help us say safely that Time is not stored in different dimensions separately.

 

Time is just a measurement of movement. If only 2 statues that were hugging each other existed in this universe... in reality, there is no way for "them" to tell how much time is passing, because there is no movement... so there is no time.... but, if these statues moved apart, then moved closer again, then apart,... then there would be a way to measure time in this situtation.

[Fred56]

How does information being lost take away from determinism?

Here's the standard quantum view:

"Th[e] situation does not represent merely the technical impossibility of measuring both ...quantities simultaneously. It seems to represent the physical reality that a particle's momentum becomes progressively more objectively indeterminate as its position becomes more objectively determinate, and vice versa, at least in the 4-dimensional spacetime in which we observe its behaviour. If particles did not have this indeterminate aspect to their behaviour they could not act as they do and we would have a completely different reality." --Jae-Weon Lee, Jungjai Lee, Hyeong-Chan Kim 1 Sep 2007

And:

"It would seem more reasonable to describe all particles as real at the instant of their interaction, and that whilst they remain in flight as it were, they spread out into multiple form in the pseudospace of imaginary time, using the freedom of quantum indeterminacy." -Peter James Carroll

But:

Our key idea is this. The larger the cosmic horizon expands, the m[ore] information about vacuum disappears behind [it], because an observer out of the horizon sees an expanding spherical horizon eating up more and more space as it expands. This information loss (in the form of increase of dark entropy) at the horizon requires energy consumption according to ...Landauer’s principle. --Jae-Weon Lee, Jungjai Lee, Hyeong-Chan Kim 1 Sep 2007

I'm not sure that "information loss" does mean "determinacy loss"...(maybe I should have said "in the thermodynamic universe").

 

Comment: This is dark-energy research and all pretty speculative. Just did it to illustrate the contention that quantum information can be "lost" (maybe)...

We need to "stay" on topic and discuss what we mean by "quantum" or "logical" information.

Ipso facto.

[Norman Albers]

I like the knots or tangles idea. I have shown how, given an inverse-square electric field, and an available population of charge fluctuations from the vacuum, we can see they will respond and skew their population in ways that sustain, or are indeed the essence of, the electron. Starting with an inhomogeneous electrodynamic argument this seems to blend well with the ideas of the quantum vacuum.

[Fred56]

Norman, your 'free' electron model uses Kerr and KG math. I came across similar math in a PDF but about condensed states and bound electrons, but they are using the same math approach (I guess), I have had a go at finding this again, but unfortunately, even though it was in the last week, I have opened hundreds of PDFs...

It was definitely materials science and I think to do with surface polarisation of the electric field, maybe.

[Norman Albers]

Thanks, Fred56. I could send you some mind-blowing papers on the universe as a solid state. In the Kerr metric there are two intrinsic terms with dimension <length>, namely 'm' or "geometric mass" equal to GM/c^2 (this is Schw. radius) and then further, "geometric angular momentum" whose total is am=GJ/c^3. The units on both sides are (length)^2; m has units of length and so does 'a'. So 'a' is dimensionalized angular momentum per unit "mass". I am working with the distinct regimes. Given the dynamics I see, we can call electrons "zit instabilities". The questions involve characteristics. My MS was in plasma physics...Thanks, babe, don't stress but isn't this fun??? Since we're on the subject, I see I cannot expect a simple link between solenoid current circulation and the Ahoronov-Bohm phase "circulation", and the frame-dragging of a massive object. However, I expect these to be aspects of the "vacuum field", just as I am showing electrons to be polar organization, and gravitation to be non-polar organization, of the vacuum field. I just pulled out a far-field result (Reissner... thread) that I hope applies to the electron itself, where mass-energy is "small" but AM is high (angular momentum). This is not the case where a current is made to energize a solenoid. Those electrons are in the usual regime of low AM. It's the same damn vacuum doo-dah field, whatever you want to call it.

[Riogho]

You mean there are real time particles of some kind, that time is a fundamental property like mass or entropy?

 

What if I were to have a ball say, and I had inside of it a clock. And that clock ticks at every standard second depedning on how gravity effected it (it just ticked normall). And Ialso had a power source so that the clock would last a long time (i.e. a gerbil), and then I were to cover the ball in an anti-gravity paint, thus neutralizing gravities effect on the clock.

 

If I then were to pull the clock out 5 minutes (as viewed by me standing next to this ball covered in anti-gravity paint), what time would it be at? And would it be the 'standard' time?

[Fred56]

Norman: on the way to my understanding of quantum vs 'knowledge' of quantum states, I have encountered already dozens of 'Hamiltonian' space models, and am keeping ST and things at arms length for now.

My approach currently is something like: I don't need to be able to play the piano like Tschaikowsky, just being able to copy, say Elton John or Freddie is ok (but I do need to practise more), I figure there are plenty of pretty accomplished players (all over the web, who are kind enough to display their ideas), and I can think about joining an orchestra, you know, but just reading through the different scores is pretty absorbing for now. Especially if I can "get" how the conductor 'communicates' all that information -that's got to have something to do with our understanding...

 

Anyways, on with the practising.

Here's someone's take on our current models of the electron and its partner, the photon (my italics and bolds):

 

EM motions may involve some sort of distortion, rotation, or internal rearrangement of the ["]space cells["].

It has long been argued that space should have an extreme mechanical rigidity in order to transmit transverse light waves at c, and that this is incompatible with the passage of mass through space without resistance. This argument is a non-sequitor because the evidence demands only that space have electromagnetic, not mechanical rigidity.

Space is a unique substance--the ground of electromagnetics and mechanics. In our ignorance of space, we must ascribe to it whatever qualities are demanded by the evidence as long as these contain no contradiction. Since electromagnetic and hadronic/fluid dynamic motions are qualitatively different processes, it is possible, [or] it is necessary that the space can act with extreme rigidity to EM motions while, at the same time, flowing and moving frictionlessly into and around matter. This simple bi-partite theory of space works, as shown, to explain many phenomena.

What can we say about the motion of electrons in the space? The evidence indicates that it is qualitatively different from hadronic motion.

All matter is not alike. Electrons propagate in space like all EM waves, perhaps in the direction of their axis of symmetry. It has been noted experimentally that electrons cannot remain at rest. And whereas mass "glides" through space when motion is imparted to it, the de Broglie relation ...implies that the free electron has an axial structure and "pulls" itself through the space; higher frequency causes higher velocity RTS.

When an electron is accelerated by an EM field its waves are increased in number. The electron can be decelerated RTS only by emitting waves (Bremsstrahlung process). Hadronic or multiatomic matter does not have these characteristics.

The degree to which an electron resists a change in velocity in a magnetic field is its "EM inertia"; it is called "mass" only by analogy to hadronic inertia. Electrons accelerated RTS must radiate EM energy due to the inability of the space to instantaneously accommodate their changing EMfields.

This is the cause of radio and synchrotonic emission. Electrons cannot move at c RTS because a circulating wave-structure cannot move at the free-wave velocity. Thus the translation of free electrons at near-luminal velocities RTS in particle accelerators requires a mushrooming wave frequency which is mathematically represented by the 2o Doppler (Lorentz) equations.

Electrons bound to moving nuclei, on the other hand, [experience] a decrease in their frequency with increased translation velocity RTS. ...Because electrons are EM wave-structures and not space-consuming particles, their motion and frequency should be affected by the velocity and acceleration of the gravitational space flow; not by its acceleration only as with hadronic matter.

The idea that the "photon" is a particle flying through a void is contradicted by most of what we know about light, and it leads to innumerable contradictions whenever it is applied to any experimental setup. These contradictions are euphemistically referred to as "quantum paradoxes".

Of course, we can only "see" light when it interacts with particles (electrons) in our photodetectors and our own eyes, so it is understandable that positivists would try to treat light itself as flying particles that " cause" these particle events. They have thus not bothered to create a wave-based theory of these interactions. To correct this deficiency, I present this simple wave-based theory of the quanta that we measure with our photodetectors.

 

1) An electron, bound or free, is a structure composed of circulating EM waves. It is not a particle associated with a field; it is its [own] electric field.

2) The amplitude and spatial extension of the electron's waves are fixed by the electronic wave-structure. Therefore, its momentum is determined only by the frequency of its waves (de Broglie relation: [math] p=h\nu/c [/math] ).

3) Because of its structure, an electron can absorb or emit EM radiation only in discrete wave quanta which are of fixed length and amplitude--the frequency alone is variable. Planck's constant [math] h =p\lambda[/math] is thus an electron-structure constant; it relates the change in an electron's momentum to the wavelength of the EM quantum absorbed or emitted.

4) When a wave-quantum is emitted by an electron, it ceases to exist qua quantum. Its EM waves spread spherically from their origin and diminish in amplitude (inverse square law) like all free EM radiation.

5) In any space, there is significant radiation (man-made, thermal, radioactive, solar, Cosmic, etc.) which, though undetected, creates an energetic EM background.

6) An absorbed quantum is always the product of the interference of source and background waves. Thus the prediction of quantum absorptions requires a probabilistic calculus.

7) The emission of a quantum is induced by the action of the chaotic background radiation upon an electron.

 

Unlike electronic motion, the motion of bare protons and nuclei through the space is affected both by hydrodynamic and electromagnetic mechanisms. Their sphere of spatial entrainment does not encompass their associated EM waves. Thus at all velocities their EM wavelength is well described by the de Broglie relation. The fact that protons dissipate less energy in synchrotonic radiation than do electrons supports the theory of entrainment and demonstrates that space's resistance to their luminal velocity is both electromagnetic and fluid-dynamic. "

-H Lindner geocities.com

Mr Lindner appears to run into some problems with circular argument and definition. An electron is described by its wave-function, which describes its momentum (the wave defines another wave, or it describes itself). This appears to be a self-referencing electron --which exists and has the properties it has because our brain can 'define' them into existence using their existence! We can, of course, treat electrons as point-particles (of charge), and give them zero-volume too. This 'particle' model "works" quite well in some situations (like in the semiconductor industry)... But defining things in terms of waves then leads to: what is it that "waves", or moves? What medium is pertubed by these waves? And so on.

[Norman Albers]

Where's that beautiful picture of a burned-out circuitboard from last winter? (With the snake.)

[Fred56]

Must have been a different incarnation of 'Fred'. This one joined up here only a couple months back...

[fredrik]

Mr Lindner appears to run into some problems with circular argument and definition. An electron is described by its wave-function, which describes its momentum (the wave defines another wave, or it describes itself). This appears to be a self-referencing electron --which exists and has the properties it has because our brain can 'define' them into existence using their existence!

 

I think, making sense out of the seeming unvoidable "self reference" is the difficult trick we must pull off. What else do we reference?

 

You are referencing yourself all the time wether you want it or not. _You_ are asking questions, and you are seeking answers and this results in a modified question and a modified You, because obviously the old question lacks the same relevance once answered, becuase asking questions takes resources. You are evolving. During each cycle there is progress.

 

If one first considers a memory record of distinguishable events, then we induce from that a relative frequency, and the uncertainty of the supposed true probability is at best directly related to the memory size. Then how can this situation evolve further? Can we use part of the memory to store deviations from a stable probability? What is the most efficient transformation to use? Is the mathematica relation between postion and momentum (fourier transform) of ½ power of the distribution somehow selected by nature? If so, by what logic? I think there is an answer to this.... In the world of all possible relations, what is so special about the fourier one? or maybe it's not special at all? Is it just human arbitration at play? In what sense is the fourier relation so "fit", and why? This is one question that I need to solve to go further in my attempts. I got an idea last night and I'll try to let it mature a bit.

 

I think all strucutre are emergent from evolving self-references. What we need to understand is the consistent logic that allows that in an understandable way.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

It could eventuate that we need to abandon the concept of "something" that waves, and replace it with "the wave is".

Matter and energy don't have an oscillatory character, they are an oscillation. This fundamental 'behaviour' is what we see as mass (weight in a gravity field), and energy (photons).

Regarding Fourier's math, did you know the brain is capable (apparently) of FT of input 'signals' or whatever the internal representation is?

[fredrik]

Regarding Fourier's math, did you know the brain is capable (apparently) of FT of input 'signals' or whatever the internal representation is?

 

Are you referring to some particular study? If so, I have missed it and would be interested to see it.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

OK, try googling 'brain' and 'fourier'. There's apparently lots (try it with "signal processing" and 'neural') of sophisticated "algorithms" in the ol' noodle. But what level does it represent, and what else is going on? I'm starting to think (hehe) that we will need to build a brain from quantum devices before we can really begin to analyse, or maybe model, what's going on in there...