Quantum particles

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Harmony, Feb 11, 2014.

  1. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    I have just finished reading The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. The book is very clear and well written. They describe the idea of a quantum particle and here is an extract:

    Quote:
    build a theory of point-like particles such that those same particles are also spread out. This is not as impossible as it sounds: we can do it if we let any single particle be in many places at once.
    From now on, we will refer to these counterintuitive, spread out yet point like particles as quantum particles.
    End of quote

    I think this is a description of the currently accepted physical interpretation of quantum theory.

    This description of the physical world could be replaced by the idea of a real physical wave. The models using clocks throughout the rest of the book would equally well fit the idea of a wave distributed in space with the clocks representing the phase angle of the real physical wave.

    Consider what happens during the detection of a wave quantum (photon) at a detector screen in a light interference experiment. In the case of the quantum particle the wave that passes through the apparatus is considered to be a wave describing where the point particle is likely to be found. Then after passing through the apparatus, the point particle is more likely to be found at certain points on the detector screen in accordance with the interference pattern.

    On the other hand, if we take the assumption that it is a real physical wave that passes through the apparatus then we have to explain how a dispersed physical wave results in a single hit at a specific point on the detector screen. This has been ruled out in the past because it implies non-locality: A detection at point A on the screen has an instantaneous effect (i.e. faster than light) on preventing a detection at another point B on the screen.

    However, non-locality has been shown to be a real property of spacetime so we should not rule out this interpretation. We are giving the detector a more active role in the process of the specific atom of the detector interacting with the incoming wave to result in the detection.

    So if it is a real physical wave, what is the physical nature of the wave? The Spacetime Wave theory proposes that it is spacetime itself that is propagating the wave through the effect of a local variation in spacetime curvature as described by the General theory of relativity. This is not a material ether in spacetime but spacetime itself that is providing the medium for wave propagation.

    More details of the theory are provided at:
    https://www.academia.edu/5038836/The_Unification_of_Physics
    Richard
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Very good, Richard. I would say that the Spacetime Wave theory is heading in the right direction. The link covers a lot of territory, and so to endorse it would be with stipulations that would be unhelpful for me to state here and now, but the starting point would be the difference between the Copenhagen interpretation and the Hidden Variables interpretations of QM. Did I miss it in the link, or does Spacetime Wave theory simply offer reinterpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation instead of entertaining the Hidden Variables interpretations.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    I think you are referring to Bell’s theorem which states that:

    No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

    The Spacetime Wave theory accepts that non-locality is a real property which has been demonstrated by experiment (EPR and others) so there is no conflict with Bell’s theorem.

    In quantum mechanics, a local hidden variable theory is one in which distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous (or at least faster-than-light) effect on local ones. In the Spacetime Wave theory these distant events are assumed to have an instantaneous effect which is delivered through spacetime which is the medium for wave propagation. In the Spacetime Wave theory there are no hidden (unseen or unmeasureable) variables just spacetime and energy momentum which are measureable.

    The Spacetime wave theory differs greatly from the Copenhagen interpretation (see appendix 3)
    Complementarity: No wave particle duality, just wave quanta
    The Uncertainty Principle: Explained as due to the spread out nature of the spacetime wave
    The probability interpretation of the wavefunction: The entity is a real physical wave
    The collapse of the wavefunction: Replaced by the interaction of a wave quantum (photon) with a looped wave in spacetime (electron in atom)
    The correspondence principle: Applies also to the Spacetime Wave theory
    Richard
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    My take from reading of the link about Spacetime Wave Theory was correct then, and the theory accepts non-locality on the basis that there is more to spacetime than is detailed in The Theory of General Relativity (GR). It seems, and as you say is so, to be taking the position that the nature of the medium of spacetime accommodates the instantaneous action at a distance, which has long been the point of dispute between Copenhagen and Hidden Variables. Thank you for your explanation.

    Not to bring in extraneous BS, but my contemplations have led me to the alternative idea that the existence of the wave energy is hosted by the "medium of space", as opposed to the "medium of spacetime". The distinction, to me, is that the medium of space allows "continuous" wave action. Waves carry energy through the medium as they expand and intersect, and waves traverse the medium at a rate that is governed by the energy density of the local medium, which varies relative to the amount of wave energy traversing the medium in that locality.

    I have gone the route of describing a "medium of space" as opposed to the "medium of spacetime", for the vary reason that non-locality does not accommodate the wave energy expansion in a continuous manner at the quantum level, unless I am just not aware or understanding how. Is that a topic you are interested in discussing, because by redefining the medium of spacetime to be compatible with non-locality and the EPR experiments, you are characterizing action through the medium that I think might require the speed of light to be variable at different locations and in different frames. Am I way off on that?

    The concept that it is possible for a photon to be affected by an apparatus before it reaches the critical gate or splitter is one idea that allows me to wonder about the delayed choice quantum eraser results as they are generally interpreted, i.e. is the path of the photon altered based on the impression of wave energy being emitted by the apparatus itself, since the apparatus is composed of particles that are also immersed in the medium, and presumably composed of wave energy too.
     
  8. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Considering Harmony's OP and quantum_wave's response; well, I just hadda offer this consideration (Hey QW! Good t' see ya! Also, thank you, Harmony):

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/42821561/Total-Field-Theory

    Please read this at your leisure and let it be known here what you think. Also, 'they' say this kind of work is 'undoable w'out math', but, you know, 'they' have been wrong before.

    (Most of the required math is already done...)
     
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Richard,

    Did you by any chance come here to promote your paper or to get feedback on it?

    In general my remarks are critical, so you may not want to hear them.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Hi Kia, nice to see you back. We may both be on shakey ground when it comes to injecting our own ideas here on Harmony's thread, so I'll hold off on saying what I think about your on-line book, which I have already read and enjoyed reading. I will wait and see how Harmony's thread unfolds to see if it is appropriate to introduce our various ideas for comparison. However, if you want to carry on that discussion on my "Big Wait" thread, I would welcome hosting the discussion, or better yet, you could just start a thread with your link to "Total Field Theory" and I will give you my thoughts there.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2014
  11. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    Hello Quantum_Wave
    Yes, I am taking the position that spacetime accommodates instantaneous action at a distance but in a way that does not allow information transfer at faster than the speed of light. Also the instantaneous effect at a distance only occur when it is part of a process of interaction such as the interaction of a photon with an atom in a detector. The measurement of the spin of entangled particles is also an example of this effect. I see this as an inevitable result of the fact that the spacetime wave exists in quanta of energy and may be spread out over some distance meaning that when the wave quantum is detected or absorbed, that spread out energy must be located instantaneously at the detecting atom in the detector.

    Whether we consider waves in the medium of space or the medium of spacetime is a very interesting point for discussion. It is important to describe in terms of general relativity what we mean by waves in space and waves in time. General Relativity tells us that spacetime is curved in the presence of mass and energy and as a result we can see that a local variation of spacetime curvature can store and propagate energy at the speed of light. The equations of general relativity yield a solution describing wave propagation at the speed of light.

    The wave variation in the space dimension has the effect of causing the compression and expansion of space within the period of one wavelength. The reason why I think we need to include wave variation in the time dimension is that it provides an explanation for the property of electric charge.

    See Appendix 1 of https://www.academia.edu/5038836/The_Unification_of_Physics
    The basic idea is that a wave variation in the time dimension alters the rate of passage of time over the period of one wavelength in synchronisation with the wave variation in the medium of space. This means that the time the space spends expanded differs from the time of space compression leading to a net expansion or compression of space. This would cause two electrons to repel as they are seeking a lower energy state.

    This is an important part of the Spacetime Wave theory as it allows all fundamental forces to be consolidated into a single approach to force. See The nature of force in the link above.

    In some cases where there is no electric charge present (photon, neutron) there is no accompanying variation in the time dimension. In the case of the electron we have explained the origin of the property charge and shown that it is distributed (dispersed) throughout the looped spacetime wave and we should no longer think about point electric charge.
    Whether we have spacetime waves or space only waves, the wave exists in quanta of energy but can be considered to be dispersed and continuous. The wave energy only displays non-locality when it is interacting such as in a measurement. It does not exhibit non-locality during wave propagation.

    I don’t regard the speed of light under free propagation to be variable even in different frames of reference. The results of GR and SR apply on this point. Even though we take the view that the wave propagation takes place in a particlular frame of reference(i.e. the frame of reference of the medium of space) we will still measure the speed of light to be the same in all frames of reference. There is no contradiction here.

    The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment is an interesting one. Is the path of the photon altered based on the impression of wave energy being emitted by the apparatus itself? The position that I take on all such experiments is that we shouldn’t think of the photon as taking one of a number of possible paths through the apparatus. Instead we have to think about the wave quantum taking all possible paths through the apparatus until at some point a detection occurs which absorbs the distributed spacetime wave to a single point.

    There is really no delayed choice involved. The apparatus is set up, the wave quantum passes through all possible paths of the apparatus as conditioned by the set up and a detection occurs. Depending on the configuration of the apparatus there will be interference or not depending on the available routes through the apparatus.
    Richard

    Aqueous Id
    I would very much like to have your comments even though they may be critical.
    Richard
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    That is a good explanation, which I interpret to mean that the spread out quanta representing the photon collapse to a point so that the sum of its energy can be detected and either partially or fully absorbed by the electrons in the detector. But why that collapse must be instantaneous is not yet understood. If the quanta in the photon are in the form of a wave (or multiple waves) within the medium of spacetime, and the advancing surface of that wave encounters the corresponding advancing wave (or multiple waves) of the electron, then the point of intersection of the photon wave and the electron wave will have a specific location in space, and that location will not be at a point at the middle of the sphere of photon wave, or at the middle of the sphere of the electron quanta. Therefore, there is an alternative explanation to the instantaneous collapse of the photon wave. That alternative explanation is that the transfer of energy has a start point and a duration, and during that duration the two converging waves (the photon quanta and the electron quanta will be progressing from their point of intersection, and that progression will be characterized by an overlap or sharing of the space in which the intersection proceeds to an overlap. Why wouldn't there be a duration associated with that progression, instead of an instantaneous leap to a point?
    Yes, and understood. It is important to present Spacetime Wave Theory within the context of spacetime. But the reifications of doing that are that non-locality, a quantum concept, becomes compatible with GR, a macro level theory, with a path to unification between QM and GR being proposed. If that statement is somewhat true, then I can inject another of my contemplations. The spacetime universe is finite and had a beginning. Do you agree those are implied stipulations that accompany GR? If so, the finite nature of time and space are important "axioms" or stipulations of Spacetime Wave Theory, and that differentiates the theory from any cosmology that predicts infinities in space and time.
     
  13. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    I agree that the process of the electron absorbing a photon could have a short duration but the effect of a detection at point A on the screen having been completed must instantaneously prevent another point B on the screen from also recording a detection. I don’t visualise the photon as collapsing to a point in space. Rather that the distributed wave of the photon interacts with the distributed wave of the electron resulting in the electron moving up to a more excited state and absorbing some or all of the energy of the photon.

    Regarding the point of whether the spacetime universe is finite or infinite I would like to deal with this point in the Big Wait thread.
    Richard
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I don't expect to come to a meeting of the minds to the extent that you would be able to change the word "could", to "would", saying that absorption would have a duration. In my preferred "hidden variables" world, it "would" have a duration. And it follows in a wave theory universe that the motion of waves in the medium of space and/or the medium of spacetime from point A to point B always has a duration, so no instantaneous action occurs, or so I say

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Granted, shorter and shorter durations quickly become imperceptible, and not only cannot be measured, but can only be hypothesized, which is where I put the concept.
    Yes, I agree, if what you mean is that the physical event to record a point on the screen has a duration, and the next event that would cause a point on the screen requires an additional duration since the electron responsible for the first point is not physically able to absorb and produce the next point instantaneously; it takes time to equalize and reset to ready ... sorry, I know I get into detail that is hard to follow, but it makes sense in my view.
    Good, good.
    Excellent description. Since you use what I consider a very appropriate term when taking about a wave intersection, i.e. "disturbed wave", I have a question. Are you comfortable with the idea that the photon wave and the electron wave interfere with each other to cause the mutual disturbance in the overlap space?

    If I assume the answer is yes, then can we go into a strange hypothetical situation for a second? Suppose there is empty space, unoccupied by wave energy, except for a photon wave and an electron wave, and they are separated by a distance of empty space. Regardless of the size of the separation, wouldn't it follow that they will interfere with each other at some point in between? (I'm assuming spherical expansion of each particle's wave energy.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2014
  15. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    I would be happy with 'would have a duration'. The key point that I was getting at in all of this was that the idea of a real physical wave has been ruled out in the past (in the 1920s) because of the assumed faster than light effect taking place between point A and B on the screen. What I am saying is that this objection is invalidated by the observed physical effects noted in other experiments (EPR) where instantaneous effects are noted.

    In my post I did say distributed wave rather than disturbed wave. What I mean by that is a wave which is not to be considered as a point particle at any time. Referring to the quantum particle idea from the referenced book, the wave function describes the likelihood of finding a particle at a specific point in space and that same profile in space would apply to the real physical wave. So we can use QM to describe the real physical wave distribution. The idea then of an interaction between a photon and an electron wave is different from the QM idea of the collapse of the wavefunction into a point particle which then is detected at a particular point on the detector. The precise physics of the process whereby the wave energy of the photon adds energy to the wave of the electron is yet to be found but it is clear that a photon wave of insufficient energy to move the electron up to the next available energy level is not going to have any effect. Furthermore, the idea that both a photon and an electron are spacetime waves makes it a realistic proposition that the wave energy of the photon can add to that of the electron.

    Richard
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Good explanation. I am sorry about misreading the earlier post, but I think you picked up on my error and understood what I was saying. Am I right that we seem to agree that the wave nature of particles is present at all times?

    Additionally, do you envision the distributed wave to be expanding, and if so, is the expansion spherical until it encounters another wave of sufficient energy to interfere with its expansion?
     
  17. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    I agree that the wave nature of particles applies at all times. In terms of the progress of the distributed wave I think the best approach is to rely on the wavefunction of quantum mechanics to describe the distributed nature of the wave. The maths of QM works extremely well but it is the interpretation, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation that I have difficulty with. If the wavefunction describes the likelihood of finding the quantum particle at a particular point in space then when we talk about a real physical wave in spacetime then the amplitute and the phase angle of the wave must be related to the QM wave function.

    In the case of a electron bound to an atom, this is considered as a looped spacetime wave in the Spacetime wave theory. This wave remains associated with the atom and does not lose energy except when there is a step change in the energy resulting in the emission of a photon. The spacetime wave cannot lose energy continuously since it is constrained to have an integer number of wavelengths in the looped wave.

    https://www.academia.edu/5038836/The_Unification_of_Physics
    https://www.academia.edu/5019908/The_nature_of_mass

    Richard
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Two excellent links to your work, which I admire and appreciate. The complexity of the effort to reconcile GR and QM, and to do so with an internally consistent model that is not contrary to scientific observations and data is not lost on me. You are covering a lot of territory, and as you go, you seem to do so in a logical sequence of steps. Following the links is an experience in witnessing the step by step development of your model. To be sure, the work is well described, and the direction that you are taking is clear. Thank you for explaining the steps and the relationships to the consensus model, as will as the points of departure necessary to move along a path of unification.

    I followed the example of the electron bound to an atom, and I can relate the concept of a looped spacetime wave to the concept of orbitals. Presumably the loop has a shape that is determined by the interaction of the all of the particles in the atoms and molecules in the bound group of particles, much like the orbitals occupied by electrons in the particle model would be if one were to take the associated particles into account (admittedly an impossible task of quantification, but not an impossible thought.)

    If the wave nature of particles applies at all times, and the energy quanta associated with each particle at a given point in time can be said to be the current energy of that particle, then the issue of the relationship between the occupied space and the energy level must be something that you have considered. I won't bore you with my scenarios about expanding particles and the likelihood that particles expand to fill lower energy density space between them. That kind of thought experiment is better discussed on my thread. It seems preferable that this thread be a place for you to defend your model, and you are doing a good job.

    The hurdle of having a concept where all space has some energy in it at all times, and that point by point, that energy fluctuates as particles interact in that space, then you seem to be departing from the intentions of the QM. You have it both ways, i.e. acknowledging that we cannot know both the location and energy of a particle, and yet your model says that the particle is always present and always has some specific amount of energy quanta. I think you would find it hard to reconcile that with the Copenhagen interpretation because it is precisely what I am modeling as a perfect description of a hidden variables interpretation.
     
  19. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    Thank you for your comments in the first paragraph which are most welcome. I am not part of any academic institution so I do not have a peer review group apart from this forum and others.

    I imagine the shape of the looped spacetime wave to be essentially circular or elliptical around the nucleus of the atom but with a distribution of energy either side of the effective radius which diminishes with distance. The wave in the loop is travelling at the speed of light which applies to all wave progression in the medium of spacetime. The influence of the wave extends either side of the effective radius.

    The exact way in which the wave oscillates has yet to be determined. We can have spacetime wave oscillation in the direction of travel of the wave in the loop or in the directions at right angles to the direction of travel. The property of spin could be attributed to wave oscillation in one of two possible helical paths around the direction of travel of the wave. We have already covered the idea of the charge of the electron being attributed to the wave disturbance in the time dimension in synchronisation with the space curvature wave.

    The electron would seek to maintain its circular or elliptical shape as this has the minimum energy. It is the minimum energy concept which explains the stability of the electron. Moving out to a larger radius would require an input of energy and moving to an infinite radius (i.e. breaking the loop) would require an even greater input of energy. The electron stays bound to the nucleus because of the positive charge of the nucleus which creates an effective compression of space and the negative charge of the electron which results in an effective expansion of space. The electron finds its position as the lowest energy state consistent with the influence of the nucleus and the other electrons. The electron waves cannot merge as the effect of the negative charge keeps them apart. In free space an electron and positron can merge and result in a photon emission (i.e. a non-looped wave) in the gamma ray part of the spectrum.

    The relationship between the occupied space and the energy level I would understand as follows. The electrons of a particular energy level have the same effective radius and align themselves around the nucleus to maximise the distance of separation of the electrons. As more electrons are added in the current shell the space occupied by these electrons in this shell becomes full. The only way that further electrons can be added is in a new shell with a larger radius and at the larger radius there is room for more electrons. The logic is similar to that used in the Pauli exclusion principle but the nature of the electron is a spacetime wave not a quantum particle in orbit.

    For clarification as I am not sure if I have understood your final paragraph of the post: The Spacetime wave theory does not support the idea of quantum foam or vacuum energy or a sea of negative energy electrons. The Spacetime wave theory describes particles as a disturbance of spacetime and in the absence of any particles we just have undisturbed space with no spacetime fluctuations. The particle such as the electron always exists as a spacetime wave and we can theoretically know by calculation, knowing an initial state, exactly the momentum and position of the wave. It is just that when we come to make a measurement, the outcome of the experiment is affected by the dispersed nature of the wave. So in an interference experiment we cannot know in advance, when the experiment is run one particle at a time, exactly which part of the spacetime wave will result in a detection.

    So the Copenhagen interpretation would say that the location and momentum of a particle has an uncertainty as described by the uncertainty principle. The Copenhagen interpretation would say that the particle does not exist between observations but the wavefunction, which is precisely specified, details the likelihood of finding the partilce at any point in space during a measurement.

    The Spacetime wave theory would say that the uncertainty principle is not needed because there is no such thing as a point particle and the uncertainty of outcome is due to the spacetime wave nature of the particle.

    Richard
     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    You're welcome for that. The approach that you have taken and the documentation and presentation of your conclusions shows that your are surely an enthusiast who takes science seriously. If you are like me, you believe that more progress has to be made toward reconciliation between the major theories. Keep it up.
    That acknowledges that the space occupied by particles is connected to the energy level of the particles in that space. Have you considered the greater energy density environment within which particles function, and thought out how the energy levels of the particles in a given larger space equalizes itself among the particles in that space, with each particle being elevated or declining in energy in a consistent pattern, as the energy level of the greater environment fluctuates? Is there a means of exchange of energy quanta among particles in the space that makes possible the trend toward equalization of energy levels particle by particle across a larger space.

    My last paragraph that you mention below was addressing the nature of energy in space, and how that concept might mean that there is energy at all points, i.e. no empty space. If all space is occupied by wave energy that is traveling through space, then each point in space has continually changing energy density. That position is in line with the concept that there are equations that govern the motion and interaction of wave energy at all points (though we don't know the equations at that infinitesimal level). Those equations, while not quantified or fully expressed, would have variables among the terms that it would take to express them. The Copenhagen interpretation is that there is no such continuous presence of energy, and so there are no missing equations, and therefore no hidden variables (according to my understanding of that interpretation).
    I like the way you put that.
    That is consistent with your model obviously, but my impression is that those concepts fall nicely into the hidden variables interpretations, and you have decided not to go there. Why not?
     
  21. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    Thank you for your positive comments.

    On the subject of energy density which I take to mean the spacetime wave energy present per unit volume, I see limitations in the idea of the equalisation of energy density in a larger space. The energy is present in the form of protons, neutrons and electrons and these cannot increase or decrease their energy in a continuous way.

    I do not see the need to imagine that all of space is occupied by wave energy that is travelling through space. There are of course photons of various energies travelling through space which we can detect but I think you are proposing some hidden wave energy present.

    Regarding the idea of hidden variables, I have avoided assuming the existence of physical properties that could not be measured. As mentioned in the unification paper, I am proposing that the variables to be used in the Spacetime Wave theory are spacetime and energymomentum. However, looking at the topic again I see that any theory that proposes that there is a deeper reality underlying the quantum mechanics formalism is considered (by the physics community) to be a hidden variables theory.

    Source wikipedia on Hidden Variable Theories: Although determinism was initially a major motivation for physicists looking for hidden variable theories, nondeterministic theories trying to explain what the supposed reality underlying the quantum mechanics formalism looks like are also considered hidden variable theories.

    However, earlier on in the same reference it states: The question arises whether there might be some deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics, to be described by a more fundamental theory that can always predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty.

    The Spacetime Wave theory indicates that the spacetime wave nature of everything means that we cannot predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty. All we can do is consider the distribution of the spacetime wave with reference to the detection system and predict the probability of a particular outcome. In this sense the Spacetime Wave theory is non-deterministic and nature itself appears by experiment to be non-deterministic.

    So my preference is to avoid consideration of hidden variables and simply state how the spacetime waves interact by reference to experiment and the maths of QM together with the interpretation of the Spacetime Wave theory.

    Richard
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    The elephant in the room is the difference in how we characterize what occupies space, i.e. the medium of space that carries energy via continuous waves vs. the medium of spacetime where energy is in discrete increments. There isn't really any point in exchanging questions and answers unless we address the pesky elephant.

    It is oftern said that time slows down or speeds up in space time, but it depends on there being two frames. An observer in either frame would not see any change in the rate of time passing, but a comparison of their clocks would show the clocks are measuring time at different rates. You and I, therefore, must have different explanations for that phenomenon since your explanation is particular to spacetime, and my explanation is not.

    You might relate it to time dilation caused by a difference in relative motion through spacetime, and you could present equations that transform the time scale to quantify the observed dilation. Those same equations might break down at tiny distances. I would, on the other hand, equate the dilation to the relative energy density of the environment where the measurements of the rate of time's passing is performed by the individual clocks. The particles in the clocks function slower as the energy density increases. If a clock moves relative to a clock a rest, time will slow down on that clock because the energy density of the moving clock is greater, based on the fact that the energy density in the direction of motion increases.

    Your equations are quantifying the dilation just like mine would, i.e. the resulting dilation would be the same. So I accept the mathematics of spacetime as the best we can to to quantify the difference in what the two clocks show, it is just that in my view of cosmology, the cause is different.

    These two contrary viewpoints will always result in me appreciating your perspective and rigor, and at the same time I am burdened with the perspective that spacetime does not fit with my view of cosmology. If you find it not-meaningful to discuss preconditions to the beginning of expansion of our observable universe, or to envision space outside the spacetime event horizon, then our endeavors to sort out how the universe works will find little common ground. I am the one who is reaching beyond the horizon, as well as deep into the depths of the locality, and you are the one who is satisfied to find answers within the spacetime horizon, and with the view that motion entails energy transfer in discrete spacetime increments. I see no fault in either perspective, but they are as incompatible as the different interpretations of QM.
     
  23. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    Hello Quantum Wave. I prepared this post offline before reading your post so I hope you will forgive me for pressing on with this train of thought.

    I would like to move the topic of discussion on to the relationship of the Spacetime Wave theory to the Standard Model of particle physics. In the papers, I have made reference to areas where the Spacetime Wave theory and the standard model are different in terms of explaining such things as mass, charge and fundamental forces. I have done this by positioning the Spacetime Wave theory as a separate descriptive framework from SM. SM appears to be self consistent within its own context.

    In Appendix 4 of the paper:
    https://www.academia.edu/5038836/The_Unification_of_Physics
    the description of the proton and the neutron is not compatible with the idea of quarks. So the position I have to take regarding the standard model of particle physics is that it is a classification system for the properties of actual particles which are detected in particle accelerators.

    The standard model is not complete in the sense that it can not explain the nature or structure of the elementary particles such as electrons and quarks which are considered as fundamental. Also the property charge is just considered to be a fundamental property with no further explanation.

    The ideas underlying the Spacetime Wave theory and SM are fundamentally different in that in SM everything reduces to particles and in the Spacetime Wave theory everything reduces to waves. It is problematical to claim a theory of unification which is incompatible with the standard model of particle physics because SM is so widely accepted. The way forward must be to try to explain the experimental results which are found and explained in the classification system of SM by using the Spacetime Wave theory.

    It is not hard to see (in the context of the Spacetime Wave theory) that the particles found in the collision of high speed protons in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) would result in the formation of other looped and non-looped waves in spacetime. Where the resulting particle has mass it is a looped spacetime wave and where it has zero rest mass it will be a non-looped wave or photon travelling at the speed of light. It is also reasonable to expect that some of these looped spacetime waves will be unstable and decay very rapidly into other particles which are detected.

    The difficult part in reconciling the Spacetime Wave theory with SM will be to understand why the classification system of SM works as it does to produce the experimental results regarding detected particles. How is it that all the particles found in experiments appear to be a combination of the elementary particles of SM? The full set of possible particles which have been detected in particle accelerators would need to be modelled individually as looped spacetime waves and hopefully the pattern of properties would emerge as per the classification system of SM.

    This approach would supplant the standard model as an explanatory framework and go down to another more fundamental level, explaining mass, charge and forces in a more fundamental way. In this approach it would be necessary to discard the idea of a quark having a real independent existence and to discard the idea of a Higgs field giving mass to other particles as the approach to the property mass is already well covered in the Spacetime Wave theory. The existence of the Higgs boson which has been detected in the LHC represents one more looped spacetime wave which needs to be considered.

    Richard
     

Share This Page