An Experiment to Determine Subatomic Particle Structure from Quantum Interference

July 20, 2019

UPDATE 19/08/02:  further analysis shows that the proposed experiment may be harder to do than I thought.  The 1.1 nanometer electron wavelength is for a static electron–unlike photons, fermions have a wavelength that varies as their kinetic energy.  To do the experiment, the electrons and positrons have to have some velocity, so the reduced wavelength and thus the experiment’s sensitivity to the different interference patterns may be out of reach of today’s technology.   If we could propel the electron at very low speeds and still discern a quantum interference pattern, the experiment should still give us a distinguishable decision on the electron’s internal structure.  It’s a little like using measurable quantum interference waves as a tomography scan to observe internal details too small to directly project to a detector.  Unfortunately, now secondary effects such as the atomic effects of the barrier slit will start to predominate and the experiment will become more difficult to do and perhaps less conclusive.

It’s interesting to note the proposed electron structure in context of an atomic orbital.  The first s orbital in a hydrogen atom has an energy of 13.6 eV, or a wavelength of about .46 nanometers.  But the measured size of the atom including s orbital is around 1/20 of a nanometer, so quantum interference due to the electron is 10 times too big to determine orbital path.  Suppose we use the proton wavelength as an interference wave–it does roughly match the orbital radius.  But now the problem is that the proton is a different particle than the electron, it will not quantum interfere!  In any event, the Schroedinger equation derivation of orbital path uses electromagnetic charge, or photon exchange, so quantum interference can’t be the cause of orbitals.

Now translate down to the much smaller size of the electron itself.  These simple calculations show a scaling problem: quantum interference seems really unlikely to confine the electron wave to a soliton that is much smaller than the hydrogen orbital path, and smaller still than the electron wavelength.  We could hypothesize that at the electron size, a dipole would orbit at relativistic speeds to allow very high frequency quantum interference waves to confine the orbit path, but this isn’t really anything other than pure speculation.

In spite of all this, quantum interference analysis should still be a theoretical basis for the electron structure experiment–the scale problem doesn’t invalidate the strategy for inferring internal structure.  We just have to find a way it can be done in a practical lab environment.  If it could be done, that would just be the beginning of learning how to use measurable quantum interference patterns to probe deep into the structure of all subatomic particles.  I see an analogy in the X-ray crystallography method.

Separate from all that–to me it’s an interesting curiosity that quantum interference should produce a soliton wave solution.  I wonder if this actually does show up in nature in some different way that I don’t see yet.

end of UPDATE

In previous posts, I have proposed several ways to determine subatomic particle structure using quantum interference.  One such structure question is whether the electron is a monopole that oscillates or twists in place, or is a dipole consisting of two nodes that orbit around each other.  I came up with a tilted two-slit experiment that should allow finding which structure matches reality.

However, one problem with this tilted two-slit experiment described in the previous post is the need to figure out what interference pattern corresponds to the monopole (concentric circle) and dipole (spiral) wave patterns.  While some computation or calibration could be done to make the experiment work, I realized there is a much better way to do this.

With a great Aha moment, I realized nature has already provided us with the means to distinguish the two cases.  There are four particles including the electron that will quantum interfere:  the spin-up electron, the spin-down electron, the spin-up positron, and the spin-down positron.  If the wave pattern derives a spiral from the dipole case, the four cases will spin in opposite direction spirals relative to the particle moment.   If the particles derive a concentric circle pattern from a monopole, you should get the same wave pattern regardless of particle type.

There will be two pairs of particles with the same wave pattern (the spin-up electron with the spin-down positron–and the spin-down electron with the spin-up positron).  Set the two-slit apparatus tilt for Pi/2 phase offset tilt off vertical  (I computed this tilt as offset_angle  = arccos(1/4 * 1.1 nm / 7 nm), or about 2.5 degrees, for a 7 nanometer two-slit barrier).  Now shoot sets of particles from one or the other pair at the barrier (see the figure).tilted_two_slitIf you get two distinct interference patterns, one for each pair, the conclusion is unmistakable–the particles have a spiral wave pattern and form from a dipole.  If the pattern is the same for all particles, they have concentric circle wave patterns and form from an oscillating or twisting monopole.

Anybody want to make me a 7 nanometer two-slit barrier apparatus?   🙂

Agemoz

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Determining Subatomic Particle Characteristics from its Quantum Interference

July 18, 2019

Edit update 190719: Addendum added see below–another possible experiment

Every subatomic fermion (non exchange particle such as an electron) has a specific mass and hence wavelength, and thus will produce quantum interference with another particle of the same type or with itself.  This quantum interference will cause particle motion to be redirected, for example to specific locations (interference pattern) on a target detector in the two slit experiment.  It seems logical that studying the quantum interference effects of a particle will lead to insights about the particle structure.

In the previous post, I showed how the quantum interference pattern could be used to make a guess about particle internal structure.  It could form a soliton if the particle were a loop whose radius matched the wavelength of the particle.  But, if the particle radius is much smaller than its characteristic wavelength, this doesn’t work and the particle cannot be constructed using quantum interference.  I showed how a ring structure could produce the tiny point collision signature but still produce waves with the particle’s characteristic wavelength.  If we were able to determine if quantum interference forms electron structure, we could answer the size and topology question for once and for all.

But there’s more we can get from quantum interference.  If an electron is truly infinitesimally small, much smaller than the electron characteristic wavelength, we will have no way to determine internal structure by experimental observation.  But we can use its quantum interference pattern, whose characteristic wavelength scale is much much larger, to indirectly figure some things out.

For example, one great question to ask is whether the electron is a monopole oscillating or twisting in place– or consists of two nodes, a positive and a negative node spinning in a dipole orbit.  As far as I know, there is no experimental or theoretical work that determines which is reality for any subatomic particle.  There is no possible way to distinguish these two cases directly if the electron is infinitely small, which is the current physicist consensus.  But these two cases will have different characteristic wave patterns!  The monopole case will produce waves as concentric circles about the center.  The dipole will produce a spiral and will have a radiating peak and zero path.

monopole_down

monopole oscillates in place

monopole_up

monopole oscillates in place

monopole_pattern

monopoles produce a concentric circle pattern

dipole

dipole structure in orbit

interference_well

dipole spiral interference pattern

Admittedly, conducting an experiment that observes quantum interference in this distance range will be problematic at best.  But there’s one more important difference between the patterns generated by monopoles and dipoles that should help:  in a monopole particle, the phase of waves emitted both toward and away from the particle will be the same–but the phase of of spiral waves will be different by Pi/2 (90 degrees).

This characteristic wavelength should be in reach of (very) sophisticated observation apparatus–the electron wavelength, called the deBroglie wavelength, is 1.22 e^-9 meters.   The wavelength of visible light is in the range of 400 to 700 e^-9 meters, but energetic X-rays fall into range of this characteristic wavelength. If we could match the characteristic wavelength with an X-ray emitter (using electron-positron annhiliation, perhaps?), we would see observable interference that would either be the same or different on the leading and trailing particle wave paths, leading to either a monopole or dipole determination.  If such an experiment could be made practical, we should be able to get a significant clue of the internal electron structure even if the electron is infinitesimally tiny!

Do you see why I think quantum interference could be as powerful a measuring tool for science as, perhaps, the LIGO experiment?

Agemoz

Edit Addendum:  It occurred to me that there might be a better way to detect whether electrons have a monopole or dipole structure using a diffraction grating.  Silicon processes for fabricating computer chips are at 7 nanometers–the width of 6 or 7 electron wavelengths, so we are within reach of fabricating an experimental setup for electron emitters.  When computing the expected interference pattern in a two-slit experiment, Huygen’s principle is used.   This principle conforms to the concentric circle pattern that comes from a monopole.  Unfortunately, the current typical two-slit experiment has the barrier device (with two slits) oriented perpendicular to the emitted electron’s path and will not be able to determine which interference pattern is present. The dipole structure will give the same answer as the monopole case, because the wave pattern is sampled by the two-slit apparatus at the same phase point for either of the slits.

However, if the two-slit apparatus is tilted from the normal to the electron trajectory, you will have one of the slits slightly time and space delayed from the other, and now the resulting interference pattern will be dependent on the phase shift that occurs when you encircle the particle.  In other words, the spiral will be distinguishable from the concentric structure, and this experimental setup should point to either the monopole or dipole structure.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Inferring Subatomic Particle Structure From their Quantum Interference Patterns

July 13, 2019

In the previous post, I showed a proven theorem where classical Newtonian particles composed of instantaneous phase waves must observe special relativity.  If we assume the converse is true, it becomes worthwhile to deconstruct subatomic particles, which obey the principles of special relativity, as some construction of instantaneous phase waves.

Fortunately, quantum experiments such as the two-slit experiment and the Aspect experiment already confirms this principle:  there is good evidence there are instantaneous phase waves in particles because of the experimentally observed noncausal decoherence of entangled particles.  In addition, the two-slit experiment also shows that this interference is noncausal–you can cover one of the slits in the time it takes for a particle to travel through slits to a target detector, and instantaneously alter the possible particle detection sites.  Assuming that particles are formed by nothing other than waves has significant justification, both due to experimental observation and because such particles must obey special relativity according to the theorem described in my paper (see previous posts).

So–if we assume that particles form only from composite collections of waves, can we infer from the experimentally observed quantum interference patterns what the subatomic particles must look like mathematically?

There’s a lot of reasons we might be tempted to describe electrons with a Compton radius size, but any serious physicist won’t believe such claims, here’s why.  Subatomic particles are most often measured and examined in collision experiments.  The actual collision can’t be observed in most cases, but the resulting particle trajectories and masses can be, and allows us to determine things like size, internal composition, and angular momentum of the colliding particles.  One nice way to determine internal composition is to measure elasticity.  If you hit a billiard cue ball against another billiard ball, it might bounce right back at you, whereas if you throw a water balloon at another water balloon, the whole mess of water and balloon fragments will head more or less in the direction of your throw.  In other words, we can gain a lot of information about the inelasticity of a particle by the angular distribution of the post-collision particles.  All experiments show that electrons are perfectly elastic and are measurably infinitely tiny.  Hard as a billiard ball and too small to measure any diameter.

Here’s the problem–if you test the hypothesis that particles can form group wave constructs affected by quantum interference effects, we can draw conclusions based on knowing that the particles must be composed of instantaneous phase waves.  These waves don’t have to lie in a plane–for example, waves that lie on a twisting plane obey the same Fourier composition rules as planar waves.  I hypothesized in the previous several posts that waves form a couple of opposing delta functions that follow the peaks of the self-generated quantum interference wave pattern.  We already know from the two-slit experiment that quantum interference will redirect a particle path onto the peaks of the quantum interference that results from passing the waves through two slits.  It is thus very reasonable to assume that the right setup of quantum interference would create a circular loop, and I show that in the previous two posts.

However, this wont work if the two poles of our particle are infinitesimally spaced, that is if the particle has no significant size such as a Compton radius.  The poles are too close to be able to fall into the quantum interference peak locations that guide them into a loop ring!

interference_path_size

The only way–and it seems like a tenable proposition–is to say that the electron is not an infinitesimal point, but rather, a ring whose axial diameter is infinitely small.  Now the collision cross-section is the same as the point particle and you should get the same experimentally observed angular distribution of post-collistion particles–provided that the ring does not collapse–that it is totally inelastic.  I proposed this to an experienced particle physicist, but he said that’s not possible–there should be observable characteristics of a ring that are different than for a point particle.  I tried to argue that there’s a better argument for a ring than a point, because a ring has a definite angular moment (electrons have an experimentally measurable angular moment) but a point as defined as such does not.  I see a strong case for my proposition from the quantum interference soliton point of view, the angular moment, the Planck’s constant uncertainty relation (which says that something smaller than the Compton radius cannot meet the position-momentum Heisenberg uncertainty relation), and many others.  As you can imagine, I didn’t get very far–the response was NO, subatomic particles are measurably infinitesimal points!  And that’s all he would discuss.

collision_elasticity

Regardless–it appears clear to me that examining the experimentally observed quantum interference pattern of a particle should tell us new information about what forms the particle.  Is quantum interference responsible for particle structure?  If it is, the particle has to be a lot bigger than an infinitesimal point, yet have the collision signature of a point.  The only answer I see is the ring hypothesis with an infinitesimal axial radius.  Otherwise, I will have to conclude that quantum interference must be refuted as a candidate for forming solitons, and hence, subatomic particles, from waves.

Agemoz

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Noncausal Characteristics of Quantum Interference Solitons

July 6, 2019

In physics I fully understand the need to filter out the crackpots and their onslaught of verbiage, whether wrong, vague, incomplete, or meaningless.  Real science is built on a very large collection of proven concepts–if any component is wrong but makes it into the collection, trust in the system as a whole is damaged.  If you look at Arxiv.com, there’s some junk that somehow got in there, and that means you need some system of qualifying what you see so you can trust what you use in your own work.  To avoid this, new papers submitted to journals always require verification by qualified reviewers.

The problem I am having is that I tried very hard not to be a crackpot, I think i proved something important, wrote a paper that got good qualified pre-reviews, and submitted 5 times and got 5 rejections.  Nobody looked at the proof and said I did something wrong, and nobody showed me why my conclusion was wrong.  Two of the journals were probably not the right target for the paper (this), but the other three did not see value in what I did.  The trouble is–I still think the idea is important, and that the proof is valid (confirmed by the pre-reviews).

Basically, in the paper, I proved that if a classical Newtonian particle is formed by a Fourier composition of a specific class of waves, the particle must obey the principles of special relativity.  The class of waves is simple–a phase change across any wave component is noncausal, that is, instantaneous across the length of the wave, but the rate of change of that phase is causal, or limited to some maximum change per unit of time such as the speed of light.

To me, this is incredibly important because it suggests the converse–if something obeys the principles of special relativity, it must *only* be composed of instantaneous phase waves.  I haven’t proven the converse–working on it–but if this is true, then this opens a big door into what causes the existence of subatomic particles.  A logical analysis of the two-slit experiment and the entangled particle decoherence behavior comes from the paper’s derivation (discussed in previous posts).  It also shows how a soliton (stable construct) could emerge due to quantum interference (see the last two posts).  And now, it shows specifically how the waves have to exist in the first place–very specifically showing what oscillations form the waves and where causality comes from.  From this, I see how the concepts of space and time might emerge out of something like the Big Bang.

You see, if a delta function of some sort is present in 3D space, and it is composed of these instantaneous phase waves, you *cannot* see the delta function do this:

single_spiral

The waves are instantaneous!  Here you see variations in space (and time, if you were to make a movie of the particle).  But that’s not possible with one delta function–it does not oscillate.  Oh, ok, no problem, handwave it and make it oscillate from a + to – peak and back again.  You *still* would not see this first figure–the wave phases are instantaneous, but this picture has variations in space and time.  Even if you put two of these delta functions near each other, one that is Pi/2 out of phase with the other, you would see something like this, where the two delta functions oscillate up and down out of phase with each other (this shows the Pi/4 halfway point):double_deltaThere are no waves here, because the sum of the delta functions can never produce anything but a plane, no matter how fast they oscillate in time.  I realized that now I think I know why electrons are not deBroglie circular waves with a Compton radius size–they have to be infinitely small.  The waves shown in the first figure have to result from a non-causal sum of a rotating and infinitesimally spaced, oscillating pair (or more) of delta functions.  Space and time for a particle emerge in a non-causal way from the orbiting pair of oscillating delta functions to produce the spiral waves shown in the first figure.  Only then could you see non-causal spiral waves emerge.  There’s other work I’ve done that shows that the delta functions must reflect some sort of twisting vector field in R3 + I  (NOT an EM field vector, those are photons).  Along the same lines, I’m sure you’ve seen the recent experimental observation of twist momentum found in photons.  Can you see why I see so much exciting work emerging from the simple theorem proof I describe in the paper?  Frustrating not to be able to publish it–I think I have something there, but can’t convince anybody else of it!  And until someone else sees the validity of what I’ve done, there’s no science here.

Auuggh!

Agemoz

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Quantum Interference Defines a Soliton: Part II, Computed Images

June 20, 2019

Here are actual computed results of how the interference pattern moves for a dual interference source.  In my previous post, I described how a moving interference pattern will alter the location displacement of the interference sources, which leads to the conclusion that quantum interference should enable stable solitons.  There, I showed a schematic representation of what should happen.  Here is visual computed proof that what I described actually happens:  The first picture shows no orthogonal displacement of the interference sources, so the interference paths are symmetric about the interference source X axis.  However, the following pictures demonstrate more and more successive orthogonal Y displacement, causing the interference peak paths to rotate in such a way as to displace the nearby interference source.  This assumes that the interference source will follow the rotating interference path–we know this is true due to experimental verification via the two-slit experiment as one example.  As a result, you should see that moving one interference source should cause the adjacent interference source to move in the opposite direction, causing the two sources to orbit like a binary star (see the previous post for details).

Notice the white line, this is the X axis reference direction to help assess the interference path rotation as y-axis displacement is added to one of the interference sources.  These examples show just one possible interference system–it shouldn’t be unreasonable that I conclude that all planar non-degenerate interference cases should behave the same way.  Things get really interesting when one of the sources is rotated into the Z axis, and when a third source is placed on the Z axis, and when the wavelength of one of the sources is doubled or multiplied by other factors such as 1/3 or 2/3.  More to come…

Agemoz

Edit:  My initial analysis (see previous post) showed that the two interfering sources would cause a rotating interference pattern if one were to move past the other in the direction orthogonal to the axis that both sources lie on.  I could show that there would be an induced motion to the second source if the first source were moved orthogonally, but did not know what would keep the second source from moving centripetally (moving away from the center).  Closer examination (see zoomed in picture) shows that there is a potential well in both the X and Y direction–the interference pattern itself is what constrains the radius of the orbiting path.  I do not need to invoke something like the speed of light to keep the orbital path confined to its radius.

sum_radials_00

sum_radials_10

sum_radials_20

 

sum_radials_30

Edit:  My initial analysis (see previous post) showed that the two interfering sources would cause a rotating interference pattern of rays if one were to move past the other in the direction orthogonal to the axis that both sources lie on.  I could show that there would be an induced motion to the second source if the first source were moved orthogonally, but did not know what would keep the second source from moving centripetally (moving away from the center).  I tried to bring in something, the speed of light, to confine the radius of the interference particle orbit, but soon felt like this was a flaw in my scheme for describing a soliton via interference (this is the same reason that various DeBroglie/Compton schemes using an EM field fail).  However, closer examination (see zoomed in picture) shows that the interference pattern is a potential well in both the X and Y direction–the interference pattern itself is what constrains the radius of the orbiting path.  The rays in the previous images are actually interference zeroes, not peaks–the particles will follow a path defined by the peaks.  I do not need to invoke a contrivance like the speed of light to keep the orbital path confined to its radius.

interference_well

Agemoz

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Quantum Interference Defines a Soliton

June 18, 2019

In my last post, I described a quantum interpretation based on group waves with an instantaneous wave phase property, and showed how it derives a constant speed regardless of an observer’s frame of reference, setting the stage for special relativity.  I also showed how it would resolve the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox for entangled particles in the Aspect experiment cleanly without adding some unknown force.  This is a flaw with the Bohm interpretation, among others, since it means that work is done and energy expended, causing a conservation of energy violation.  We do not need to believe in multiple parallel universes (Everett interpretation) or try unsuccessfully to create a logically consistent causality using the Copenhagen interpretation.

I then showed how a instantaneous phase group wave particle could self-interfere in the two-slit experiment to logically explain the target interference pattern distribution.  In this explanation, I show the very nature of the group wave will cause particle displacement due to the summation of interfering wave components.  No pilot wave guiding, with its implied force and consequent work and energy expended, is needed.

I suddenly realized that the group wave quantum interpretation provides a possible approach for creating a soliton–a particle could form in a system based on this quantum interpretation.

For over a century, theoretical researchers have guessed that the particle zoo (the list of subatomic particles that make up protons, atoms, exchange forces, and so on) could form from a continuous field (lattices, i.e., discrete fields, have been ruled out at this time both experimentally and theoretically).  DeBroglie was one of the earliest well known scientists that worked with this idea, but Compton and others also came up with proposals.  Early efforts assumed that solitons might form from an electromagnetic field via some selected arrangement of charge distribution, but EM fields and particles have the central force property F = c_0 q_1 q_2/(r^2), and by Maxwell’s field equations behave linearly, so basing particle existence on an EM field was disproved–particles would dissipate.  If there is a field underlying formation of particles, it cannot be electromagnetic, but rather an underlying “precursor” field from which EM fields could emerge.  Dirac’s work led the way to the modern quantum field theory, which further ruled out an EM field creating solitons–EM fields consist entirely of collections of real and virtual photons that travel in straight lines (ignoring space curvature from general relativity at quantum scales).

But instantaneous phase group wave theory can form solitons.  No matter what quantum interpretation you believe in, you have to face the fact that a single particle going through two slits is going to experience redirection when you open one of the slits.  The fact that this redirection happens means that at some scale, a particle will curve in on its path–it must follow the interference pattern.  I have found a variety of ways that a moving interference pattern will circulate or follow more complex loop variations.  For the same reason that the two-slit setup forms an interference patterned domain of existence for a particle, the appropriate pair (or more) of particles will self interfere to form stable loops.  Follow the interference and you will describe a variety of possible particle paths.

Does this reflect reality–dunno, but work is ongoing.  I’m coming up with a mathematical toolset that will describe various interference path constructions.  I will follow the yellow brick road and see where it leads…interference_path_soliton

Agemoz

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Why Does Quantum Interference Affect Particle Path?

June 11, 2019

I last posted on my discovery that any classical group wave will obey the observed constant speed property, a prerequisite (one of the two assumed postulates) for special relativity.  That is, if you throw a baseball, its speed will be some value v_p.  If you are standing on a train moving in the same direction at speed v_e, an observer on the ground will see the baseball move at speed v_p + v_e.  But, if you throw an object that is a linear sum of waves, such as a delta function group wave, it doesn’t matter what v_e (the relative speed of the thrower) is, the observer on the ground will always see it move at speed v_p.

The math and concept seemed bullet-proof, so I spent a couple of years writing a paper and trying to get it published.  I stayed away from any speculation and just wrote a proof that says classical group waves must appear to move at some constant speed v_p regardless of an observer’s frame of reference velocity v_e.  I made sure there was nothing in there that would make a reviewer immediately toss the paper.  I worked on getting the format and grammar acceptable for scientific publishing, had several reviewers check it for errors and conceptual problems.  They claimed it was good to go so then I submitted to several journals.  No luck–a bunch of rejections later and I finally gave up.  However, no editor wrote to disprove my math or the conceptual thinking, not sure they ever looked at that–it was always the paper doesn’t meet the quality standards of the journal or some such reason (if any).  In spite of my best skeptical analysis, I cannot find fault with the derivation, and I still think there’s some science here, so I decided to forget the publishing effort and just continue seeing what I could discover on my own.

Here it is: group_wave_constant_speed

Unlike many of the ideas I post here, which are guesses how things work and are borderline science fiction, I thought this work was a small breakthrough, it says several important things.  First, if this is true (represents reality), it shows why special relativity exists in our universe.  All the research I have done shows that no one has determined why we assume the constant speed of light postulate holds and thus why we have special relativity behavior.  Second, it shows that every particle and exchange particle must consist entirely of some kind of a wave summation, otherwise it would violate special relativity–thus giving an important clue how to mathematically define subatomic particles.  And third, it shows that any quantum particle composed of waves must phase shift the waves at a causal rate–but there can be no time-dependent component to the phase-shift along the length of the wave.  In other words, the entire wave component shifts non-causally, albeit at a causal rate.  This is important because now the Aspect experiment makes sense–if entangled particles are emitted in opposite directions, the particles stay coherent–perhaps as a orthogonally complex double helix going to oppositely placed detectors.  They oscillate their states, back and forth, until one detector captures and absorbs the momentarily real portion of the double helix, instantaneously leaving the orthogonal (imaginary at that moment) helix intact for discovery by the other detector at a later time.

This work provides a novel set of tools for looking at various quantum particle interactions.  I’m going to discuss some of what I’ve discovered on this website.  I am trying to be clear what is provable (stuff in that paper) or science fiction (these posts, for the most part, are guesses how things work and aren’t really provable at this point).  I will try to make a good case for my science fiction, that is, why I find my ideas attractive possibilities.

One example is the famous two-slit experiment.   When a single particle hits a barrier with two openings in it, it interferes with itself and only will land at certain target locations on the other side of the barrier.  Paradoxically, if you close one of the openings, now the particle will land on any target location.  I have considered the question: why does the second opening cause an alteration to the particle’s path?

The second Bohm interpretation (the leading contender of valid quantum interpretations) suggests that the particle is preordained to go through one or the other slit, but is guided to an interference controlled destination by the particle’s extended wave property going through two slits.  In this Bohm interpretation, when determining the time/space evolution of the particle wave function, a complex exponential (representing the wave from the second opening) is added to the particle wave function to mathematically guide the particle to the interference pattern target.  Two spherical waves will combine to produce various interference patterns–see the figure:

interference_pattern

The big problem with this interpretation is that work is done to move a particle.  If the particle was ordained to go through one opening to a target that is blocked when the second opening is opened, but instead goes to a nearby interference defined location, the Bohm interpretation says that the waves going through the second slit is somehow expending energy via some force being applied to the particle.   There is no evidence for such a force in nature.

There are no forces needed when using the group wave interpretation approach described in my paper.   The particle is merely defined by where the wave components sum to produce a localized group wave delta function or similar construct.  Interfering waves simply change the possible places where the “particle” will appear, and in fact the concept of particle region is set by how a detector absorbs the group wave.  In the region of the barrier, the concept of a particle becomes very ambiguous, but no waves are absorbed by the barrier .  Instead, they all pass through the openings, so a Fourier composition must reform the particle somewhere after the barrier that will eventually hit the target detector region.  No funny or weird alterations to the wave function are needed.

There are many more ideas like this that follow from assuming a group wave interpretation–one of the most important being that group wave particles will appear to be moving at constant speed regardless of the observer’s frame of reference–a foundation for special relativity.  Do you agree why the group wave concept is a cleaner approach than the Bohm interpretation?  I don’t think this is science fiction, but I couldn’t get any journal editors to see things the way I am….  😦

Agemoz

PS:  I use wave and wave functions interchangeably in this post–the concepts shown here are valid for both physical waves and probability distributions.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Paper Synopsys–A new Quantum Interpretation

May 5, 2019

I posted here for the first time in almost two years that I wrote a physics paper and posted the attachment (see previous post).  After doing all the work on the paper and going through the publishing process I kind of decided that was enough of that.  It’s exhausting work and I gained a new appreciation of the work PhD candidates go through.  No, the paper didn’t get published after four tries, mostly “not in the scope of the journal”–but I did learn a lot about being thorough and detailed.  I like to think I’m a little less of a crackpot for going through the process.

I decided to go back to posting about my research work here, which is a lot more fun and allowed me more time for research, reading Arxiv articles, and running sims.  The cool thing about the research described in my paper was the creation of new computational tools for simulating particle interactions using a new quantum interpretation–so I have lots of ideas where to go from here.

I will try not to post too often, and try to limit speculation–in other words, build your trust that this is a site worth going to and not waste your time.  Comments are always welcome although I can be pretty slow in responding.

Since everyone loves reading a paper (not), let me summarize what I did in that paper.  I hypothesized that a new quantum interpretation is needed for extending the Dirac equation to predict quantum interference effects.  This interpretation is based on the group wave principle–that particles are formed when a Fourier composition of waves sum to an analytic function such as a delta function.  Each wave component has instantaneous phase–that is, changing the phase of a wave component takes effect instantaneously across the wave (see the figure).  Causal limits on the particle result from a limitation on the rate of change of any wave phase.  The paper provides a mathematical proof that such a Fourier sum will always appear to be moving at a constant speed regardless of the frame-of-reference velocity of the observer, thus deriving a basic postulate of special relativity and validating the quantum interpretation over our current set of interpretations.

Fig2

FIG. 2. Instantaneous change in phase across waves on x-axis for each value of time t

This interpretation leads to a bunch of derivations I want to explore.  I describe a simple example in the paper for entangled particle decoherence.  Another of my favorites is how the interpretation explains “particle or wave” in the dual slit experiment.  Using this approach, it’s very easy to see that the group wave particle is intact until it nears the barrier with two slits.  At that point the definition of where the particle is becomes very ambiguous–but math will show the particle group wave re-appears after it clears the barrier.  I’ll show some sims once I get them completed with pictures (or tell you that I was unsuccessful.  I’m probably still a crackpot, but I try to be an honest one!)

Agemoz

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Physics Paper is Done!

May 3, 2019

I have spent the last two years working hard on a journal paper based on some of the work I’ve discussed on this site.  I learned a lot in the process, for example, the importance of substantiating every claim I made, and making sure the more speculative stuff stays out of the paper.  Take a look if you like!  You may need to download and use a PDF viewer–some of the math equations don’t show correctly in the wordpress viewer.

 

Here’s the abstract:

The Dirac equation successfully predicts the evolution of probability amplitudes even for relativistic particle interactions, but it is a causal equation and thus cannot predict non-causal quantum interference effects such as quantum entanglement resolution. An extension of the Dirac equation will require a valid quantum interpretation that derives both quantum interference behavior and the special relativity postulate of constant speed in any frame of reference. None of the current quantum interpretations provide the means to derive the special relativity postulate. Therefore, in this study, I assume a quantum interpretation based on a non-causal form of group wave particles.  The study shows that observation of these group wave particles have a constant speed in all frames of reference and thus the quantum interpretation is a valid basis for both special relativity and the Dirac equation. The result of this study is a first step toward building an extension to the Dirac equation that predicts the non-causal interference effects of quantum mechanics.

edit: replaced wrong (older) version of pdf paper

Agemoz

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in General, Physics | Leave a Comment »

Post 200! Time to Call It A Day

February 10, 2018

Well!   It’s almost exactly 25 years since I started on this amateur quest of finding a continuous field that could form particles, hopefully modeling the particle zoo.  I learned a lot about particle physics work and came up with some ideas how things could work, and tested some of these with my simulation.  I am now at post 200 on wordpress, although I originally began journalling my studies in a batch of notebooks back about 1993, then some previous blogging site for many years, then here on wordpress.

But it’s time to let it go.  Actually making a contribution is way beyond my reach, there are so many details that I was glossing over or handwaving my way through that really require deep analysis and rigorous attention to detail.  By the time I started elaborating on my twist model of quarks and started digging in, I got this massive sense of oversimplifying an extraordinarily complex problem.  When I came up with that pole correlation for masses between electrons, up quarks, and down quarks, I thought–kewl, this is interesting!  But then and now I have strong doubts it really could be that simple.   The twist theory really doesn’t illuminate anything new–I thought it would, but it hasn’t.  It’s just an idea, a vision, of how I thought things could work.

Several times I thought in the last month, don’t give up–it’s been fascinating to think about, I haven’t been trolled much for this speculation I’ve been doing, and it’s been fun posting about what I’m doing.

But now I’m thinking, life needs to move on, I’ve done what I wanted and it’s time to find a new path, pursue new adventures.

So, to my followers and other readers I say: May all your physics studies be as enlightening as this has been for me!  May you find true insights that will lead to the betterment of the human condition.  May you encourage young scientists or amateurs in your path to be honest and thorough without being too critical or harsh in their young ideas!

For me, it’s time to sail on, so–Goodbye to all!

Tags:
Posted in General, Physics | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »