Posts Tagged ‘physics’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Electrons and Charge Central Force Equation

March 21, 2021

The Standard Model describes probability distributions for particle motion and interactions, but does not tell us why we have the particle masses and charge forces we can experimentally observe. I’ve found two concepts that can be tacked on to the model–the proof that particles that experience the properties of special relativity have to be composed entirely of waves (see the paper referenced below) and that E=hv implies that particle wave components can be modelled as twists in a unitary vector field in R3+I+T (agemoz.wordpress.com/2021/01/23/unifying-the-em-interactions/). I am very certain of the former, and think the latter is the most likely of all alternatives I can think of.

Since then, I have tried to synthesize hypotheses that would result. Previous posts show how I understand the difference between virtual particle and real (on-mass shell, e.g., conserves momentum at any point in time) particles as partial/returning twists and complete quantized twists respectively. I wrote how real photons have quantized twists with angular momentum through the axis of travel, thus providing the polarization degree of freedom.

Electrons are much more difficult because experiment shows they are infinitely small point particles. So many people have proposed variations of the DeBroglie standing wave in a circle using EM fields–but these cannot explain why experiment collisions show the point particle radius is smaller than any measurable constant. I am certain that EM fields cannot work for many reasons (discussed in previous posts) but even a loop in the unitary twist vector field doesn’t explain the unmeasurably small radius of the electron. In order to define the difference between photons, and to explain photon capture by an electron, whether free or bound to an atom, I saw years ago that a twist loop would be a great explanation (photons try to go through the loop center field region, but at the moment of collision creates a momentary standing wave reflection that cancels itself out, causing a transfer of angular momentum to the electron). But this can’t work if the electron is a point particle. I thought of a new reason to dispute the zero electron radius assumption.

Admittedly, the bare electron doesn’t exist in the real world as a point–it is surrounded by a cloud of particle/anti-particle creation/annihilation operators. The problem remains, however–the central force nature of the EM field forces quantum field theory to renormalize out infinite forces arbitrarily close to the electron inside the cloud.

Renormalization is necessary because of the central force nature, the strength of the field varying as 1/r^2, of the EM field–the charge of the electron produces this field which then impedes the motion of the electron to some extent. This field strength asymptotically goes to infinity as you approach the electron, that is, as r goes to zero. If the electron is truly point sized, we have to compute the effect of the field arbitrarily near the electron, and the only way to get non-infinite results reflecting reality is to arbitrarily cancel out the field infinite forces near it.

There’s a really interesting way to look at the central force equation near point particles, and it comes from the behavior of gravitational masses. Gravitational particles can experience infinite central force behavior, or more accurately, forces far beyond the energies present in the local region of the system. Look at the particle jets emitted from spinning black holes–the masses present in the jets are accelerated to incomprehensible velocities. We see the same thing when a spacecraft swings close enough to a planet to give it enormous kinetic energy, sufficient to rocket it out of the solar system like the Voyager spacecrafts.

It suddenly hit me–we do not see this happen with electrons! Even the most powerful collisions at CERN never shows this asymptotic slingshot behavior–the interaction momentums are always conserved. I think we will find answers to the nature of electrons by comparing the two systems. The potential energy near a gravitational mass can become enormous as the radius of the mass gets smaller, but this doesn’t happen for particles! Why not? One thing is for sure–the fact that we see no jets or massively accelerated particles in electron interactions means that the existence of an infinitely small point electron in a central force EM field, the central assumption of quantum field theory renormalization, cannot be an accurate description of reality.

Agemoz

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

Virtual Photons

February 22, 2021

I did some research to understand the apparent difference between real and virtual photons. This has to be understood since radiation pressure and charge repulsion are models of each, respectively, and are fundamentally different from each other. Radiation pressure is quantized by E=hv and charge repulsion is not–a great example of the particle vs. wave dichotomy. My effort to find a basis for the particle zoo entities has to model this correctly. I have been trying to force-fit the unitary twist vector field into a particle zoo model, but ran into the issue of how to model charge and radiation pressure, or more precisely, the particle vs. wave behavior in real or virtual particles.

I had suspected that I was running into a definition problem: the difference has to do with the mistake of trying to describe real and virtual particles classically. At this tiny scale, defining a point can only be done with probability distributions–a more concrete definition doesn’t work because the actual entity doesn’t exist that way. QFT has various means of computing expected interactions in spite of that, but those of us insisting on a more detailed underlying structure are going to find ourselves without an infrastructure to derive results (and rolled eyes from the researches who understand this). I think I get the picture. The two types of interaction are different, but attempting to model the difference must take into account that geometric definitions such as the unitary twist vector field can’t model the entities very well if at all–the best we can do is the diffuse equations of probability distributions. I got hung up on trying to explain charge and virtual photons and the apparent point size of electrons via the unitary twist vector field, but now I see I really can’t do that.

Unfortunately, probability distributions have yet to show us why we have the particle masses and charge forces of reality. It will require a different approach than what I am doing to get there, though–a unitary rotation vector field might be a starting point, but I’m going to have to rethink the model. The only two clues I have found, other than what we already know from the Standard Model and quantum field theory, is that everything must consist of some type of wave (see this paper):

group_wave_constant_speed-1Download

and the quantization implied from E=hv (see this post):

agemoz.wordpress.com/2021/01/23/unifying-the-em-interactions/

It’s back to square one. I suppose the one good thing is now I know a little more than I did before…

Agemoz

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

Unifying the EM Interactions

January 23, 2021

I can get a good sense of what real physicists care about in physics forums such as the old s.p.r. (sci.physics.research) newsgroup or the current https://www.physicsforums.com/#physics.9 website. Quantum gravity/cosmology and neutrino issues seem to dominate. On the engineering side, practical application of quantum entanglement such as quantum computers generates a lot of discussion. I personally don’t feel that pursuing quantum gravity makes sense until we know a lot more about quantum theory–it’s kind of like building an airplane out of black boxes–we don’t know enough. I’d rather try to work out more at the quantum level before bringing in gravity.

As a consequence, I spend time on creating ideas for mathematical structures for quantum field theory. There are so many basic questions here, and the one that really grabs my attention: how are the various EM interactions related, and can I come up with a unifying model that obeys the interaction characteristics? There are four basic types of EM interactions (many others are variations and are not listed here):

EM transaction typecausal?momentum?
radiation pressureyesyes
charge forceyesno
electron self resistanceyesno
quantum interference/entanglementnono

According to quantum field theory, these four interactions are all related to each other by quantized exchanges mediated by photons. The mathematical infrastructure is well established and no physicist bothers with studying why we get the different properties for each. The causal and momentum characteristics are explained as a variation of the wave versus particle perspective–radiation pressure results from true photon particle exchanges, whereas charge force uses virtual photons–interactions off the mass shell that only require energy conservation (net zero momentum) over an arbitrary delta time. On the other hand, quantum interference effects has the math infrastructure but no attempt to interpret that structure as virtual photons or anything else has been established.

So, here we have it–the math works, and no investigation into the why is done. The why is considered an interpretation and is regarded as a philosophical question not deserving of any serious study or grant money and research time. However, I look at those four transactions and wonder what makes them different–are virtual photons really related to true photons, and if so, how?

Here is what I came up with. You don’t have to agree that what I did represents reality, but my thinking process led me down this path. I am attempting to create a model that unifies these EM transactions and formulates a specific geometrical explanation for why virtual photons are different than quantized photons.

To start, I bring in the E=hv relation for quantized photons. This clearly indicates one degree of freedom–frequency, so an EM field (which has both frequency and magnitude, the magnitude dissipates over distance) cannot be used to model a single photon without constraining it somehow. Physics references often show light waves as oscillating E and B fields, but this recursive definition cannot be correct at the quantum level. Whatever field we choose to construct a quantized photon must only allow a frequency component, so this is why I propose an underlying unitary rotation vector field. EM field solutions to electron interactions require renormalization because of its central force behavior, but no such problem exists for this unitary rotation field. This unitary field cannot dissipate to zero–it’s just a rotation field, so zero magnitude makes no sense.

EM fields and particles must then be derivable from this precursor field, see prior posts on this website. Next, there must be a way to ensure a single unit of frequency cycles, because E=hv does not allow a photon with, for example, 1.5 times the energy of a single cycle photon. So… I conceptualized that this means there must be a lowest energy background state for this vector field. A single vector rotation (twist) that starts and stops on the background state. Finally, since there is good experimental evidence that there is no preferred direction in our universe dimension set R3, I proposed that there must be a rotation direction background state I that is normal to our three dimensions.

In this construction, photons form rotation waves in both the R3 and I (imaginary) directions (transforms constrained to SU(4)). Momentum transfer happens when a full rotation occurs from the background state direction all the way around back to the background state direction–this rotation carries momentum. Virtual particles are partial rotations away from the background I state that in a delta time fall back to this background state without having made a complete rotation, never expending a momentum transfer and thus conserving net zero energy. For example, electron self-field resistance, represented in the Standard Model with two types of virtual photon interactions, now becomes a result of electrons moving into a region of partial rotations that counters and slows down the bare electron’s LaGrangian solution to its path in time. I think it’s an elegant solution that gets rid of the renormalization issue in current Standard Model formulations because it eliminates the central force infinity of EM fields. I’ll work on the math for this in a later post (and perhaps a paper).

So far, this model doesn’t seem excessively speculative except for the creation of the I rotation background state, but even that appears to be required (I can’t think of any alternative way) to establish the quantization specified in E=hv. The math for this precursor field exactly matches a limiting case of the quantum oscillator model that sometimes is used to compute quantum mechanics. The unitary twist vector field model now creates a clear picture of the different EM transaction types, specifically how momentum and off-mass-shell behavior works. The model doesn’t have to represent reality–it just needs to map one-to-one to whatever reality actually does. If it does, it becomes a computable representation of reality that can be used to define higher level structures and interactions such as our particle zoo.

Let’s stop here for now and bring in details for the next post.

Agemoz

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

Time As A Dimension

January 7, 2021

COMMENTARY ON THE RESULTS FROM THE PREVIOUS POST: I realized that confirmation of the mathematical validity of the theory (a group wave composition of wave components will always appear to move at constant speed regardless of the observer’s frame of reference velocity) has much more impact than I first thought. When Einstein discovered the constant speed of light as derived from Maxwell’s equations, he interpreted that to mean that space and time are interchangeable depending on an observer’s frame of reference. From that came the realization that time could be treated as a dimension, and from there on, physics has accepted that as foundational. Dirac’s prediction of antiparticles, and the subsequent experimental verification of antiparticle existence via oppositely curving positrons led Feynman and others to postulate that antiparticles experience time in the reverse direction. Since then, many have attempted to use dimensional time to explain quantum decoherence, unification with gravity, and so on.

The thing I really don’t like about this is that Dirac’s equation results from the incorporation of Lorentz invariance (special relativity) into Schroedinger’s equation, and as such it builds in time-symmetric solutions. So, when Feynman ran into difficulty figuring out how the self energy of an electron in its own field would work, he pulls out the rabbit in the hat–retarded and advanced potentials–that was built in to the Dirac equation. What did they expect–build in negative time, get an answer that includes negative time solutions. I may be naive about what happened but I think Feynman’s famous skepticism took a vacation here. The Dirac equation needs another constraint added to it to make it match reality–the laws of thermodynamics that enforces forward time passage. There must be a negative energy solution to the Dirac equation that does not require a negative time interpretation.

As a result of this thought process, my big problem as an amateur physicist is that I think interpreting time as dimensional is a mistake. I think there is better evidence that time is a property of particles in their own frame of reference. Aside from quantum uncertainty that exists for both space and time, we have no evidence of visitors, particles, or waves, or anything else from the future. If a particle is moving relative to an observer, the apparent time passage that the particle experiences can look different, but isn’t actually different in his own frame of reference. And there’s no question that when a particle is accelerated, time as a property of the particle does slow down relative to a static observer.

The big glaring elephant in the room is the fact that to observe an antiparticle curve in the opposite direction, it has to be moving forward in time, continuously coincident in time with all non-antiparticles. If an antiparticle really were moving backwards in time, it would only exist as a momentary blip in the spacetime plane of normal particle existence. The fact that the constant speed of light has the alternate explanation described in my paper reinforces the idea that interpreting time as a dimension could be a mistake.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a single physicist out there that will go against established theory about time as a dimension, there has been too much published research for them to arbitrarily believe my hypothesis that they all got something wrong. To make matters worse, there is the well deserved disdain for those who claim established physics is wrong–if I were to persist, I would fall into the crackpot trap. I cannot do that. All I can do is say I have my doubts, and that I can show another way this could work that doesn’t require time to be a dimension.

So, what does that mean? Nothing more than that I can continue on uncovering what I can with what I know. But my accepting this result as reality means I will travel alone on this journey, no serious researcher will go with me.

Agemoz

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

Why Speed of Light is Constant, and What It Tells Us about Quantum Decoherence

December 26, 2020

UPDATE: improved the listed Mathematica code by setting up a Fourier delta function sum to make the constant velocity easier to see, adding better comments, and showing a better view of the functions using different frames of reference.

2ND UPDATE: Fixed missing velocity vr term in Mathematica formula. 3RD UPDATE… arggh, that update wasnt right.. fixed now with matching units. The result where different vr (frame of reference velocity) values result in constant v0 speed is correct. And–one last update to the Mathematica code that adds a negative reference frame velocity–this shows the robustness of the theory, it still maintains constant observed velocity v0 in spite of different observer velocities vr. I updated the pictures to show this new result.

The theory of special relativity is built on the assumption that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant. I wrote a proof of a theory why reality has this constant speed:

group_wave_constant_speed-1Download

This derivation shows that in classical physics, any entity composed entirely of waves in spacetime will always appear to be moving at a fixed speed regardless of the observer’s frame of reference relative velocity. If we accept this statement as applying to reality, it should be a logical deduction that as all particles and fields in our reality obey special relativity, they must all be composed entirely of waves in spacetime. If any component internal to a particle is not constructed of waves, it will not Doppler shift, and its velocity will sum with the velocity of the observer’s frame of reference, causing it to disassociate from the rest of the particle.

Why do I mention this now in the midst of my ongoing work on the nature of quantum decoherence (see previous post, where I determine that decoherence cannot be mediated by a spacetime field between entangled particles)? The Standard Model cannot help us resolve what actually happens, but this paper shows there must be a wave basis for all particles. If we also use the accepted knowledge that quantum decoherence is a quantum wave effect (quantum states are represented mathematically as wave functions), we obtain a step forward on the path to resolution.

The paper specifies that a classical physics Fourier sum of waves will always produce an observed constant speed regardless of the observer’s frame speed. Since this conclusion is new (not part of established physics for reality) it is worth understanding why this works in depth, which is why I wrote a mathematical proof. It’s possible to set up a simple geometric simulation using classical Doppler shifting. I set up a very basic Mathematica animation that demonstrates the principle proven in the paper for different frames of reference velocities. You can run it with the simple code I show here:

UPDATE: improved code that ensures that apparent constant speed is observed in one animation, otherwise it’s possible different animations could possibly run at different speeds). Fixed incorrect unit matching in equations.

(* create a Fourier component in spacetime, moving at velocity v0. 
 Offset it in the y direction for visibility. v0 and vr point in 
the positive x  direction. While the ability to use a time-varying 
particle is provided, this  illustration assumes a delta function 
in space only (easier to see the constant speed result) *)
 comp[x_, t_, k_, f_] := Sin[2 Pi (k x - f t)] 
(* Here is a Fourier composition wave that forms a delta function *) 
 ftd[x_, t_, k_, f_] :=  
comp[x, t, k, f] +  
comp[x, t, 2 k, 2 f] + 
comp[x, t, 3 k, 3 f] + 
comp[x, t, 4 k, 4 f] +    
comp[x, t, 5 k, 5 f] 
(* doppler shift the ftd Fourier composite delta function in 
space  depending on the observer's frame of reference speed.  Also,
move x by the frame of reference speed vr. The theory (basis for
wave based particles having a constant speed comes from these
two factors cancelling out, leaving only the original v0. *)
 dsftd[vr_, v0_, x_, t_, k_, f_] := ftd[x-vr, t, v0/(v0 - vr) k, f]
 (* Now plot several frames of reference speed to demonstrate the 
 constant speed of the delta function for each vr (velocity of 
reference frame).  Note an arbitrary constant y is added to the
plots to allow visibility of combined plots. *)
 plotdsftd[vr_, v0_, t_, k_, f_, y_, c_] := 
  Plot[dsftd[vr, v0, x, t, k, f] + y, {x, 0, Pi}, 
  PlotPoints -> 200,    PlotStyle -> RGBColor[c], PlotRange -> {-4, 30}]
 (* to emulate the observer frame of reference, move the emitter 
(and the emitted wave) by some frame of reference speed vr set 
from the emitters point of view, the velocity of the wave causes 
a constant phase shift over time. Doppler shift the spatial 
frequency of waves by 1/vr.  In addition, move the observer's 
frame of reference (x offset) by  vr times t.  You may have 
to slow the animations down.   Now observe that  all velocities 
are the same regardless of the observer's frame of reference speed. *) 
 plotdsftd[0, 0.5, 0, 1, 1, 0, {1, 0, 0}]
 ar = .4
(* Show wave sums, each of four different frames of reference 
velocity.  Observer will see the delta function move at a 
constant speed regardless of the frame of reference velocity *)
 Animate[Show[plotdsftd[0, 1, t, 1, 1, 0, {0, 0, 0}], 
   plotdsftd[-0.3, 1, t, 1, 1, 6, {1, 0, 0}], 
   plotdsftd[-0.5, 1, t, 1, 1, 12, {.5, 0.5, 0}], 
   plotdsftd[-0.8, 1, t, 1, 1, 18, {0, .6, 0}],
   plotdsftd[0.2, 1, t, 1, 1, 24, {0, .6, 1}]], {t, 0, 10, .03}, 
  AnimationRate -> ar]

Here are pictures:

Motion of a Fourier wave construction as observed in different frame of reference velocities (-0.2, 0.8, 0.5, 0.2, and 1.0) This view is at time t=0
This view is at time t=7
This view is at time t=14
This view is at time t=23

The examples are all running with different observer’s frame of reference velocities (black=1.0,red= 0.8, brown=0.5, green=0.2, blue=-0.2), yet all are moving at the same velocity. This is a nice demonstration of what I proved in the paper–that objects constructed of waves always appear to move at the same velocity regardless of the observer’s frame of reference velocity.

This is why I strongly believe that reality has the constant speed of light that underlies the principles of special relativity. Note that once you have a constant speed, it is easy to show geometrically that this results in time and spatial dilation by the beta factor used in special relativity–many have done this, and I refer you to papers on Arxiv and other places. Currently, the Standard Model does not postulate a cause for the constant speed, it is one of two assumed postulates that are the foundation for the theory of special relativity. By finding an underlying cause for this postulate, I think we now have a valuable tool for making progress understanding why quantum mechanics, in particular, quantum decoherence and quantum interference, exists. Since all particles can only have wave components, a variety of approaches become available for study, which I will do in following posts.

Agemoz

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

Is the Quantum Entanglement Connection a Field?

December 16, 2020

In the last post, I postulated that coherence between two entangled particles cannot be a field, and went on to conclude that distance would then have to be an emergent property–that is, the decoherence correlation between entangled force particles does not act over distance but through an unseen “sideband” dimension.

The rules (math) for entangled particles are applied as if entangled particles are a single entity spread over distance, so positing that it doesn’t occur via a connection field is an enormously radical line of thought. I need to be really certain I believe there is no way a field could be responsible for decoherence correlation, so I spent a lot of time thinking of any possible way to prove it or test it. I have a thought experiment (which should be practical to do, construction should be similar to building a quantum computer) which shows you one reason I think this way:

Suppose we construct an entangled particle emitter such that the particles are routed in opposite directions from each other through, for example, a fiber optic cable channel for photons or a fine single atom wire for spin-up/down electrons. We put quantum state detectors several miles away on each end. We set the emitter to periodically emit entangled particles, and check both for loss of coherence due to overlapping coherence connection fields and for correlation between consecutive pairs. Either one would violate quantum mechanics. We know that each pair particle must correlate exactly–a spin up on one entangled particle means the other will always be spin down, so seeing coherency lost would imply presence of a connection field.

UPDATE: eeek, can’t use a fiber optic cable for entangled photons–interaction with atoms in the cable would destroy coherence. Even the electron case with a wire will have the same problem. The channel for particles will have to be a vacuum…

But what about between pairs? If we set up emission rates such that there are, say, thousands of entangled particles in flight at the same time, there will be thousands of connection paths overlapping each other. Since no part of this configuration allows for detection of states until they reach the detector, quantum mechanics says there will be no correlation between pairs. If the connection is a field, this configuration means that coherence has to hold for all pairs in spite of superposition of thousands of connection fields. Since the entanglement states for pairs must be random, a connection field would affect sequences of pairs and we should be able to detect a correlation between pairs. If a connection field is what maintains coherence, we should see both lost coherence cases, and correlation between pairs should start to occur. Entanglement connection fields means that quantum mechanics will be violated even though no detection of particles has occurred.

The tinted boxes represent the connection fields between entangled particles. The overlap region represents altered field values where coherence has to fail (is lost).

Am I certain? Let’s look at a couple ways we could have entanglement connection fields and yet not violate quantum mechanics.

It is possible that by the time the inner (later emitted) particles reach the detectors, coherence will be restored, but that won’t work. All you have to do is insert detectors in between the existing detectors and the emitter at a time just after the pipeline of particles is filled–at a location where many overlapping fields exist, and those detectors will see that coherence is lost and that there will be correlations between pairs.

Another possibility is that the connection fields don’t superpose, but instead repel each other and form smaller channels (strings) so all can fit independently within the particle channel. While possible, this looks like a pretty absurd proposition to me. I’ll keep thinking about this and see if I change my mind. The field behavior in the spin-up/down entangled electron case travelling via a single atom wire would be very complex and improbable in my mind.

As outrageous is my claim that distance is an emergent property and quantum decoherence occurs via an unseen dimension independent of distance, I think there is good evidence for it, or some permutation of it here. Something about decoherence is hidden from us. It cannot occur over distance with fields and the laws of physics we have now.

Agemoz

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

Quantum Decoherence and the Central Force Law, Part II

December 14, 2020

Continuing my TL:NR post from yesterday, where I evaluated what questions are worth asking about Quantum Decoherence. I stated that I was less interested in the question of how can quantum decoherence be non-causal, and much more interested in the apparently infinite range of quantum coherence. Experiments have shown no limit yet for the separation distance of entangled particles, verifying that the coherent state is maintained for kilometers.

I’m not that interested in non-causality because to me that is the default way the universe works–the appearance of a speed limit (the speed of light) is emergent. We are so used to the speed of light for everything–everything we observe obeys that limit–that we don’t think how oddball that is. In previous posts, I have hypothesized and proven that particles will always observe a speed limit if they are constructed solely of wave components, see this paper:

group_wave_constant_speedDownload

Non-causality is not as interesting to me because I see that only the motion of a subset of possible universe components (particles, fields based on boson exchanges) have to observe causality. Thorough experimental testing of quantum decoherence timing has made it abundantly clear that some element of particle interaction is non-causal. Jon Bell showed that there cannot be a causal explanation for particle interactions, at least in a local neighborhood of the interaction–he thus showed that no hidden (causal) structure can explain what we observe.

The real mystery to me isn’t non-causality–it’s that coherence can be maintained over an arbitrary distance. I am not seeing any possible default mode (like infinite speed) that can explain this. It is here that I spend a lot of time thinking how this could work. This is a question that is very valuable, very interesting, because the only answers I see require substantial rethinking of how spacetime works.

As I mentioned in the previous post, maintaining coherence requires some type of connection between two entangled states over distance. Trying to enumerate the list of possibilities requires careful semantic evaluation of this statement: we cannot assume, for example, that there are two particles, because entangled particles mathematically compute as a single entity. However, that doesn’t destroy the terminology of the question–whether one system or two particles, or two group waves, or any other entity definition we choose–entangled particles have a connection spread over a significant distance. There is no default mode that allows such a thing to occur, so I attempt to form a complete enumeration of possible elaborations of what the connection is:

a: some type of field between the two entangled particles in our current dimension

b: a sideband path in another dimension

c: default mode of spacetime has space (distance) as an emergent, non-default property. This idea is similar to the emergent property of the speed of light

d: decoherence actually occurs at the emitter for both particles, but appears as if decoherence happens at detection–in other words, contrary to experimental conclusions, the experiment outcome is pre-determined.

e: tachyons–for example, a wave going backwards in time from a future detector to a current-time source

Is this really complete? Probably not, I continue to try to think out of the box for other possibilities. Nevertheless, I have pretty carefully evaluated each of the above, and I think everyone interested in quantum decoherence has spent time investigating one or more of these possibilities.

I rejected option e: tachyons almost immediately–it violates Huygen’s principle since the light cones involved are spherical shells, not laser like rays, and cannot (third law of thermodynamics) arbitrarily focus back on the source emitter. It’s a misunderstanding of Minkowski space geometry to try this as a solution.

Many, many people have tried to come up with a predetermined solution (option d:), I don’t think I need to convince anyone reading this that that doesn’t work. Timed gates used in the Aspect experiment have shown that resolution of the two entangled states doesn’t happen until at the point of detection.

Declaring that the connection is maintained via a field (option a:), or component particles/virtual particles, has been extensively researched. Many experiments have been performed where the connection spatial interval has been blocked during time of flight have failed to destroy coherence. In addition, the connection is maintained over significant distance and even in the presence of many pairs of entangled particles, each of which would have to have its own connection field that doesn’t interfere with other overlapping fields. This field cannot, in theory, ever drop in magnitude to the point where coherence fails. As a result of these thoughts, I have reached the conclusion that there is no field representing the quantum entangled particle connection.

Assuming I have enumerated all possible scenarios (not necessarily a good assumption), that leaves the b: option, the sideband dimension solution or the c: option, the emergent space property. If there is a rolled up or otherwise compactified dimension (option b), this means that all of space, at least as far as the entangled particles are concerned, are locally connected. I realized this is actually another way of saying that space (and potentially spacetime) emerges in this universe–it is an emergent property of our existence, just like the speed of light is emergent from an infinite speed universe. Options b and c are the same, and in my opinion it is this option that describes the quantum entanglement connection.

What results from this conclusion? Is it testable?

More to come.

Agemoz

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

Quantum Decoherence and the Central Force Law

December 13, 2020

Physics has always been about asking the right questions. This is especially true for quantum theory. The most famous example is the question “is it a particle or wave”, with the implied assumption that those are the only two possibilities. On the other hand, not asking a question–for example, the “shut up and calculate” approach is just as counter-productive. Neither approach will further the knowledge base for physics. It is imperative to thoroughly think through what questions are worth asking and whether the question embeds invalid assumptions.

All we know right now about existence on a quantum scale, and we know it with an extreme level of certainty, is that the Standard Model describes the probabilities of how particles will interact with other particles or fields. If we eschew the “shut up and calculate” attitude, at least we are taking a chance that we are on a path that will result in progress. However, we know so little about what reality is on a quantum scale that the chance of asking a nonsensical question is extremely high.

I propose that trying to resolve the decoherence paradox has questions worth asking. Any time an apparent impossibility appears in science, an understanding of the paradox should always lead to a deeper understanding of reality. However, we have to be so careful of our assumptions, and we have to be sure that the question isn’t simply a matter of linguistics, our choice of definitions. I have thought at great length about the decoherence problem and see the way to pose the question that gets at the heart of the paradox:

Experiments (Aspect, et. al.) show that quantum entangled particle pairs decohere by detection at any specified distance. Everyone, including me, zeroes in on the non-causal nature of decoherence and tries to resolve that, but I think there is an underlying question that has to be answered first. No known field property maintains amplitude over that distance–every non-local field observes decreasing amplitude over distance. For example, the EM field dissipates amplitude according to the central force law. We can choose an arbitrary distance such that any EM field magnitude between entangled particles is less than any arbitrary epsilon, yet will still unfailingly maintain quantum coherence until detected. Here is the question: how could a field property continue to exert an influence on a particle when its field strength approaches the limit of 0?

Let’s now attempt to vet this question, that is, see if the question makes bad assumptions or is just a semantic issue. We are assuming that the decoherence effect propagates over distance and is mediated by a field. It could instead be a particle, but there’s no experimental evidence for that. Another approach could be that this effect takes place in an invisible sideband path, for example over an unseen dimension not in R3 + T. This would simultaneously explain the instantaneous (non-causal) aspect as well, but right now there’s no evidence for such a path. There’s several other possibilities as well, but the question itself is not flawed by making a known bad assumption. Experiment shows that the connection requires an entity, either field or particle or something else, to influence the entangled particle at distance in a non-causal way. At first glance, I don’t see a semantics problem here, this doesn’t appear to be a matter of how we define our terms.

We now should ask if the question is worth asking. What will resolving this apparent paradox accomplish? We want to gain insight into the nature of decoherence, obviously, but more than that, the quantum effect appears to demonstrate that there is evidence of a field that maintains constant magnitude, or at least that exists over the length of the decoherence path. As a result, we have to ask, does that mean that if there are a significant number of entangled particles in our universe, that the superposition of all these fields will not interfere with each other and caused decoherence failure? Asking the question this way is powerful, because EM fields would interfere and thus cause decoherence failure. Since decoherence failure does not occur in experiments as long as entangled sets of pairs do not encounter detectors, this means that EM fields are not the means by which decoherence occurs. Of course, we already knew that due to the non-causal nature of decoherence, but we now get confirmation from another direction.

But then what is the means? What field, or other entity, is responsible for decoherence? Once again, we need to look at the assumptions in this question and make sure we don’t take an invalid turn. The fact that detecting one of the entangled pair of particles determines the state of the other implies a connection. Being careful with our semantics, the word connection implies a mediating entity. What is it? Do we care or can we just go with the fact that there is a connection and not try to understand what mediates the connection?

I now have gone full circle and the original question remains. I chose to believe that this question is a valid one to ask, I don’t see bad assumptions here, I don’t think this is a semantics issue, and the question has already led to one conclusion of what cannot mediate decoherence. Now that I have a suitably framed question, next post I will explore some possible answers. Everybody and their grandmother has asked why is it noncausal, but I’m going to ask the more basic question, why doesn’t the effect disappear over distance?

Agemoz

Tags:,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Quantum Interference as a Cause For Charge Force

October 26, 2020

In the previous post, I posited that the difference between radiation pressure and charge force, both of which are mediated by photons, is due to different properties of photons. Radiation pressure is due to the ability of massless photons transferring angular momentum from a source such as atomic electron state changes to a destination (which also could be an atomic electron that changes state). Charge force cannot be the result of a momentum exchange, otherwise energy would not be conserved–charge forces exert continuously in all directions simultaneously. Nor could you have attractive forces, since momentum transfer is observably always positive, not negative. To address the fact that we know charge forces are mediated by photons, but cannot be transferring energy, I had posited that quantum interference (which redirects particle paths without expending energy) is responsible for charge force. This scheme does allow for negative momentum transfer necessary for charge attraction. However, I now see that this approach cannot work, at least in the way I have proposed.

A problem with this idea is that quantum interference requires identical frequency waves from two sources, or from the same source but via different paths. I can readily model charge attraction via quantum interference in my simulator (see many previous posts on attraction force simulations). However, this approach gets into trouble for two reasons–one is that charge is constant, but waves from a source particle can Doppler shift if the source is moving relative to the destination. If charge forces are due to quantum interference, the wave and the destination particle will have to have the same frequency when they meet, and Doppler shifting of a moving source particle means they won’t have the same frequency and won’t interfere.

The bigger problem with this approach comes from trying to explain the central force behaviour of charge. I had assumed that charge force, which decreases as the square of the distance from the source, was a result of the granular distribution of photons from the source. Any given neighborhood volume at a radius r from a source is going to occupy a percentage of the total surface area at that radius r. If there is a fixed emission of photons from the source, there will be a fixed distribution of photons within a surface area that varies as r^2, hence the central force dropoff of charge force (a generalization results than any system with quantized particles will observe central force behaviour). If the charge force is mediated by quantized photons, this works–but that cannot be, because then you have energy transfer that would dissipate the source mass. But if quantum interference of waves is the cause of charge force, then you don’t have particle quantization needed to get the central force 1/r^2 dropoff in charge field strength.

This is a variation of the quantum wave vs. particle dilemma. Photons act like waves or particles depending on the circumstances. However, neither particles (quantized photons) nor waves (quantum interference) explain charge forces. It appears to be some combination of both. Further work is needed before a satisfactory answer is found.

Agemoz

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

Photon Interactions in Charge Forces and Radiation Pressure

August 31, 2020

In the previous post, I described an asymmetry between two types of photon interactions–the fact that radiation pressure and electron level changes in atoms are repulsive only, but charged interactions can be attractive or repulsive. I hope you will take a moment to read it–it really is an interesting question. Quantum field theory addresses this issue mathematically, but does not answer why this asymmetry exists.

I will summarize that post as follows: Charge forces can be either attractive or repulsive, but radiation pressure is only observed to be repulsive, away from the emitter. The unitary rotation vector field theory (for which I’ve been writing a simulator) posits that there should be attractive radiation pressure via a new particle, antiphotons. I discussed in that post several other justifications for antiphotons that do not rely on believing in the validity of the unitary rotation vector field approach. These justifications essentially state that charge attraction requires that negative momentum be transported from source to destination via particles or field entities that have no momentum of their own.

The unitary rotation vector field describes specifically how this works, using the premise that electron/photon interactions are exchanges of angular momentum, either negative or positive.

However, there is no experimental evidence for antiphotons other than electrostatic attraction, so I became concerned that this is not the real reason for the force directional asymmetry. This post continues that line of thought with an examination of what the unitary rotation vector field idea says about the two types of photon mediated forces. While the theory does allow for negative momentum carrying particles called antiphotons, further investigation hints that this is not the cause for the force asymmetry. Rather, the two photon interaction forces are fundamentally different–one results from photon angular momentum exchange and the other is caused by quantum interference.

Both forces (charge and radiation pressure/electron level transitions) are said to result from photon exchanges and/or photon creation/annihilator operators. Radiation pressure and atomic electron level shifting clearly result from quantized photon packets and are observed to exchange only positive momentum (i.e., are repulsive forces). Energy is conserved as quantized exchanges in these cases.

Charge is different. There is no momentum or energy exchange. Imagine a single positron surrounded by a vast quantity of electrons in all possible directions. Computing the electrostatic force on each electron includes a full charge attraction contribution from the positron (along with a vast quantity of repulsive contributions from all the other electrons). This thought experiment seems to show that there cannot be energy flow in charged interactions, since there would have to be photon exchanges from the positron to each electron simultaneously, an energy flow that easily could vastly exceed the rest mass energy of the positron.

So what is really going on in charged interactions? One possible answer comes from the unitary rotation vector field theory–it is quantum interference between the source and the destination particles. This theory posits that particles form in a single-valued, unitary magnitude rotation field with a background state in a direction orthogonal to R3, the I dimension. Particles are group wave constructs composed of one or more “poles”, quantized single twist rotations from +I and back again. As a group wave, the particle is defined as a peak amplitude magnitude region and its location can be affected by waves from other sources without an expenditure of energy (for example, the relocation caused by quantum interference in the two-slit experiment). The simplest such particle is the one pole photon, a linearly propagating twist; two pole systems can form closed loops, because the waves from each pole form interference patterns (quantum interference) that reposition the pole location. A single pole photon has been demonstrated (see many previous posts) to momentarily shift–via quantum interference–the location of an intercepting two pole closed loop (an “electron”). I hope you will go back several posts and look at my simulation results that beautifully demonstrate this group wave position shifting behavior:

https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/agemoz.wordpress.com/1295

In this theory, an answer to the asymmetry of charge force bidirectionality versus observed unidirectional radiation pressure or atomic electron level change emerges. Simulations show that the twist is a stable state that forms R3 waves around it. Radiation pressure energy transfer (exchange of angular momentum) exerts repulsive forces only when a closed loop set of twists intercept a single pole photon. But charge interactions don’t work this way–instead, the spherical wave surrounding the twist photon form an interference pattern just like that of the two pole closed loop. Like other quantum interference scenarios, no energy exchange happens, instead the interference pattern forces the destination particle to exist in a nearby position either toward or away from the source emitter. Both attraction and repulsion are possible depending on the relative phase of the waves to the destination.

Further work here is needed to ensure that charge is relativistically invariant in this model.

So, to summarize what the unitary rotation vector field is telling us–radiation pressure and electron level changes are caused directly by angular momentum exchanges, and the photon is created or destroyed in the process. Charge forces are caused by quantum interference between the source and destination particles and no momentum is exchanged! The two types of forces are both the result of photon characteristics, the former due to the angular momentum of the photon, the latter due to the quantum interference wave pattern radiating from the photon. The unitary rotation vector field shows that antiphotons should be possible, but are not necessary to explain the directional asymmetry of charge and radiation pressure forces.

Agemoz

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »