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):
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 type
causal?
momentum?
radiation pressure
yes
yes
charge force
yes
no
electron self resistance
yes
no
quantum interference/entanglement
no
no
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.
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.
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:
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=0This view is at time t=7This view is at time t=14This 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.
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.
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:
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?
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?
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.
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:
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.
One of the interesting asymmetries in physics involve photons and charged forces. Photons have been observed to carry positive momentum from an atom to a detector (for example, another atom with electrons that can be knocked free, forming an electric current that can be measured). We can also measure the radiation pressure of photons, always exerting force away from the source. Finally, we can observe photon interactions in the form of electromagnetic forces between particles.
Charged forces are attributed to photons, both real and virtual, and are measured to be either attractive or repulsive. By symmetry, I would expect photons could also carry negative momentum, observable in antimatter atoms emitting antiphotons or as negative radiation pressure toward the source emitter.
We see negative momentum via charge attraction forces, but we don’t see attractive radiation pressure. Hence, I thought it logical to assume the existence of negative momentum photons–antiphotons.
I actually arrived at this conclusion from a different path–the photon model in the unitary rotation vector field theory has neither mass or momentum of its own but can carry either positive or negative momentum from a source to a destination. For this reason, I predicted the existence of antiphotons, but shortly thereafter realized that even if you don’t believe the unitary rotation vector field theory, antiphotons should exist by symmetry.
That was a daring statement to make–and it makes me nervous, because we’ve done enough high-energy particle collisions with antiparticles that I would have suspected we would have seen evidence of antiphotons. Both the asymmetry of the photon mediating charged interactions and the promising studies of the unitary rotation vector field suggest that antiphotons should be common in antiparticle interactions. In addition, the lack of antimatter in the universe strongly suggests an asymmetry in how gravity and radiation pressure affect formation of stars. Stars cannot exist without a balance of radiation pressure and gravity–if radiation pressure is negative, it will not form a stable state with gravity to form stars.
So, lots of good evidence that antiphotons should exist–so why don’t we see them? Either they are really hard to distinguish from photons, or are really hard to generate, or they don’t exist. I’ve put a lot of thought into this, and realized that studying charge forces using the unitary rotation vector field might suggest the correct answer.
According to quantum field theory, electric and magnetic forces are mediated by photons. Looking at the LaGrange equations of motion for electron/photon interactions, you can get both positive and negative momentum solutions for the photon wave equation, and in the standard model, attractive forces are interpreted to be photons interacting with an EM field via constructor/annihilator operators. In addition, virtual photons can exist for bounded spacetime neighborhoods that don’t conserve momentum.
The crucial question here is–why the asymmetry? Why couldn’t you interpret this in a symmetric way simply by saying the negative LaGrange solutions are simply photons carrying negative momentum–antiphotons? As mentioned previously, there’s many good reasons to think antiphotons should exist. But we don’t! Why not? We have negative momentum charge (attractive forces), but no observed negative radiation pressure, even though both are mediated by photons. We see no antimatter stars in astronomy, strongly suggesting that such stars do have negative radiation pressure, yet we see no evidence of an antimatter protostar cloud collapsing rather than assuming a stable state in the form of a star.
One answer is that antiphotons are hard to detect. An experiment to observe an anti-atom emit an antiphoton is going to be difficult to set up. You would have to have a detector that could tell the difference between an antiphoton and a photon. As I suggested in a previous post, this might be a positron brehmstrallung experiment that measures the tiny radiation pressure from antiphotons generated by positrons travelling through a magnetic field. Maybe the reason has simply been that no one has looked for an antiphoton, after all, we’ve been taught for so long that photons are their own antiparticle, there is no such thing.
Although I thought the derivation of antiphotons from the unitary rotation vector field was clever, I really have doubts. I think we would have seen antiphotons in high energy collisions creating a negative momentum collision track. There’s good reason to believe that antiphotons should exist, yet there has to be a reason why we don’t see negative momentum carrying photons, but do see negative carrying charge forces.
For this to make sense, the answer may be much more controversial: that photon mediated charge forces and photon radiation pressure forces involve photon particles that are different in some way. If photons cannot carry negative momentum, we are forced to conclude that charge forces are not mediated by the same particles as radiation particles–a theory that goes against the well tested Standard Model. Alternatively, we could decide the issue has to do with the difference between photons and virtual photons (or similarly, quantized photons versus the quantized EM field), but it is very clear to me that neither case can explain the observed asymmetry in photon mediated interactions.
I think insight into the question of antiphoton existence and the charge force asymmetry question can be found by looking at the way the unitary rotation vector field addresses these photon interactions. Since this post is already long, I’ll present my observations in my next post.
I'm an amateur physicist. I've studied physics and philosophy for a very long time, and have investigated some of the unanswered questions in physics with an intent of finding some possible explanations or theories on how they might work. Two of the most interesting questions for me are whether there is a geometrical basis for quantization and special relativity, and why there is a particle zoo (that is, is there an underlying structure that results in the particle zoo). I'm well aware of the danger of crackpot theories (usually characterized by just enough knowledge to get things wrong or silly), but allow myself to pursue ideas anyway as long as I'm clear about their speculative nature. I don't pretend that I have any significant discoveries to report, but thoroughly enjoy pursuing various ideas about how the universe works. To faciliate this study, I've created a lattice simulator that allows me to test a variety of ideas.
Archives
Unitary Twist Field Theory
A long description and justification for the thinking that has led to the Unitary Twist Field Theory. Note, IANAP (I am not a Physicist). This is long and describes the historical evolution of the Unitary Rotation Vector Field. The latest work has changed several parts, I am in the process of updating this.
Summary: A unitary rotation vector field is investigated as an underlying field that gives rise to the particles and fields of the Standard Model. The underlying field is single-valued, waves cannot pass through other waves. This is the means by which quantum interference redirects particle paths. The simulation work has revealed a new principle:
Quantum interference is responsible for redirecting particles along wave interference peaks–and also for creating those particles.
Long description: This effort to work out the details of this unitary twist field is based on the underlying assumption that our existence can emerge from nothing, and posits a reductionist approach to explaining the particle zoo. The theory basically says that there is a continuous rotation field in R3 + I that can produce stable solitons. Here is a list of the steps I have taken to arrive at this theory:
a: If existence does not require an intellect to form, the existence must arise from nothing, both space and time.
b: If existence does require an intellect (e.g, God) then further investigation isn’t really necessary because the rules for existence are set in a place we do not have access to.
c: One way to determine if the creating intellect exists would be to determine if the existence could not come into being without at least two rules, and such rules would have to come into existence from a creator. Saying that existence formed with one and only one rule is equivalent to saying that existence could arise from nothing and God is not required.
d: Finding God seems to be pretty much unanswerable without clear direct communication from God, whereas coming up with a way that existence could form from nothing seems to be an alternative possible approach for a human mind to answer the question about the existence of God.
e: Such an approach could start with the limits of current human knowledge, the known existence of the particle zoo. If a reductionist approach could be taken as to why the particles exist, we may be a step closer to saying that an intellect is not needed to create this existence. Conversely, if we can show with reasonable probability that it’s impossible to form particles from some continuous field, that’s an argument in favor of the necessity of an intellect in creating our existence.
f: I am assuming that a continuous field that can create stable particles is a reductionary step–that is, a step in the direction of finding a single rule defining this existence.
g: Now I start applying known physics to this field to determine what it must look like. I am assuming that this field is opaque, that is, there aren’t any parallel overlapping fields. This is clear because multiple rules are necessary to form two fields.
h: I assume that this field has elements that can only rotate. No displacement or magnitude can be applied to any field element. This assumption comes from the E = hv relation for particles, which basically says that particles are described only by frequency, there is no field degree of freedom equivalent to field magnitude.
i: when objects move, the field elements pass rotations via three types of momentum to adjacent elements. In this theory, no field element ever “moves”, instead particles move because field rotations pass as momentum from one field element to the next.
j: In order for E = hv to work, there has to be a means of ensuring that no partial or multiple count of rotations can exist. This is a form of field quantization, and I have proposed a background lowest energy state. In such a system, field rotations called twists start and stop at the background state rotation angle.
k: To ensure that R3 does not have an observable resonance (which would be experimentally discernable) that would undermine gauge theory symmetries, this background states points to an imaginary dimension. It is not possible to have the background state point to a basis vector in R3.
l: If the field has a crossproduct momentum transfer as well as the more standard linear translation of angular momentum of field rotation elements, this becomes a necessary and sufficient condition for forming stable linear particles of arbitrary frequency. UPDATE: simulation work shows that quantum interference is responsible for particle formation.
m: the crossproduct rule for momentum displacement allow a particle to start a single twist, and allows the particle to end the twist after one full rotation.
n: The crossproduct rule also allows the formation of twists that move along a curve. This is possible due to the vector combination of the crossproduct that is normal to the current element rotation orientation and speed. UPDATE: simulation work shows that quantum interference is responsible for path curvature.
o: If twists can curve, there are some twists that will form stable closed loops. There are many possible stable curve solutions, which I am proposing is the basis for the particle zoo.
p: A single free linear twist models a photon of some energy and length defined by the frequency of twist rotation.
q: Since the twist moves from +I background state to an R3 direction and continuing to rotate through to the +I direction, polarization of this twist arises as a linear combination of the two R3 vectors normal to the direction of twist travel. UPDATE: new simulation data suggests that quantum interference and momentum provide a basis for polarization, this will be revised.
r: The crossproduct momentum translation is necessary to allow a twist to start and to stop, otherwise field symmetry would propagate in both directions simultaneously at every point in the twist, and stable particles could not form (they would dissipate). In other words, the quantization of the field is ensured with the background state, and the ability to start and stop a twist arises from the crossproduct momentum translation. Thus it can be stated that to form stable particles from a field, it is necessary that a field capable of forming stable particles must have a handedness that can only come from a crossproduct momentum property. UPDATE: simulation results show this and following sections needs to be revised.
s: This handedness thus must be ingrained in any field solution that produces stable particles. This handedness of the field will show up in some cases as a chirality violation.
t: In order for the twist propagation to be stable, the only possible momentum transfer via crossproduct relation is at the speed of light, where the leading and trailing edge of the twist cannot be affected or connected to neighboring element rotations.
u: Any closed loop rotation sequence thus will be limited to the speed of light. If one were to unravel the cylindrical spiral path this loop takes in Minkowski space, a single quantized twist will form a right triangle where the hypotenuse is the speed of light times the time of one rotation of the twist, one side is the particle travel distance, and the other side of the triangle is the radius of the loop. This right triangle enforces a relation between the loop travel speed and the speed of light. This relation computes to the beta factor of special relativity and is the means by which special relativity geometrically arises from the twist theory.
v: A corollary to u: above is that time dilation for every particle results from the constrained stretching of the spiral helix in Minkowski space as the particle increases speed proportionate to the speed of light. In other words, each particle’s relativistic clock is implied by the time to complete a single twist. Observing from different frames of reference will alter the apparent time to complete a twist and thus affect the relative passage of time between particle and observer.
w: A single closed loop models the electron of one type of spin. The twist direction relative to direction of travel defines a spin-up or spin-down electron, whereas the loop curvature relative to the handedness of the field defines the particle vs the antiparticle version of the electron. Note that a linear twist does not have these degrees of freedom, so there is no antiparticle to the linear twist photon.
x: Quarks are posited to be linked twist loops, the up quarks have a single link going through its center and the down quark has two. The strong force results when linked twist loops are pulled apart such that twist momentums approach each other with an asymptotic direction conflict. The passage of a twist through the center of a loop affects the rotation of the loop by increasing the crossproduct momentum of the loop. Note that since electrons are modeled by a loop with no central twist going through it, electrons (and positrons) cannot combine with quarks.
z: This modeling of quarks seems to correlate to the masses of the up and down quarks–the twist going through the center of a up quark loop acts with a central force that causes the loop radius to reduce by half. The doubling of the resultant normal (to direction of twist travel) acceleration results in a loop that is 1/4 the size of the electron loop model. Similarly, a down quark has two twists going through its center, doubling again the normal acceleration of twist travel and causing that loop to be 1/8 in size. The rest masses of the electron, up quark and down quark correlate to this geometric analysis of particle loops. Electrons have a .511MeV mass, up quarks are 2.3MeV, and down quarks are 4.8MeV. Admittedly this may all be numerology, but I was surprised to find this mass correlation to loop length.
y: A possible model for the weak force results because there is a small chance for linked twist loops to tunnel through each other. If the rotation of one twist loop matches the rotation of a linked loop right at the point where linked loops are being pulled apart, the loops can separate. This is proposed as particle decay and would model the randomizing effect of the weak force.
Glossary
3D + T: the three spatial and 1 time-wise dimensions of our existence. Equations usually are set up for solutions in this space.
Causal: Causality: The property where a particle or field changes according to special relativity, that is, changes cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
Dirac Equation: Relativistic equations using operators that effectively describes electron behavior in an atom and relativistic interactions of particles
Electron, Positron: charged fundamental quantum particles with spin (no known substructure with a fixed rest mass)
EM: EM Field: Electromagnetic Field.
Entangled Particles: A property of a system of particles where resolving a state of one of the particles instantly (non-causally) affects the remaining particles
Frame of Reference: Used in Special Relativity, refers to the observer's position relative to a system being observed. Special Relativity describes how a system (for example, a set of particles) will appear to the observer that is dependent on how fast and in what direction the observer is moving in relation to the system.
General Relativity: Einstein's theory describing the stress-energy tensor, which details the equivalence of acceleration and gravity and describes how dimensions distort and forces apply when objects are accelerated, especially as speeds approach the speed of light. For example, it describes how a particle's mass increases as it is accelerated.
Interference: Quantum interference: The property at small (quantum) scale where the probability of a particle state or location varies according to wave superposition, the trait of waves interfering with each other
Lorentz Transform: equations that describe how dimensions of time and space distort in different frames of reference (special relativity)
QFT: Quantum Field Theory: theory of how fields, such as the electromagnetic field, are quantized.
Quantum, Quanta: property where fields or particles have a property that can only have a particular value from a set (the set of real or complex numbers, for example)
Quantum Mechanics: the equations that describe the wave-like behavior of particles in various systems, such as a particle in a box.
Photon: quantum of light. Only one possible value of energy, depending on frequency.
Planck's Constant: The lower bound for simultaneous measurement of two orthogonal properties such as a particle's position and momentum.
Relativistic: Usually refers to particles or interactions of particles with velocities that approach the speed of light
Rest mass: Since any particle with mass will have that mass increase as it is accelerated, rest mass is defined as an intrinsic property of a particle that is not moving
Schroedinger Equation: Wave Equation: second order differential equation that describes the probability distribution of (for example) an electron around an atom
Special Relativity: Einstein's theory that describes how dimensions (space and time) interconnect and vary according to an observer's frame of reference. It specifies causality of all particles or field components, and that the speed of light is the same constant in every frame of reference.
Twist: Field Twist: Author's idea of how photons and electrons (twist rings) substructure could be described
Uncertainty relation: Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the lower bound (planck's constant) for resolving two orthogonal properties of a system.
Unitary: in transforms, the property that preserves magnitude (such transforms can cause rotation or displacement, but cannot change the size or shape of objects). In vector spaces (such as fields), unitarity implies that all vectors have a constant magnitude, only direction varies.
Agemoz's Physics Blog 