Re: Photons shapeshifting to wave prior to measurement



Jack wrote: 
RP wrote:

Jack wrote:


RP,

I'm sorry didn't reply sooner as I'm being busy lately. The 3
questions are given to Schroedinger by Lorentz when Schroedinger
nearly believed that particles don't exist but all just being
some kind of wave phenomenon. Remember when he discovered the
Schrodinger Equation of the wave function. People didn't know
what it represents. It was a mystery what is the relationship
between the electron and the wave function. Then a person
called Born said the wave function is the location of the
electron probabilistically speaking. Since they don't have better
explanations. They accepted even though it has an odd sense
of logic such as electrons just appearing in locations without
deterministic movement between them. So you are saying Born
is wrong and there was another interpretation to the
Schrodinger equations?? People such as Einstein spent lifetime
searching for it. Prove that particles don't exist and they
are just wavelets. How can wavelets explain the photoelectric
effect? Do you claim this?? But since you claim photons are just
some kind of wavelents. Electrons too and other particles since
they have the same behavior in the double slit experiments. Well.
If they are all wavelets. Then matter don't really exist physically
but just superpositions of wavelets? Huh? Is this what you mean??
Elegant hypothesis but need solid proof. This interpretations
thing is very important as it can put the entire foundation
of Quantum mechanics and physics in right footing. You are
not arguing simply on a small part but the root of it. So
spend great time finding and writing the proof. Dude.

Jack


You've misinterpreted my responses a bit. What I actually posited was 


that particles are inverse square fields, and that they are rigid in
4D spacetime but appear to fluctuate wrt our Galilean 3D plus time
perspective. These relativistic fluctuations in the fields of the
particles are the waves to which I refer. The fermion is not a wave,
though it is perceived to produce waves.


What do you mean particles are inverse square fields? 

Experiment seems to confirm the inverse square field of the electron
"all the way down to its core". IOW, the electron is nothing other than
its em field. I'm only apealing to the empircal evidence. The electron
isn't a little blue billiard ball, its just a field with a definite
metric and a definite center. The center is what we ragard as the *point
particle*. It isn't however a Coulomb field, it is an em field with
properties of both the electrostatic and magnetostatic sort. It obeys
Coulomb's law of signs, and it requires relative motion wrt other
particles in order to produce an interaction. The force between two
point charges always acts along the line joining them. Defining that
line is another problem altogether, there are relativistic delays to
take into account, as well as many other particle's fields superposed,
to wit, all of them. The superposition of all point charge fields is
spacetime itself, each *particle being a quanta of it*.

It seems natural to think of a quanum of spacetime as some small 4D
block, many of these fitted adjacent to one another to form the entirety
of the universe, or at least this is the common approach to quanum
geometry. OTOH, the empirical evidence suggestst that the quantum of
spacetime increases the density rather than the extent of the universe,
much like the pixelation of a 3D holographic image in which increased
data means increased resolution rather than increased size of the image.
The universe consists of stacked rather than adjacent quanta. This is
why all electrons are identical, they are nothing more than geometric
constructs, having a particular mathematical form as their very substance.

Isn't it
4D spacetime is synonymous to Galilean 3D plus time? What's the
difference? How can there be fluctuations relativistically
speaking. Pls. make distinct your foundation as without it all
of what you said don't make sense. But it is starting to make
sense now since you are starting to define your terms although
in a vague way.


The inverse square field extends through time such that r=ct, or IOW, if
you regard all points in your cooridinate space to be at the same time,
then you will percieve a delay, but if you regard time as different
everywhere at once, according to that equation, then you will see no
wave. Thus whether there is or is not a wave depends upon a basic
assumption about the time over there in your now.  Since no such entity
can be directly detected I assume that the time over there is ahead of
my time here in my now, that is, that there is nothing mediating the
exchange between electrons other than their relative motions. I regard
the em field of the electron as a curvature in spacetime in much the
same way that Einstein regarded mass introducing curvature in spacetime.

I'd like to reiterate at this point, that Einstein also came to realize
his mistake in this, spending the last 30 or so years of his life
attempting to unify gravity and electromagnetism in the same terms of
spacetime curvature.  He lacked was a correct em model to work with, and
thus he failed in that endeavor.



The double slit experiment for electrons produces interference 

because

wrt the aperture, the screen, and the surroundings, the electron's
field is waving. Wrt it the field is rigid, while all the other
particle's fields are waving. Em interactions occur between all of
these and the electron is forced from its straight line path. The
pattern is a result of the surrounding geometry more so than it is of


the electrons intrinsic qualities. The proof of this is direct; 

remove

the slits and the pattern disappears. Without incorporating FTL
communication you cannot account for the pattern by any other means
than that which I just provided.

Richard Perry 



Creative thoughts. Hmm... in your thing. Electric field is part
of spacetime and the particle is just a macroscopic output of it.


That's one way of looking at it.

What do you think about Dual Space Theories being explored by
many such as Fredifixx, Polasek and others?


I find it interesting, but redundant. The intermediary particles, even
if there, are undetectable and thus like the luminiferous aether they
are redundant. Ockham's razor. They too are attempting to derive a
substrate upon which to rest a nonexistent electrostatic force between
quanta, and not only this, but they fail to provide mediation between
these less than virtual particles and thier virtual and real particles.
There's is an approach that involves an infinite regress, compounding
the complexity on the way down. OTOH, the whole is always more complex
than its parts, not vice versa.

Similarly QED, and QM in general, as goes the standard model, has
developed into the equivalent of a complex programming language able to
simulate outcomes of various sorts. How many of thier *effects* are just
superpositions of more basic effects, or just plain imagined?

I'm choosing the best theoretical model of electric field and
electron that is 99% the truth. I need to get to the bottom of
it all.


That would be nice, but I suggest first understanding the limitations of
the human intellect, espeically its inability to understand the term
*understanding* except perhaps in terms that fall completely within the
category *utilitarian*.

Richard Perry



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Helical Particle Waves.
    ... > Why would an electron follow a helical path in a uniform magnetic field ... > momentum interacts with the uniform magnetic field. ... Then it must be a wave of forces and the ... > or else how can particles be created from nothingness if they were not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cosmological Constant Problem real or imagined?
    ... call electron. ... half-hole and a right-handed half hole in the other spacetime. ... What concerns me is the almost "infinite" loop of virtual particles ... can and do have direct contact with real fermions such as an electron. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Cosmological Constant Problem real or imagined?
    ... No holes around an electron in our spacetime. ... How come the particles produced have such identity. ... Stop thinking of Newtonian mechanics and think of quantum mechanics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Cosmological Constant Problem real or imagined?
    ... an infinite number of virtual particles (something which is ... No holes around an electron in our spacetime. ... Note the identities of the particles follow certain symmetries. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • matter is made of light
    ... elementary particles as the result wave movement on a tiny circular string ... with more energy had more nodes in the waves thus more waves around the ... So a photon pair when collided can form a little circulating standing wave ... to the Shroedinger equation for an electron orbital, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Quantcast