Hugh Everett’s “Relative State” model [1] of the observing element in quantum theory is expanded in the Event Oriented World View [2] and used to show how inertial interactions suggested by “Mach’s Principle” can resolve the wave particle duality. I argue that bullet like Photons are not ontologically real but have been introduced as interpretation aids for experiments based upon an outdated concept of the observing mechanisms in such observers. However denying the reality of photons is only one consequence of a more fundamental shift from object to event oriented physical theories. I will show how adopting the concept that all systems are observers and providing an event model for those observers, will give quantum theory a paradox free ontological context. This context can, for example, provide an ontological explanation for the apparent random hits of individual matter-radiation interactions in the dual slit experiment. Almost a century of attempts to find an acceptable interpretation for quantum theory have failed because mere interpretations do not go far enough. Namely they do not treat the physical observer and his observations as incorporated into a single event. Event oriented physics suggests an observer is an activity cycle and Hilbert Space is a set of actual detector/actuator arrays, through which all knowledge is obtained. These arrays separate physical reality from the display of observable measurement results, inside such observing activities. By assuming arrays are fundamentally describable as mass and charge densities, gravity and electricity are coupled together by internal material forces between mass and charge. Electromagnetic influences can only change the dynamic state of an observing activity when charge-mass forces produce compensating changes in the gravito-inertial field. Gravito-inertial field fluctuations limit the ability of an atom to make a transition that exactly matches the energy available in a stimulating electric field. Thus the propensity of photon absorption is determined by the field intensity but the actual transition is determined by quasirandom gravito-inertial fluctuations. Disturbances in the electromagnetic-field propagates as waves, but are observed as well localized phenomena falsely suggesting particles exist in the field.
Hugh Everett’s “Relative State” model [1] of the observing element in quantum theory is expanded in the Event Oriented World View [2] and used to show how inertial interactions suggested by “Mach’s Principle” can resolve the wave particle duality. I argue that bullet like Photons are not ontologically real but have been introduced as interpretation aids for experiments based upon an outdated concept of the observing mechanisms in such observers. However denying the reality of photons is only one consequence of a more fundamental shift from object to event oriented physical theories. I will show how adopting the concept that all systems are observers and providing an event model for those observers, will give quantum theory a paradox free ontological context. This context can, for example, provide an ontological explanation for the apparent random hits of individual matter-radiation interactions in the dual slit experiment. Almost a century of attempts to find an acceptable interpretation for quantum theory have failed because mere interpretations do not go far enough. Namely they do not treat the physical observer and his observations as incorporated into a single event. Event oriented physics suggests an observer is an activity cycle and Hilbert Space is a set of actual detector/actuator arrays, through which all knowledge is obtained. These arrays separate physical reality from the display of observable measurement results, inside such observing activities. By assuming arrays are fundamentally describable as mass and charge densities, gravity and electricity are coupled together by internal material forces between mass and charge. Electromagnetic influences can only change the dynamic state of an observing activity when charge-mass forces produce compensating changes in the gravito-inertial field. Gravito-inertial field fluctuations limit the ability of an atom to make a transition that exactly matches the energy available in a stimulating electric field. Thus the propensity of photon absorption is determined by the field intensity but the actual transition is determined by quasirandom gravito-inertial fluctuations. Disturbances in the electromagnetic-field propagates as waves, but are observed as well localized phenomena falsely suggesting particles exist in the field.
Diffraction and interference fringes are stable and reproducible objective phenomena in optical experiments. Mainstream quantum mechanics puts forward the ontological interpretation of wave particle duality. It holds that the material ontology of micro particles such as photons inherently possesses both particle and wave properties, and attributes diffraction and interference phenomena directly to the intrinsic matter wave behavior of particles. This interpretation stays at the level of observational appearance and avoids underlying ontological dynamic mechanisms. It represents a research approach that deduces the intrinsic properties of material ontology merely from external observations. Within the framework of the light ontology theory, a photon is an energy state object. Energy and motion at the speed of light form an inseparable whole and are permanently bound together and cannot be separated. In the real universe, no photon with energy that does not travel at the speed of light has ever been observed. Nor has any object moving at the speed of light without energy been detected. The two cannot exist independently from one another. A photon has no physical volume but possesses inherent fixed transverse trembling property. At the moment a photon is generated, it acquires a definite trembling angle within a 360 degree spatial plane perpendicular to its propagation direction. This transverse trembling orientation remains unchanged without physical collision interaction. When the transverse trembling of a photon can reach the slit wall, absorption and reradiation secondary scattering will occur. Massive secondary photons superpose statistically to form bright and dark diffraction and interference fringes. Slit walls are stacked by large numbers of atoms. Their spatial scale is hundreds of thousands to tens of millions times larger than the scale of photon transverse trembling. For photons, slit walls constitute huge physical barriers and can produce significant interactions with trembling photons. The wave function is only a mathematical tool for fitting experimental data. Good fitting performance of a mathematical model does not mean its corresponding physical interpretation equals objective physical reality. This paper proposes a new set of comparative decisionmaking experiments. The key innovation is to place a linear polarizer in front of the slit. Before photons contact the slit, the transverse trembling orientation of photons is pre screened. The transverse trembling direction of transmitted photons is made parallel to the orientation of vertical slit walls to suppress oscillation components perpendicular to slit walls and make it difficult for photons to hit slit walls. Polarizers with different grating line widths can be replaced to observe the influence of the grating scale of polarizers on experimental results. According to the physical mechanism of slit wall scattering, characteristic diffraction and interference fringes will be greatly attenuated and only the central direct light spot will remain. Non ideal device characteristics will bring a small amount of stray scattering background, but complete bright and dark diffraction and interference structures will not appear. According to the traditional ontological interpretation of wave particle duality, the geometric parameters of slits remain completely unchanged. Only polarization orientation screening is conducted and the intrinsic matter wave of particle ontology is not affected. Therefore diffraction and interference fringes should be fully preserved. The two theories produce mutually exclusive observable predictions. This experiment can test whether the ontological interpretation of wave particle duality holds true. This paper does not deny objective diffraction and interference phenomena, nor does it deny the practical value of wave function as an engineering calculation tool.
For nearly a century, quantum mechanics (QM) has established itself as an exceptionally effective framework for predicting the collective movements and statistical distributions of particles. However, its predictive success comes with a significant conceptual cost: the apparent abandonment of local realism. When one attempts to apply the standard quantum formalism at the scale of an individual particle, paradoxes inevitably arise. This article argues that these contradictions are not intrinsic properties of nature, but rather stem from a fundamental category error: the misapplication of ensemble statistical laws to individual events, which unrightfully promotes statistical averages to instantaneous physical realities. To address the root cause of this conceptual deviation, we must establish a foundational axiom: the Principle of Particle Reality. This principle posits that if a particle exists as a real entity, it must inherently possess definite physical properties—such as a precise polarization, velocity, and trajectory—independent of our capacity to detect them. Ignoring this ontology has led the standard model to treat physical realities as abstract paradoxes. To resolve them, this work proposes a unified reconsideration of three main pillars of quantum interpretation. First, regarding locality, we demonstrate that a polarizer does not create a state but merely reveals a pre-existing polarization. The concrete proof lies in the reduction of a beam’s intensity, which is fundamentally a physical drop in the number of transmitted particles. By establishing a physical equivalence between parallel and sequential measurements via the principle of Statistical Identity, we show that exact quantum correlations emerge directly from a particle-by-particle application of the strictly positive classical Malus’s law (0 ≤ p ≤ 1). This successfully explains the violation of Bell’s inequalities within a strictly local framework, bypassing the non-physical negative quasi-probabilities encountered in previous angular hidden-variable models. Secondly, on the illusion of state superposition, we show that failing to recognize that an interferometer physically and deterministically alters the polarization orientation of a particle led to an abstract formulation; in reality, this involves a deterministic geometric transformation of probability distributions. Finally, addressing wave-particle duality, we challenge the standard postulate of artificial simultaneity in the double-slit configuration, which caused a deep confusion between the collective behavior of a group and the sequential passage of an individual entity. We introduce an “event-by-event” formulation where interference fringes emerge instead from temporal correlations preserved by the non-commutativity of averaging. By restoring the strict distinction between statistical ensemble laws and individual reality through the Principle of Particle Reality, this work aims to definitively end “quantum geocentrism” and to lay the foundations for a coherent, local, and realistic sub-quantum physics.
I sometimes wonder why Physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy.Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes.Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach.The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy body”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ).Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen.With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential.My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity.Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".
I sometimes wonder why physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy. Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes. Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach. The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ). Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen. With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential. My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity. Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".
The concept of “objective reality” is addressed, and an ontological model is suggested, in which correlations of events in the configuration space of the wave function are considered invariant with respect to changes of observer. It is suggested that these statements make the best sense when considered from within a fifth-dimensional framework, extrapolated from the four dimensions of spacetime in a direct way. A pair of postulates is then suggested which strengthens two current models of quantum theory into a broader picture, giving a physical interpretation of Macroscopic Quantum Superposition (MQS) states. Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) from Rovelli and Consistent Histories (“CH”) from Griffiths are discussed and related to the postulates. By dropping the assumption that unobserved macroscopic events are “in a definite state” determined independently of an observer, a surprising but consistent theory of quantum macroscopic reality is arrived at (with fewer fundamental assumptions about everyday reality) that does not contradict experiment or everyday experience. As a result, a concept herein termed “retroactive event determination” is extended from a quantum principle (in CH) to a macroscopic principle. Macroscopic events that have not been observed by a particular observer are free to be retroactively determined. The feasibility of applying the physics of quantum operators to macro systems is analyzed using the concept of “macro projectors.” Various concerns with this model are addressed, such as solipsism and decoherence of the wave function for macro objects. A discussion is also made of the philosophical context of the ideas suggested. Some experimental ideas are offered.Keywords: Macroscopic quantum superposition—MQS—consistent histories—relational quantum mechanics—time—spacetime—retrocausation—framework—single-framework rule—macro pointers—synchronicity—meaningful coincidence—positivism—observer effect—measurement problem—delayed choice experiment—retroactive event determination—existential behavior—Many-Worlds model
A hypothesis is put forward according to which the formulas of Relativity are a consequence of the laws of quantum physics and may be applied only to quantum objects. According to the wave - particle duality quantum bodies are simultaneously the waves and considered in the present research with a use of the wave equation and requirement of its Lorentz‘s invariance. The property of invariance with respect to the Lorentz’s transform is analysed in hyperbolic coordinates in an area of complex numbers. An examination showed that formulas of relativistic kinematics can be obtained based on the condition of equality of the amplitudes and phases of the wave, observed from different inertial frames. There is no need to introduce the concept of a unified entity of space-time, but the return to the idea of aether and matter waves de Broglie occurs. The physical model becomes borrowed partly from quantum field theory. It is assumed that the moving particle binds to a wave of the aether disturbance, and only this wave acts on the other particle like an electromagnetic field pushes an electrical charge. The model of colliding elastic balls becomes inapplicable, but equations of relativity mechanics remain the same, however, with a new interpretation. The mass of a particle in all coordinate systems is constant, in exchange the expressions of energy and momentum alter relative the classical case, include the property of aether – coefficient c of the wave equation, and acquire relativistic forms.