This paper recaps the main results of our photon, proton and electron models and also revisits our earlier hypothesis of the neutrino being the carrier of the strong force carrier. As such, we think this paper contains all necessary ingredients of an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. We refer to this interpretation as a realist or classical interpretation because it does not require any equations or assumptions beyond the classical framework of physics: Maxwell’s equations and the Planck-Einstein relation are all that is needed. In order to distinguish our approach from mainstream physics (read: the Standard Model), we refer to our ideas as classical quantum physics.
This paper recaps the main results of our photon, proton and electron models and also revisits our earlier hypothesis of the neutrino being the carrier of the strong force carrier. As such, we think this paper contains all necessary ingredients of an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. We refer to this interpretation as a realist or classical interpretation because it does not require any equations or assumptions beyond the classical framework of physics: Maxwell’s equations and the Planck-Einstein relation are all that is needed. In order to distinguish our approach from mainstream physics (read: the Standard Model), we refer to our ideas as classical quantum physics.
Newtonian mechanics is the foundation of Classical Physics. Newton’s mechanics, Thermodynamics, Wave theory of Optics and Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory belong to regime of Classical Physics and can be used to explain a wide range of phenomena in the Universe at macroscopic scale. These theories fail spectacularly when applied to phenomenain the atomic and nuclear regime, for example, proton-atom scattering or the flow of electrons in a semiconductor. Quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory that has ever been created and it has completely changed our view of the world. The failure of Classical Physics was highlighted by black body radiation and photoelectric effect. Max Planck and Albert Einstein provided explanations of both phenomena based on quantum hypothesis and are thus considered founders of Quantum Physics. The origin of quantum mechanics goes back to the mid-1920s.It was formulated first as matrix mechanics by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and Pascual Jordan; then as wave mechanics by Louis de Broglie and Erwin Schrödinger; and later on asquantum statistics of subatomic particles by Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein. Combining relativistic mechanics with quantum mechanics, Dirac formulated his relativistic quantum mechanics during 1930s. Uncertainty Principle is thecornerstone of Quantum Physics. The role of randomness in microscopic physical processes shatters the myth that the universe is deterministic. Quantum world is unpredictable in the classical sense and demolishes the idea of an objective universe. The Copenhagen interpretation remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists.Quantum theories support cosmic spirit pervading the cosmos and inter – relationship of individuals in the world society. Quantum philosophy is holistic and is going to revolutionize our world-view.
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, it became clear that some experiments cannot be explained on the basis of known physics, now referred to as classical physics. In 1900, Max Planck was able to correctly describe the distribution of blackbody radiation energy as a function of wavelength λ or frequency ν = c/λ. He had to accept the existence of energy packets (quanta) with energy E = hν. A few years later, Albert Einstein found that this unexpected relation between energy and frequency is also necessary in order to understand photoemission from metallic surfaces. A decade later, Niels Bohr arrived at the correct equation for the electronic spectrum of the hydrogen atom by applying “quantum conditions” on the motion of the electron around the nucleus and the Planck’s relation E = hν on the energy difference between the energy levels (1916). A decade later, Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan introduced “quantum mechanics” and de Broglie and Schrödinger (1925-1926) introduced “wave mechanics.”
This paper offers some epistemological reflections on the idea of elementary particles, boson and quark-gluon theory, and the nature of quantum-mechanical conservation laws. We apply Occam’s Razor Principle to what we think of as an unnecessary ‘multiplication of concepts’ by ‘the young wolves’ (Feynman, Dyson, Schwinger etc.) as they were claiming their own territory by trying to distinguish themselves from the first-generation quantum physicists (Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli, etc.). We argue that their abandoning of Dirac’s research agenda (a kinematic model of quantum mechanics) has failed. We have no convincing model of the strong force, and the idea of virtual particles mediating forces resembles 19th aether theory: it looks like a superfluous concept. We also think it is a crucial mistake to think of the weak force as a force. Decay or disintegration processes should be analyzed in terms of transient or resonant oscillations and in terms of classical laws: conservation of energy, linear and angular momentum, charge and – importantly – the Planck-Einstein relation. Indeed, we argue the Planck-Einstein relation embodies the idea of the elementary cycle which – as a theoretical concept – has much more explanatory power than the idea of a particle. We feel vindicated by the 2019 revision of SI units (which abolished the mass unit as a fundamental unit) and the recent development of intuitive ‘mass without mass’ models of the electron and the photon.
We present a particle model which was developed to explain special relativity by classical means. This model is also able to account for physical processes that are normally attributed to quantum mechanics. The model is able to describe several well-known QM processes by means of classical calculations, making them accessible to the imagination. An essential difference compared with the Standard Model of present-day particle physics is the fact that, in the model presented, particles are viewed as being extended rather than point-like. In addition, the strong force is shown to be the universal force operating in all particles. Also, the photon, which quantum mechanics views as being nothing but a quantum of energy, can be understood to have an internal structure. The model presented here is not merely a different way of explaining physics with similar results; in contrast to quantum mechanics, it has the ability to provide deeper insights into physical processes.
This paper complements an earlier (Nov 2018) paper on the metaphysics of physics. The earlier paper focused on an alternative (realist) interpretation of quantum mechanics. While inspired by the previous one, this follow-up paper is a much simpler one: we just offer very basic thoughts on the most fundamental physical concepts, which are the idea of force, energy and mass. Based on the recent precision measurements of the (electric) charge radius of a proton, we also argue previous reflections on the zbw radius of a proton make more sense now. Needless to say, we also offer our usual reflections on the concept of fields and messenger particles. We think the first is very useful – even if fields are relative. In contrast, we argue that the latter (the idea of virtual photons, gluons or other messenger particles) is purely metaphysical. In other words, we continue to think the idea of messenger particles is a non-scientific successor to aether theories.