Any realist model of an atom must explain its properties in terms of its parts: the electrons and protons. We, therefore, need a realist model of an electron and a proton. Such model must explain their properties, including their mass, radius and magnetic moment – and the anomaly therein, of course. Indeed, these properties are not to be thought of as mysterious intrinsic properties of a pointlike or dimensionless particle: the model should generate them. We think our ring current model does that rather convincingly. In this paper, we take the next logical step. We relate these models to the four quantum numbers that define electron orbitals. In the process, we also offer the basics of a classical explanation of the Lamb shift. This should complete our realist interpretation of quantum physics.
Any realist model of an atom must explain its properties in terms of its parts: the electrons and protons. We, therefore, need a realist model of an electron and a proton. Such model must explain their properties, including their mass, radius and magnetic moment – and the anomaly therein, of course. Indeed, these properties are not to be thought of as mysterious intrinsic properties of a pointlike or dimensionless particle: the model should generate them. We think our ring current model does that rather convincingly. In this paper, we take the next logical step. We relate these models to the four quantum numbers that define electron orbitals. In the process, we also offer the basics of a classical explanation of the Lamb shift. This should complete our realist interpretation of quantum physics.
Traditionally, some version of Born’s rule is always considered to be an indispensable part of any interpretation of quantum mechanics, either as a postulate, or as a result derived-not always on the basis of convincing reasoning-from other postulates. In this section, we have a close look at the possible forms of Born’s rule and discuss the limits of its validity. All traditional foundations of quantum mechanics heavily depend on the concept of (hypothetical, idealized) experiments-far too heavily. This is one of the reasons why these foundations are still unsettled, over 90 years after the discovery of the basic equations for modern quantum mechanics. No other theory has such controversial foundations. The main reason is that the starting point of the usual interpretations is an idealization of the measurement process that is taken too seriously, namely as the indisputable truth about everything measured. But in reality, this idealization is only a didactical trick for the newcomer to make the formal definitions of quantum mechanics a bit easier to swallow. Except in a few very simple cases, it is too far removed from experimental practice to tell much about real measurements, and hence about how quantum physics is used in real applications. In experimental physics, measurement is a very complex thing, far more complex than Born’s rule (the usual starting point) suggests. To measure the distance between two galaxies, the mass of the top quark, or the Lamb shift, just to mention three basic examples, cannot be captured by the idealistic measurement concept used there, nor by any of the refinements of it discussed in the literature. In each of the three cases mentioned, one assembles a lot of auxiliary information and ultimately calculates the measurement result from a best fit of a model to the data. Clearly, the theory must already be in place in order to do that. We do not even know what a top quark should be, whose mass we are measuring, unless we have a theory that tells us this! The two most accurately determined observables in the history of quantum physics, namely the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and Lamb shift, are not even q-observables! To present the stage for the criticism of Born’s rule in Section 14.3, we first need to clarify the meaning of the term “Born’s rule”. To distinguish different useful meanings, we look in Sections 14.1-14.2 at the early history of Born’s rule.
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.
The Zitterbewegung model of an electron offers a classical interpretation for interference and diffraction of electrons. The idea is very intuitive because it incorporates John Wheeler’s idea of mass without mass: we have an indivisible naked charge that has no properties but its charge and its size (the classical electron radius) and it is easy to understand that the electromagnetic oscillation that keeps this tiny circular current going – like a perpetual current ring in some superconducting material – cannot be separated from it. In contrast, we keep wondering: what keeps a photon together? Hence, the real challenge for any realist interpretation of quantum mechanics is to explain the quantization of light: what are these photons? In this paper, we offer a classical quantum theory for light. The intuition behind the model is the same as the one we developed for an electron: we think of the photon as a harmonic electromagnetic oscillator, and its elementary cycle determines its properties, including spin and its size (the effective area of interference).
Those defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truthy who confound real quantities with their relations and sensible measures. —ISAAC NEWTON, Principia Before we say anything about quantum mechanics, let us take a quick look at the Newtonian (or ‘classical’) view of the physical universe. According to that view, nature consists of an enormous number of particles. When Newtonian physics is combined with the theory of the electromagnetic field, it becomes convenient to think of these particles as dimensionless (even if there is a kind of conceptual strain involved in trying to think of something as having a mass but not any size ), and as possessing electrical properties – negative charge, or positive charge, or neutrality. This leads to the well-known ‘solar system’ view of the atom – with the electrons whirling around the nucleons (neutrons and protons) just as the planets whirl around the sun. Out of atoms are built molecules; out of molecules, macroscopic objects, scaling from dust motes to whole planets and stars. These latter also fall into larger groupings – solar systems and galaxies – but these larger structures differ from the ones previously mentioned in being held together exclusively by gravitational forces. At every level, however, one has trajectories (ultimately that means the possibility of continuously tracing the movements of the elementary particles) and one has causality (ultimately that means the possibility of extrapolating from the history of the universe up to a given time to its whole sequence of future states).
The basic particle electron obeys various theories like electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and special relativity. Particle under different experimental conditions behaves differently, allowing us to observe different characteristics which become basis for these theories. In this paper, we have made an attempt to suggest a classical picture by studying the requirements of these three modern theories. The basic presumption is: There must be certain structural characteristics in a particle like electron which make it obey postulates of modern theories. As it is ‘difficult’ to find structure of electron experimentally, we make a mathematical attempt. For a classical approach, we require well defined systems and we have studied a system with two charged particles, proton and electron in a hydrogen atom. An attempt has been made to give a model to describe electron as seen by the proton. We then discuss how the model can satisfy the requirements of the three modern theories in a classical manner. The paper discusses basic aspects of relativity and electrodynamics. However the focus of the paper is on quantum mechanics.
The idea of the photon has stirred the imaginations of physicists ever since 1905 when Einstein originally proposed the use of light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. This concept is formalized in the quantum theory of radiation, which has had unfailing success in explaining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter, seemingly limited only by the ability of physicists to perform the indicated calculations. Nevertheless, it has its conceptual problems—various infinities and frequent misinterpretations. Consequently an increasing number of workers are asking, “to what extent is the quantized field really necessary and useful?” In fact the experimental results of the photoelectric effect were explained by G. Wentzel in 1927 without the quantum theory of radiation. Similarly most electro-optic phenomena such as stimulated emission, reaction of the emitted field on the emitting atom, resonance fluorescence, and so on, do not require the quantization of the field for their explanation. As we will see, these processes can all be quantitatively explained and physically understood in terms of the semiclassical theory of the matter–field interaction in which the electric field is treated classically while the atoms obey the laws of quantum mechanics. The quantized field is fundamentally required for accurate descriptions of certain processes involving fluctuations in the electromagnetic field: for example, spontaneous emission, the Lamb shift, the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and certain aspects of blackbody radiation. (The Compton effect also fits here, but see later under references 8b and c.) Here we will outline how the photon concept originated and developed, where it is not required and is often misused, and finally where it plays an essential role in the understanding of physical phenomena. In our discussion we will attempt to give a logically consistent definition of the word “photon”—a statement far more necessary than one might think, for so many contradictory uses exist of this elusive beast. In particular consider the original coining of the word by G. N. Lewis: “[because it appears to spend] only a minute fraction of its existence as a carrier of radiant energy, while the rest of the time it remains an important structural element within the atom…, I therefore take the liberty of proposing for this hypothetical new atom which is not light but plays an essential part in every process of radiation, the name photon!” (our exclamation point). Clearly the present usage of the word is very different.