Abstract Relative motion of particles is examined in the context of relational space-time. It is shown that de Broglie waves may be derived as a representation of the coordinate maps between the rest-frames of these particles. Energy and momentum are not absolute characteristics of these particles, they are understood as parameters of the coordinate maps between their rest-frames. It is also demonstrated the position of a particle is not an absolute, it is contingent on the frame of reference used to observe the particle. Version of Record This preprint has not undergone peer review or any post-submission improvements or corrections. The Version of Record of this article is published in Foundations of Physics, and is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00715-9
Abstract Relative motion of particles is examined in the context of relational space-time. It is shown that de Broglie waves may be derived as a representation of the coordinate maps between the rest-frames of these particles. Energy and momentum are not absolute characteristics of these particles, they are understood as parameters of the coordinate maps between their rest-frames. It is also demonstrated the position of a particle is not an absolute, it is contingent on the frame of reference used to observe the particle. Version of Record This preprint has not undergone peer review or any post-submission improvements or corrections. The Version of Record of this article is published in Foundations of Physics, and is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00715-9
We will here show that there is one more relativistic wave equation rooted in the relativistic energy Compton moment relation, which should not be confused with the standard relativistic energy momentum relation. The standard momentum is, from a quantum perspective, rooted in the de Broglie wave. The de Broglie wave is not mathematically defined for rest-mass particles and has strange properties such as converging to infinity when the particle is almost at rest. As mentioned in the previous paper, the de Broglie wave is likely just a mathematical derivative of the true matter wave, which we have good reasons to think is the Compton wave. A wave equation that satisfies the relativistic energy Compton momentum relation will, in addition automatically satisfy the standard relativistic energy momentum relation, so there is no conflict between these two relations. The new one related to Compton is just the deeper reality and help explain why it gives simpler and more elegant relativistic wave equations, which are likely easier to interpret in terms of the physical reality.
Quantum Mechanics is appropriately named because it is mostly about the mechanics used to work probability problems. There must be, and there is a better way to visualize the concepts of quantum physics so that teachers can present a consistent conceptual interpretation. In this paper, we use a graph (i.e. the image of a graphical map) to represent the relationships between space, time and motion but we interpose the linear space-time domain (the moving or relativistic reference frame in the region greater than one) with a logarithmic spatial-temporal frequency domain (the at-rest or quantum reference frame in the region between zero and one). This approach demonstrates space-time equivalence as S=Tc^2, and thereby reveals the de Broglie equations for energy of a quantum particle in exactly the same geometric relation as the total energy relations that include mass-energy equivalence. The model allows one to visualize the particle-wave duality as a change in perspective the same as you can visualize an object both at rest with respect to your classroom yet in motion with respect to the sun, provides a perspective on the meaning of time and the psychological time flux as an eternal process of transformation, reinterprets the speed of light as the speed at which darkness (the absence of information) recedes, and concludes that the solid objects that occupy 3-dimensional expanse of space can be viewed as holomorphic images, materialized by the interaction of fields that gain physical form by their transformation into divergence and curl.
In this article, it is shown that if a particle is at rest and has some harmonic oscillation, then a traveling particle with a constant speed corresponds to a De Broglie Wave.In 1924, De Broglie proposed that particles of matter exhibit wave like behavior, the expression for which became fundamental in the creation of wave mechanics (quantum mechanics).The main equation for this is the Schrödinger equation, which in the case of free motion of a particle becomes the expression for the De Broglie wave.This hypothesis is supported by many early experiments on the diffraction of electrons, and later the development of modern physics.However until now, the origin of this hypothesis remains unclear.We show that the expression for the De Broglie wavelength can be obtained from a more general well-known concept, that any particle at rest has a corresponding harmonic oscillation that transforms into a wave of a moving particle with the help of relativistic change of coordinates (the Lorentz transformations).In this way, a De Broglie wave can be explained as a spacetime wave.
Introduction Under this name at present two theories are being carried on, which are indeed closely related but not identical. The first, which follows on directly from the famous doctoral thesis by L. de Broglie, concerns waves in three-dimensional space. Because of the strictly relativistic treatment that is adopted in this version from the outset, we shall refer to it as the four-dimensional wave mechanics. The other theory is more remote from Mr de Broglie's original ideas, insofar as it is based on a wave-like process in the space of position coordinates ( q -space) of an arbitrary mechanical system. We shall therefore call it the multi-dimensional wave mechanics. Of course this use of the q -space is to be seen only as a mathematical tool, as it is often applied also in the old mechanics; ultimately, in this version also, the process to be described is one in space and time. In truth, however, a complete unification of the two conceptions has not yet been achieved. Anything over and above the motion of a single electron could be treated so far only in the multi -dimensional version; also, this is the one that provides the mathematical solution to the problems posed by the Heisenberg–Born matrix mechanics. For these reasons I shall place it first, hoping in this way also to illustrate better the characteristic difficulties of the as such more beautiful four-dimensional version.
This paper is the thirty-first in a sequence developing an interpretive framework that redescribes physical reality as a causally consistent history of information updates rather than as a collection of independently existing objects. It is the third panel — the capstone — of the eighth grouping, a foundational-physics trilogy. Its subject is spacetime localization: where and when a record or system is — its position, orientation, relative phase, and time. The claim is that localization is real but not authoritatively global. There is no Global Frame: no physically privileged reference system that fixes absolute location and orientation, a privileged global simultaneity, a classical frame standing outside quantum theory, and one physically privileged, globally valid perspectival gauge-fixing. Localization is relational: positions and times are defined relative to a declared quantum reference frame (QRF), itself a quantum system that may be superposed and entangled with what it localizes (Giacomini, Castro-Ruiz, & Brukner, 2019; Loveridge, Miyadera, & Busch, 2018). What keeps this objective rather than subjective is a strict typing of cross-frame comparison: a single gauge-invariant relational (Dirac) observable has one invariant prediction, its perspectival representations intertwined by a frame-change map (case A); distinct relational observables form a relationally consistent web (case B); and where two frames share no common refinement their claims are declared incomparable (case C). "Objective" means invariance of the physical predictions under the declared symmetry group and the frame-change groupoid over the admissible frame family, to a declared tolerance — never frame-independence in an absolute sense. The flagship R-A is a dynamics-independent kinematic existence witness: a finite-dimensional discrete-ring model exhibits one physical state and two admissible ideal QRFs under which the localization profile and the entanglement structure differ — a sharp product relative to one particle; an entangled state with a delocalized, mixed marginal relative to another — while the distribution of the same relational observable is preserved. R-B splits into a domain covariance on shared refinements (ideal QRFs compose and agree on shared Dirac predictions) and a model-dependent global-perspective obstruction: where a globally valid relational gauge-fixing fails, as in known Gribov-type models (Vanrietvelde, Höhn, & Giacomini, 2023), no single perspective covers the whole physical state space — which is neither the same as, nor a consequence of, the absence of a privileged frame, and does not preclude a perspective-neutral description. R-C places Paper 8's relational time as the time-translation special case, with its finite-resolution-clock, conditional-covariance, and record–clock qualifications, separating the retired claim (no global clock) from the deferred one (relativistic foliation with dynamical geometry). R-D identifies and transports the frame-representable localization sector of certain Paper-30 grains, partially discharging that paper's grain-coherence deferral while leaving interaction, fragmentation, redundancy, and history-family structure grain-relative. This completes the trilogy's dismantling of the Global Bookkeeper while keeping geometry fixed: the quantum-mechanics–gravity interface is prepared, not entered. Localization is frame-relative but objective: no absolute frame, no globally gauge-fixed perspective claimed beyond what models establish, and no anarchy. ALAC Paper 31. Third panel (capstone) of the eighth grouping — a foundational-physics trilogy (29 Public Quantum Records -> 30 Classicality Without a Global Classicalizer -> 31 Spacetime Localization Without a Global Frame). Part of the Consistency-Constrained Information History (Akashic Ledger Architecture Cosmology) series. Presents no new quantum mechanics; results are interpretive (L2) on imported physics (L1).