The idea that all changes in nature must be smooth and continuous pervades classical physics, and indeed Einstein’s theory of relativity as well. There are several kinds of ‘discontinuity’ and their implications differ. Descartes’ laws of collision had stated that if a small body hits a larger one then it rebounds with equal speed, whereas if a large body hits a smaller one they move together in such a way that the total quantity of ‘motion’ is conserved. Field theory promised to get round these conceptual difficulties in classical particle mechanics, by surrounding such particles by fields whose effect would be to prevent ‘sharp’ collisions and to replace them by rapid but smooth accelerations and decelerations. In classical physics ‘energy’ is regarded as being carried both by material particles and by fields.
The idea that all changes in nature must be smooth and continuous pervades classical physics, and indeed Einstein’s theory of relativity as well. There are several kinds of ‘discontinuity’ and their implications differ. Descartes’ laws of collision had stated that if a small body hits a larger one then it rebounds with equal speed, whereas if a large body hits a smaller one they move together in such a way that the total quantity of ‘motion’ is conserved. Field theory promised to get round these conceptual difficulties in classical particle mechanics, by surrounding such particles by fields whose effect would be to prevent ‘sharp’ collisions and to replace them by rapid but smooth accelerations and decelerations. In classical physics ‘energy’ is regarded as being carried both by material particles and by fields.
Introduction Quantum mechanics is based on the intuition that the essential difference between atomic physics and classical physics is the occurrence of discontinuities (see in particular [1,4,58–63]). Quantum mechanics should thus be considered a direct continuation of the quantum theory founded by Planck, Einstein and Bohr. Bohr in particular stressed repeatedly, already before the birth of quantum mechanics, that the discontinuities must lead to the introduction of new kinematical and mechanical concepts, so that indeed classical mechanics and its corresponding conceptual scheme should be abandoned [1,4]. Quantum mechanics tries to introduce the new concepts through a precise analysis of what is ‘observable in principle’. In fact, this does not mean setting up the principle that a sharp division between ‘observable’ and ‘unobservable’ quantities is possible and necessary. As soon as a conceptual scheme is given, one can infer from the observations to other facts that are actually not observable directly, and the boundary between ‘observable’ and ‘unobservable’ quantities becomes altogether indeterminate. But if the conceptual scheme itself is still unknown, it will be expedient to enquire only about the observations themselves, without drawing conclusions from them, because otherwise wrong concepts and prejudices taken over from before will block the way to recognising the physical relationships [Zusammenhänge].
Science has developed through a variety of investigations more or less over the time scale of human existence. On this scale, quantum mechanics is an extremely young field, existing essentially for only just over a century. Even our understanding of classical mechanics has existed for a comparatively long period—roughly having been formalized with Newton's equations published in his Principia Mathematica , in April 1686 (1687). Up until the very end of the nineteenth century, mechanics in the form of Newton's laws were comfortable, being understood and accepted by all who dealt with the motion of reasonable bodies. With the turn of the new century, however, mechanics would be shaken to its roots. The change began already on December 14, 1900, when Planck (1900) presented his new theory of black-body radiation to the German Physical Society, and this change would affect mechanics in physically small structures (and lead to quantum mechanics). Mechanics of large bodies would similarly be changed in 1905 with the arrival of Albert Einstein's (1905a) relativity theory. In this book, we will deal with only the first of these two great breakthroughs.
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).
Quantum theory has created a fundamental change in our ideas as relativity theory had done before. But while relativity theory is essentially classical in its conceptions—it is in fact the culmination of classical physics—quantum mechanics is founded on some new principles. The quantum laws are very different in character from the laws we find in classical theory. In particular, quantum mechanics is a strictly statistical type of theory : from this arises the different conception of causality that marks the new outlook of modern physics. Classical theory describes the so-called macroscopic phenomena, that is, things and events which are more or less of the same size and kind as we find them in ordinary life; and so a description can be given in terms of concepts close to the ones we use in ordinary language. The language of quantum mechanics is based upon a duality principle ; and most of our ordinary language is equally dualistic.
Abstract In the first quarter of this century physicists were slowly and somewhat reluctantly forced to realize that the view of the physical world, so painstakingly built up over the preceding four centuries, was in serious need of revision. In particular, the laws that governed the motion of particles on the atomic scale were not those of classical mechanics. Physics found itself catapulted into the strange new world of quantum theory in which the very notion of position or velocity of a particle became blurred and statistical laws dominated everything.
Based on the law of conservation of energy, we have shown that, the steady state electronic motion around a given nucleus in a non-circular orbit depicts a rest mass variation, though the overall relativistic energy remains constant. This is, in no way, conflicting with the usual quantum mechanical approach. On the contrary, it provides us with the possibility of bridging the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, to finally achieve a natural symbiosis between these two disciplines, and furthermore, elucidating the “quantum mechanical weirdness”, simply based on the mere law of relativistic conservation of energy. Our theory was developed originally, vis-a-vis gravitational bodies in motion with regard to each other; hence, it is comforting to have both the atomic scale and the celestial scale described on just the same conceptual basis. One way to conceive the rest mass variation of concern is to consider a “jet effect”. Accordingly, a particle on a given orbit through its journey must eject a net mass from its back to accelerate, or must pile up a net mass from its front to decelerate, while its overall relativistic energy stays constant throughout. In other words, a minimal rest mass is transformed into extra kinetic energy through an acceleration process, and kinetic energy condenses into extra rest mass through a deceleration process. The tangential speed of the jet in question, strikingly points to the de Broglie wavelength. This, on the whole, makes the jet speed ‘’superluminal”, yet excluding any transport of energy. This conjecture coincides with the recent measurements (Kholmetskii et al., 2007; Salart et al., 2008), and provides a clue for the wave-particle duality, also insures their concurrent coexistence. An important consequence of the approach presented herein is that, either gravitationally interacting macroscopic bodies, or electrically interacting microscopic objects, sense each other, with a speed much greater than that of light, and this, in exactly the same way. In which case, though, the interaction coming into play, excludes any energy exchange; thus, we would like to call it, “wave-like interaction”. The present approach ends up the existing schizophrenia, between different conceptions painting separately the micro world and the macro world, and unites these two worlds with an unequal, single and simple conception, based on just the law of relativistic energy conservation.
Key words: Special theory of relativity, electric interaction, tachyons, de Broglie relationship, superluminal or wave-like interaction, general theory of relativity, gravitation.