Despite the tremendous progress of quantum physics, there is a widespread belief that something is missing in our knowledge. A belief that maybe the answer is not in more abstractions, extra dimensions, or higher mathematics. I suggest we reexamine our foundational assumptions. First off, mechanics – classical or quantum – assumes a reality of existing objects in space bearing properties, including kinetic energy (KE). Fudges to “existing” (being massless or mathematical) and to “space” (e.g., Hilbert) have only taken us so far. I submit that the essence of radiation (the photon) is immaterial occurrence. Why do we force it to obey a model (mechanics) based on existing constituents? Second, I contend that quantum pioneers were too quick to accept – and we have been too lazy/busy to question – the equivalence of photon momentum with rest mass momentum. We actually don’t understand momentum.
Despite the tremendous progress of quantum physics, there is a widespread belief that something is missing in our knowledge. A belief that maybe the answer is not in more abstractions, extra dimensions, or higher mathematics. I suggest we reexamine our foundational assumptions. First off, mechanics – classical or quantum – assumes a reality of existing objects in space bearing properties, including kinetic energy (KE). Fudges to “existing” (being massless or mathematical) and to “space” (e.g., Hilbert) have only taken us so far. I submit that the essence of radiation (the photon) is immaterial occurrence. Why do we force it to obey a model (mechanics) based on existing constituents? Second, I contend that quantum pioneers were too quick to accept – and we have been too lazy/busy to question – the equivalence of photon momentum with rest mass momentum. We actually don’t understand momentum.
The Quantum mechanics works but is not yet well understood. The difficulty in understanding lies not so much in the already very sophisticated mathematical formulations, but are much more rooted in the question of how the objects do that? Starting with the double-slit experiment, we will first provide the viewpoint of quantum mechanics. This leads us to the wave-particle duality. Photons have both wave and particle properties. Then we see the exact opposite: photons, electrons... are neither wave nor particle and address the question: Can we find truth from falsity? Can quantum mechanics be wrong in their conditions and yet lead to so excellent results? We then address the question of how good the mathematical prerequisites in classical physics is and how well they are fulfilled in quantum physics. Finally, we look at some very basic experiments from the point of view of the objects.
Radiation was a big challenge for the quantum pioneers since the photon was massless, probabilistic and appeared to be both wave and particle. Einstein's special relativity equated mass with energy and space with time. But the equality of mass with energy, then and now, is regarded as quantitative and the equality of space with time is anything but equal; space hosts material entities; time hosts nothing. Exploring these equality issues raises some questions as to how measurable entities-particles and photons-depend upon dimensions. The particle resides in a dimension, space, while also progressing (or persisting) in a dimension, time. The photon certainly progresses in one dimension, space; does it reside there as well? These questions lead to some new conclusions regarding the nature of the photon, its dualism and its nonlocal behavior.
We have argued in previous notes that special relativity is often developed from the point of view of a particle with rest mass, leading to the Lorentz invariant -EE + cc p dot p = -momo cccc ((1)). Then, as a second step, one may obtain the equation E= [p] c by setting mo=0. This appears to be a straightforward math step to obtain a photon relevant result, but we have suggested in (1) that mo represents an inherent force, called inertia (Newton). Thus, special relativity for a particle with rest mass is really linked to this inherent force. In fact, we have suggested in (1), that spin ½ is obtained by finding an equation linear in a particle’s inherent force (rest mass) which is linked to E and p from special relativity and geometry. This, we suggest, is why Dirac linearized ((1)) to find spin ½. The reason for linearization is to have an equation linear in the inherent force, because force appears in F=dp/dt in a linear fashion. The rest mass case seems to be largely based on mo, inertia, which we call the inherent force. We further argued in previous notes that free particle quantum probability arises from -Et+px = Lorentz invariant ((2)) because x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E give the same result and we consider -Et+px to act somewhat like a free particle potential. This suggests that a photon should also have a probability exp(-iEt+ipx), which is verified as both a photon and particle with rest mass, with the same p, give rise to the same 2-slit interference. The problem in the photon case is that mo=0 and so no inherent force appears in special relativity. We argue that physically, there must be an inherent force as interactions (as in the 2-slit case) depend on it. In (1) we argued that the inherent force of a photon is the electric field, but this does not appear in ((1)) or ((2)), but emerges from Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations. This is why the photon has spin 1 and not spin ½ even though it has the probability exp(-iEt+ipx). (See (1) for details on the specific equation which gives rise to spin 1.) Here, we argue that for a particle with spin ½ (i.e. rest mass), exp(-iEt+ipx), which is a probability which conserves energy and momentum, the momentum and energy are proportional to rest mass (inertia or inherent force) and so exp(ipx) is really a probability distribution for inherent force (augmented to E,p due to the Lorentz boost). In the case of the photon, one still has exp(ipx), but the force is due to the electric field. This begs the question: What is the spatial distribution of the electric field? Is it free to be any function? We argue that given that exp(-iEt+ipx) is the energy/momentum conserving probability from special relativity, the inherent force cannot contradict this distribution. The electric field, which is a real valued function, must be cos(-Et+px). We note that one may formally obtain a classical wave equation from Maxwell’s EM equations to find El proportional to cos(-Et+px), but this does not explain the complex probability exp(-iEt+ipx) which holds for both a photon and particle with rest mass. Our objective is to argue that given exp(-iEt+ipx) for a photon, the electric field must behave as cos(-Et+px). Interestingly, the photon momentum density 1/uo Electric field x Magnetic field is proportional to cos(-Et+px) * cos(-Et+px). This does not follow Real(exp(-iEt+ipx), but it is the electric field and not momentum in the photon case which is linked to force. We argue that ultimately it is force which governs interactions, even though momentum (not momentum density) is conserved.
Part I looks at duality for the photon; Part II does the same for the electron. The traditional division of kinetic energy between radiation (E = hf) and matter-in-motion (E = 1/2 mv2) is reexamined permitting new insights into duality. \n \nAn in-flight photon displays wave characteristics. Such a photon can interfere with itself and take all available space paths as a wave. In addition, photons pass through one another like waves whereas particles impact each other. It is only when the photon terminates on a material object and gives up its energy – and ceases to be a photon – that particle characteristics appear, namely: 1) the photon is finally space located; and 2) oscillation ceases. This suggests that the photon’s wave and particle nature do not overlap. Understanding photon termination as a release of mass stored, rather than particle impact, permits a better understanding of presumed wave-particle duality for the photon.
More than a hundred years ago, a series of discoveries, especially in physics, began to subtly (or maybe not) reveal some mysterious properties of matter, properties that in some fashion or other were not acceptable to our established way of perceiving Reality. Strangely enough, these properties were not taken seriously by science because they pointed to a reality that seemed too fantastical to be true, a reality that seemed to have no substance or permanence. These so called mysterious properties matter, for lack of a better word, turn out to be fundamentally related to the following discoveries: The ambiguous wave-particle duality. As in de Broglie matter-waves and the Compton properties of particles. The ubiquitous appearance of the cycle constant (τ=2π=C⁄r) in physical mathematical relations. The general applicability of the Fourier Transform to represent/model physical motion and other natural processes. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its mysterious constraint between conjugate variables, momentum and position for example. Quantum Mechanics and its collapse of the wavefunction. The surprising mass-energy equivalence. As in Einstein’s E=mc^2. The perplexing isotropy of the speed of light. The mind boggling time dilation and length contraction of Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR). The contradictory fabric of SR/GR’s spacetime and its assignment of properties to the void. The surprisingly discrete nature of atomic properties. As in Quantum Mechanics (QM). Needless to say, no matter what science has tried in order to fit the above discoveries into our physical world, their implications continue to elude an intuitively acceptable explanation in material terms. This monograph, although not necessarily in chronological order, is a recapitulation of previous monographs written by the author in an attempt at a single-source theoretical explanation/clarification for the above mentioned list of “mysterious” properties of matter, in terms of one fundamental set of properties, the motional geometry of matter.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.