Is the quantization of energy/mass a fundamental or an emergent characteristic of reality.

Quantum mechanics assumes that it is fundamental because it defines all interactions within it in terms of its quantized properties while one could say that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity defines it in terms of an emergent property of continuous space-time manifold because that’s how it defines reality.

Most would agree the best way of which to determine which one is fundamental would be to see if one can be explain in terms of the other.

&

Richard Feynman Physics Lecture 01 – Photons, Corpuscles of Light

For example it is impossible to explain the apparent continuous properties of space-time in terms of the discrete properties quantum mechanics associates with energy/mass because by definition something that is discrete cannot by definition be continuous.   However it is possible to explain how the continuous properties of space-time can be broken up into the discrete components of energy/mass that allows quantum mechanics to define it in those terms.

Quantum mechanics assumes that energy/mass is quantized based, in part on Schrödinger wave equation which is used to predict and define the quantized energy distribution of electrons in an atom in terms of the Principal number (n),  the Angular Momentum “ℓ”   (l), Magnetic (m) and Spin Quantum Number(+1/2 and -1/2).

However as mentioned earlier it may be possible to define an emergent mechanism based on the reality of four dimensional space-time that can explain why the energy distribution in a atom is quantized.

Yet because quantum mechanics defines its operational environment in terms of the spatial properties of position or momentum and not in terms of temporal properties of time or a space-time environment it would be easier to understand how by redefining that environment in terms of its spatial equivalent

Einstein gave us the ability to qualitatively and quantitatively convert the geometric properties of his space-time environment to an equivalent one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions when he defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe and the dynamic balance between mass and energy in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light.  This is because it allows one to redefine a unit of time he associated with energy in his space-time universe to unit of space we believe he would have associated with mass in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. 

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

However this would allow explain how the spatial characteristics of the energy distribution quantum mechanics associated with the four quantum numbers can emerge from reality of environment consisting of four dimensional space-time or its four *spatial* dimension equivalent.  

For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can explain the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the “reality” of a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially with respect to it thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

Therefore, these oscillations on a “surface” of three-dimensional space, would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in space.

Observations of a three-dimensional environment show the energy associated with resonant system can only take on the incremental or discreet values associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

Similarly the energy associated with resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions could only take on the discreet or incremental values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

In other words this defines the quantization or the particle properties of energy/mass in terms of an emergent property of four *spatial* dimensions. 

However the fact that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the resonant properties of a wave in three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension means that one should also be able to derive the quantum numbers that define the properties of the atomic orbitals in those same terms.

As mentioned earlier there are four quantum numbers.  The first the Principal Quantum number is designated by the letter “n”, the second or Angular Momentum by the letter ” ℓ” the third or Magnetic by the letter “m” and the last is the Spin or “s” Quantum Number.

In three-dimensional space the frequency or energy of a resonant system is defined by the vibrating medium and the boundaries of its environment.

For example the energy of a standing wave generated when a violin string plucked is determined in part by the length and tension of its strings.

Similarly the energy of the resonant system the article ” Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with atom orbitals would be defined by the “length” or circumference of the three-dimensional volume it is occupying and the tension on the space it is occupying.

Therefore the physicality of “n” or the principal quantum number would be defined by the fundamental vibrational energy of three-dimensional space that article associated with the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass.

The circumference of its orbital would correspond to length of the individual strings on a violin while the tension on its spatial components would be created by the electrical attraction of the positive charge of the proton.

Therefore the integer representing the first quantum number would correspond to the physical length associated with the wavelength of its fundamental resonant frequency.

However, classical mechanics tells us that each environment has a unique fundamental resonant frequency which is not shared by others.

Additionally it also tells us in terms of the physical properties four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions the reason an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems.  In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terns of a resonate system.  Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a resonate system in either four dimensional space-time or four spatial dimension corresponds to an energy of an electron in the lowest orbital it must always be occupied.

This defines physicality of the environment associated with the first quantum number in terms of an emergent property of four *spatial* dimensions and why it is unique for each subdivision of electron orbitals.  Additionally observations tell us that resonance can only occur in an environment that contains an integral or half multiples of the wavelength associated with its resonant frequency and that the energy content of its harmonics are always greater than those of its fundamental resonate energy.

This allows one to derive the physicality of the second “ℓ” or azimuth quantum number in terms of how many harmonics of the fundament frequency a given orbital can support. 

In the case of a violin the number of harmonics a given string can support is in part determined by its length.   As the length increase so does the number of harmonics because its greater length can support a wider verity of frequencies and wavelengths.  However, as mentioned earlier each additional harmonic requires more energy than the one before it.  Therefore there is a limit to the number of harmonics that a violin string can support which is determined in part by its length.

Similarly each quantum orbital can only support harmonics of their fundamental frequency that will “fit” with the circumference of the volume it occupies.

For example the first harmonic of the 1s orbital would have energy that would be greater than that of the first because as mentioned earlier the energy associated with a harmonic of a resonant system is always greater than that of its fundamental frequency.  Therefore it would not “fit” into the volume of space enclosed by the 1s orbital because of its relatively high energy content.  Therefore second quantum number of the first orbital will be is 0. 

However it also defines why in terms of classical wave mechanics the number of suborbital associated with the second quantum number increases as one move outward from the nucleus because a larger number of harmonics will be able to “fit” with the circumference of the orbitals as they increase is size.

This also shows that the reason the orbitals are filled in the order 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f, 5s is because the energy of the 3d or second harmonic of the third orbital is higher in energy than the energy of the fundamental resonant frequency of the 4th orbital.  In other words classical wave mechanics tells us the energy of the harmonics of the higher quantum orbitals may be less than that of the energy of the fundamental frequency of preceding one so their harmonics would “fit” into circumference of the lower orbitals

The third or Magnetic (m) quantum number physical defines how the energy associated with each harmonic in each quantum orbital is physically oriented with respect to axis of three-dimensional space.

For example it tells us that the individual energies of 3 “p” orbitals are physically distributed along each of the three axis of three-dimensional space.

The physicality of the fourth quantum or spin number has nothing to do with the resonant properties of space however as was shown in the article “Pauli’s Exclusion Principal: a classical interpretation” Feb. 15, 2012 one can derive its physicality by extrapolating the laws of a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly the article “Defining potential and kinetic energy?” Nov. 26, 2007 showed all forms of energy including the angular momentum of particles can be defined in terms of a displacement in a “surface* of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  In three-dimensional space one can use the right hand rule to define the direction of the angular momentum of charged particles.  Similarly the direction of that displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension can be understood in term of the right hand rule.  In other words the angular momentum or energy of an electron with a positive spin would be directed “upward” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while one with a negative spin would be associated with a “downwardly” directed one.

Therefore one can define the physically of the fourth or spin quantum number in terms of the direction a “surface” of three-dimensional space is displaced with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  For example if one defines energy of an electron with a spin of -1/2 in terms of a downward directed displacement one would define a +1/2 spin as an upwardly directed one.

The physical reason why only two electrons can occupy a quantum orbital and why they have slightly different energies can also be derived by extrapolating the laws of a classical three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

There a two ways to fill a bucket.  One is by pushing it down and allowing the water to flow over its edge or by using a cup to raise it to the level of the buckets rim.

Similarly there would be two ways fill an atomic orbital according to the concepts presented in the article “Defining potential and kinetic energy?.  One would be by creating a downward displacement on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* to the level associated with the electron in that orbital while the other would be raise it up to that energy level .

However the energy required by each method will not be identical for the same reason that it requires slightly less energy to fill a bucket of water by pushing it down below its surface than using a cup to fill it.

However it also explains why no two quantum particles can have the same quantum number because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement. 

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two quantum particles with similar quantum numbers would greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, they will repel each other and seek the lower energy state associated with a different quantum number because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be less for them if they had the same number.

This shows how one can derive the physicality of the four quantum numbers of an emergent property of four *spatial* dimension or its space-time equivalent.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

     

Anthology of
The Imagineer’s Chronicles
Vol. 1 thru 6

2007 thru 2015


Ebook
$10.50

The Reality
of the Fourth
Spatial
Dimension 

 
Paperback
$9.77
Ebook

$6.24
     

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 6 — 2015


Paperback
$12.25
E-book

$9.89

 
 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 5 — 2014
 


Paperback
$13.36
Ebook
$9.97

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 4 — 2013

Paperback
$13.29
E-book
$7.99

 The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 3 — 2012


Paperback
$10.96
Ebook
$6.55

 
 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 2 — 2011
 
Paperback
$8.32
Ebook
$6.57

 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
2007 thru 2010


Paperback
$14.97
Ebook
$7.82

 
       

 

Quantum entanglement is defined "as a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole”.

Einstein referred to this as "spooky action at a distance" because it assumed that particles can interact instantaneously, regardless of distance separating them which according to his perception of reality this was not possible.

Spooky Actions At A Distance?: Oppenheimer Lecture

However if one accepts the reality of the space-time universe defined by Einstein one would realize that according the core principals of his theories there is nothing spooky about action at distance relative to an observers velocity. 

Even so he was so convince that he co-authored a paper with Podolsky–Rosen whose intent was to show that if Quantum Mechanics was a valid theory it could not be complete because it does not agree with most people’s perception of reality. The first thing to notice is that Einstein was not trying to disprove Quantum Mechanics in any way. In fact, he was well aware of its power to predict the outcomes of various experiments. What he was trying to show was that there must be a "hidden variable" that would allow Quantum Mechanics to become a complete theory of nature

The argument begins by assuming that there are two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles), whose wave functions are known. Then, if A and B interact for a short period of time, one can determine the wave function which results after this interaction via the Schrödinger equation or some other Quantum Mechanical equation of state. Now, let us assume that A and B move far apart, so far apart that they can no longer interact in any fashion. In other words, A and B have moved outside of each other’s light cones and therefore are spacelike separated.

With this situation in mind, Einstein asked the question: what happens if one makes a measurement on system A? Say, for example, one measures the momentum value for it. Then, using the conservation of momentum and our knowledge of the system before the interaction, one can infer the momentum of system B. Thus, by making a momentum measurement of A, one can also measure the momentum of B. Recall now that A and B are spacelike separated, and thus they cannot communicate in any way. This separation means that B must have had the inferred value of momentum not only in the instant after one makes a measurement at A, but also in the few moments before the measurement was made. If, on the other hand, it were the case that the measurement at A had somehow caused B to enter into a particular momentum state, then there would need to be a way for A to signal B and tell it that a measurement took place. However, the two systems cannot communicate in any way!

If one examines the wave function at the moment just before the measurement at A is made, one finds that there is no certainty as to the momentum of B because the combined system is in a superposition of multiple momentum eigenstates of A and B. So, even though system B must be in a definite state before the measurement at A takes place, the wave function description of this system cannot tell us what that momentum is! Therefore, since system B has a definite momentum and since Quantum Mechanics cannot predict this momentum, Quantum Mechanics must be incomplete.

In response to Einstein’s argument about incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics, John Bell derived a mathematical formula that quantified what you would get if you made measurements of the superposition of the multiple momentum eigenstates of two particles. If local realism was correct, the correlation between measurements made on one of the pair and those made on its partner could not exceed a certain amount, because of each particle’s limited influence on the other.

In other words he showed there must exist inequities in the measurements made on pairs of particles that cannot be violated in any world that included both their physical reality and their separability because of the limited influence they can have on each other when they are "spacelike" separated.

When Bell published his theorem in1964 the technology to verify or reject it did not exist. However in the early 1980s, Allen Aspect performed an experiment with polarized photons that showed that the inequities it contained were violated.

This meant that science has to accept that either the reality of our physical world or the concept of entanglement does not exist because they are mutually excessive.

However Einstein himself predicted the entanglement of particles that are moving at the velocity of light no matter how far apart they are in his Special Theory of Relativity because he showed us that  the separability or the distance between two points is dependent on the velocity of the observer with respect to what is being observed.

For example his theory tells the distance between the two objects A and B would be defined by their relative speed with respect to an observer.

Specifically he told us that it would be defined by

 

However this tell us the distance or length between observations measured between two photons or any particle moving at the speed of light from the perspective a photon would be zero no matter how far those observation might from the perspective of the observers making them because according to the concepts of relativity one could view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.  This is true even if they are moving in opposite directions.

Therefore according to Einstein’s theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are physical entangled with all other photons that originated within a common system no matter how far apart or "spacelike" separated they may appear to be to all observers who are not traveling at the speed of light.

In other words inequities in the measurements made on pairs of photons should be violated in a world containing the physical reality of Einstein’s theory and separability because they are not "spacelike" separated when viewed from all reference frames which is not traveling at the speed of light.

This tells us that the hidden variable that would allow Quantum Mechanics to become a complete theory of nature is Einstein Theory of Relativity or the Relativistic properties of motion.

Additionally if quantum entanglement did not occur for photons that were space like separated then the physical reality of Einstein space-time universe as defined by his theory of Relativity must be discarded

One method for determining if this is the reason why Allen Aspect observed polarized photons violated Bells inequities would be to see if they are also violated by particles that were traveling slower that the speed of light because they would according to the Theory of Relativity could be "spacelike" separated.

In others words if it was observed that particles which were not traveling at the speed of light did not violate Bell’s inequity then it would support Einstein perception of reality and provide a physical verification for the causality in terms of the existence of space-time for one of the most puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics; that of quantum entanglement.

However if it is found that bell’s inequity is violated by particles moving slower than the speed of light then Einstein’s perception of reality would be invalidated because it demands that things which are "spacelike" separated can only have a limited influence one each other.

Yet one must be careful when performing the calculations because the distance separating the particles would not be determined by the distance between the end points as viewed by the experimenter but by relativistic distance as viewed from the particles,

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016

     

Anthology of
The Imagineer’s Chronicles
Vol. 1 thru 6

2007 thru 2015


Ebook
$10.50

The Reality
of the Fourth
Spatial
Dimension 

 
Paperback
$9.77
Ebook

   $6.24
     

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 6 — 2015


Paperback
$12.25
E-book
$9.89

        

 
 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 5 — 2014
 


Paperback
$13.36
Ebook
$9.97

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 4 — 2013

Paperback
$13.29
E-book
$7.99

 The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 3 — 2012

 

Paperback
$10.96
Ebook
$6.55

 
 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 2 — 2011
 
Paperback
$8.32
Ebook
$6.57

 

 

The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
2007 thru 2010

 
Paperback
$14.97
Ebook
$7.82

 
         

 

« Previous Articles    
The Imagineer's Chronicles is based on WordPress platform, RSS tech , RSS comments design by Gx3.