Have you ever wondered why so many seeming rational scientists make irrational assumptions to explain why our universe behaves the way it does and why Einstein was unable see, as Robert Oerter pointed out in his book "The Theory of Almost Everything: the magic of Relativistic Quantum Electrodynamics or QED.
He tells us the reason may have been because it defines the charge around a solitary electron as being caused by spontaneous creation of virtual electronpositron pairs which then magically disappear. However being virtual means that they are very close to being something without actually being it. In others words according to QED the force between two charged particles is something that it is not.
I think most people would consider someone irrational if they tried to convince us the reason why they were late for work was because a swam of virtual or imaginary cars were blocking the road which disappeared after we showed up at work.
Shouldn’t we hold our scientists to the same degree of rationality?
Most who have studied the history of science are aware that Einstein was vehemently opposed to many of the fundamental components of quantum mechanics such as the existence of virtual particles. Granted even though he was able, in his General Theory of Relativity to derive the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of space and time he was unable to describe or define electromagnetism or charge separation in the same terms, as was documented by the American Institute of Physics.
"From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his theory of relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation — for a "unified field" theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together — occupied more of Einstein’s years than any other activity.
However the symmetry of the mathematics he used to define his spacetime environment may enable us to use his theories to bring them together and define the "reality" of charged particles without the existence of virtual ones.
For example the fact that he used the constant velocity of light and the geometric properties of spacetime to define the energy provides a method of converting a unit of time he associated with it to a unit of space associated with position. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it allows for the defining of a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
This change in perspective allows one to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in spacetime he associated with gravity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions and is bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including gravitational and electrical can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However this would have allowed Einstein to define and understand the forces associated with electromagnetic charge in terms of their spatial instead of time properties.
For example as was shown as was shown in the article "What is electromagnetism?" Sept, 27 2007 one can derive the forces associated with the charge fluctuations in an electromagnetic wave in terms of the displacement caused by the "peaks" and "toughs" of a matter wave moving on the "surface" of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly it showed it is possible to derive the properties of electromagnetism by extrapolating the laws of Classical Wave Mechanics in a threedimensional environment to a matter wave moving on it
A wave on the twodimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become "attracted" to each other and the surface of the water.
Similarly a matter wave on the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that "surface" to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.
Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a "surface" of threedimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become "attracted" to each other.
This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other 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 threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.
One can define the causality of the electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with the "peaks" and "troughs" of a matter wave that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.
However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it. This force is called magnetism.
This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.
Einstein was unable to accomplish this in terms of fourdimensional spacetime because time is only observe to move in one direction forwards and therefore could not support the bidirectional movement required to support the electromagnetic component of a matter wave moving on its "surface".
However, as was shown above it also defines the forces associated charges and their separation in terms of the physical properties of the spatial dimensions without the need of assuming the existence of virtual or imaginary particles.
In other words it shows that change particles and their associated forces can be explained and predicted in terms of their relative position with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Some would say that even if that were true it still cannot explain why those forces would be quantized.
However as was shown in the article in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 can also derive the quantum mechanical properties of charges by extrapolating the physical properties of resonance in a threedimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian 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 threedimensional 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 threedimensional 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 threedimensional space, would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in space.
Observations of a threedimensional 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 incremental or discreet values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.
In other words defining the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of physical properties of four *spatial* dimensions eliminates the need to make irrational assumptions like the interaction of virtual with real particles is responsible for charges and their separation.
It should be remember Einstein’s genius and the fact that he defined the geometry of spacetime in terms of the constant velocity of light allows us to choose to define our universe as either a spacetime environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories by making them applicable to both the spatial as well as the time properties of our universe giving us a new perspective on charges and their associated forces.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015
Anthology of 
The Reality 
The Imagineer’s


The Imagineer’s

The Imagineer’s 
The Imagineer’s 

The Imagineer’s

The Imagineer’s 

01
On page 33 of Sean Carroll book, "The Particle at the End of the Universe" he tells us that "The physicist John Wheeler once proposed a challenge: How can you best explain quantum mechanics in five words or fewer? In the modern world, it’s easy to get suggestions for any shortanswer question: Simply ask Twitter, the microblogging service that limits posts to 140 characters. When I posed the question about quantum mechanics, the best answer was given by Aatish Bhatia (@ aatishb): “Don’t look: waves. Look: particles.” That’s quantum mechanics in a nutshell."
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and waveparticle duality 
When Einstein was asked about the consequences of this particle wave dichotomy he replied "It seems as though we must sometimes use one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do"
For example the paradoxical wave–particle reality of energy/mass, one of the fundamental concepts defining Quantum mechanics defies the "reality" of the world we live in because of its inability to describe/define how quantumscale objects can simultaneously exist as waves and particles. Many have tried to explain it as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain it as an emergent, secondorder consequence of various limitations of the observer.
But Aatish Bhatia answer to Sean question brings up another troubling aspect of the reality behind quantum. How does the intervention of an observer force a particle to "choose" a state and how does it know when someone is observing it.
However Einstein may have provided us with an answer to both of these questions when he define the physical relationship between energy and mass in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the geometry of spacetime.
In other words, using the concepts developed by Einstein one may be able to derive a single reality for the waveparticle duality of the quantum world and how an observer interacts with it in terms four dimensional spacetime.
However it will be easier to understand how by redefining Einstein’s spacetime environment to its equivalent four "spatial" dimension counterpart because it will allow us to derive them in terms of the observable properties of the spatial dimensions instead not observable temporal ones of a spacetime dimension.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the velocity of light to define the geometric properties of spacetime because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional spacetime universe to a unit of a space identical to those of our threedimensional environment. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words the symmetry of his mathematics means that he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his spacetime universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions and the curvature or displacement he associated with the energy of a quantum system in a spacetime environment to a spatial displacement in a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However defining its dimensional properties in terms of its spatial instead of its time components would allow one to not only understand why a quantum environment possess two distinct realities but also why observation determines which reality becomes predominate by extrapolating the laws governing cause and effect in the classical world to them.
For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can derive quantum properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a threedimensional environment to a matter wave on a "surface" of a threedimensional 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 a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions 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 threedimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established space.
Therefore, these oscillations in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in fourdimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.
Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.
Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.
Yet it also allowed one to derive the physical boundaries of a particle in terms of the geometric properties of four *spatial* dimensions.
For example in classical physics, a point on the twodimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to threedimensional space.
Similarly an object occupying a volume of threedimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a threedimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries of the resonant system associated with the particle "reality" of its wave properties in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007.
In other words one can use classical wave mechanics to explain why a quantum system can possess both wave and particle properties.
However it also tells us how the intervention of an observer forces a quantum system to "choose" a state or how it "knows" when someone is observing it.
As was mentioned earlier its particle reality of is the result of it’s wave energy being confined to a specific volume.
However in every case, observing a quantum system requires one to confine its energy to the specific volume associated with the observing equipment. Therefore it will always display its particle reality when someone looks or observes it.
However if no one is looking at it its wave reality is free to move, interact and interfere with other quantum systems until they are observed and then they will revert to the back their particle realty as when observed in the double slit experiment.
In other words the reason why the particle reality of a quantum system takes the form an interference pattern associated with a wave in Thompson’s double slit experiment is because its wave reality can interact before it is observed and the act of observing it results in its wave reality being presented as a particle interference pattern.
Additionally it gives consistent explanation of why one can sum up quantum mechanics in these words "Don’t look: waves. Look: particles" by extrapolating the "single" physically reality of our observable environment to one consisting of either four dimensional spacetime or four spatial dimensions.
It should be remember that Einstein’s genius and the symmetry of his mathematics allows us to choose whether to define the reality of a quantum system in either a spacetime environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015
Anthology of 
The Reality 
The Imagineer’s


The Imagineer’s

The Imagineer’s 
The Imagineer’s 

The Imagineer’s

The Imagineer’s 
