When the Copenhagen interpretation was first introduced Neils Bohr found it was necessary to assume the collapse of wave function to distinguish the quantum from the classical world.  This allowed it to develop without distractions from interpretational worries.  Nevertheless since then that it meaning has be hotly debated because if it is a fundamental properties of nature as many have assumed it would contradict the classical or Newton assumption that the world is deterministic.
However the science of physics is devoted to understanding the physical process responsible for creating the “reality” of our observable environment based on observing the physical interaction of its real not imagined components.

One of the reason it has been so difficult to understand what happens to the position component of a quantum system when it is observed may be because too much attention has been focused on the mathematical aspects of the wave function and not enough on its physical meaning in a space-time environment.  This is made even more difficult because the concept of superposition is defined in terms of the spatial properties of a quantum system instead of its space-time properties.

This suggest one be able to obtain a better understanding of what happens to it if one could view it in terms its spatial instead of it time or space-time properties.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to unit of space associate with position. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However defining the dimensional properties of quantum system in terms of its spatial instead of its time components would allow one to derive the physicality of the wave functioned associated with Schrödingerâ€s equation by extrapolating the observable properties of our reality to the quantum world it describes.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can derive its physicality by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave 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 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 three-dimensional 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 three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional 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 it 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.

(In the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009 the internal structure of quarks, a fundament component of particles was derived in terms of a similar resonant interaction between three and four dimensional space.)

However assuming its energy is result of a displacement in four *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 allows one to not only derive the physicality of Schrödingerâ€s equation as was just done but also the physical reason why its particle components would be in superpositioned state before an observation is made.

Classical mechanics tell us that because of the continuous properties of waves, the energy the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension similar to how the wave generated by a vibrating ball on a surface of a rubber diaphragm are disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of the displacement it causes will decrease as one moves away from the point of contact.

However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a “surface” of three-dimensional space one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must be disturbed thought the entire universe while the spatial displacement associated with its energy defined in the in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 would decrease as one moves away from its position.  This means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment because, as mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” shows that a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed by the oscillations on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Classical Wave Mechanics tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly an observer would most probably find a quantum system were the magnitude of the vibrations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point. 

However as mentioned earlier this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can define a particle’s exact position or momentum only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function

Additionally this tells us that the wave function does not collapse but its energy is redirected towards the observer and as was shown in the article Why is energy/mass quantized? he would record its redirected energy in term of discrete quantized properties associated with a particle.

As mentioned earlier the science of physics is devoted to understanding the physical process responsible for creating the “reality” of our observable environment based on observing the physical interaction of its real not imagined components.

Yet even though we may never be able to directly observe the fourth *spatial* dimension we can verify its existence by observing the effects it has on our observable three-dimensional environment similar to how Einstein was able to conclude that gravity was a result of a curvature in a space time environment.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post A classical interpretation of the wave function collapse appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.  Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer.

However it may be possible to understand it in classical terms if one assumes the universe is composed of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space time.

(The reason will become obvious later)

The double slit experiment is made up of "A coherent source of photons illuminating a screen after passing through a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it.  The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen.  However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as discrete particles, called photons.
When only one slit is open, the pattern on the screen is a diffraction pattern however, when both slits are open, the pattern is similar but with much more detailed.  These facts were elucidated by Thomas Young in a paper entitled "Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics," published in 1803.  To a very high degree of success, these results could be explained by the method of Huygens–Fresnel principle that is based on the hypothesis that light consists of waves propagated through some medium.  However, discovery of the photoelectric effect made it necessary to go beyond classical physics and take the quantum nature of light into account.

However the most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time impacts a barrier with two opened slits because an interference pattern forms which is similar to what it was when multiple photons were impacting the barrier.  This is a clear implication the particle called a photon has a wave component, which simultaneously passes through both slits and interferes with itself.  (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)"

Yet as mentioned earlier one can derive the fact that a photon exhibits both the characteristics of a particle and wave in terms of classical concepts by transposing or converting the space-time geometry of relativity to one of four *spatial* dimensions and the spatial properties quantum mechanics associates with its energy.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used he used the velocity of light to defined the geometric properties of space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his space-time universe to a unit of space in an environment consisting four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by mathematically defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of 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.

The fact that one can use Einstein’s equations to qualitatively and qualitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases of assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 

However it also allows one to understand the wave particle duality of photon and all other particles as is demonstrated in Thomson’s double slit experiment in terms of the concepts of classical physics.

For example the article, "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can use the concept developed in the article “Defining energy?” to explain and understand the physicality of the wave properties of all particles including a photon by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a three dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  It also explains why all energy must be quantized or exists in these discrete resonant systems when observed.

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 a matter wave moving in 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 three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established in four spatial dimensions.

As was shown in that article these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for its quantum mechanical properties.

Additionally it also tells us why in terms of the physical properties four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions 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 terms of a resonate system. Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a stable resonate system in either four dimensional space-time or four spatial dimension corresponds to the energy of an electron it becomes one of the fundamental energy units of the universe.

However, it does not explain how the boundaries of a particleâ€s resonant structure are defined.

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional 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 three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the geometric spatial boundaries of the resonant system associated with a particle in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?"

This provides the ability to understand, in classical terms the inseparability of the wave-particle duality of energy/mass that is demonstrated in Thomson’s double slit experiment is because clearly demonstrates how the one is dependent on the other.

Briefly it shows the reason why the interference patterns remains when one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open or "the most baffling part of this experiment" is because, as mentioned earlier it is made up of a resonant system or "structure" therefore it occupies an extended volume which is directly related to the wavelength of its particle system.

This means a portion of a particles energy could simultaneously pass both slits, if the diameter of its volume exceeds the separation of the slits and recombine on the other side to generate an interference pattern. 

It also explains why the interference pattern disappears,when a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through.  The energy required to measure which one of the two slits its energy passes through interacts with it causing the wavelength of that portion to change so that it will not have the same resonant characteristics as one that passed through the other slit   Therefore, the energy passing thought that slit will not be able to interact, in most cases with the energy passing through the other one to form an interference pattern on the screen.

It also defines in classical terms  the reason, why the measurements of energy/mass takes the form particles and not waves in Thomson’s double slit experiment

As mentioned earlier, the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" showed energy must be propagated through space in quantized resonant systems if one applies the concept of classical mechanics to a matter wave on "surface" of a three-dimension space.  Therefore, because its energy must be propagated through space to be observed the energy impacting the screen will have the discrete non-wavelike characteristics of a particle.

Richard Feynman the farther of Quantum Electrodynamics or "OED" realized the significance of this experiment because it demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle properties of particles and felt a complete understanding of quantum mechanics could be gleaned from carefully thinking through its implications.

The above article demonstrates why.

It shows the quantum mechanical particle and wave properties of energy/mass displayed in the double slit experiment can be understood if one assumes they are made up of a resonant system in a moving on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post Thomson’s double slit experiment in four spatial dimensions appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Instrumentalists claim that scientific theories are merely useful tools for predicting phenomena instead of true or approximately true descriptions of the physical world while realists hold the view that they should be.

As Richard DeWitt points out in his book “Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science“

“The disagreement between instrumentalists and realists as to what constitutes a valid theory goes back to the beginnings of science. Both agree that an adequate theory must accurately predict and explain the relevant data. However realists require, in addition, that an adequate theory pictures, or models, the way things really are.”

For example to an instrumentalist in Europe between AD 150 and 1500, the question “Are epicycles real?” would not have been an important question to ask because Ptolemyâ€s theory which involve epicycles accurately predicted and explained the observational data relevant to that time, and that is all that is important.

On the other hand, for a realist this question would be important because they are not only are concerned with how accurate a theories predictions are but on establishing the “reality” of the conceptual basis for those predictions.  In other words do epicycles really exist or are they illusion created by the human intellect to explain why Ptolemy’s predictions are accurate.
This issue whether we should require theories to reflect the way things really are, which distinguishes instrumentalists and realists is just as controversial today as it was Ptolemy’s time.

For example even though the quantum mechanics with its “peculiar-looking” wave functions makes excellent predictions of quantum facts should we ask ourselves if it reflects the way things really are or accept it only on the bases that it allows us to make very accurate predictions of quantum phenomena.

This is particularly important because the wave function may be one of the weirdest inventions of the human mind to explain the “reality” of the facts or observations of quantum environment.

Weird because no one has been able to interpret what it tells us in terms of the “reality” we observe around us.

For example the Copenhagen interpretation defines the existence or “reality” of a particle in terms of the mathematical properties of a wave function that is spread out over the entire universe and tells us a particle only appears in a specific place when a conscience observer looks at it. Therefore it assumes the act of measurement or observation creates its physical reality. However because only conscience human beings can be observers it implies that nothing can exist without them being there to observe them.

However because human are made up of particles if one assumes that they exist only after being observed by a human one must also assume that humans evolved out of something that did not exist.

Clearly the Copenhagen explanation deviates from the “reality” of the observable world and the presently accepted laws of physics because up until it came along they told us that something cannot be created out of nothing.

However instrumentalists claim this is not a problem because quantum theory makes extremely accurate predictions of all observed facts regarding a quantum environment however the realist say wait a minute are you telling us that we should accept your explanation of the facts that have no resemblance to the “reality” we see around us.

Who is right?

Both the instrumentalists and realists have created valid arguments to support their positions as to what constitutes a valid theory so how should we decide.

One way to determine which is best suited to the advance our ability to accurately define what we observe in our environment would be to look at the evolutionary history of theoretical science and determine which of these philosophies provide the greatest motivation for scientific progress.

Historically most paradigm shifts in our understanding of our universe has been a result of attempting to understand what we observe in terms of the “reality” of what we see around us.

For example, new discoveries, such as those involving Galileo and the telescope, eventually led to the rejection of the Ptolemyâ€s geocentric model and the adoption of the more observationally corrected heliocentric one based on a new understanding of the “reality” they provided.

However even before Galileo’s observation there were suggestions that something was not right with Ptolemy’s model because no one had ever observed objects spontaneous moving backwards in what is called retrograde motion other than the planets.

This should have and did cause some to question the validity of Ptolemy explanation of planetary motion long before Galileo made his observations. 

Why then did it take almost 1500 years before its validity was rejected by the majority of the scientific community in Europe ?

It may have been because the instrumentalist’s attitude of that period allowed the majority of thinkers at that time to focus primarily on its ability to make accurate predictions of where the planets would be located in the future and not on the mechanism defining how they got there.

In other words because instrumentalism was the predominate philosophy at the time, scientists were able to ignore or marginalize those who questioned the validity of the Ptolemy’s model.

Therefore one could justifiably say that instrumentalists of that period created an atmosphere that caused or gave science the ability not to explore or ignore possible explanations that were more closely agreed with the reality behind those physical observations.

This demonstrates one of the fundamental flaws in the instrumentalist’s philosophy. 

By saying that a theory does not have to represent a true or approximately true descriptions of the physical world gives scientists an excuse not to look for a way explaining the “reality” or attempting to understand what we observe in terms of the mechanistic properties of the world we see around us.

Today the instrumentalist’s attitude towards understanding of reality is alive and well as is demonstrated by the wildly accepted assumptions of quantum mechanics which is based solely on its mathematically predictive ability demonstrates. 

However should we trust abstract mathematics to define our understanding of reality or should we let the “reality” of observations guide our understanding of the mathematics that define it.

History has shown the pitfalls of the instrumentalist’s philosophy or basing a theories validity only on their mathematical ability to make accurate predictions of what we observe.

Later Jeff

copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post Instrumentalism or realism how should we decide? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example the Copenhagen interpretation tells us that a particle is spread out as a wave over the entire universe and only appears in a specific place when a conscience observer looks at it.  Therefore it assumes the act of measurement or observation creates its physical reality and that of the universe.  However because only conscience human beings can be observers it implies that nothing can exist without them being there to observe them.

Not only is it a bit self centered for humans to assume that they (humans) are the sole arbiters of the physicality of the universe but it is also shows how out of touch with reality those who believe in it are for the simple fact that the is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans physically evolved over a finite period of time.  However, if one assumes that atoms exist only after being observed by a human one must also assume that humans evolved out of something that did not exist.

However one of the reasons many scientist believe this is because they feel it is the only way to resolve the physical conflicts they find between the experimental observations of the microscopic realm of the atom and the “reality” we see in our macroscopic universe.
For example quantum mechanics assumes that all energy/mass is encapsulated in what is called a wave function which collapses into the reality most of us associate with our particle world only when it is observed. 

However as Greene, Brian points out in his book “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality” (Kindle Locations 3750-3752).

“No one has been able to explain how an experimenter making a measurement (observation) cause a wavefunction to collapse? In fact, does wavefunction collapse really happen, and if it does, what really goes on at the microscopic level? Do any and all measurements cause collapse?

The name give to the inability to define what happens to the wave properties of energy/mass when a measurement or observation is made is called the measurement problem and has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics.  Many of these interoperations assume that Schrödinger wave function defines an atom in terms of the linear superposition of its particle and wave states even though actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state.   Additionally experiments tell us that any future evolution must be based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made and not on its history, meaning that the measurement “did something” to the process under examination.   Many believe whatever that “something” may be does cannot be explained in terms of classical theories.

However, it can be shown that one can explain and understand the “something” that happens when a measurement of the wave function is made by extrapolating the theoretical concepts of classical mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In the article “A classical Schrödingerâ€s wave equation” Mar. 15, 2010 it was shown one can derive the physical reality of the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass associated with Schrödinger’s wavefunction by extrapolating observations of classical three-dimensional space to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a three-dimensional 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 made up of four.

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* dimension 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.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold.

Yet classical theories of three-dimensional space tell us the energy of resonant systems can only take on the discontinuous or discreet energies associated with the fundamental or harmonic of their fundamental frequency.

However, these are the similar to the quantum mechanical properties associated with the wavefunction in that it only takes on the discontinuous or discreet energies associated with the formula E=hv where “E” equals the energy of a particle, “h” or Planckâ€s constant would correspond to the energy associated with the fundamental frequency of four *spatial* dimensions and “v” equals the frequency of its wave component.

This shows how one can not only define the physicality of the quantum mechanical properties of Schrödinger wavefunction but also of Planck’s constant by extrapolating the classical laws governing resonant system in a three-dimensional environment to a resonant system formed by a matter wave moving in four *spatial* dimensions. 

However it also gives one the ability to understand why evolution of a quantum system is effected by observation or measurement.

Classical mechanics tells us that one should be able predict the future evolution of a system based on its history.  In other words if one knew every detail of a systems history one could measure its future evolution with complete certainty.  However it also tells us that one must interact with a system and therefore change its history to make a measurement.  Therefore, the laws of classical mechanics tell us that one must base the future evolution of a system on new history created by a measurement. 

Yet this is precisely what we observed in a quantum environment in that the act of measurement creates a new history for a system.  The only difference between a classical and a quantum environment is that in the latter the act of measurement always makes significant change which cannot be ignored in determining the future of the environment. 

However this does not mean that one cannot use the conceptual “reality” defined by classical mechanics to understand the physicality of the quantum world because as mentioned earlier classical mechanics also tells us the act of measurement must affect the future evolution of a system.

The other as of yet unanswered question that Brian Breen brought up in his book involving what happens to the quantum mechanical wave function when a measurement is made can also be found in classical mechanics.

As mentioned the earlier article “A classical Schrödingerâ€s wave equation” showed that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of a resonant structure by physically extrapolating the laws of classical mechanics to wave in a quantum environment.

This tells us that because of the continuous properties of waves, the energy associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout an extended volume of space similar to how the wave generated by a vibrating ball on a surface of a rubber diaphragm are disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of the displacement it causes will decrease as one moves away from the point of contact.

However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must be disturbed throughout the entire universe while the displacement created by its wave energy would decrease as one moves away from its position.  This means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment because as was shown earlier a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed by wave oscillations which are disturbed throughout space.

Classical Wave Mechanics tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly an observer would most probably find a quantum system were the magnitude of the vibrations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point. 

However as mentioned earlier this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can define a particle’s exact position or momentum only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function

Yet this also means the wave function does not collapse but its evolution is redirected towards the observer.

In other words it answers the question “how an experimenter making a measurement (observation) causes a wave function to collapse” Greene, Brian asked in his book “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality” by using the laws of classical mechanics to define the quantum environment and “explain ”  show that the act of observation does not cause the collapse of the wavefunction but only redirects its evolution towards the observer.

It should be remember that we are not trying to quantify our quantum experiences but only to explain how and why we experience it the way we do in terms of the “realty” most of us associate with our classical world.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2012 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post A Classical Quantum environment appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example the paradoxical wave–particle behavior of energy/mass, one of the fundamental concepts defining Quantum mechanics defies the “reality” of a classical world because of its inability to describe/define how quantum-scale 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 the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer.

However, it is possible to explain the wave–particle duality of the quantum world in terms of the “reality” of classical concepts if one assumes, as has been done in this blog and our book “The Reality of the Fourth Spatial Dimension” that space is made up of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time and that the quantum mechanical or particle properties of energy/mass are a result of a resonant structure formed by a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example on pages 17 thru 23 of Richard P Feynman book “QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter” he describes the seemingly paradoxical wave–particle duality of light or electromagnetic energy when it is partially reflected by two surfaces.

He writes that by placing two glass surfaces exactly parallel to each other one can observe how the photons of light reflected from the bottom surface interact with those reflected from the top surface.  Depending on the distance between the glass surfaces he can determine, by using a photo detector, that four percent or 4 out of 100 photons reflected from the lower surface of the glass could add up to as many as 16 or none at all when they interact with the photons reflected from the upper surface of the glass because of the reinforcement of the reflected wave energy from the bottom and top surfaces of the glass.

In other words the 4 photons reflected from the surface of the bottom piece of glass would interact with the incident ones to that surface creating from 0 to 8 photons while the 4 photons reflected from the surface of the top piece of glass would interact with the incident ones to it creating 0 to 8 more photons for a total of 0 to 16 photons.

These observations by Mr. Feynman support a wave theory of electromagnetic radiation because according to it, the energy associated with the interference of the 4 photons reflected from the bottom surface with 4 from the top will result in energy variations that corresponds to the energy of 0 to 16 photons.

However, wave theory also predicts the energy variations should be continuous.

In other words, the energy of the reflected photons should be able to take on any value between 0 and the combined energies associated with 16 photons.

Unfortunately, for the wave theory of light, the energy of the reflected photons Richard Feynman observed in the above experiment only took on integral values equal to the energy of the photons that originally struck the surface of the glass.  This indicates that their energy is not transmitted by a wave but by a particle.

However the observational paradox associated with its wave / particle behavior can be resolved if particles are, as mentioned earlier viewed in terms of a resonant “system” generated by a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 10, 2007 it was shown one can derive the quantum mechanical particle properties of energy/mass and a photon by extrapolating the  laws of classical of resonance in 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.  Additionally it showed why all electromagnetic energy must be propagated in these resonant systems.

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 its natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of three-dimensional space (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension 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.

These oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold, according to classical mechanics, if one extrapolates them to a fourth *spatial* dimension would generate a resonant system or “structure” in space. 

Classical mechanics tell us resonant system can only have the incremental or discrete energy associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Similarly the incremental or discrete energies associated with individual photons in Richard Feynman’s experiment could be explained by assuming that they are a result of the fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency resonant properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

This shows how one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass and a photon by extrapolating the laws of classical physics to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(This cannot be done in a universe consisting of four dimensional space-time because time is only observed to move in one direction forward and therefore could not support the bi-directional movement required for Classical resonance to occur.)

However the article “The Photon: a matter wave?” Oct 1, 2007 showed that one can also derive electromagnetic wave properties of a photon and other particles by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in 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 a wave on the two-dimensional 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 three-dimensional 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.

However, as just mentioned classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us the force developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension 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 three-dimensional 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 three-dimensional 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 similar charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” 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 from the apex of that displacement.

Therefore, these two articles define a common mechanism responsible the wave–particle duality of the quantum world because they derive one in terms of the other.  In other words the resonant properties of a matter wave the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associates with particles including the photon would be responsible for the observations associated with the particle properties of energy/mass while the matter wave component of their resonant structure would be responsible for its wave properties.

As mentioned earlier the Copenhagen interpretation, explains the paradox associated with wave–particle duality in terms of it being complementarily or a phenomenon which can only be viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously.

However this is what one would expect if one extrapolated the laws of classical mechanics to the quantum world in which particles were made up of a resonant structure formed by a matter wave because it tells us that 100% of its energy would be contained in its wave responsible for the resonant structure the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed is responsible of its particle properties.

Therefore if one devised an experiment to observe its energy in the form its resonant structure that article associated with the particle properties of energy/mass there will be no energy left to support the viewing of its wave component while if someone choose to measure its wave energy there will be no energy left to support is its resonant particle structure.

Therefore one could only be viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously.

This shows how one can define a physical mechanism or the reality behind wave–particle duality of the quantum world and the complementarily Copenhagen interpretation of it by extrapolating the classical laws of physics in three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, one can also explain the observations made by Mr. Feynman by associating the wave–particle duality of photon and electromagnetic energy with a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example, the wave like interference of photons he observed would be due to the wave properties of the resonant “system” defined in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“.

If the distance between the two glass surfaces in Richard Feynman’s experiment is equal to half of the wavelength of the resonant “system” associated with a photon, classical wave mechanics tell us the interference of its wave properties would interfere with each and will, as mentioned earlier yield the energy associated with 0 photons.

If the distance between two glass surfaces is equal to its wavelength of their wave properties will reinforce each other and yield the energy associated with 16 photons.

However, this does not explain how and why the energy variations caused by their interference are quantized and not continuous as wave theory predicts they should.

The reason is because, as was shown in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” the resonant properties of four *spatial* dimensions means that their energy would be propagated in the discrete quantized values associated with its fundamental or harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

The reason the reflected photon have the same energy as the incidence one is because observations of resonant systems in three-dimensional environment tell us that they interact more efficiently or reinforce each other when they have identical properties. Therefore, if it is true that electromagnetic energy is propagated by a resonant system created by a matter wave they should interact more efficiently or reinforce each other when they have identical wave properties.

Therefore, energy variations caused by the interference of their wave properties will most probably have the discrete or quantum values associated with the resonant “systems” of the original interfering photons.

This indicates that viewing the quantum mechanical world of wave–particle duality in terms of a resonant “systems” generated by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension allows one to derive its “reality” in terms of the laws of classical mechanics in three-dimensional environment by extrapolating them a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post The "reality" behind wave—particle duality appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The first involves developing a mathematical description by directly observing how its components interact.
For example, Isaac Newton developed his law of gravity by observing the movement of planets and realizing that they could be understood by assuming they exerted a force on their neighbors that was directly proportional to their mass.  He then derived a mathematical equation which allowed one to quantify their future movements based on those observations.  These equations could also be applied to the movement of planets that had not been observed.  For example the position of the planet Neptune was predicted before it was observed by the use of his equations.

In other words he first conceptually defined or understood their movements through observations and then derived a mathematical expression that quantified the reality of their world from that understanding.

The second involves extrapolating a conceptual understanding of the properties of our observable environment to an unobservable one.

For example Schrödinger developed an equation that defined the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating an understanding of waves gained from observations of our three-dimensional environment to the unobservable one of subatomic particles.

In other words he mathematically defined the reality of a quantum mechanical world in terms of the reality of his observable properties of waves.

The third method involves developing a mathematical expression based not on a conceptual understanding of how the components of our observable universe interact as Newton and Schrödinger did but on analyzing the quantified result of those interactions.

For example string theorists analyze the quantified results of particle interactions and then developed mathematical expression that predicts them directly from those results.  They then define the reality of a “string” world based on a conceptual understanding of the equations that quantify them.

In other words string theorists define the “reality” of a “strings” environment based only on the mathematical structure of the equations that they use to define that reality.

For the last century researchers have favored the approach taken by string theorists in that they use the quantified result of observations to mathematically define how the components of an environment interact to generate those results. 

Why?

Because many feel they must rely totally on their imagination, intuition, and mathematics to guide them on the road to understanding because they cannot directly observe the worlds they are analyzing.

Unfortunately it is possible to use intuition and mathematics to create completely self contained worlds that can predict observations which may or may not be connected to their reality they are attempting to define.  Therefore the validity of the worlds they create can only be verified if they are anchored in a real non abstract world provided through direct observation of one’s environment.

For example the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics does not view the equations that define its theoretical concepts in terms of the observable properties of waves as Schrödinger had done but in only in terms of a mathematical probability based on them.

However history has shown the most powerful way to understand the physical properties of our environment are through observations.  Before Isaac Newton developed his law of gravitation scientists could still make accurate quantifiable predictions of planetary movements even though no one understood why they moved that way.

Some scientists of that period felt there was no need to look any further because they could still make accurate predictions of their motion without understanding why.  However, Newton by observing his environment developed an understanding that enabled one of what many feel is the greatest conceptual leaps in humankind understanding of the universe.

Presently we seem to be in a situation similar to that which occurred before Newton developed his gravitational theory.

Quantum mechanics can make extremely accurate predictions of the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass based on a self contained mathematical environment called a wave function.  Yet no one can explain its physicality in terms of observable properties of our environment.

However, similar to the scientists who came before Newton many believe that the self contained abstract mathematical environment of quantum mechanics does not need explaining because it can make accurate a predictions of the properties of energy/mass.

Yet Newton demonstrated how important connecting a mathematical environment to an observational one is to our understanding of its reality.

Mathematics is a very powerful tool for helping us understand the world we live in but because of its abstract nature it can be used to create self contained environments which can predict our physical world and still not be connected to its reality.  The only way to make sure the reality they define is connected to our world is by anchoring it in physical observations of our environment.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2011 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post Mathematical verses observational reality appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example many scientists try to convince the uninformed and less educated that we and all other things exist only after a human has observed them.  Well that’s not quite true.  According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles only come into existence after they have been observed by a conscious being.

I wish I had know that before that tree branch that I and no one else observed fall on me last year because it would have save me a trip to the emergency room.  You see the tree branch is made up of particles.  Therefore according to quantum mechanics it did not exist because no one had observed it or the particles that make it up as it was falling.

Some will try to justify this lunacy by telling you the "reality" of that tree limb is a result of mathematical equations.  However, I define its reality in terms of the cast on my arm.

My father used to tell me that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it probably is a duck.

All kidding aside I feel that scientist’s especially physicists should spend more time in the real world instead of the Alice and Wonderland one they create with mathematics

For example one of the more outrageous claims made by some physicists is that one-dimensional strings define our reality.  String theory, as this idea has come to be called is a mathematical construct that defines all forms of energy and therefore "reality" in terms of the vibratory patterns of one-dimensional strings.  But have you ever seen a one-dimensional string.  I know I have not

Has anyone else noticed that recently things seem to appear and disappear without rhyme or reason in physics similar to what happened in Lewis Carroll’s "Wonderland" when Alice first discovers the golden key is the only thing on the table, but the next time she looks there is also the bottle marked ‘drink me’ or when the Cheshire Cat that appears and disappears with dizzying speed

Physics as the name implies is the science that deals with physical properties matter, energy, motion, and force and not with abstract mathematics.  Therefore, physicists should look to the observable properties of realty instead of the unobservable abstract proprieties of mathematics to define it.

The reason assuming the existence of one dimensional strings is without rhyme is because it is based on abstract mathematics which is a creation of the human intellect and can be used to create almost anything one desires.  If one desires to find a quantitative solution to a physical question one can always manipulate them in one’s mind to that end.  However, those manipulations should "rhyme" or at least have some connection to the physicality of the questions they are answering. 

While the only reason I can see for assuming that our world is made up on one-dimensional strings is to force that "reality" on nature because some feel it is the only way they can explain what we observe in it. 

However, that is not a valid one because as mentioned earlier physics is the science that deals with physically observable properties of nature and most humans except those who might happen to live in Alice’s world of make believe have ever observed a one-dimensional string. 

A quote from "The Cheshire Cat" that Lewis Carroll created in "Alice and Wonderland" brings out this point "When is a croquet mallet like a Billy club? I’ll tell you: Whenever you want it to be!" In other words "When can an equation based on the existence of a one-dimensional string define our world?  Whenever you want it to.

Most of those who become physicists have a desire to understand the mechanisms involved in defining the reality of the universe however they should always keep in mind that if it doesn’t walk like a duck, quack like a duck or look like a duck it probably is not and never can or will be a duck.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011

The post The physics of reality appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

One of them is it would allow one to understand the graviton or the unit of quantum gravity in terms of field properties of the space-time environment defined by Einstein.
The concept of a field was developed when physicists learned that they could simplify the calculations of the forces involved in planetary motion by assuming or imagining the existence of a continuous gravitational field.  They defined this field in such a way that if another planet were put at any point in that field the resulting force between it and any other planet would be exactly the Newtonian one.  This simplified the calculations of planetary motion because it allowed them to isolate and analyze the forces of one planet on another instead of trying to analyze the forces exerted on a planet by all of the others at the same time.

Originally, many thought this was just a trick to simplify calculations.

But Michael Faraday, while researching electromagnetism discovered that a field has real physical properties and therefore was able to convince others that is was more the just a calculating device.

However, the concept of the physical properties of a continuous field being responsible for the propagation of forces is inconsistent with the Quantum mechanical assumption that energy and forces can only exist in discontinuous or quantized particles.

But as mentioned earlier we may be able to define a theoretical connection between the Gravitron and field properties of Einstein’s space-time universe if we redefine them in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

Einstein give us the ability to do this when he defined the geometric properties of mass in a space-time when he used the equation E=mc^2 to derive the balance between it and energy because by using the constant velocity of light he provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to a unit of mass we believe he would have associated with space. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

Some physicists describe the properties of a quantum system such as a Gravitron as being the result of a field quanta or chunked ripples or waves in a continuous field that ‘look like’ particles because waves can only be propagated through a continuous medium.

However the concept of a continuous field must be apply to all quantum systems because the 1927 confirmation by Davisson and Germer of Louis de Broglie theory that they all particles display a diffraction pattern associated with waves when they interact with a crystal lattice.  Therefore, one must conclude that the space between all particles is made up of a continuous field to permit the movement of their wave component through space.

As mentioned one can understand the makeup of the graviton if one redefines Einstein space-time environment in terms of four *spatial* dimensions because as was shown in the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?” Oct 4, 2007 one can understand how the continuous field properties of four *spatial* dimensions can result in them formation of the quantum mechanical system associated with gravity.

There are 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.

However, 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 three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four-dimensional space.

These resonant systems in a continuous properties of four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the quantum mechanical properties of a quantum field.

Earlier the article “Gravity in four spatial dimensions” Dec 15, 2007 showed that one can derive the forces of gravity in terms of a curvature in the continuous field properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

(The curvature is analogous to the space-time curvature Einstein postulated was responsible for gravity.)

However, as was shown in the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?” Oct 4, 2007 all energy is propagated through space in discrete quantized units.

Those two articles show how one can define a theoretical connection the graviton and the continuous field properties of environment  consisting of four *spatial* dimensions or four dimensional space-time in terms of the resonant field properties of space .

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey Oâ€Callaghan 2010

The post The field properties of the Gravitron appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.