However this may just be an illusion resulting from a lack of understanding of the quantum environment.

One of the fundament areas where this disconnect appears is in the probabilistic interpretation Schrödinger wave equation

However one could eliminate this disconnect if one could explain the causality of those probabilities in terms of a physical image based on the laws of classical physics similar to how we explain the causality of the movement of the planets around the sun in terms of a physical image of a curvature in space-time.

Granted this will not change the fact that one cannot use quantum mechanics to make precise predictions of future events but it would give us a physical reason why we cannot in terms of our classical understanding of causality.

One way of accomplishing this would be look at the physically observable properties of all quantum systems and determine if by applying the laws of causality in a classical environment one can explain the reason for the probabilities associated with Schrödinger’s equation.

For example in 1924 Louis de Broglie theorized that all quantum objects are physically composed of a wave as was verified by 1927 by Davisson and Germer) when he observed electrons diffracted by crystals.

However, the fact that no one has been able to physically connect the causality of those observable properties to the probabilities of all quantum systems does not change the fact that there must be one because if there wasn’t they could not interact with our environment to create the physically observable properties of the world upon which those probabilities are determined.
One reason for this failure may be due to the fact that those probability are related to the spatial not time dependent properties of the wave function.

If so one may be able to establish the connection by looking at it in terms of its spatial properties instead of the space-time ones associated with Einstein’s theories.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when defined the geometric properties of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light because that provided a method of converting a unit of time in a space-time environment of unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative 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 doing so would have allowed Louis de Broglie to physically define the casualty of the quantum properties associated with Schrödinger equation in terms of a physical or spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as was done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007.

Briefly, that article showed the quantized properties of energy/mass are the result of a resonant system formed by a matter “wave” on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth “spatial” dimension. This is because 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 the classical laws of three-dimensional space tell us the energy of resonant systems can only take on the discontinuous or discreet energies associated with their fundamental or harmonic of their fundamental frequency.

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, these are the similar to the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in that they can only take on the discontinuous or discreet energies associated with the formula E=hv where “E” equals the energy of a particle “h” equal Planck’s constant “v” equals the frequency of its wave component.

In other words Louis de Broglie would have been able to physicality connect the properties of his particle waves to the quantum mechanical properties of Schrödinger equation in terms of the discrete incremental energies associated with a resonant system in four *spatial* dimensions if he had assume space was composed of it instead of four dimensional space-time.

Yet it also would have allowed him to define the physical boundaries of a quantum system in terms of the geometric properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

For example in classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of a piece 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 spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007.

As mentioned earlier in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 showed 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 assuming the energy associated with Louis de Broglie particle wave is result of a displacement in four *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time as was done earlier would allow one to define a classical causality for quantum probabilities in terms the observable environment we inhabit.

Classical mechanics tell us that due to the continuous properties of waves the energy the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of those vibrations would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations.

Similarly if the assumption that quantum properties of energy/mass are a result of vibrations or oscillations in a “surface” of three-dimensional space is correct then classical mechanics tell us that those oscillations would be distributed over the entire “surface” three-dimensional space while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.

As mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” shown a quantum particle is a result of a resonant structure formed on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Yet Classical Wave Mechanics tells us 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 a particle would most probably be found 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.

This shows that one can define the causality of the probabilities associated Schrödinger wave equation in terms of the laws of causality associated with our observable environment by redefining them in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words one can eliminate the disconnect between the probabilities associated his equation and a classical environment by defining their causality in terms of the laws of classical physics.

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose to define a quantum system in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories thereby giving us a new perspective on the probabilistic properties of a quantum environment and how they physically connected to our observable universe.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016

The post The relevance of classical mechanics to a quantum environment. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example as long as you are not actually observing an electron, its behavior is that of a wave of probability however moment you do it is becomes a particle.  But as soon as you are not looking at it it behaves like a wave again. That is rather weird, and no ordinary idea of classical objectivity can accommodate it.”

Bohr summarized this reality as follows:…”however far the [quantum physical] phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms. The argument is simply that by the word “experiment” we refer to a situation where we can tell others what we have done and what we have learned and that, therefore, the account of the experimental arrangements and of the results of the observations must be expressed in unambiguous language with suitable application of the terminology of classical physics.

This crucial point…implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behavior of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear…. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects.

In other words the choice one makes on how to observe a quantum object determines if it is a particle or wave.

This behavior is exposed by the double slit experiment in which a coherent source of light illuminates a screen after passing through a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it. The wave reality 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, when being observed, the light is always found to be absorbed as discrete particles, called photons.
However one of the reason it is so difficult to understand how observation effects a quantum system may be because too much attention has been focused on its  mathematical properties and not enough on its physical meaning in a space-time environment.  This is made even more difficult because they are defined in terms of the spatial properties of a quantum system instead of its space-time properties.

This suggest one may be able to obtain a better understanding of what happens when one observes it if one could view it in terms its spatial instead of its 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 redefining the physical properties of quantum system in terms of its spatial instead of its time components would allow one to derive a single picture of its wave and particle characteristics thereby allowing one to understand how observation effects our perception of it.

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 quantum mechanical systems.

Yet it also allowed one to derive the physical boundaries responsible for the creation of a particle in terms of the geometric properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

For example 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 spatial boundaries of the resonant system associated with the particle component of it’s wave properties in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“

However assuming its wave 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 its particle component as was just done but also the reason why when you are not actually observing it its behavior is that of a wave however moment you do it is becomes a particle with a physically defined position. 

For example Classical wave 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 is free to move over the entire “surface” of three-dimensional space 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 free to move or be distributed over its entire surface.  However to observer it one would have to touch its surface with a probe thereby restricting the wave motion of its surface.

Similar the wave reality of a quantum system that is not being observed is allow to freely move though space as is done in the double slit experiment when it moves though the slits undetected thereby allowing is wave reality become observable as demonstrated by a diffraction pattern on a screen placed behind the slits.

In other words similar to the rubber diaphragm there is a probability that its wave reality could be found anywhere on the “surface” of three dimensional space.

However if we decide to restrict or redirect some of its energy by probing or observing it becomes a particle that appears to be at a specific place in space and time because as was shown in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized? the act of observation confines its wave component to specific volume thereby allowing the resonant system that article showed was responsible for its particle reality to become reality.

In other words by assuming space it composed of four spatial dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time one can understand why the act of observation defines the reality of a quantum environment by extrapolating our experiences in a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

It should be remember that Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose whether to define the reality of a quantum system in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he derived its physical geometry in terms of the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

\

The post The observer effect in quantum mechanics: a classical interpretation appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example the Copenhagen model of Quantum Mechanics suggests the act observing an environment defines its reality as is shown by its interpretation of Thomson’s double-slit experiments because it holds that the myriad of probabilities it defines are unreal and only become real when their outcomes are observed.
In other words they feel reality is an emergent property of observation because it suggests that before one is made an environment does not exist or is unreal and only appears after being observed.

This is because, in the case of the double slit experiment many assume that the classical concepts of “particle” and “wave” cannot be used to fully describe the wave particle behavior of quantum-scale objects exposed by this experiment  Therefore many interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental reality of the Universe.

In other words they feel that the act of observing creates its reality because as was mentioned earlier according to most quantum mechanical models an object does not exist as a particle or wave before it is observed and that its final reality, whether it is particle or wave is dependents on the act of observe it.

This prompted Einstein to say “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it”.

However it would not be necessary to for anyone to assume that the moon was not there if they were not looking at it if it was possible to explain in terms of classical properties of space and time the wave/particle behavior of quantum-scale objects.

As mentioned earlier Thomson’s double-slit experiment clearly demonstrates the wave/particle behavior that is associated with the reality of a quantum mechanical environment.

This may be why Richard Feynman the farther of Quantum Electrodynamics believed Thomson’s double slit experiment provided the perfect mechanism for its understanding because it clearly demonstrates their inseparability.

However, as of yet no one has been able to explain in classical terms the behavior of the quantum environment encompassed by this experiment.

Yet Einstein may have given us a clue as to why when he said “If a new theory was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless.”

For example Einstein told us that our physical environment is made up of four dimensional space-time yet no one has ever observed the physicality of time or a space-time dimension.

Granted Einstein’s theories give us a very detailed and accurate description of how an interaction of time with the three *spatial* dimensions is responsible for the “reality” our world and he was able to give us a clear physical image how a curvature in space-time can be responsible for gravity by extrapolating the image of an object moving on a curved two dimensional “surface” in a three dimensional environment to four dimensional space-time.  However this image only contains reference to the physicality of the spatial dimensions and not a time or space-time dimension.

However, the fact that most humans perceive or define reality in terms of the physicality of the spatial dimensions instead of a time or space-time dimension suggests that one may be able to form a physical image of how and why the quantum world is what it is by viewing our universe in terms of its spatial instead of its time properties.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of a space that is physically identical to those of our three-dimensional space.  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 time in his space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

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.

It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through, the interference pattern no longer forms and it yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, without interference.  However, there ways to determine which slit a photon passed through in which the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out.  For instance, by placing an atom at the position of each slit and monitoring whether one of these atoms is influenced by a photon passing the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out.

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 may be able to understand the wave particle duality of quantum objects such as a photon as is demonstrated in Thomson’s double slit experiment in terms of our classical reality if one converts or transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to four *spatial* dimension equivalent.

For example the article, “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can explain and understand the physicality of the wave and particle properties of quantum object’s 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.

However, it does not explain in classical terms why the energy of these waves not continuously distribute throughout space instead of being package in discrete units we call particles. 

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 spatial boundaries of the resonant system associated with all quantum objects including a photon in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“.

This provides the ability to understand, in terms of our classical reality the inseparability of the wave-particle duality of energy/mass because clearly demonstrates how the one is dependent on the other.

However, it also defines why the interference patterns remains in Thomson’s double slit experiment 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, in most cases 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 it 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.

However it also explains why, as was mentioned “there are ways to determine which slit a photon passed through that will cause a change in the interference pattern but will not completely wiped it out.

The fact that the interference pattern can still occur even if a measurement is made is because if the energy passing through one of the two slits is altered by a relatively small amount compared to what it originally was, classical wave mechanics tells us it will be able to interact to form a slightly different resonant system with a slightly different interference pattern on the other side than would be the case if no measurement was taken.

It should be pointed out that the fact that an interference pattern can be observed when a detector is added is a direct contraction of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.  It demands when a detector is added to the experiment to determine which slit a photon has passed through the interference pattern can no longer form.

However, this also means there should be a quantifiable minimum value of interaction between a measuring device and a photon that will permit the interference pattern to be reestablished on the other side after measuring which slit the photon passes through.

It also defines in classical terms the reason, why the measurements always 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 concepts of classical reality 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 always will have the discrete non-wavelike characteristics of a particle.

The above article demonstrates why it is not necessary for anyone to assume that observing a quantum environment influences or changes its reality to explain the results of the double slit experiment because it clearly shows they can be explained in terms of the unchanging reality of our classical physical environment.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

The post Can we influence reality? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Unfortunately many physicists attempt to define reality based solely on what they measure and do not attempt to conceptually integrate those measurements into the realty we see around us.

One example can be found in Brian Clegg book Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe (p. 137) where he describes how Neils Bohr reacted when Heisenberg proposed his uncertainty principal.
“When Heisenberg first told his boss, Neils Bohr, about the uncertainty principle, he put it across in the form of an imaginary microscope. He described a particle as an electron passing through a make-believe ultra powerful microscope. We use light to examine the object, so a beam of photons (quantum particles just as the electron is) is constantly crashing into the electron. The result is that the electronâ€s path is changed. You canâ€t look at a quantum particle without changing things. Heisenberg is said to have been reduced to tears when Bohr ripped his idea to pieces. Heisenberg had assumed that until the microscope scanned the electron, the electron had an exact position and momentum. He thought it was the process of observing it that messed things up. But actually, Bohr pointed out, the uncertainty was more fundamental than that. There was no need to observe the electron for uncertainty to apply: it was inherent to the nature of a quantum particle.”

In other words Neils Bohr said that because we will never be able to observe an electron without changing it or its environment one must simply accept the fact that we will never be able to understand why it behaves the way it does in terms of the “reality” we see around us.

However the science of physics is defined as “the asking fundamental questions regarding how and why matter and energy interact while demanding the answers be validated by observations.

Yet this definition appears to conflict with Neils Bohr assertion that the uncertainty principal is inherent to the nature of a quantum particle because that immunizes it from such questions.

Additionally he said since it is true that uncertainty principal is inherent to the nature of the unseen world of a quantum particle “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”.

Yet if one uses his philosophy that “reality” does not exist then the observations used to define that principal also cannot be real or exist because one cannot observe something that does not exist.  In other words the very arguments Neils Bohr uses to support his concept of the uncertainty principal leads to it invalidation.

However history has shown us that one of the advantages to defining the universe that we cannot and will never be able to see in terms of the “reality” of our observable environment is that it limits the ability of our imagination to create nonexistent or fantasy worlds to support them.

For example Einstein mathematically derived the force of gravity in terms of a curvature in a four dimensional space-time universe.  However even though he knew that he would never be able to physically observe how a time dimension interacts with the three spatial dimensions he attempted and succeeded in explaining how a curvature in a space-time environment can result in the force gravity by watching how a marble moved on a curved surface in our observable three dimensional universe.

In other words Einstein not only mathematically quantified the measurements of the force of gravity but he also provided a qualitative explanation of how it could act at distance by anchoring it to the observable properties of an object moving on a curved surface in three-dimensional environment.

This methodology is in sharp contrast to how Newton defined gravity in that he simply accepted the fact that he was able to accurately quantify it using the concept of action at a distance even though he was aware that it disagreed, as the following excerpt from a letter he wrote to Bentley with the “reality” he saw around him.

“It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.

However Einstein’s unwillingness to accept action at a distance gave him the ability more accurately quantify gravity while providing an understanding of how it could act at a distance by aqs mentioned earlier anchoring it to the “reality” of our three-dimensional environment.  Additional it showed that Newton’s concept of absolute space and time only existed in the fantasy world of his imagination because according to Einstein gravity is caused by their variability.

This shows the power of attempting to understand the unobservable in terms of the observable by anchoring it to the “reality” of what we see around us and why we should be skeptical about accepting the validity of the uncertain principal based on Neils Bohr assertion that it is inherent to the nature of a quantum particle

However what is even more damaging to his ideology of blindly accepting a mathematical interpretation of the uncertainty principle, is that it is possible (much as Einstein did) to extrapolate the observable properties of our three dimensional environment to a quantum one as was done in the article “A classical interpretation of Heisenbergâ€s Uncertainty Principal” Dec. 1 2012 to explain and predict how and why it behaves the way it does.

However before we begin we must first reformulate Einstein space-time concept to their spatial equivalent.

(The reason will become obvious latter)

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

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of mass/energy and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe as was done in the article “The “Relativity” of four spatial dimensions” in terms of geometry of only four *spatial* dimensions.

On advantage to doing this is that it gives one a different perspective on the “reality” of the quantum environment and the uncertainty principal in terms of the observable properties of our three dimensional universe.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 demonstrated it is possible to understand the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance 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 be meet by a matter wave 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.

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.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its resonant or a harmonic of its resonant frequency.

Therefore the discrete or quantized energy of resonant systems in a continuous field of four spatial dimensions could explain the discrete quantized quantum mechanical properties of particles.

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 boundaries of the “box” containing the resonant system the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a particle and why quantum systems behave the way they do.

However not only using the properties of a fourth *spatial* dimension allow one to understand why energy/mass in our three-dimensional world in terms of our experiences but it can also be used to explain the uncertainty principle

For example in quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle asserts that there a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known.

As mentioned earlier one can define a mechanism responsible of the uncertainty principal in terms the geometry of the four *spatial* dimensions because Quantum Mechanics mathematically defines the position and momentum of a particle in terms of non dimensional point.  This means there would be an uncertainty in determining its position because that point could be found anywhere within the volume of the “box” mentioned above.

Similarly there would be an uncertainty in measuring its momentum, again because quantum mechanics defines it in terms of a non dimensional point.  Therefore before one could determine a particle’s momentum one would have to know the exact position of the “end” points one uses to measure its velocity.  However, as mentioned above that non dimension point representing a particle could be found anywhere in the box containing the resonant structure that defined a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“  Therefore one could not determine its exact velocity and momentum because there will always be an uncertainty as to where the non dimensional point representing a particle is in the box when the measurement was taken

The reason why one cannot simultaneously measure both with complete accuracy is because the act of measure its momentum or position requires one to access different segments the “box” containing particle.

For example if one wants to make the most accurate measurement possible of its momentum internal to the box one would have to measure the time it took for it to transverse a given segment of it.  However this means that one could not determine its position because it would be changing throughout the entire time that it took it to transverse that portion of the box.

However if one wanted to make the most accurate measurement possible of its position internal to the box it would have to be stationary with respect to the box’s geometry meaning that one could not determine its monument because it would not be moving.  Since these two measurements required one to access different segments of a particles geometry they are mutually exclusive. 

Therefore one cannot simultaneously measure a particle position x and momentum p with complete accuracy.

This defines why, in terms of the reality we see around us there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known.

However it also tells us we should always attempt to conceptually integrate our theoretical models into the “reality” of what we “see” around us because it allows one to physically connect the abstract properties of a theoretical environment created by our imagination to the reality of the worlds they are describing thereby limiting its ability to create fantasy worlds such as the one Neils Bohr believed in to explain their theoretical models.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

The post Should we let our imaginations define reality? 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.

The uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics tells us that we cannot know or observe the precise amount of energy contained in microscopic physical system over very short intervals of time. 

Some physicists feel that because they cannot know the precise “reality” of the amount of energy contained in microscopic physical system, it must fluctuate around a given point even though it is a vacuum which does not contain anything that can physically fluctuate.  They call the energy generated by the uncertainty principal quantum fluctuations or vacuum energy.

However, this means they are defining the “reality” of a vacuum in terms of their inability to know or define its reality.
However we have shown throughout this blog there are many theoretical advantages to defining the universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time.

One is that it would allow us to understand the “reality” of a quantum vacuum by using our imagination to extrapolate the reality of a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Einstein gave us this ability when he used the velocity of light to define the geometric properties of time in a space-time environment because it allows one to convert a unit of time in it to a unit of a space identical to those of our three-dimensional space.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a universe made up of four *spatial* dimensions that makes predictions identical to those he had attributed to four dimensional space-time.

This as mentioned earlier this would allow one to understand the reality of a quantum environment in terms of the classical laws physics.

For example in the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?‘“ Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown that one can understand the quantum properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the resonant properties of a three-dimension environment to a matter wave moving on a continuous “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 could be meet by one 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 a continuous four spatial dimensions. 

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.

In other words one can understand the reality of a quantum environment in terms of the laws of classical physics if one views in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

However, if true one may be able to define the “reality” of quantum vacuum by as mentioned earlier using one imagination to extrapolate observations of a three-dimensional environment to four *spatial* dimensions instead of relying, as many physicists seem to on their inability to observe them.

Casimir theorized that quantum fluctuations in a vacuum would cause a force to be developed between two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum without an external electromagnetic field acting on them, if they were placed a few micrometers apart.  This contradicts classical reasoning because, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and therefore no force would be measured between them.  However if this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates are affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates.

This force was first measured by Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs.  

They found its strength falls off rapidly with the distance between the plates and that it is only measurable when the distance between them is extremely small.  On a sub micrometer scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors.  In fact, at separations of 10 nm—about 100 times the typical size of an atom the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure, the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors.

However, this is what one would expect if the quantum mechanical properties of vacuum were as was shown in the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?” a result of a resonant system form by a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Observations of waves in a classical environment indicate the number of harmonic oscillators that can be established in a given environment is dependent on the distance or “gap” between the “end points” of their environments.

But the same concept can be applied to two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, because even without any external electromagnetic field the electromagnetic components of the atoms in each plate are vibrating because they are not at absolute zero they have thermal energy.  These random vibrations of their electromagnetic components will result in a random electromagnetic field to be generated between the plates.

However, classical wave mechanics tells us these random electromagnetic vibrations would be reinforced either constructively or destructively at certain points in space.  The number of harmonic oscillators or, as some physicist’s call them quantum fluctuations in the space between two plates would decrease as the gap between them decreases.  In other words, the smaller the gap between the plates the fewer number of quantum fluctuations that gap could support.

This means as was shown in the article ”Why is mass and energy quantized?“ there will be a greater number harmonic oscillators or quantum fields impacting the plates from outside of the gap than between it.  This will cause a force that will push the plates together because the energy density associated with harmonic oscillations outside of the gap would be greater than inside of it.

However, it also tells us there will be places where the distance between them will be equal to the wavelength associated with a fundamental or harmonic of the fundamental frequency of electromagnetic oscillations.  At those distances their energy will reinforce force each other and would push them apart.

Therefore, if one assumes as us done here that the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass are a result of a resonant system in four *spatial* dimension one can understand why the specific arrangement of the two plates causes and attractive or repulsive force to be developed by extrapolating the reality of a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

We know the reality of the wave properties of particles because in 1927 Davisson and Germer observed they are diffracted by crystals.  Additionally we can observe the reality and properties of a resonant system in three-dimensional space.

This suggests the Casimir effect may not be due to our inability to know the precise “reality” of the amount of energy contained in microscopic physical system but to the physical observable reality of the wave properties of a particle.

However, it also means the “reality” of a quantum vacuum could be defined, as was done in the article ”Why is mass and energy quantized?“ by extrapolating the laws of classical three-dimensional space to a fourth “spatial* dimensions instead of the non “reality” of quantum field theory.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2010

The post Understanding the “reality” of a quantum environment appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.