For example Einstein’s relativistic and gravitational theories can explain predict the evolution of the large scale structure and movement of the stars and planets but cannot explain the structure of the atom.  Additionally it cannot be used to explain one of the most important aspects of the universe’s evolution: how atoms fuse together in stars to create enough energy to prevent their gravitational collapse.  While quantum mechanics explains the small scale structure of atom how they fuse together to prevent that from happening however it cannot be used to explain the evolutionary movement of the stars and planets.

Determining which on of these theory came first is difficult not only because no one was around to observe when they began but because they are defined in different units.  For example Einstein theories define the universe in terms of the temporal field properties of a space-time dimension while quantum theories do so in terms discrete quantized properties of position.  However if one can view them in terms of the same units one may be able to determine which one came first by showing how one could have evolved from the other.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the constant velocity of light in the equation E=mc^2 to define geometric properties of energy/mass because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of space in a one consisting of only 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 it would allow one to define both the evolution of gravity and the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of a common property related to their spatial components.

This provides the bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including that associated with gravity and the quantized energy associated with Schrödinger’s wave equation in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

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

(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of a matter wave or the physical equivalent to Schrödinger’s wave equation when he theorized that all particles have a wave component.  His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer).

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave in a four-dimensional environment.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold 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.

However these oscillations in four *spatial* dimensions would generate a classically resonating system or “structure” in it because it meets the requirements listed earlier for the creation of one.

These resonant structures are responsible for the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass.

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 unit of the universe.

Yet it also allows one to define the boundary 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 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. 

In other words one can understand how the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass could have evolved from field properties Einstein’s theories if one assumes that it is a result of the resonate structured form by a matter wave in continuous field properties of space 

However if true one must also show how the probabilities associated with Schrödingerâ€s equation could have evolved out of that medium.

Classical mechanics tell us that because of 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 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 focal point of the balls oscillations.

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 focal point.  Therefore their is a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment. 

Classical Wave Mechanics also 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 this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can only define a particle’s position or momentum in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function.

In other words is it is possible to derive a scenario in which the concepts of quantum mechanics could have evolved out for the continuous field properties of an environment consisting of four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions.

As was mentioned earlier we can never by sure if Einstein’s theories or Quantum mechanics is the primary mover and creator of our universe because no one there when it began.  However the fact that one can derive the concepts of quantum mechanics using Einstein’s theories is a strong indicate that it came first.

In other words it suggests that the Quantum chicken was more than likely born out of a Relativistic egg.

It should be remember that Einsteinâ€s genius and the symmetry of his mathematics allows us to choose whether to define the evolution of the universe in either four *spatial* dimensions or four dimensional space-time.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016

The post Which came first the Quantum chicken or Relativistic egg? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

“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 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 object.”

In other words he did not think that it was possible to use classical concepts to integrate the wave and particle characteristics of a quantum particle into a single picture therefore he felt that there exits a physical division between the macroscopic world of classical objects and the microscopic world of quantum particles. 

However this may not be the true and one can understand why if one views the universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time.

(The reason will become obvious later.)

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the velocity of light to define 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 a *spatial* dimension identical to those in our three-dimensional universe .  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 it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einstein’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 it also allows one to understand the wave particle duality of energy/mass or its complementary property in terms of the concepts of classical physics.

For example the article, “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can explain and understand the physicality of its particle properties in terms of the classical concept of waves by extrapolating the laws of 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 exist 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.

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

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

Therefore these resonant systems in would be responsible incremental or discreet energy associated with quantum mechanical systems.

This allows one to define the particle properties of energy/mass in terms of the classical concepts of a wave.

However, one can define its wave properties in terms of the classical concepts of a particle in terms of the boundaries of its resonant structure.

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 a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“

However it also defines the particle properties of waves in terms of the classical concept of resonant properties of a box because its physical properties define its frequency and energy.

This also provides the ability to understand the inseparability of the wave particle duality of energy/mass because it clearly demonstrates how one is depend on the other.

However it also explains why quantum systems either display the properties of a particle or a wave when measured because if one wants to measure the total energy contained in a given volume of space one will observe it as a particle while if one want to measure how it is propagated through space one must observe its wave properties.

Additionally it defines a classical reason why particles sometimes behave like wave and sometimes like particle and why it is impossible simultaneously observe these two different properties.

As shown earlier the energy contained in a quanta of space associated with a particle would be defined by the energy associated with the wavelength of its resonate structure.  In other words to observe or measure the particle properties of a given volume of space one has to sample all of its energy leaving nothing of its wave component to measure.  Similarly if one wants to observe or measure fully the wave energy of a quantum of space one would have to sample all of its energy leaving none of its particle properties.

(If one does not want to observe all of the energy in a given volume of space then one would expect that the difference would be made up by the emission of a photon or other particle whose energy would correspond to that difference.)

The reason why one cannot simultaneously measure both its wave and particle properties is because as mentioned the energy of a particle is defined by the wave properties of its resonant structure.  Since the resonant system that defines a particle is the smallest unit of its resonate structure if one measures its particle properties there would be no wave energy left for measuring its wave proprieties while if someone measure its wave energy there would be no energy left to support its particle properties. Therefore making one of these measurements precludes the other.

This demonstrates how one can integrate the wave and particle characteristics of a quantum particle into a single picture and why the  physical division between the macroscopic world of classical objects and the microscopic world of quantum particles as was assumed by Bohr many not exist. 

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

The post A classical interpretation of the complementary principal appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.