Wave-particle simultaneity? (pilot wave theory unintentionally supported)
v. 5 n. 33
NOTICE addition of related articles in the references.
What initiated this return to the "particles as gravitational sinks" theme [1] was this quote:
"This brings up another issue with pilot wave theory, which is that there is an asymmetry of causes. The wave function guides the particle, but the particle has no influence back on the wave function. This is unlike the way causes work in ordinary physics. In nature, and so in most of physics, causes are usually reciprocal. Everything you push on pushes back. This is due to Newton's third law, which states that every action is met by an equal and opposite reaction. It is then very strange that the particle cannot influence the wave function. The lack of a reciprocal effect strongly suggests something is missing." [2]
That quantum physics should conform to classical physics in this quote is a questionable point. At any rate, the something that seems to be is missing in the last line of this quote is the particle itself that is supposed to have a definite trajectory in space. But if the particle is an absence instead of a presence -- a gravitational sink instead of a source -- it may still draw such a trajectory, as indicated in the whirlwind analogy below. The recalling of Newton's third law behind this quote, then, need not undermine pilot wave theory. The (point) particle per se is massless, as the very eye of the whirlwind is calm; it is the circumstances at large -- the entire whirlwind -- beyond the calm of the eye that is the effector.
Instead of the conventional wave-particle duality in quantum physics, wave or particle, the cover image suggests wave and particle, both at the same time. This recalls the De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics where a real particle is always present and describes a real trajectory in space, but the focus here is not necessarily to support this interpretation, rather to further illustrate the notion of particles as gravitational sinks instead of sources, a principal theme of these Letters.
It would be noted in the cover image that the "particle" in this instance is not a thing, not something present, not matter, rather something absent. The particle is where the wave is not, but the wave is inseparable from the particle; the particle is composed of the wave(s); the particle is an intersection of the waves approaching from all directions and distances; the particle is a focal point of the waves; the particle is present in its absence; everything is present except the particle; this gives the particle its distinction; the particle gives the wave(s) its shape, its meaning.
If a lump of clay is analogous to the wave, then a sculpture from this raw material of a human face is analogous to the particle. The wave (raw clay) can exist without the particle (sculpture), but the particle cannot exist without the wave. Waves can exist in isolation; particles cannot. "Waves OR particles," the conventional wave-particle duality is a contradiction in this view. A theory cannot be built exclusively on particles in this view. But a theory can be built exclusively on waves, if the waves are appropriately configured to exhibit particles that are absences instead of presences, such that both waves and particles "exist" simultaneously.
Not only is the particle where the wave is not, but also where there is not even space; the particle is an absence of space itself at a mathematical point, having no structure, because in general relativity space and that which is contained in space -- the ambient gravitational field in this case -- are inseparable. [3] The "particle" is where the gravitational field from all of space, near and far, points to a place and cancels, so that there is no gravitational field at the point. Not only is there no gravitational field at the point, but no field at all, such as the electromagnetic, because the other fields and particles are seen to be derived from the gravitational. [4] The entity represented by "particle" is everywhere except where it is perceived, except where it is measured. The (in)famous measurement problem at the heart of quantum physics.
领英推荐
If the particle in this notion is where the wave is not, at least, isn't this like the conventional wave-particle duality. The entity called "particle" is said to always accompany the wave aspect. The reason it might not be apparent until measured is because of the choice of measurement means. An analogy would be a whirlwind, tornado. Even though the eye at the bottom, that small violent region, might not have touched down to the ground, it is still part of the whole whirlwind. If the eye momentarily touches the ground (is measured) here, moments later it might touch down (be measured) hundreds of meters away, there, with a certain probability. But its trajectory still exists, is real, between touchdowns (measurements). It's just that the observer is not omniscient and able to perceive the whole picture or has not conceived of an appropriate measurement means.
[2] L. Smolin, Einstein's Unfinished Revolution, Penguin, N.Y., 2019, p. 209
[3] A. Einstein, Relativity, Crown, N.Y., 1961, p. 155
Related article that discusses the possible origin of mass: A resolution to the singularity impasse in black holes | LinkedIn
Related article, particles as sinks: (9) The measurement problem and particles as sinks | LinkedIn
City Letter Carrier at United States Postal Service
4 个月I believe it is a packet of waves that opens when it interacts with slits and such. Once opened the waves guides the particle packet to it's destination. An important thing that Noone seems to address if there is superposition, why doesn't the wave pattern appear on the screen without any slits involved. Even if we take two photons side by side they should interfere with each other but this doesn't happen without slits or other interactions first. Something has to happen at the slit to release this wave like behavior
Higher education instructor, engineer and researcher
5 个月I believe it depends on the scale / scope of interest. In most cases of electricity/electronics electrons are treated as particles without invoking their wave nature. But when the scale is very small, their wave nature begins to dominate. I had seen this quite often when I worked with semiconductor.
Higher education instructor, engineer and researcher
5 个月Electrons can exist as particles without invoking wave property.
Researcher
6 个月Dear Warren, You may be interested in knowing that the historical use of a wrong frequency is what gave rise to the concept of a wave group (wave packiet) to represent the electron's momentum energy as developed by Louis de Broglie, and to the Uncertainty principle developed by Werner Heisenberg. Analyzed in this recently published article https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=133213