The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality by Alan M. Kadin

Dear Alan,

You have a very impressisve essay which I'm not qualified to fully appreciate unfortunately. I do have a simple answer to particle/wave duality however, namely, the spinning Arhimedes screw analogy. The wave/particle can even corkscrew around a 4-dimensional hypersphere to emerge as a force of repulsion, i.e. dark energy! What are your thoughts on a mechanical universe with helical screws as the basic building block of matter? This simple idea solves all the basic problems imo

Dear Alan,

I have read your well written essay on misconceptions of wave particle duality that our scientific community is caught up in. The answer lies in the singularity or the universal i. Singularity is not just an inifinite point in relativiy, but the absolute whole taken together (it is like the quantum vector field you are proposing in NQP). Our bodies and minds are nothing but a certain frequency of that entirity and we feel that we are independent observers relative to this entirity and to each other and this perspective is the root of all misinterpretations of the absolute truth. Our conscience or soul can be merged with that entirity and that is when we realize that we are all but one singularity. I wish you all the best and I hope that human consciousness will be merged with cosmic consciousness with all our effrots put together and that we can all live in love and peace.

Please see the essay I posted in this contest at Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Okay Sridattadev, will do. Thank you for your kind words as always.

Are you claiming to have a Kuhnian paradigm shift? Do you agree that your approach has not measurable advantages over conventional quantum mechanics?

Dear Alan Kadin,

I found your reference to Duanes's momentum transfer quite interesting. Thanks for the link to his paper.

As I understand it, your non-point particle is a self-interacting (self-sustaining) distributed field based on "real physical fields" where quantized spin is key to particle integirity. Does this imply a structure, and have you elaborated it in any of your other papers? Also, is there an explanation of charge built into the model?

Your abstract states that the NQP does not support point particles which seems compatible with the above, but you also seem to forego the probability interpretation that is the root of most quantum approaches. So if I understand you correctly, the self-interacting fields produce particles that behave (essentially) classically and do not have the "wave" nature associated with the de Broglie model. Is this correct?

In some ways our models are similar. I agree that particles form from a self-interacting field and do not shrink to a point particle but are essentially spin-stabilized. But my model supports induced waves that provide the interference phenomena and the link to probability. I do not describe particle generation in my current essay, but I do focus on the induced wave and its link to probability in The Nature of the Wave Function. Based on the weak field approximation to general relativity, I suspect this model would be compatible with your particle model. I invite your comments on this.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Very nicely done. You start with the comment "Unfortunately, the physical nature of the matter wave was obscured by the assertion that it consisted of both a point particle of mass m and a distributed field with wavelength Lambda = h/mv (h = Planck's constant and v is the velocity of the particle)."

Then go on to show "(a) Electron field rotating at frequency f = mc2/h, with uniform phase angle ø, and total spin S = h-bar/2 perpendicular to the plane, corresponding to electron at rest. (b) Electron moving at velocity v, showing phase gradient dø/dx = p/h-bar and de Broglie wavelength Lambda = h/p from Lorentz transformation."

As I understand this, you have applied a periodic property to an object travelling through space. This gives the object properties that vary on a periodic basis as they travel and interact with other objects. You are very clearly demonstrating the wave nature of a particle.

Great read. Thanks

My essay asserts that the paradoxes associated with wave-particle duality have prevented the realization of a consistent physical picture of the microscopic world. Indeed, it is generally believed that no such clear physical picture is possible. This in turn has led to the over-reliance on abstract mathematical formalism. In contrast, I present the outlines of a theory whereby coherently oscillating fields on the microscopic level give rise to essentially classical particles. This is compatible with local reality, being based on special relativity. There is no physical duality, no fundamental indeterminacy, and no long-distance entanglement, paradoxical concepts that have plagued quantum theory from the beginning. Classical physics follows directly from the microscopic quantum fields, with no mysterious decoherence needed.

With respect to the specific comments:

1) The present theory focuses on rotating vector fields carrying angular momentum. No rotating solid bodies are necessary.

2) In my view, mind and consciousness are higher-level constructs in networks of neurons, not related to quantum effects on the atomic level.

3) While the term "paradigm shift" has been overused, the conventional confusion of duality, indeterminacy, entanglement, and decoherence have so permeated the language and concepts of modern physics, that eliminating them really would constitute a paradigm shift and a scientific revolution.

4) The wave aspect of fundamental particles reflects internal rotating vector fields. The de Broglie wavelength is a direct consequence of Lorentz transformation of these rotating fields. Their external motion, however, follows classical particle trajectories, as derived from the coherent internal oscillations.

5) The particle aspect of fundamental particles reflects quantization of spin. This may require a nonlinear self-interaction of the internal field, leading to spontaneous formation of domains, which is not evident in the standard wave equations. This feature of the theory is still incomplete, but hopefully will be defined before the 100th anniversary of de Broglie waves in 2024!

We've been so conditioned to remember that quantum events cannot be explained by classical models -- and we've got the theories and experimental data to prove it -- that most have forgotten that this need not hold for the converse statement, i.e., deriving classical physics from the quantum field. (My own essay implies the same.)

Thanks, Alan Kadin. You said it well. And I think we're going to be hearing a lot more along these lines in the not too distant future.

Tom

Congratulations,

You know I liked your essays for all its informations and relevances.

Good luck .

ps the wave duality is explained with my equations and the sense of rotation different for hv and m.

Regards

Dear Alan:

I enjoyed reading your paper, especially as the NQP described in the paper mirrors the wave-particle model based on the Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) described in my posted paper - "From Absurd to Elegant Universe" and my book - "The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, cosmology, and Universal Reality". Following your arguments, a relativistic model of the particle mass is represented by GNM equation (4) in my paper. When this relativistic relationship is combined with deBroglie model, the governing equations for the photon matter-wave frequency and wavelength are derived as equations (4-7) and (4-8) given in the attached pdf file to this post. Also, attached figure 4-20 shows the ratio of the predicted and classical deBroglie frequency and wavelengths fo various V/C values.

GNM dissolves the existing puzzles and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories via providing a new relativistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics as described below (Detailed mathematical treatise is published in references [15,16,17, & 18]):

- Heisenberg Uncertainty: GNM based explicit formulations for Heisenberg Uncertainty, presented in reference [15], show that this uncertainty is not inherent in nature but an artifact of the limitations of the classical measurements in the fixed space and time that fail to account for the relativistic effects governing the quantum phenomena being observed. The errors inherent in this method for measuring the behavior of slow moving (VAttachment #1: Response_to_AlanKadin_Attachment.pdf

Dear Alan Kadin,

Thanks for an interesting read. For whatever it is worth, I agree completely regarding spin and vector rotations.

It is very easy to go from a complex exponential to a rotating vector. Euler's Equation can be interpreted as a quaternion therefore multiplying by a complex exponential causes a rotation. It is very unfortunate - at least in my opinion - that vector analysis has almost completely replaced quaternions. I was never taught quaternions as either an undergrad or a grad student.

It is even more interesting to multiply a complex exponential based on say plus/minus i*alpha*c*t by a vector such as (j plus k). That rotates the entire jk plane with the plus i being clock-wise and the minus i being counter-clockwise. That also makes it possible to use either the plus i*alpha*c*t or the minus i*alpha*c*t exponentials alone rather than as a sum. Using either the plus or the minus rotation about the i axis makes it possible for a wave function to satisfy both the classical wave equation and Schrodinger.

Good Luck in the contest.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

The Poynting vector ExH = ħk used in |ExH|/ω = ħ can be used in the CHSH inequality, where implicit is the quantum of electric and magnetic field. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔpΔx = ħ/2 holds for the minimal electric and magnetic fields

E_0(ω) = sqrt{ħω/2Vε}, B_0(ω) = sqrt{ħVε/2ω}

with E_0(ω)B_0(ω) = ħ/2. Here ω is the frequency of the field-wave, ε is the electric permittivity of the vacuum and V is a volume used in this box normalization. E_0(ω) and B_0(ω) are the fluctuations in the electric and magnetic field at a particular frequency for that field-wave. A photon is then built from these minimal units. This vector quantity can be used in the CHSH inequality, which is a form of the Bell inequality.

Your scheme is a putative way that quantum physics has an underlying "wiring" or mechanism that is classical. It is very unlikely that any such hypothesis is going to win the day.

Cheers LC

:) and princeton which becomes crazy.....

"What an entangled web we weave, when first ourselves we do deceive!"

(with apologies to Sir Walter Scott)

Universal de Broglie waves and quantum entanglement are inconsistent with physical realism, but have long been accepted as established facts. Dropping these "facts" leads to a simple self-consistent physical picture (as presented in the essay), which has not previously been examined. This is not a classical picture; matter is composed of confined quantum fields, which require quantum transitions to change their coherent internal oscillations (rotations). But unlike the statistical Copenhagen interpretation, here classical physics arises directly from these coherent quantum oscillations, with no mysterious decoherence. This is conceptually elegant, in contrast to the awkward hybrid of Wave-Particle Duality. This is a direct challenge to quantum orthodoxy, and deserves to be examined carefully.

Dear Alan Kadin,

When you mention wave-particle duality, that means to me "wave OR particle" whereas there is also the possibility (as Bell points out) of "wave AND particle" of the type I treat in my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function .

In your New Quantum Paradigm "there are no point particles or entangled probability waves, and classical trajectories follow directly from coherent quantum dynamics." If you read my essay closely, you will find that we agree on these points. You state that "matter is composed of confined quantum fields". We agree on this also, although I am not sure that our confinement mechanisms are identical. Mine are described elsewhere, and I do not recall that you explained in any detail how yours are confined.

You are quite certain that there is no wave involved, but as I show in my essay, the weak field equations of general relativity imply that there *is* a wave induced by each material particle. Are you rejecting general relativity also?

You say, "This is the key physical picture of the NQP; matter consists of spatially localized coherently rotating relativistic vector fields, each rotating at its characteristic frequency." To some extent this also describes the matter in my theory, although, as I mentioned above, I believe that our means of confinement differ. It appears that your frequency is simply the Zitterbewegung frequency. Is there a difference? So we agree to some extent, but we part company with "Within the NQP, electrons and photons are waves, while neutrons and atoms are particles "

Do you have a description of your confinement mechanism that you can direct me to? And do you explain how charge arises and how the probability interpretation must fit in with your model. As you mention above, it is quite easy to deceive ourselves.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Wonderful essay! While the wave-particle debate continues (for the additional 12 years you have allowed!), every physics book should include your Table 1 in the Introductory Chapter... just to get people thinking. Conceptually, I find it difficult to sort out which are the starting assumptions and which are the related assertions. I wonder if the idea of "point particles with mass" isn't the initial error - the faulty starting assumption on which the particle-wave duality is then built. If the singularity of a massive point particle is not assumed, then all the theoretical paraphernalia built around that assumption becomes unnecessary. Isn't that what the quark theorists today have constructed?

Dear Alan,

Please accept my sincere apology for confusing your first name with Alexander in Jonathan Dickau's thread. In my essay I quoted you as A Kadin, and the style of reasoning in your essay was the only one with this contest which I kept worth quoting even if I do not exclude that you could be wrong but for instance Edwin Klingman correct.

Sincerely,

Eckard

There are many ideas here I agree with and others I do not. I am not convinced that neutrons are not a matter wave, like you say. How would the distance between scattering centers express itself except by wave interference? Also, neutron waves cancel out in interferometers. So to me (and many others), it has been firmly established that we cannot use particles to explain neutron interference. Please illuminate me if I missed something. Also, you seem to embrace hf=mc^2 for matter. Every time I work it out numerically, it does not work. Try it for electron interference. I contend that light is classical, and the wave effects in matter are due to a matter-wave. The particle-like effects are due to loading and thereshold effects. I tested my ideas by splitting the gamma-ray and alpha-ray, each as a wave in an essay here in this contest: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory (1344). I further conclude that matter can take on either a particle OR wave state. It is all in my essay in detail. I would like to hear your feedback. Thank you, Eric Reiter.

It is with great joy I read your essay about the New Quantum Paradigm.

The hypothesises of non-local entanglement and of wave-particle duality is the two most unsatisfying concepts I find in physics. NQP seems to be a possible and elegant way out of the mess.

Whather or not your essay is recieved well in the contest, I appreciate it a lot.

Andreas Bøe, Norway