The Nature of the Wave Function by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank you Edwin for the reply, and excuse for my typo error of Erwin, I will come back to you after the acceptation of my essay by FQXi (there was a refernce which was not 100%) I am now rereading your essay. Wilhelmus

Hi Edwin

I really enjoyed reading your well written essay. You did a very nice work, quite intelligible. I do agree that the wave function represents a real particle. I understand your line of reasoning and why it is important for you the references you asked me.

Eckard Blumschein mentioned in his essay the following:

Hermann Weyl warned: We are less certain than ever about the ultimate foundations.

- Feynman smugly declared quantum mechanics something that nobody understands.

You said: So quantum mechanics is based on real local particle-plus-induced-wave, not on mystical non-local superposition of non-real wavefunctions of the kind Bohr, Feynman and others insist "no one can understand".

And also: 'No one can understand this theory until he is willing to think of as a real objective field rather than just a 'probability amplitude'.

I made the following comment to Eckard's essay which I think also apply to yours:

...I believe my essay offers viable solutions to the understanding of QM. Since the beginning of the XX, physics became so abstract that the physical and intuitive sense were demoted to a second plane. By the 1930s Heisenberg himself gave up trying to find an intuitive picture of quantum mechanical phenomena. He concluded that it was impossible to understand quantum mechanics intuitively; Schrondinger, Born, Bohr, Neumann, Feynman and others agreed with him. I believe that the reason for this is because they no longer had in mind some physical concepts that are crucial to accomplish the intuitive picture that they were looking for, namely: the PSR, the aether, the idea that particles are actually waves, and the notion that a field is a state of the aether. Once these concepts are restored in the physical conception of reality all the mysteries of quantum mechanics automatically disappear.

Perhaps, you may not see clearly the connection but the last paragraph is highly connected with entanglement, as you said:

Thus Bell is wrong --quantum mechanics is local.. Yet some physicists believe that quantum mechanics is inherently non-local...'non-locality' is fictitious, and the non-locality disappears from quantum mechanics.

I agree with this. I think you are in the correct track, but if you really wish your view to be widely accepted you must grant your works with a different philosophical framework in which the physical conceptions I mention in my paragraph are included. The reason for this is not only because your works could acquire more physical and intuitive meaning but also because it could lead you to new unobserved physical phenomena. As long as you maintain your ideas within the current paradigm, they will gain very few attention from the physics community. As an example of this just bring to mind both Bohm's quantum mechanics and consistent quantum mechanics. The latter argues that there is no collapse of the wave function. But both attempts predict no new physics they are only different interpretations. Your case, at first sight, is similar, it appears only a different interpretation of the wave function.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Dear FQXi'ers,

An interesting situation has arisen where Joy's use of the topological spheres S0, S1, S3, S7 has 'collided with' Michael James Goodband's use of the same topologies. Joy, of course, claims that S7 is the *ONLY* solution to Bell's quantum correlation problem, while Michael Goodband employs S7 as 'particle space'. Although I am NOT an expert in these issues, they seem to be (or Joy claims them to be) relevant to my approach, so I have a natural interest here. After an initial period of familiarization with each others use of these topologies, Christian and Goodband are now comparing and contrasting...

What I find most interesting is that Joy appears to be working in quantum mechanics (QM), where particle number is fixed, while Goodband is working at the deeper level of quantum field theory (QFT) where the number of particles varies. From this perspective Goodband has just (Aug 9, 2012 @15:53) noted the following [with notation as e^|e_ for electron spin up e^ and electron spin down e_ ]:

"My point is that this is just quantum mechanics, think quantum field theory. Just as the emission of a photon converts e^ to e_ the emission of a W-boson converts an electron into an neutrino, an up quark into a down quark etc. and there are also inter-family conversion reactions. Such interactions mean that the most general EPR 2 particle scenario in QFT is *not* of the form A^|A_ but A^|B_ where particles A and B can be of any type; A=B is just a special case in QFT.

The observables to consider in the correlation analysis are both the spin eigenvalues of the rotation group SU(2) - group space S3 - and the particle types which are eigenvalues of some 'particle space'. I use this term in place of particle symmetry group, because grand unified theories assumed that it was going to be a group - a hidden assumption I could have raised in my essay - whereas my work says that it is the quotient group SU(4)/SU(3) isomorphic to S7. So there are 2 sets of observables with quantum correlations {^,_} and {A,B,...} where the values of the first set are the eigenvalues of the rotation group with space S3. In my case the second set contains eigenvalues of SU(4)/SU(3) ~ S7 (after the symmetry has been broken) and the S3 is clearly distinct from this S7.

Your analysis should also apply to the quantum correlations between the observables in each of the 2 sets {^,_} and {A,B,...} for the most general EPR 2 particle scenario A^|B_ in the Standard Model QFT. Ultimately my question is whether there is a way to use your analysis in reverse to place a constraint on the origin of these observables?

I.e. some argument of the form

Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)

Michael"

For those who have been following the "Disproof" blogs for a year or so, this is a fascinating new development..This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I agree. It is helpful to follow discussions as they take place. Different viewpoints or different ways of expressing same or similar ideas when contrasted with each other adds clarity even when solutions still appear unclear. Its the reasoning processes that become clearer. More than reading someone's conclusion, I learn from the why they say it. What are their, the speaker's, truths from which their thoughts spring forth. I think the conversations taking place presently are great. Even if my truths are different truths, I want to understand what the professionals think and, if possible, why. I follow your participation with great interest.

James

Edwin,

Michael wrote,

"Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)"

Actually, that looks quite straightforward to me -- Joy has always emphasized completeness, i.e., that *all* quantum correlations are explained by his framework. The simply connected space completes all these measure values in a locally realistic manner.

Tom

Edwin,

To my level of understanding, this is monumental for theoretical physics:

"The problem (ignored for almost a century) isn't dispersing wave packets in the atom, but the impossibility of such wave packets even existing in the atom.

The Nature of the Wave Function

The particle-plus-wave is real, but de Broglie failed to specify just what the wave is. We do so here, beginning with an equation from general relativity."

Was beginning to reread your essay just now and am continuing to read though it carefully.

James

Edwin,

I noted your comment about reading the soliton reference I cited in a comment on John Macken's essay. The universe has a habit of being consistent in presenting a particular manifestation. Since researchers have started looking, soliton action has been identified in a wide spectrum of processes.

I made a comment in another essay, "the universe has very efficient energy transfer processes and the soliton is one manifestation of this process." So far, I have found just one essay in this contest where the author mentioned soliton and it was a very minor element.

You made the statement in response to Gary Simpson (Jul. 8, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT)

"I tend to think of the handedness as originating in general relativity, and Schrodinger just has to live with it, but there may be other fruitful ways to conceive of it." Right and left hand conventions have been used before quantum mechanics. In the Whyte article cited below, "Oersted (1820) discovered the anomalous R-handed screw action of an electric current on a magnet." The "right-hand" rule for expressing vector directions has been around well over a century.

Chirality

Many more handedness examples have been found since the Whyte article was published, but I have not found a good compilation of them.

I consider a soliton as a permitted process, probably mandatory in some processes, wherein I consider handedness the result of some "universal" influence.

Edwin,

The metric reversal effect I mentioned to you earlier also arose in the discussion of apparent non-locality on Tom's thread, and I illustrated the effect with a toy model in the first 1 page attachment. In the second 1 page attachment I illustrate a toy model version of the particle-with-wave scenario as it arises in my essay, but hopefully the more general point should be clear about how such a change in the background metric could give a particle-with-wave model that might not fall foul to local causality issues.

MichaelAttachment #1: 1_Local_to_nonlocal.pdfAttachment #2: Particle_with_wave.pdf

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman and Shan Gao,

Edwin is right. Superposition of wave function associated with different objects leads us to observe them. In PicoPhysics this issue is integrated with action at distance and concept of exchange particle as the mode of interaction between objects. PicoPhysics view on the subject (Though discussed at stage 3 - only stage 1 is available at picophysics.org) is as below:

Superposition:

Space is not conserved but uniform and isotropic at micro level. At macro level, it is defined by space density gradient which can be resolved into three components along the three co-ordinates of reference system attached to observer. Similarly, Object as an observer has a reference system attached. Now the density gradient is with respect to this reference.

The axis of the two reference systems can be assumed aligned and a picture drawn with respect to space density gradient. Knergy content in each object reacts with space as per unary law 'Space contains Knergy'.

Conservation of space makes no room for limitation on space density. The superposition of effect of presence of objects in space is absolute.

Space density

That is how, superposition, effect of presence of different objects in space is computable in complex geometrical distribution.

The density gradient itself is result of consumption of space by Knergy and affinity of space to possess Knergy. This consumption signifies non-conserved character of space.

To address the perturbation introduced by presence of Knergy in space, PicoPhysics introduce g-space as geometrical space, and r-space the real space. The space density is seen as ratio of r-space to g-space.

Space density = r-space/g-space.

Kambhar

The qualification of space as real and geometric is not kind to human perceptions about space. To keep the Space-Knergy dynamic with-in bounds the g-space is identified with space of mainstream physics. Real-space is given an alternative interpretation, 'Kambhar - host reality to anti-Konservation'. The ratio of this reality with respect to 3-D occupied space (G-Space) is now the density that defines Space-Knergy kinematics. Knergy is identified with Kambhar motion in space. The drift speed of Knergy in space is requirement of Unary law, independent of distribution of Knergy in g-space and governed by this density.

Wave-function:

When large amount of Knergy forming a large front confronts another similar front, then the conditions an develop in interference zone where it is not possible to satisfy the unary law - the drift speed, as a function of space density, independent of any particular distribution. So a complimentary process of conversion is hypothesised, which toggles Kambhar under such conditions into the complementary state. The interaction between the two states is only through conversion interaction. Knergy distributed in g-space can be hosted by Kambhar in either state. Kambhar in either state is conserved (Konserved but convertible to the other state).

Kd = K1 + iK2

Wave Function is function that describes the change in magnitude composition of Kambhar with position and time in space. Thus wave-function of quantum mechanics is seen as representing the Knergy density in space. It may be noted that PicoPhysics binds the space occupied by unit Knergy into a single unit to the observer. Schrödinger equation now represents the principle of least action, action being the result of non-Konservation of space. The details will be available at picophysics.org.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

Sorry, the Microsoft equation did not show-up. Below is an attempt to re-introduce the same,

Kd = K1 iK2

wave function = (K12 K22)eia

where

tan (a) = K1 / K2

Positive sign still not coming.

Edwin,

TIME and SPACE-TIME are recurrent elements of this and many of the other essays. It is evident there is not agreement exactly what TIME really means, especially when it is merged with SPACE-TIME. The definition of TIME was simple when it was expressed in mechanistic terms, such as a "unit of time" based upon the 1/86,400th time division of the rotation of a planet; it was given the term "second." There was no problem with the definition of TIME when it was used to express event durations of mechanical events and planetary orbitals, it fit with the established definition. Maxwell did not know he complicated the TIME issue by mathematically formalizing electromagnetics (EM) as a non-mechanistic form of energy.

It has been long recognized that TIME and ENERGY have a close association. Unfortunately, because of the long established use of the mechanistic second, those that established EM definitions, including Maxwell, did not recognize that "TIME is a manifestation of the presence of energy," EM energy. The definition of TIME still remains defined as a "unit entity" separate from EM energy.

It is now possible to define TIME as a function of the two fundamental characteristics of EM energy. Thomas Young identified the two characteristics some 200 years ago, wavelength and frequency. It is a long established assumption that the size of units have to be defined first in order to utilize them in mathematical equations. This changed in 2011 with the IEEE publication of a paper titled, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants". See topic 1294 or do a search using the title.

It is known that unspecified length sizes can be used to establish the structure of geometric forms. By defining one geometric form in terms that represent wavelength, and another identical form shape in terms that represent frequency, it was possible to identify the size of a unit wavelength and the size of a unit of frequency without needing to know their physical sizes previously. The size of the duration of a "unit of time" was mutually defined by the relationship.

The philosophical issues of TIME were not mentioned in the IEEE paper. TIME is an inseparable characteristic of EM energy.

Hello Edwin,

Thanks for liking my essay. I read the essays you mentioned, and yours. Thought yours was one of the best I've seen so far. In relativity I'm often suspicious of views in which the weirdness in the theory is removed by pointing out errors that everyone else failed to see for a century. Usually when physicists allow a theory to be weird for that long, it's because they couldn't go anywhere else, and not from lack of trying.

But your bringing in the Lundeen experimental evidence is one of several things that make it look different from that, and I felt that unlike many, you were grasping at an underlying reality by looking at the clues. That's what makes a paper of interest to me these days, if it's looking for ways forward for physics - it's not enough for it to be trying to rejig existing theory into something it wasn't before. Like you, in my essay I'm grasping at an underlying reality by looking at the clues, and the real clues are external things like observations, not internal things like elements of existing theory.

To me, for an approach to be relevant in the present situation it also has to be open to there being bits of the jigsaw missing, that we haven't yet found. Many of the essays I've read have implied within them the idea that the pieces we have are enough to finish the puzzle, if we can only organise them in the correct way. And yet a careful look at the clues shows that this idea is unavoidably wrong - new conceptual elements are needed. And the exciting thing is that we can infer a certain amount about the missing pieces - this (for those who can let go of the framework a bit) is a very worthwhile excercise.

So in the Heisenberg quote "the question [is] whether [the wave function] should be seen as a 'spread-out' entity, a 'guiding field', a 'statistical state', or something else" - we should always be open to the 'something else'.

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay - as you suggest at the end, I'll read yours again.

Best wishes, Jonathan