Why Quantum?

Georgina Perry,

YES! That is the right question!

"I keep wondering why the wave front is depicted as a plane wave hitting the barrier when it seems something far more dynamic is happening around the photon particle. The plane waves don't seem the ideal description but an over simplification. I would like to see what is happening to the electric and magnetic fields at the slits, surely that can be modeled. (!!!) There is also what happens to the forces to be considered."

That is exactly what is lacking in classical mechanics. But brace yourself, for more than a century physics has gone way beyond that without looking back. And now nobody wants to. Even classical Relativists don't want to revert to 'forces', things are seen as 'accelerations'. And Quantum Machinists reject entirely the notion of a continuous field associated with a particle. I've put a bit of my own model out, but don't want to soapbox, and do want to encourage any other ideas that might spring from the very question you have come to propose. Good Luck and go at it!

I will say what I've run up against. Firstly is the common confusion of the proper definition of photon as being the 'particle'. E = hv is a statement that says Planck's Constant is present in each wavelength. Photon, is one second of time of those wavelengths. The individual wave event is what needs modeled on Planck's Constant. And conventionally that Quantum is treated as indivisible. Break with convention if you see a rationale for doing so.

Secondly, Lorentz is sacrosanct. The 'massless particle' is the resultant cop-out, because Lorentz says a mass cannot be accelerated to light velocity. Infinite mass is the result of the Lorentz Transformations which are the very heart of Relativity. And experimentally, the amount of applied energy to produce an acceleration of a mass that would at rest be as tiny as the equivalent of energy in Planck's Constant, does compute as becoming infinite. Here is where your question of what happens to the forces, is profound.

And thirdly, those forces include gravitation and we only detect the electric and magnetic fields or the ballistic impact. And ballistic impact implies mass.

Fourth is entropy. As you earlier stated, the velocity isn't maintained by the emitter, but by electromagnetic effect. So entropy would be in the macroscopic realm, which doesn't play well with those who tinker with the maths of Black Holes, Big Bangs and such. Be prepared to be accused of 'setting science back a century!' (Quite frankly I thinks it needs it.)

But quite correctly you point to the simplified planar wave front as being in question. That would equate to the typical spherical wave front of illumination. Both QM and Classical (even Hawking) physics skates right over that open patch of water where the spherical field of a particulate emitter morphs into a linear propagation. Illumination is a bunch of linear wave propagations spreading in typical classical fashion. Trust where your reason takes your math. There is a commercial for vitamins, I think, which says the healthy human eye can see the light of a candle at ten miles. Imagine how huge the numbers of linearly modeled wave trains must emit from that candle. Is our calibration of how we measure mass and energy density real, or a result. I have come to think we live our lives at the very cold, thin end of reality. Personally, I like to model in the old fashioned background independent void and then introduce interaction. But go with what works for you. And BRAVO. jrc

John thank you very much indeed for your many thoughts and encouragement. They are really appreciated.

I've been watching quite a few aerobatics videos trying to identify the different combinations of motion. Including slalom around huge inflatable cones floating on water. (And incidentally learning things, such as the necessity to pitch nose up before a roll to compensate for complete loss of lift when the wings are vertical.)

This is a wacky idea, but doable. Wouldn't it be amazing to set up a huge double slit experiment over the calm sea or very large lake, with several inflatable slitted barriers? Several in case one or more are broken in use. Get together a group of professional stunt plane pilots to pitch and roll through one or other of the slits. They could have smoke outlets of different colours on each wingtip and nose and tail which will show wave motion. Don't know if any new physics would be learned from it but it would be a great PR event for science,a great opportunity to describe the experiment and its conundrums and great fun to watch.It could be an anniversary event (Young presented his paper, "On the theory of light and color" to the Royal Society in November 1801. In that lecture, he described interference of light waves and the slit experiment. I'm pretty sure there would be willing commercial sponsors.

Lorraine, has come out strongly, saying "Individual subjects (i.e. particles, atoms, molecules, cells, and other living things) are the carriers of all information and relationship in the universe", "Space merely exists as a relationship between other information; it has no existence of its own", "Space is not a fundamental entity that carries information and relationships. Space SEEMS to have geometric properties because space is DERIVED FROM properties and relationships". Georgina, is a bit more circumspect, saying, "All it requires is that there is something present even in a vacuum that acts as the medium of transmission of waves...". Tom, is difficult to place either for or against, but whosoever is not for us is against us :), "...space has no physical existence independent of spacetime.". If I interpret him correctly, space has no physical existence, but spacetime does physically exist. This modern resurrection or justification of Newton is called 'substantivalism' and the web is full of information about this. You can google and see the various views. My contention is whether it is fair to wrongly crucify Newton earlier only to appeal to such a concept today thereby resurrecting him without apologizing to his family :).

The view that space and time are actual entities generally represents the Newtonian position, while the view that they are determinations or relations of things, the Leibnizian position.

Now, while Lorraine is entitled to her opinion, before they become hardened views, perhaps she would care to take a look at Newton's Arguments from Causes, Properties and Effects and his Scholium that space exists independent of body. In this my post I would want to make Argument from cosmology, i.e. if there was a beginning from nothing, a current expansion of the universe and a possible collapse back to nothing. As the universe is expanding, it is not expanding into a pre-existing space but rather more space is being created between galactic clusters (the 'markers' of the expansion). From Lorraine's position it is the motion of the markers that gives rise to the increased space between them, likewise when there is collapse, the motion of the markers cause reduced space between them. Now, it is a principle of physics, the action-reaction principle, that anything that can be affected must also be capable of affecting others. That is anything that can be acted upon must also be capable of acting (or reacting).

So arguing from Cosmology, can the mere motion of matter bring universal space into existence, expand and collapse it? Can matter move where there is no space? If this cannot be possible and there is no previously existing empty space into which galaxies are moving and expanding into, then the universal expansion we are seeing means space is being created independent of the marker's motion, rather it is the space expansion that the markers are tracing as depicted by Hubble's expansion. It therefore appears that while Space can convey the relationship between the markers, it is more than just that a 'relational' thing but something more. In a Crunch, if the space between the markers of expansion can be acted upon and caused to reduce then again it must be something more than relational according to the action-reaction principle. Newton as I quoted in my 2013 Essay stresses the importance of this action-reaction principle in deciding whether something is substantial or merely relational, viz. "...it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can", "...space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move..., and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance". So, dear Lorraine, in addition to other arguments put forward by Newton, when you say, "Space can have no influence whatsoever on the things it seems to contain", cosmologically speaking this may not be correct, space created between galactic clusters makes them move apart. Therefore, it can act and can be acted upon. Space is substance.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

"Space is substance."

I have to agree with Tom that space has no physical existence independent of spacetime. Not that such a statement is a simple one, rather there is much nuance in its complexion. Taken in its parts, space by itself can be considered as existential but without any physical manifestation. In a sense, it exists in our contemplation which is what is implied by Lorraine's line of reason. The same might be said of time. And from a protracted personal experience, I view the perennial debate from a familiarity with the limits of human psychology. I think your own life experience probably equips you with a comprehension of the immediacy of the 'fight or flight' reaction of the survival instinct, so it may be lost on others to say that it would not be a very successful species that had a survival instinct which was not hard-wired to absolutely disregard any notion of non-existence. We humans debate existentialism only abstractly. What is nothingness? We can't really know, the closest we might come is abject terror. Like a bird in the mouth of a cat. We don't have very beautiful minds.

Spacetime is then an abstraction, but a rational one. And geometrically it can be said that one requires the other, simply due to the irrationality of 'pi'. And that is not a concept expressed in Newtonian or nonrelativistic physics. I would not call spacetime 'substance', but do see it as a physical manifestation. Energy is the third leg of a stool which is both physical and material. jrc

Now come on, Akinbo, I'm not for anything except objective science, and I am certainly not against anyone here.

Because we are discussing foundational issues, it's worth noting that Newtonian absolute space and time are in the category of those cosmological theories that admit a background space over which "time flows equably" as Newton averred, without regard for locality, i.e., without regard for observer position in space and time.

Einstein's classical extension of Newtonian mechanics into special relativity allows an absolute limit on the exchange of influences among bodies, such that all physics -- i.e., the physical phenomena we can measure -- is local. Special relativity is not controversial in either classical or quantum physics; we can very well determine theoretically and experimentally that there is no causal connection between spacelike separated distant events (v > c) recorded by observers regardless of their local states of motion. In other words, timelike separated events (v < c) can be causally connected; two observers (call them O and O') can agree that events (call them A and B) are ordered, i.e., A occurred before B or vice versa, such that there is a cause-effect relation, which is not true for spacelike separated events. The only way known to formally resolve these empirically-based results into a single theory, is to apply the mathematics of Minkowski space-time, such that neither time nor space independently are physically real -- meaning that neither quantity can be measured independent of the other.

Lorraine's relational view, as I noted, predates Einstein. When Einstein generalized the special case of uniform motion to accelerated motion, he took what he named "Mach's principle" into account, to include relative motion in accelerated frames of reference. Remember, though, that Einstein himself opened the door to quantum theory, with his quantized photoelectric effect; this -- along with atomic theory -- explains why quantum gravity does not fit into the classical gravity that general relativity describes.

So far as background dependence in foundational theories go, eminent physicists disagree:

While Lee Smolin, e.g., calls foundational theories based on the classical field (such as quantum field theory) background-dependent, my own opinion is with string theorist Joe Polchinski and others who say not. Each has strong physical and mathematical reasons for their side. It all boils down to what is primary to creation -- the continuous field, or discrete particles of energy or information.

Best,

Tom

To follow up on this issue of background independence, FQXi's Sean Carroll posted an expanded version of Joe Polchinksi's review of Lee Smolin's 2006 book The Trouble with Physics ] which details the issue. An excerpt:

"A crucial principle, according to Smolin, is background independence -- roughly speaking, consistency with Einstein's insight that the shape of spacetime is dynamical -- and Smolin repeatedly criticizes string theory for not having this property. Here he is mistaking an aspect of the mathematical language being used for one of the physics being described. New physical theories are often discovered using a mathematical language that is not the most suitable for them. This mismatch is not surprising, because one is trying to describe something that is different from anything in previous experience. For example, Einstein originally formulated special relativity in language that now seems clumsy, and it was mathematician Hermann Minkowski's introduction of four-vectors and spacetime that made further progress possible."

I am with you up until you get to Minkowski spacetime. The space time of general relativity is a very useful tool and explains many observations, but physics has demonstrably turned into a blind alley with space time.

It really comes down to what you imagine causes what. Does gravity cause spatial dilation or does matter exchange between objects cause changes in acceleration that we call gravity?

Since time and space are just linearly dependent versions of the same dimensional nature of matter and action and so it is not really necessary to combine time and space into spacetime in order to maintain Lorentz invariance. You can instead simply presume that changes in inertial mass by the equivalence principle of special relativity are what cause velocity and acceleration in space, not the other way around.

Gravity as an exchange force that scales with charge is not the cause of spatial dilation, gravity action is simply a matter exchange that spacetime observes as spatial dilation.

Of course, there are many ramifications to such an approach...

Tom,

"The only known way to formally resolve these empirically-based results into a single theory, is to apply the mathematics of Minkowski spacetime, such that neither time nor space independently are real -- meaning neither quantity can be measured independent of the other."

Again, your own struggle with mathematics pays dividends. Yes, formally -- meaning to be made in mathematical formulization; via Minkowski's 4X4 matrix. I dare say it took a great while for me to recognize how carefully you differentiate the terms you use which assign strict limits to definition, ie: 'this' is math, 'this' is the reality it describes. It is perhaps not that apparent to many that when you say 'the only known way', really means Minkowski's math is the only math that makes spacetime resolve from measuring space and time against each other.

By comparison, my appeal to intuition by stating the irrationality of 'pi' is overly simplified, it is not subject to mathematical proof. It simply says that if we can compute indefinitely and not obtain a finite value for 'pi', there must be a requirement of time. Quite 'informally'.

As to what is primary to creation, the continuous field -- or discrete particles of energy or information; I have been pondering a possibility that may be formalized wherein there could be a discrete region at the core of a continuous field that would translate response at v>c, yet simultaneously would be part in parcel of the c^2 mass-energy equivalence within a zero boundary field. I don't have the bugs worked out yet, probably won't until I go away someplace and plug in my 9v adaptor snapped to my old palm sized TI-30. It goes to the exponential rate of decay of intensity of evanescent waves interior of a energy field boundary being indicative of the rate of increase of energy quantity distribution within a rest mass, with the hypothetical abrupt result that the core density would translate response at an exponential rate of light velocity. There, would be a physical representation that there is no boundary between the discrete entity and the continuous field.

Also I feel 'information' is being used rather loosely. It can only be information if it is knowledge that is effectively communicated. jrc

Lorraine, Tom, John, Steve & Georgina,

To put the discussion on an unequivocal footing definition-wise to avoid using words loosely as John cautions, first, would you all agree that anything, whatever it is and by whatever name called, that can act or can be acted upon exists? Second, if that condition is satisfied by that thing and it also has the property of 'extension', i.e. being extended or having some dimension, that that thing can be said to have some claim to be called a substance, even if it has no mass?

If we all agreed that these are the pre-conditions to claim that 'something' exists or does not exist, then we can proceed. Or what do you think?

Regards,

Akinbo

"There, would be a physical representation that there is no boundary between the discrete entity and the continuous field."

Yes, we know that, John R* -- it's what Wheeler means by 'the boundary of a boundary is zero'. In Joy Christian's framework, it denotes the continuous correspondence of discrete points of the Hopf fibration.

(*Being a Midwesterner, you probably know that John R is the name of a major thoroughfare in Detroit. Just to note for the others why I chose that moniker. :-) )

" ... would you all agree that anything, whatever it is and by whatever name called, that can act or can be acted upon exists?"

Agreed. (followup Q: what does action mean?)

" ... Second, if that condition is satisfied by that thing and it also has the property of 'extension', i.e. being extended or having some dimension, that that thing can be said to have some claim to be called a substance, even if it has no mass?"

Agreed. (followup Q: what has substance and no mass?)

Tom,

Provocative follow up questions. I will probably sleep over to make sure I take care of all possible traps and further follow up questions. Also to ensure my response is "mathematically complete".

On "There, would be a physical representation that there is no boundary between the discrete entity and the continuous field".

Following John's advice that we stop using words loosely, I request clarification on what 'between' means in the sentence both of you acclaim above.

Regards,

Akinbo

First, you must define the axioms of your universe. Existence is a result of the axioms that you choose and so it is not useful to use existence as a criterion since existence is implicit. I see where you are going, but the matter of neither Newton nor Einstein ever included phase and amplitude and never can include the actual phase and amplitude of objects of matter. Without phase and amplitude, gravity action is incomplete.

Newton's and Einstein's approaches were and still are very useful at certain scales and yet do not work very well at other scales. In particular, there is no meaning for the phases and amplitudes of objects in either Newton's or Einstein's approaches.

Matter, time, and action all exist and make up a universe of objects wtih amplitude and phase. While space also exists, as does consciousness and a bunch of other stuff, these objects only exist as a result of the action of objects in time and therefore are not axiomatic.

Not my follow up answer so don't hold me to it just yet...

followup Q 1: what does action mean?

Motion or movement. Which can be change of place or change of nature (??according to Plato or someone else)

followup Q 2: what has substance and no mass?

A collection or soup of Neutrinos for example. Space-time has no mass as well, but it can dilated, can be curved and it can vibrate (in gravitational waves) according to relativists in Einsteiniana.

Akinbo

Steve,

What do you stand to lose if space exists? How will it controvert your theory of action, etc? Will the existence of space prevent "the action of objects in time"

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

'between' is what QM asserts, but we have to address both QM and Classical Mechanics until such time as there is an agreed unification of the two methodologies. So classically 'between' is a careless usage, cause goes in a continuous relation to effect. jrc

"Motion or movement."

Relative to what?

"A collection or soup of Neutrinos for example."

Neutrinos have been shown to have a small, though nonzero mass. Bosons (photons, e.g.) are massless.

"On 'There, would be a physical representation that there is no boundary between the discrete entity and the continuous field'.

Following John's advice that we stop using words loosely, I request clarification on what 'between' means ..."

It means 'the boundary of a boundary is zero.' Mathematically, zero is called the additive identity element -- because any quantity added to zero is identical to the quantity. Physically, it means there is no boundary between quantum and classical domains.

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 17, 2014 @ 18:28 GMT

"followup Q 1: what does action mean? Motion or movement. Which can be change of place or change of nature (??according to Plato or someone else)"

Action is the product or integral of object matter with time. Alternatively and equivalently, action is the product or integral of object matter with displacement. I like quantum action as the change in matter with time of the Schrödinger equation, but it has its integral equivalent. Note that it is inertial matter changes that actually cause all velocity and acceleration in space by the equivalence principle...not the other way around.

"followup Q 2: what has substance and no mass? A collection or soup of Neutrinos for example. Space-time has no mass as well, but it can dilated, can be curved and it can vibrate (in gravitational waves) according to relativists in Einsteiniana."

Only the nothing of space has substance and no mass, as you note. However, all energy and even neutrinos have an equivalent mass as you know and there is actually no thing in the universe without mass or time or action. That is why the concept of space is limited.

"What do you stand to lose if space exists? How will it controvert your theory of action, etc? Will the existence of space prevent "the action of objects in time""

There is nothing wrong with space and space is a very useful and indeed essential for consciousness and cognition. However, because of the degeneracy of space and time, putting space and time together as a Minkowski four space is a dead end for any quantum gravity even though it is useful in many contexts.

You see, the concepts of GR are not wrong, they are just demonstrably limited in their usefulness at certain scales. By untethering space and time, science can have quantum gravity first of all with just matter and time and then go on to play in a four space that is now constrained by a quantum gravity of just matter and time.

Once again, it is the exchange of matter between objects that changes the inertial mass amplitude and phase of an object and that change of matter is what we call velocity and acceleration in space.