A Great-Grandfather\'s Search for Truth by Ronald Racicot

Dear Ronald Racicot,

Good essay on Stochastic processes...

Your words...." How does Quantum Theory fit into a Designed Universe? One possible answer that interests me is that natural variations and probabilistic outcomes observed everywhere within our universe all stem directly from how quantum particles interact with each other and with other objects and forces. The probabilistic nature of quantum particle interactions, in combination with the laws of nature,":.......

... are really interesting. Probably you have consider Charles Darwins words "branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding" to exclude some randomness of stochastic processes....

You are exactly correct......"Why do I exist and why am I here?;"... Your words are nice.

You will become a good Hindu philosopher.... The Sages always discuss such things here in India... !

Have look at my essay also...

Best wishes................

=snp. Gupta

Dear Dr. Racicot,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate."

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Ronald,

I find it good that you understand that most things that many consider to be random chance happenings because they cannot predict the actual outcome that will occur are often the result of unknown variable structural actions that when involved in interactions with other similar entities can yield one of a certain number of specific outcome results with a specific probability of each outcome being generated by the interaction. I have found that the internal structure of matter particles, energy photons, and the sub-energy particles that make up field structures, contain dynamic motions that yield such variable outcomes. Just knowing this, however, does not make it possible to predict the outcome of an individual interaction because it would be necessary for man to gain the ability to observe these internal motions, in some way, to see what their positions, etc. will be at the interaction point and/or to gain the ability to control them, so that they will be in their desired states for the interaction to yield the desired results, but it can lead to the development of such abilities and is, therefore, an important first step in the right direction. Understanding these things can also clear up many of the erroneous quantum mechanical concepts, so that advancements can better occur because of not needing to carry all of the false conceptual baggage that is currently holding back progress.

I also have found that the universe shows all the signs of having been designed and built by a very intelligent being, such as a multilevel hierarchical structure that at its lowest level is composed of simple motions to build the sub-energy, energy photon, and matter particles, which are then used to build the atomic hierarchical level, which is then used to build the molecular hierarchical level, which is then used to produce the large scale level that we mostly live in. Our construction is, of course, greatly accomplished at the molecular level. It is our structure that has completely convinced me that we could not have been produced by natural processes. I could go into these things further, but I don't want to take up too much of your paper's space, so unless you are interested in more information on these things I will leave it at that for now. You can also get much of this and other information from my various contest papers on this site. If you have any further questions, I would be happy to try to answer them.

I think highly of your ability to discern things that many others cannot, but due to a lack of knowledge of the basic structural components of the universe, you have drawn conclusions, such as that there are probabilistic structures built into the universe that cannot be understood or controlled to the point that actual individual interaction outcomes can be determined and that such supposed structures somehow aided in the construction of living creatures, etc. Such structures do not actually exist, however. When the internal structures of particles, etc. are fully understood, the probabilistic structures disappear and are replaced by structures that have fully explainable outcomes. The problem is just that man has not yet been able to observe these structures, but it is possible to model them using available observational information.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Ronald,

You are welcome.

Although I tried to stay with current terminology as much as possible, some things, such as the sub-energy particles that make up the structures of fields are generally not currently known by man, so I had to generate a name for them. Many years ago, when particle interaction data showed that matter particles could be changed into energy photons and vice versa; two things became very apparent to me. The first is that if either one can be converted into the other one, they both must be composed of the same basic substance, so that each one would contain everything that was necessary to make the other one. The second is that since an energy photon travels at the speed of light and contains only a dynamic mass effect that increases with an increase in frequency while a matter particle has a large rest mass effect and can effectively stand still, this basic substance had to be somehow structurally stored differently in one compared to the other to generate the difference in their observed actions. The data also showed that they could both be converted to basic linear or angular motions. Since of the three, a basic motion is the simplest structure I came to the conclusion that motion is the basic substance from which they are all composed. This did not seem reasonable at first because we are used to thinking of motion as a property of something else, such as a moving car, etc., but when I looked into motion interactions I saw that although the individual objects that were in motion could be stopped or speeded up, etc.by an interaction, the total amount of motion is always conserved. This means that the motion is an entity in itself and is just joined to other objects, which causes them to move with the motion that is attached to them. Interactions between objects just transferred some of that substance from one object to another one. If motions were just properties of an object and not an existing entity of its own, it would be reasonable to expect that if two equal mass cars each traveled toward the other at 50 miles per hour, when they met their equal and opposite motions would just cancel each other out and they would just both come to a stop when they touched each other. Motions do not cancel each other, however. One may increase while another decreases, but when you add up the total amount it is always conserved. I have since found out that total motion is the only thing that is conserved, with the possible exception of the total number of motions, which may also be conserved, but that is not as easily understandable on the surface.

When I began to look into the structure of simple motions, I found that simple motion particles that travel in some direction at the speed of light or less, but do not have a wave function that operates at ninety degrees from their direction of travel could be what fields are composed of. I called these sub-energy particles because they are at the level of structure that comes below the structure of an energy photon. An energy photon has a linear motion in some direction at the speed of light, but it also contains a cyclical motion that operates at ninety degrees to that linear motion. Cyclical motions generally must travel in one direction for some distance and then must reverse their direction and travel the same amount in the opposite direction and then reverse their direction again and continue this cycle in all dimensions that the cyclical motion takes part in. A reversal of motion can only result from an interaction with some entity. The most obvious way of producing this motion reversal was to consider that the motion that generates the wave function would move back and forth in a very small fourth dimension. It would travel to one end of this dimension and then it would interact with the barrier at the end of the dimension, which would change its direction, but would not change it speed of motion because the barrier could not transfer it. This dimension would be connected to the lower three dimensions in the same way that they are connected to each other with a couple of exceptions. First, motion could not pass between the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension unless the composite three dimensional speed is greater than the speed of light. If a sub-energy particle receives an increase in its linear motion that would cause it to go faster than the speed of light that excess motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and it then gains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects that make it become an energy photon. The greater amount of motion that is transferred to the fourth dimension, the higher is the frequency, the shorter is the wavelength, and the greater is the photon's dynamic mass effect. This is because the greater the motion, the faster it can complete a cycle from one end of the fourth dimension to the other and back again, thus increasing its frequency, which means that it will travel a shorter distance in its linear motion direction during its quicker cycle, thus shortening its wavelength, and the greater the motion, the more motion that can be transferred to another object during an interaction, thereby increasing its mass effect. There are other details, but that should give a good basic understanding of how an energy photon works and why they all travel at the same speed of light. A matter particle requires an additional motion in an additional fifth dimension. In the same way that there is a transfer threshold level of the speed of light to enable motion to transfer from the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension, there is also a similar transfer threshold to allow transfer of motion from the fourth dimension to the fifth dimension, but unlike the automatic transfer that takes place at the speed of light level to the fourth dimension, when an energy photon contains enough energy to transfer to the fifth dimension it must also come in contact with a proper angular motion component to enable the transfer. That is why a gamma ray photon can remain a photon even though it contains enough fourth dimensional motion to make an electron/positron pair (a matter particle and its antimatter particle). If it travels close enough to an atom to receive the necessary angular motion from the atom's field structure it can then be converted, as an example. The fifth dimensional motion interfaces differently with the lower three dimensions, such that it transfers motion to each of those three dimensions in sequence with a ninety degree overlap between the first and second, the second and third, and the third and the first dimensions. The motion transfer to each of the lower three dimensions starts at a zero level and increases to a maximum level and then decreases back to zero over time. This causes the energy photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself and it continues to cycle through this path. The path effectively becomes a matter particle. When the motion travels into the lower three dimensions it would cause the photon in the matter particle to travel faster than the speed of light, so the excess motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and if the fourth dimensional wavelength fits properly in the enclosed path, the proper angular motion component exists to allow the motion to travel back into the fifth dimension and the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete. The only thing that survives the motion transfer is the angular directional changes to the photon's linear motion path that generates its curved enclosed cyclical path. The great amount of continual angular motion that is generated creates the matter particle's rest mass effect. Since its enclosed path is three dimensional the mass effect is the same in all three dimensions. The motion of the matter particle around its three dimensional path causes it to entrain sub-energy particles to travel through it from an input point on one side to an output point on the other side of the path, but because its motion continues to travel around the path the input and output points of sub-energy flow through the matter particle are also continually changing position on that path. In addition to this the sub-energy flow is modulated from zero to a maximum and back to zero by the fourth dimensional wave function of the particle. This is the matter particle's internal field structure and it generally keeps the particles in the nucleus of the atom from interacting directly with each other. The continual motion of the sub-energy input and output around the particle's enclosed path and the modulation of the sub-energy flow both together generate an external sub-energy field in the form of concentric spheres of sub-energy particles with each sphere varying in sub-energy density from zero to a maximum density and then back to zero. The inner sphere repels the particles in the nucleus and thus contains them in the atomic structure. An electron is attracted to the spheres if it gets close enough to them, which causes it to travel toward the nucleus of the atom. As it travels through the spheres it begins to get attracted to the spheres that are behind it, which it has already traveled through. When the attraction from both directions becomes equal, the electron is in its stable position in the atomic structure. Within each sphere the sub-energy particles travel around the sphere from the input to the sphere to the output of the sphere. This sub-energy flow servos the speed of the electron as it travels around the nucleus. That gives a very basic look at the structure of basic particles. I tried to stay as much as I could with commonly used words, but may not have done it perfectly and some things such as the sub-energy particles are not currently understood to exist by the scientific community, so I had to give them a name to talk about them. I hope it is understandable to you. As I mentioned earlier, my various papers on this site's contests give some more details.

You are pretty close. When two like particles approach each other to an interaction, if their level of linear motion toward each other is low enough the interaction takes place only between their external sub-energy fields. If it is great enough, they pass through their external sub-energy fields and if the motion level is not too great the particles can be joined together to produce a nucleus as their external fields join together into a single field structure with a single inner sphere that holds them together in the nucleus. If the motion level is still greater the particle's internal fields interact with each other. If the motion level is great enough the particle's internal fields are breached and the particle's internal motions can then interact directly. This can result in the destruction of one or both of the original particles. The output results of the interactions are dependent on the conditions of the particle's motions at the point of interaction. Generally, there are a number of ranges of proximity that determine what results can occur and the size of each range compared to the others determines the probability of the occurrence of each outcome. It is not time for me to go into more detail about that yet, however. If a way is devised to observe the particles as they approach each other or the ability to control and sync the particle's internal motions with each other before the interaction is developed, such that it is known what those conditions are at the point of interaction, then the actual outcome of the interaction can be determined or controlled. These things are possible, but these abilities require several advancements that I cannot give. Man must develop these things first. You are right that it is all deterministic. Man just does not yet have the ability to make the observations or to generate the control mechanisms to observe that yet. I have given a model though that gives an explanation of how things work, which is the first step in the process. When the observation and/or control mechanisms are developed, all of the quantum uncertainty will be gone along with all of the gibberish that has been generated in connection to it. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Paul

Ronald,

It's good to see another engineer in the contest!

Stochastic methods are an interesting way of approaching this problem. A normal distribution is defined by both an average value and a standard of deviation ... so presumably you must use values for both in your models.

The original experiment that demonstrated electron spin was the Stern-Gerlach experiment from ~1922. Neutral silver atoms were heated in a furnace and passed through a non-uniform magnetic field. The result was a separation of the beam of neutral atoms into two parts. The spin that is presented by this experiment in not analogous to angular momentum. It is the result of the outermost electron shell having only a single electron and those electrons can then randomly be either up spin or down spin. As a result, I am thinking your spin analysis might not be applicable to electron spin.

The photon equivalent of the SG experiment is pretty much how you describe it.

Are you familiar with Bell's Theorem and Bell's Inequality? If so, how does your stochastic model compare?

Does the stochastic model make any testable predictions that differ from those made by QM?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Ron,

Many thanks for the extensive reply and explanation. You correlation with the EPR experiment is VERY interesting.

I suggest that you should read and comment upon Dr. Klingman's essay. He is very knowledgeable regarding spin and all the various experimental methods associated with it. His essay this year does not pertain to spin, but if you mention that you have a stochastic model and can match EPR results, he will be keenly interested.

Feel free to visit my forum if you wish.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear Ronald Racicot,

I enjoyed your essay, and applaud your support of common sense. As you know, arguing against the Quantum Credo bears some resemblance to banging one's head against the wall. The belief is that the classical world arises (somehow) from the quantum world, so if you have a classical model it's a hard sell. Nevertheless you reject the mystique and magic built-in to the quantum interpretation, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation.

This began with qubits and other mathematical structures projected onto physical reality, a reality that was already confused by the idea that things don't exist in reality until you measure them. [How does one go about proving that?] Anyway, since spin is measured with magnetic fields and photon absorption it is not surprising that most measurements find the particle spin aligned or not aligned with the local field. So 'qubit' statistics 'work', despite the artificial nature of the scheme. It is when physicists believe that reality is structured in this way that problems occur. As you correctly point out, the Schrödinger wave equation itself contains no information related to spin until Pauli inserts his 2x2 matrix into the Hamiltonian.

In 1964 Feynman, enamored of the 2-slit optical experiment proposed [as the basis of a major text on QM!] a gedanken-experiment using a 'modified' Stern-Gerlach device. His two-slit spin analog applies 'wave function' concepts to a particle property that has no "wave properties". But this is what the majority of physicists today believe, despite that the relevant experiment has never been performed. At the same time, Bell forced the qubit model onto measurements that did not support it and proceeded to 'prove' a result that does not relate to reality. Note that all of his tests use photons, not particles. If one uses a classical model and measures the deflection of the particle in the Stern-Gerlach inhomogeneous field, then the Bell theorem is falsified, but those who make their living in this field insist that the spectrum of actual deflections be idealized as +1 or -1 and use this to prove Bell's theorem.

Others refer to Dirac's theory of spin, where Dirac applied a 'doubled' Pauli matrix construct to his equation based on this structure. But the popular conception is wrong. Dirac's theory does not yield spin; it yields helicity. As I've noted, the piling of projection on top of projection has left physicists completely confused about reality. A stochastic model based on what you call 'pure' spin yields the correlation that Bell claims is impossible for classical particles. However if one follows Bell and forces all deflections to be +1 or -1, then one can no longer obtain the correlation. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

In short, trust your intuition, but realize that you're swimming upstream against the Quantum Credo. My belief is that a "better" theory based on classical physics cannot succeed until the original errors that have been propagated through quantum mechanics for almost a century have been clarified. There are several Stern-Gerlach type experiments that can address this issue, and several physicists are working with me to implement one of these experiments. But physicists have a way of ignoring anomalies and things that don't fit preconceptions. So I encourage you to keep questioning and teach your grandchildren to question, but don't look for any changes anytime soon.

I thank you for the Shankar quote. I have the text, but had not seen that quote. [And the Gell-Mann 'flap-doodle' remark.]

I have sprinkled several links to a recent paper, The Nature of Quantum Gravity, that briefly describes my model of a deBroglie-Bohm type electron. Also I have several papers on viXra that treat spin and Bell. You might get something out of these.

Thanks for your comment and keep up the good fight.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ronald,

You have created a thoughtful essay that questions the foundations of quantum mechanics. This is an important thing to do .... particular when the emperor has no clothes.

My own work questions the concept that particles must exist continuously. The concept of superposition is stupid. Heisenberg's concept of uncertainty is silly and Schroedinger's wave equation compounds the silliness.

Yet current QM kinda works, and physicists hold on to it via peer reviewers who need to hold onto things that kinda work instead of questioning quantum mechanics history and foundations.

Check out my website www.digitalwavetheory.com

And thanks for your paper and contribution to a better theory,

Don Limuti

Dear Racicot

I only wish that I could do similarly stellar work when I am your age. In explaining 'quantum entanglement' as a purely physical phenomenon and not 'spooky action at a distance', you shoot for a high bar with quite a bit of panache. I am inclined to look at your explanation with a kindly eye because I too have trouble internalizing the quantum world that is described by modern physics as real. I tend to think of it as mathematically accurate observations which we have not been able to interpret properly as of yet. I rate this highly since you make a very courageous attempt. Hats off to you.

Warm regards, Willy

Dear Ronald,

You are absolutely right that

«the laws that control quantum processes require what I consider to be "magical" non-classical phenomena. I propose a new physical model for quantum particles that both follows classical laws and requires no weird phenomena and at the same time satisfies test data.»

You correctly put questions and find answers «to find and solidify suitable answers for myself about the big universal questions that I've always asked and have always yearned to find answers: Why do I exist and why am I here?; How did I and everything else in the universe come to exist?; and, What is my purpose in this life, after all, if any?»

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Ronald,

That was phenomenal, almost genius! We agree (and as grandfathers) on most all but I hope I can put you out of your misery with a REAL mechanism for you to check out for me, leading to a fully 'CLASSIC QM'! Shame you missed my (top scored) essay last year, but this years employs the red & green reversible socks it identified.

As an engineer you must be able to think of a simple spinning ball, and of Maxwells 'curl' AS WELL AS angular momentum. Now touch your finger on the equator. You find either UP or DOWN, ok? (or arbitrarily left or right). Now go round to the other side - you find the OPPOSITE ok? Now tell me; Did you find clockwise or anti clockwise spin? Hmmm.

Now move through 90[su]o to a pole. Touch right on the pole. Do you find UP or Down? ....Hmmm. However you now CAN tell me with 100% certainty if it's spinning Clockwise or Anti-clockwise! That's Maxwells 'curl' or +/- polarity. Those two momenta are DIFFERENT, ORTHOGONAL, and each CHANGES from max inversely to min by the COSINE of the latitude, over 90 degrees!!!!

A real spin state was MISSED by Bohr, who intentionally didn't assume any particle morphology but forgot or didn't understand (few truly do) Maxwell. It's been hiding right before our eyes (literally!) I've only just finally found the source of the squaring of the values.

That's just part of of course, and science will probably never accept such a change in 100 years, but I think you are one of a tiny percentage able to see it. Please do read (and score!) my essay, (time's running out) and also watch the video; Classic QM on Vimeo or short intro snippet here first 100Sec glimpse.

I hope we can discuss at length. Top score going on now for all your work, efforts and great essay, and thank you for being a kindred spirit.

Very best wishes

Peter