Essay Abstract

The fundamentals of physics are investigated via a thought experiment that starts with an "educated guess" about how particles move. This motion is then used in the wave equation developed by Nobel laureate Louis deBroglie. This theory has some predictions for very high-energy particles and photons and shows what is ultimately possible in particle physics. It also: 1. Puts inertia/gravity as a fundamental part of the quantum world. 2. Gives physical meaning to the Planck Units and shows the ultimate quantum to be the Planck Mass. 3. Updates Maxwell's equations. 4. Takes gravity from the quantum particle world to the world of distributed masses. I am calling this as yet untested theory "Digital Wave Theory" or "λ-Hop Theory". It may even prove to have some merit, keep an open mind and I hope you enjoy the ride.

Author Bio

Don Limuti is the president of Communication Panels Co. and creator of www.zenophysics.com He obtained a BSEE degree from The City College of New York and has presented several technical papers at IEEE events. He has been awarded three patents and has several in process. His essay entry in the first essay contest "Making Time with Pretty Girls and Hot Stoves" is on the FQXi.org web site.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Mr. Limuti,

Thank you for an interesting essay! Well written, and very thought provoking.

A couple of questions: you didn't mention Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in your essay; have you thought about how that might relate to your theory? And can you suggest any predictions which your theory might allow which could be testable with technology currently available or likely to be available in the foreseeable future?

To J.C.N. Smith,

Thanks for two very to the point questions.

1. The uncertainty principle does not apply to Lambda-Hopping particles in theory because they are never seen "in motion". In practice if your measuring device smears the measurement to give you a velocity then you have uncertainty. So in theory this is a deterministic theory because position and velocity are never seen together in a particle. Ordinary matter does have position and velocity together and the concept of uncertainty could apply.

2. Two ways of checking the theory come to mind:

a. Measure the speed of light and show it is slower for higher frequencies.

To get enough precision to do this is probably not possible.

b. Get a massive non charged particle like a Buckyball C60 and attempt to

show they physically hop at longer and longer distances as they slow

down. Put them in something like an evacuated hour glass and watch them

as they fall. This might be possible.

My first attempt at this theory was not very good, but I got some encouragement from a kind professor (he took a prize in the nature of time contest) who liked the concept of a minimum velocity for matter. My second attempt is on the website www.zenophysics.com, you may find this site interesting in spite of the fact that much of it is obsolete having been updated by this essay.

Don L.

To J.C.N. Smith,

Let me add a bit to the uncertainty concept. I just read what I sent you and it was not very useful ...sorry.

I will use a "Buckyball" for my particle. Heisenberg would say that the position and momentum of a Buckyball cannot both be known to an arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely position is known, the less precisely momentum can be known.

When a Buckyball is conceived of as a Lambda-Hopping particle, it appears at an exact position P1 and time T1 and reappears at another exact position P2 and time T2. The Buckyball does not have velocity as a property. The velocity (and momentum mv) that the Buckyball has is always a calculation where: V = (P2-P1)/(T2-T1). Note that with this model the velocity is not known instantaneously, you have to wait till the hop completes, but the positions and times are known exactly and the velocity is calculated exactly, therefore there is no uncertainty.

With Lambda-Hopping particles it is just part of how things work that position and velocity are never "known" at the same time. In "standard physics" we take it for granted that position and velocity should be able to be known together and accurately. And since this is not the case we need to patch in the uncertainty principle.

And that is why I say that Lambda-Hop theory is deterministic.

Don L.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #5

Thanks for the clarification. Your original reply carried the message well enough, too. An interesting concept, for sure! I'd love to know how Mr. Heisenberg would respond to your clever circumvention of his principle! I'll look forward to seeing further developments of your ideas.

jcns

4 days later

To J.C.N. Smith

It may be that Heisenberg may not object to this "circumvention".

The uncertainty equation (deltaX)(deltaP)>=h/2 translates to the fact that you cannot get a better resolution on the position of a mass than its wavelength divided by 2. This is from the deBroglie equation wavelength X=h/P

The theory developed here says the same thing. Make a measurement on a particle and get a number for its position. This theory considers this number exact. Now make the measurement repeatedly and the numbers will scatter about the wavelength with the average being the wavelength divided by 2. This is because the particle is always hopping back and forth (as a minimum velocity) about its wavelength. If you could make your measurements synchronous with the hopping then you could get an exact repetitive position.

The question is, can this satisfy Einstein?

Don L.

8 days later

Dear Don,

It is very interesting for me to see that you emphasize the significance of Planck mass. Personally I feel its importance is highly under-rated, while great importance is given to Planck energy. Should both Planck mass and Planck energy not be treated at par, as a result of Einstein's mass nergy equivalence? There is somehow a tendency to beleve that since Planck energy is

a very large (as yet) inaccessible energy new physics is likely to arise there, but Planck mass being so close to masses we are routinely familiar with, nothing new can happen there. I find such an attitude self-contradictory.

I had a couple of questions to you. In your work, can you devise a dynamical equation of motion for particles with mmass close to Planck mass? Secondly, would you happen to know experimentalists who are interested in probing mesoscopic quantum mechanics?

Thanks,

Tejinder

Dear Don Limuti,

The 'self gravity' explained in your article is similar to the space flux, that is the gravity on transfer of energy-mass in the cyclic action by wave propagator, explained in the Coherent-cyclic model of universe.

In this model, gravity is described as the primary force among all fundamental forces of Nature, whereas the other three forces are the hybrids of different manifestations of the gravity only. As per this model, there is no vacuum even in quantum level and the gluons are considered as the starting point in similarities with your 'Gravity from the Ground Up' approach for unification, in that the gauge bosons are expressed as space flux that carries gravity on elastic scattering.

The phenomenon of hopping may be explained in a Coherent-cyclic model of universe as the transfer energy-mass by cyclic action of the propagator as the wave propagates through matrix in a path integral. As the angular velocity in the cyclic processes of the elements in the matrix varies, the wave length of the wave propagation varies and the wave function is not applicable for this model. This implies that the mean angular velocity in a path integral determines the speed of propagation and this may provide some solution to the paradox on speed of light for your experimental expectations, as there is no free space in this model.

In a Coherent-cyclic model, as all cluster-matters are in coherent cyclic motion, the rest mass of matters is not explainable and the acceleration is only a rate of change of position without transfer of energy-mass.

I have to say thank you, as this article provides lot of clues to integrate the physics of Lambda-CDM model of cosmology with the physics of Coherent-cyclic model of universe.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Tejinder,

Thank you for the information. Also, I like the term m-mass, you have given a name to a area that physicists have looked at and noted as peculiar, but have not pursued. This is a good area for a FQxi grant!

The reason I like the term m-mass is because it could stand for "missing" mass. This is missing mass on a QM level. And with a certain amount of "that is impossible" it may be the source of dark matter and energy on the cosmic scale.

How I got interested in this stuff:

1. I made a simple theory starting from Zeno's paradox. It struck me that the agreed upon math solution to the paradox was at best "ugly". How can anyone say that getting a finite time from an infinite series means that Achilles will pass the turtle! The math is correct it but it has no meaning in the physical world. The simple theory that overcomes the paradox is that particles move by "hopping" over space-time.

2. I combine "hopping" with the deBroglie wave equation and get three equations. I chose one of the equations (that I could partially solve) and wrote my essay based on my analysis. The equation I plotted is given in the section before the graph (figure 1). This equation gives hopping velocity that ends at the Planck mass.

3. The graph of figure 1 is way beyond coincidence, and I tend to trust it and its indication that quantum physics ends at the Planck mass.

My encounter with m-mass:

1. I wanted to make plots of a hierarchy of masses from the electron to the Planck mass. I wanted particles for this plot and not things like "fleas" (which are about a Planck mass). Particles hop as one thing, whereas everything else hops as distributed mass and is a statistical complex that looses the quantum mechanical nature of "pure" particles.

2. Here is the progression of particle mass: (electron)-(proton)-(atoms)-(simple molecules)-(Buckyballs)-(m-mass)-(Planck m)

3. From the electron to the Buckyball C60 the mass goes to 10^-24 kg

There is nothing from 10^-24 to 2.2x10^-8 kg particle wise.

That is an enormous gap preceding the entry to ordinary distributed mass

and classical physics. You noted this in your essay.

4. One "wild" possibility for filling some of this gap is "cosmic dust" which

I believe ranges from 10^-16 to 10^-8 kg. I do not believe anyone is

considering that this dust may have QM properties.

5. The science fiction author Philip Pullman wrote a trilogy titled "His Dark

Materials" that involves "dust" and Cambridge scholars interested in

particle physics. Could it be that Pullman has been consulting with

Penrose? PS I enjoyed the trilogy.

Thanks for your correspondence, you are on to something.

Don L.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #10

Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

I am glad you found my essay useful. Thanks for the feedback.

I did read your essay and realize that your post was trying to bring some of the concepts down to where I could understand them. Thanks.

My wish is that your work can Make the Standard Model of Physics stand as an elegant structure.

Best wishes,

Don Limuti

5 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #11

To me the text here merely shows what happens when one freezes one parameter and look at the other related one, only as really acting. If there are two conjugate parameters like energy and time, freezing energy will force time to show the effects of change in energy in terms of time only and vice versa.It is just forcing physical parameters in play to reduce and then see what is happening.

However, what fascinates me as unique here is that there can be change in the speed of light signal if it comes from a very high frequency region greater than the highest energy Gamma rays available thus far. Such energetic particles may have existed in and near the Big bang. But how does the particle speed gets limited to the value c/underoot 2 in your treatment?

Another intersting point to look for is that no funadamental particle may have a mass greater than 21.77 microgramme, certainly a large mass to have for a fundamental particle. Implications of this approach for the future of Physics remains a bit obscure.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #12

Narendra,

Thank you for the interest in my essay. I have read your essay and the many posts to it. It is obvious that you are part of what holds this forum together and makes it a pleasure to participate in.

1. Yes I have "frozen" the parameter of instantaneous velocity. But my intention was not to force physical parameters. I really think there is no such thing as instantaneous velocity for quantum mechanical particles. Well, if there is no instantaneous velocity how can they move? And the answer is by "hopping". The particle comes in and out of existence in a predictable way that makes it have no velocity when it appears. The existence of velocity and therefore energy is a calculation based upon successive measurements of the particle v = (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).

2. Why would anyone want to make such a crazy theory? The reason why I did it was to get around Zeno's paradox. I believe Zeno's arguments are correct and his conclusion that Achilles' arrow at any instant cannot be moving is also correct. The arrow moves essentially by hopping (it is never seen in motion), That is the QM particles that comprise the arrow are all hopping in some statistical manner. But electrons and buckyballs hop in a linear predictable manner.

Most scientists and mathematicians believe that Zeno's paradox is explained via the methods of calculus. This puts me and a handful of others in a minority position, so I usually try to hide my philosophical connection to Zeno.

3. c/2^0.5 came from substituting the Planck mass (ch/G)^1/2) into the equation for velocity Vo4 - c2Vo2 c2m4G2/(4h2) = 0 . And it is a bunch of math steps which I omitted as you noted :)

4. Your last paragraph indicated how strange it is to have the Planck mass be a quantum particle. I feel the same way. I looked at the graph and was amazed by how c fell off and how energy and mass became the same value at the Planck mass.

My best guess is that low mass particles (electrons) are purely QM and as particles get more massive they become mixed with classical matter more and more until there is no more QM particles past the Planck mass and all masses larger than the Planck mass are ordinary "statistical" matter.

5. This essay is basically a "see what I found" and a call for help.

Thanks for your interest,

Don L.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #13

Dear Don,

i really appreciate your frank defence of the approach adopted. I also now feel that the truth lies somewhere in the harmony of the concepts behind quantum mechanics in relation to the classical. The mesamorphic region postulated for study bt Tejinder in his essay on this forum may help decipher the mystery. it may also fufil the hope of Einstein that one day an alternate theory will emerge to replace the Quantum one. Yes, probabilities are governing the grosser aspects of physical reality but certainlt there ia an order/ logic behind all the physical ceration. I feel the day we are able to resolve the nature of dark matterenergy vis a vis visible matter mystery, we may sort out many such issues. After the primordial matter born at the Big Bang, was and shoud be the common source for both these types.

Let us all love Physics as well as all of ourselves and things will become easy to solve with humility and ego-free attitudes.

8 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #14

Hi dear Don Limuti ,

I liked reading your essay .Interesting in its whole .

I was curious about the origin of mass ,which is for me the rotating quantum spheres.

The inetia ,the moment ,the fields ,the forces ,the energy ,.....and the rotating spheres are linked of course.It's difficult to know the correct number and this reality .

Congratulations and good luck

Steve

Hi Steve,

I enjoy all your posts, particularly when I have to figure out the French!

Your post here is particularly good English. I hope my response is as good.

1. I did not find much on the web about rotating quantum spheres. However, I can imagine Feynman's path integral where a QM particle moves between two positions along all possible paths as a sphere.

Did I get close to what you had in mind? Can you provide any references to rotating quantum spheres?

2. In the theory I have been promoting where particles hop from position to position (Lambda-Hop), I have stayed in a single dimension. In 3D these particles would look like spheres that would be rotating. I have not given it much thought.

3. It is interesting to note that Feynman's path integral concept is similar to Lambda-Hop theory. Logically a particle that moves along all possible paths moves along no path. Moving along no path corresponds to hopping.

4. In Lambda-Hop theory mass does not have an independent origin. Mass, space and time are connected via deBroglies equation and are intimately entangled.

Let me know if my English and ideas make any sense to you.

Don L.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #16

Hi Don Limuti ,

Thanks .

You know it's easier for me to read english than writing .

I write literally .I try to make simple with my words .

About rotating spheres ,I must write articles ,publications .There in Belgium I restabilize my economic situation and after I will publish some articles correlated with my works about the spherisation theory ,a gut of Rot spheres.

The equations of debroglie ,Maxwell ,dirac ...are relevant indeed .

I try to orientate the model with a good hilbert space and the good number of spheres .It's difficult to find the good number but I will arrive one day I hope .

You say

2. In the theory I have been promoting where particles hop from position to position (Lambda-Hop), I have stayed in a single dimension. In 3D these particles would look like spheres that would be rotating. I have not given it much thought.

Very relevant .

3. It is interesting to note that Feynman's path integral concept is similar to Lambda-Hop theory. Logically a particle that moves along all possible paths moves along no path. Moving along no path corresponds to hopping.

I am going to learn more about it .

Best Regards

Steve

Hello Don,

Thank you for the clear outline of your model, a very creative model. I appreciated the mathematical underpinning of your model, which makes it more precise. Trying to explain the wave-like appearing, disappearing and re-appearing of the particles must always start with an "educated guess" and your lambda-hop model is a possible one, which gives some insights that other approaches don't give. That's always valuable.

Compliments for your website, following Smolin's five major problems scheme. Tackling all five is brave. I've also been inspired by Smolin to tackle the second problem at the Principles of Quantum Mechanics page at Wikiversity. You may be interested by the appearing/disappearing animation of the particle in a box.

Regards,

Arjen

  • [deleted]

  • Post #18

Dear Don,

I would like to draw your attention to an article on the FQXi forum at

http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/103

which seems quite relevant to the discussion we have been having, and where I have left a post.

Hello Arjen,

Your "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" and the display of the vectors in the box is very informative. It made me think that my essay is not that "far out". The animation could have been of lambda-hopping particles instead of "vectors".

As I read through the basic principles of QM I found the sentence that I think is at the heart of the trouble with physics "A spinning nail has observational properties attached to it (position, translational and angular velocity,...), the same for the vector representing it." Here are some of my thoughts:

1. The key issue is observational properties. This was defined as:

experimental; relying on observation or experiment.

2. As an observational property "position" is just fine. We can make a

measurement and get positions on lambda-hoppers.

3. The other observables of velocity (translational and rotational) along with momentum and energy can never be observed with lambda-hoppers, it can only be calculated from measurements made in the past. And thus memory is important in physics, another area that deserves some attention. Is the memory in the universe as a whole or in something the observer constructs?

4. The Hamiltonian operator may work OK with vectors, but it is going to have trouble with lambda-hoppers because of their discontinuous nature. The Hamiltonian operator will produce infinities because of this. I think this is one of the problems with quantum field theory?

Appreciate the information and help,

Don L.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #20

Dear Tejinder,

I did investigate the link and your post. I was a little disappointed in that right when the article got interesting it ended. It did however indicate that we are not alone in our suspicions about a transition region from QM to classical.

Using superposition seems like the hard way to go in my opinion. As you know I suspect that quantum mechanics is very mechanical. So, here is a mechanical idea for checking the "quantumness" of particles. I am going to do this with just words, so I wish myself luck.

1. Fire a single file stream of uniformly spaced particles at a detector screen. A single dot will appear on the screen.

2. Fire an identical stream of particles at the screen and have it cross the first stream at a slight angle. This stream by itself would also produce a dot in a different position than the first stream. (It would be neat if the first stream could double back on itself so that a second stream would not be necessary.)

3. Operate both streams simultaneously. At the place that they cross there will be the expected collisions which will produce a smooth distribution of particles at the screen. If the particles are QM in nature there will be a slight difference in the pattern due to interference.

4. I think of one stream as creating a "grid". The second stream interacts with this grid. If a ratio of the "interference pattern" to the "classical pattern" can be made it would give a measure of just how good a QM particle we have.

And as usual the devil is in the details.

Thanks for the information,

Don L.