Solving the mystery of wave/particle duality---the road to a unified theory of physics by Dennis Crossley

Hello Mr .Dennis Crossley,

It's relevant your essay .

I think what the particles aren't points or strings but specific entangled spheres .

Their rotations are the key of the mass I think .

The orbitals of rotations and the rotations of the spheres around themselves imply an oscilllation ,these s^pherical waves thus .

It's logic indeed to link the wave and the particles ,thus for me the rotating spheres and the waves thus .

It's indeed evident what all is coorelated with this duality ,in fact the oscillations are due to these rotations ,specifics .

Let's take the freq v of 5 10^14 Hertz .Thus the rotating spheres of the light haven' mass but why ,thus two possibilities ,1 they don't turn ,not probable ,2 they turn in the maximun in one sense ,the stable particles with mass in the main central sphere particle thus turn in the other .

But if all light becomes mass in the constant of the time and its evolution ,thus it's relevant .

Thus we can say what the gravity takes the electromagnetism and change its senses of rotations for the stability of evolution .

Thus we have too a maximum velocity of rotations of quantum spheres light ,in two senses ,it's the reason why when a electron changes of steps ,it looses a photon ,because the photon fixed in the spheres changes its sense .

It's just a suggestion .

What do you think please ?

Best Regards

Steve

If an electron (positron) is a nonzero-radiused standing wave we can calculate the energy of the EM circulation necessary to make it fit in the box. The smaller the required wavelength, the higher the required frequency and energy associated with it. An electron masses 511 keV/c^2 near enough. Tell us how to squeeze a standing wave into a lepton's radius while uncreating the contingent abundance of excess field mass-equivalence as binding energy. What binds the field? Wherefrom spin, Fermi statistics, and the very naughty 720 degree phase angle? Is an electron a non-orientable surface?

Given your model, tell us why gravitation cannot be shielded. Neutrons can be shielded. Neutrinos in a supernova do not freely propagate during collapse.

You say, "But in the wave model of matter, both the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear "force" have a common interpretation in terms of the localized wave mode (soliton) that is a nucleon. The strong nuclear force is a nonlinear wave interaction between nucleons and the weak nuclear force is an instability in the wave pattern of a single nucleon. A separate "weak nuclear force" (in the Newtonian sense) is not required."

http://pdglive.lbl.gov/listing.brl?fsizein=1&group=CDXX

I rebut: Yang and Lee.

Dear Uncle Al ,

You have always relevant questions in fact .

It's very interesting about the sense of rot in fact .Of course - always but perhaps this polarity has many synchronisations due to the rotations thus the polarity is more complex than - ,but in the whole ,the add of systems imply a or - with different steps of polarity thus .Two senses but in details ,a complexity of polarities due to these rotations ,or whole of rotations .

The strong and weak interactions are just some steps in the same sense but the electro magnetism there it's relevant and the gravity too ,just a question of sense and synchro of rotations ,the evolution point of vue thus is important .

Fusion of fission ....

Sincerely

Steve

Hi Dennis

A very central subject, good points made, but perhaps the community rating is low as you didn't move on, of perhaps they thought you went off track. It also seems you have to be a buddy and well known to even get read!

I think you may be very interested to follow up the link in the posts below my essay 495, which deals with the same subject but as part of a greater and very important picture (that the community hasn't even noticed yet!).

I'd be very interested in your views.

Best of luck.

Peter Jackson

Hi Dennis.

What do you think of wave/particle duality as it applies to:

1. This: The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light would make gravity [fundamentally] repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light.

2. In dreams: In keeping with the fact that dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light), the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. This is consistent with the known mathematical unification of Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) with Maxwell's theory of light (electromagnetism) that is achieved by the addition of a fourth dimension of space to Einstein's theory.

3. Space that is both visible and invisible at the same time.

My essay is listed second. Thanks. Frank

It seems that the author ignores the advancements carried by the quantum field theory and the fact that states represent the number of particle instead of probability densities. Can the author explain how to rephrase its conclusions in a modern terminology based on the ordinary results of quantum field theory?

Hi Dennis. Thank you for your reply.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by making gravity repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light is required. I have proven this in dreams conclusively. You have to read my essay. The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light balances/unifies scale by making gravity both repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light. I have proven this, and you have not. I have clearly and thoroughly demonstrated electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space.

Have you ever considered that gravity IS relatively attractive on Earth, and yet it is relatively repulsive in relation to the Sun (considering the planets that is, of course). This is the way to go in unifying gravity and electromagnetism/light. I discuss this in my essay as well.

Dreams are most definitely in the domain of physics; for starters, the sensory experience in the dream is undeniable.

What do you think is the physical/real/actual basis behind the mathematically proven union of gravity and electromagnetism/light in a fourth dimension of space? Is this not central to any TOE and to the mathematical basis therefore?

Such a union must be (and is) plainly and significantly evident in our experience. Indeed, I have proven this.

There is no getting around the following as well:

In keeping with the fact that dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light), the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. This is consistent with the known mathematical unification of Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) with Maxwell's theory of light (electromagnetism) that is achieved by the addition of a fourth dimension of space to Einstein's theory. Just as this unification comes/came as a surprise, so does the physical basis therefore.

Dreams are visible (to the person having the dream) and yet invisible (to others). Moreover, while the body is generally or significantly absent/invisible in dreams, touch and the sight of the body may occur as well.

The body is invisible and visible -- the clear space of the eye is where vision begins, and this is of (and within) the body. Vision begins as invisible/transparent space inside the eye (and body).

You fail to grasp the interactive nature of being, experience, and thought. Consider the following please.

Astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. Astronomical observations involve a relative detachment, disintegration, and contraction of vision/visual experience as they relate to space, experience, and thought generally. Astronomical observations have significant similarities with dreams. Astronomical observations and dreams involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. The redshift is indicative of increased gravity due to increased transparency/invisibility of space. Consider how the the setting Sun appears at a 90 degree angle in relation to gravity (overhead) -- red and in a transparent sky. Astronomical observations necessarily increase the size of what is seen, or nothing could be seen at all. The red shift is a reduction in energy/brightness; since an object that is farther away, and yet larger/visible, necessarily involves higher gravity.

Now consider the blackness of outer space, the position of red light on the visible light spectrum, and transparent/clear space. Consider this in relation to the black and clear/invisible spaces of the eye. Consider all of this in relation to "dark matter/"dark energy".

What is ultimately possible in physics (including mathematically) is necessarily tied to the integrated, interactive, and natural extensiveness of being, thought, and [sensory] experience. In fact, reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to (or involving) what is the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought).

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Dennis

You write (1) "The current state of understanding of fundamental particles is that particles exist but somehow (mysteriously) have wave properties associated with them. This approach leads to the many mysteries of quantum theory (and, incidentally, also relativity theory) which to this day remain unresolved. The classical concepts are clearly inadequate here because the fundamental properties of particles and waves appear to be mutually exclusive." and you continue (2) " No one has yet been able to answer the question "How can a particle have wave-like properties." "

No competent scientist should ever assert (2). The point of QM is that we can choose to measure a physical entity in such a way that it exhibits particle properties - OR - we can measure it in such a way that it exhibits wave like properties. But we can NEVER measure it as having BOTH simultaneously. You spell out the accurate situation when writing "mutually exclusive"; but it is not merely apparent. It is the physical reality underlying QM. Observing one always excludes observing the other.

You have interpreted the word "associate" in (1) wrongly, and expressed it as a faulty assumption about QM. I am not surprised for you are not alone. Many physicists are not very competent or careful at making this distinction between joint properties and alternative properties. Many standard texts spread the confusion contained in your words.

My essay has a parenthetical comment on the crucial need for careful use of natural language, for it is the tool by which we think and communicate.

Dear Dennis Crossley ,

You are welcome and thanks too to ask me these questionns.

I think What all is in the coded ,probably in the main central spher

My fractal is the same than a cosmological fractal of spheres ,thus like the center of our Universe and I continue with a specific serie with prime numbers and in the complexification the natural numbers...the volumes ,the density ,the mass ,the rotations ,the inertie ,.....

all that can be correlated with the thermodynamic and the specific dynamic of our Universe .

The entanglement I think is relevant about the interactions .

And of course, all these rotating spheres .

The time creates the strong interactions and the evolution polarises with the gravity and the eletromagnetism with their coded senses ot rotations ,the synchroniazation thus .

These spheres are probably a kind of super incompressible coded liquid ,the lattices are relevant about the rotations ,spinals and orbitals and their synchronizations .

Of course the space and wave are linked with all these rotations implying mass and waves .

The senses must be for me a new science due to the combinations ,we know the - but it's more complex in the different steps of the entanglement .But for the scale ,the main central sphere turn in the max and the light in the other ,of course between .....but I see the gauge like that .

The numbers of quantum spheres is the same than our cosmological spheres .Let's take too the plan system of our solar system ,relevant too about the polarisations and the evolution .There the strong and weak interactions are relevant I think with the entanglement and its lattices .

Best Regards

Steve

What a beautiful essay in simple language explaining the fundamental nature of waves to describe both the wave and particle like pictures for so-called particles and electromagnetic waves. It also conceptually identify the four field concept in a simple way pictorially. However, the author needs to go further to show the differences in the interaction pattern for the four different fields, like range, change in nature from attractive to repulsive nature as a function of distance ( strong nuclear), etc. The interpretation of weak interaction as a part of the strong interaction, through a change in the wave's configuration appears an interesting development. Can it account for the corresponding difference in the relative strengths of the two. Also, can you now propose some experiment that may help get a check on the graviton, the particle aspect of gravity waves?

Hi dear Dennis Crossley,

Dear Narendra Nath,

You say

change in nature from attractive to repulsive nature as a function of distance ( strong nuclear),

Thanks Narendra Nath for this relevance .

It is Very important about the micro gravity and the polarity too .

The combinations of synchronizations are so numerous with the rotations .

I think that all is a question of rotations of elementary particles .

Several laws interact at this quantum scale about the rotations .Like a classment ,a taxonomy of the volumes ,velocities orbirtals or spinals ,the angles ,the senses ,the directions ,the densities ,the lattices too .....a real taxonomy exists between quantum spheres ...and thus the 4 interactions too .The fields ,too ....all is linked in fact with our fundamenatsl with a relativistic perception ,adaped and synchronized .

The electromagnetism and the gravity are on a specific dance of polarisations And this time which implant in the strong interactions .The lattices there are relevant I think.

Best Regards

Steve

Mr. Crossley,

Thank you for an interesting essay. Unfortunately, I lack sufficient expertise to comment constructively on the technical details of your essay, but I very much applaud your general approach of going back to basics and questioning the various generally accepted operative assumptions which have been made about these matters. It appears to me that when faced with seemingly intractable conundrums, and especially those involving fundamentally "unintuitive" issues such as the wave-particle duality, it is useful sometimes to begin afresh with a clean piece of paper and re-build our thinking on the topic from the ground up. This appears to be what you have done in your essay.

Of obvious interest is whether your proposed interpretation of the wave-particle duality will lead to testable predictions which differ from those which can be made on the basis of other current approaches. I will look forward to following these discussions to see how your ideas stand up to critiques from experts in the field and, most importantly, what they ultimately may offer in the way of furthering our understanding of Nature.

Good luck!

Hello Dennis,

A creative model thoroughly thought over for the whole of particle physics. I appreciated the in-depth 3D search for alternative wave behaviors, which demonstrates that wave phenomena may still have unexplored properties. You start from the question "How can a wave have particle-like properties?". Did you also consider the question "How can a particle have wave-like properties?".

When you say "recall that photons only occur in right- and left-circularly polarized form", wouldn't it be more correct to state that photons may always be described as a linear superposition of right- and left-circularly polarized forms.

I didn't understand why your wave is inward directed for negative charges, while for positive charges it is outward directed. By what experimental fact is that supported?

Arjen

Dear Dennis,

While I feel not competent to correctly judge your model, I would like to ask you for your opinion about similarity between the relationship momentum/energy and time/frequency.

You may find some of my ideas in my essay 527 and more speculative ones via

http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M290.html .

While I am suggesting new singularity functions myself, I distrust theories that take singularities for reality. Accordingly I love the function sinc.

Regards,

Eckard

Dennis

I feel your comments on wave interference and the practical uselessness of a mathematical construct are central. I've just read the (well disguised) concept behind Peter Jacksons essay 'Perfect symmetry', which demonstates not oonly how right you are in some ways but I think gives the answer to unification! See his latest post on viXra HE. He removes the billions of Doppler folmulaes 'floating in space' (to maintain 'c' at shifts), with an actual quantum mechanism,based on Frequency Modulation,we've all been chasing. It's so simple, but I can't understand why it's still hidden away. I'm sure you'll empathise with it as it's very close to your beautiful space waves.

Rickard

Dear Arjen ,

How can a wave have particle-like properties?

Here is my idea about this question .

Simply still I think that the duality takes all its sense too with the rotating spheres implying mass and waves .The space thus is relevant in my model because thus all spheres are in contact with the waves .I imagine two kinds of entangled spheres mainly in the whole ,in rotation thus wave and mass ,and without rotation thus only for the tranfert of waves.The mass is due to these rotations ,they imply waves by contact with others in rotation and without rotation .There I imagine the space ,the dark matter like elementary particles without movment but with a code of becoming ,the mass .The waves mass duality is linked by contact of entangled spheres .Thus in an universal point of vue ,the volume of space decreases ,the mass increases ,the lattices(space between entangled sphere different than sphere without rotation) are constants but variables in the evolution .

Just a thought

Regards

Steve

THE author, Dennis has not visited his site forresponding to comments made after Oct.11. may be he responds before Nov., 06 voting deadline!