Planck Units and Wave-Particle Duality by Malcolm J Macleod

Hi Malcolm and thanks for your essay. Have you ever considered an Archimedes screw as an anology for the particle/wave duality? It solves a lot of the problems in one go imo. What do you think?

Based on gravity and light waves, I would suspect 2 opposing forces that push each other. Potential energy and kinetic energy would be my candidates. Curiously, if we plot PE as a circle instead of a sin wave, we get the Yin-yang diagram. I referenced (ref #23) an article on the subject.

[Yin-yang

If these PE and KE waves overlap to form a higher dimensional point-wave-state (marking the particle wavelength), then the double-slit experiment can be explained without probabilities, those observed waves are waves.

Malcolm,

I have to laugh at myself for having used the same particle-wave state oscillation in an attempt to explain quantum mass. Honestly, I'm not well read enough to know whether your presmise is original or not, but I promise I did not borrow from your idea, as I had not even browsed any abstracts prior to writing my essay. I will certainly defer to you, but I prefer to think that we have, independently, correctly identified a critical aspect of reality!

I'll read your essay with interest!

Best wishes,

Jim

Malcom,

Examining your essay to the extent that I can (I'm merely an information systems analyst), our ideas do not seem to agree especially well. I approach all problems as a systems requirements analysis. As such, my conception of particle-wave state oscillation frequency must determine observed mass quantity and be independent of wave state oscillation frequency.

I require that a light wave's is perpetually in its wave state (until detected), thus having no rest mass. Conversely, more massive elements are more frequently manifested in their particle state, proportionately exhibiting a quantity of mass.

I also assert that particle state mass is some physical reconfiguration or at least redirection of wave state emission/propagation energy, converting kinetic energy to the potential energy of mass.

These requirements have no theoretical basis, as far as I know, or mathematical proof that I can provide: their manifestation would simply agree with a wide range of phenomena and may potentially allow integration between quantum and GR theories.

Jim

Malcom,

I also agree with your earlier reply re. double-slit experiments: a single light wave is partitioned into multiple independently directed wave fronts, each individually detectable as particles (even for a 'quantum particle' emission). Both wave fronts continue to represent the characteristic properties of the singular wave emission.

Jim

Dear Malcom,

I've been thinking about your proposal, primarily, I admit, because of its similarity to my own (crude) proposal. While I'm neither a physicist nor mathematician, I think I've identified some crucial issues that you should consider. BTW, your paper is very well done - I apologize if I seem to be rudely critical. I'm just trying to use my limited abilities to assist you in what I think is a valuable work.

As I understand, for the recognized wave state, it is location of the fundamental element that is being waved during its self-propagation. Conversely, the localized, stationary particle state does not propagate: instead, it exhibits the quantified characteristic of mass.

It would seem that if the particle state duration were infinitesimal in relation to the wave state duration that the linear propagation of photons would not be distinguishable from the propagation of quarks.

As a result, I suggest that the oscillation of particle-wave state manifestation is completely separate from the wave state only oscillation of localization or its self-propagation.

I completely agree that the particle-wave state manifestation conserves initial emission energy, converting it to and from kinetic and potential energy manifestations. This is, I think an absolutely critical 'discovery', although I have no idea whether it is original or not.

I certainly don't understand much about these issues, but I think and hope I can assist you in some way. Please review my (crude) essay (link below), if it is at all understandable. Obviously, I am not in a position to advance these concepts, but I hope you might be.

Sincerely,

Jim

Digital-Analog Duality Produces Mass Reality by James T. Dwyer

Hi Jim,

Sorry for the delay in reply. You seem to have come to a similar conclusion via a different route which is interesting for me. For my theory, everything reduces to momentum and the transfer of momentum; mass and energy etc are simply useful terms for us. I did not discuss the mechanics of the wave state (space limitation), however I referenced 1 article about this on my web-site.

You propose mechanisms for particles and photons. I presented an actual formula for a particle (electron) as a magnetic monopole (e * c) constructed from 3 Planck units (e, c tp). Although it seems absurdly simple, too simple to be true, this formula can be used to solve the Rydberg constant (12-13 digit precision) so it could be valid. You may want to see how it fits your ideas. There is also a calculator function on my web-site to demonstrate this.

I use gravitational lensing to argue that the photon also has a point-state.

The point-state defines for us the smallest possible unit of (Planck) time, presumably the wave-state has 'momentarily' formed a higher dimensional state that we observe as mass/gravity... When this symmetry is broken, the particle returns to the wave-state.

I appreciate the questions, you can contact me through my web-site as there is much more on this subject. I have compiled it into an eBook which I am happy to send you.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Hi Malcolm, When I saw the title of your essay, I was directly very interested because in my essay (Realities out of Total Simultaneity) I assume that after the Planck length and time we enter another form of our universe that is no longer measurable, sorry I cannot follow all your formula's, but perhaps we are talking about the same ideas when I read your conclusion, only when something is not longer measurable in our causal deterministic reality, can you still use for that area the same formula's ?

good luck with contest

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Wow, I was very impressed with the Yin-yang link you provided. The presentation is excellent and I even had a great admiration for your manta ray book cover!

I'm thinking about the time of Newton, why did no-one suggest the Archimedes screw as a mechanical model for the force of gravity?? Rotational energy is transformed into a force of attraction due to the miracle of structure and spin. Do you see the simplicity that has been missed in the history of science? We would never have had Einstein talking about a 'fabric' of spacetime! Kind regards, Alan.

Aside from gravitational force, how would this physically drive an orbit?

The integer Planck units (mass, time, energy...) lie in the digital domain, they cannot by definition be halved... the non-integer units lie in the analog domain, hence the wave mathematics. In this essay I looked only at the digital domain, space limitations but also the wave math is well understood. They are different domains insofar as the physics is different, however the analog domain determines the frequency of the digital domain.

Good luck!

Malcolm

An excellent essay and theories, though I came to a halt at the maths and had to skip it. Yet the logic was fine. I also entirely agree; "Light waves, for example, reflect an oscillation between electric and magnetic fields. Consequently, the philosophical implications of an analog-digital

oscillation may also be worthy of study"

You may also like my essay, but will have to carefully absorb the logic and consequences to find the pot of gold you will recognise.

Best of luck

peter

Dear Malcolm,

Your idea of Planck units is intriguing. There may be reason to believe there are smallest intervals of length and time. You make an interesting case for a discrete fabric of reality.

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

Dear Paul,

I see that you reference dark energy.

Although not mentioned here, my model presumes that our expanding universe has a contracting twin... in other words, we are not a closed system but instead discrete units of Planck momentum are being constantly transferred from our contracting twin to us. Dark energy is this Planck momentum forcing our expansion, the speed of light the speed of momentum transfer, Planck time refers to a single increment (a single universe frame), the arrow of time derives from this unidirectional transfer... time, velocity (and so space), particles, objects etc that evolve over time all depend on (are derived from) this expansion.

Our universe then resembles a movie with a series of Planck frames imposed upon each other, the clock rate being the rate of this momentum transfer.

Planck time and c are thereby constants, as such relativity becomes relatively simple.

I have done quite a lot of work on this, if you are interested, it is probably easier to contact me directly by email (mail4malcolm@gmx.de).

Cheers,

Malcolm