Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Bill Christie: on 4/6/14 at 19:33pm UTC, wrote Hi Alan and everyone, I pretty much concur with your idea of the rotating...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:24am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Edwin Klingman: on 9/28/12 at 21:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Steven B. Kaplan, I do not suggest that fundamental quantum entities...

Steven B. Kaplan: on 9/28/12 at 21:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kadin, You and I have been arguing Quantum Mechanics for many...

Steven B. Kaplan: on 9/28/12 at 20:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Drs. Klingman and Kadin, I have read Dr. Kadin's essay several times,...

Hoang Hai: on 9/26/12 at 9:16am UTC, wrote Dear Alan M. Kadin Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us...

Andreas Boe: on 9/18/12 at 20:53pm UTC, wrote It is with great joy I read your essay about the New Quantum Paradigm. The...

Eric Reiter: on 9/18/12 at 6:12am UTC, wrote There are many ideas here I agree with and others I do not. I am not...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality by Alan M. Kadin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 16:23 GMT
Essay Abstract

A retrospective is presented of the rise and fall of Wave-Particle Duality as the central doctrine of quantum mechanics, from the viewpoint of the 2024 centennial of the matter wave. This is contrasted with the recent New Quantum Paradigm, in which there are no point particles or entangled probability waves, and classical trajectories follow directly from coherent quantum dynamics.

Author Bio

Alan M. Kadin (amkadin@alumni.princeton.edu) has been thinking about quantum foundations for 40 years, since his Princeton undergraduate thesis on hidden variables in quantum mechanics. He went on to complete his Ph.D. in Physics at Harvard on superconducting devices, followed by postdocs at SUNY Stony Brook and University of Minnesota. Dr. Kadin pursued a research career in superconducting devices, in both industry and academia, at Energy Conversion Devices (Troy, MI), University of Rochester, and from 2000-2012 at Hypres, Inc. (Elmsford, NY). As of 2012, he lived in Princeton Junction, NJ, USA.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Alan,

You have a very impressisve essay which I'm not qualified to fully appreciate unfortunately. I do have a simple answer to particle/wave duality however, namely, the spinning Arhimedes screw analogy. The wave/particle can even corkscrew around a 4-dimensional hypersphere to emerge as a force of repulsion, i.e. dark energy! What are your thoughts on a mechanical universe with helical screws as the basic building block of matter? This simple idea solves all the basic problems imo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Alan,

I have read your well written essay on misconceptions of wave particle duality that our scientific community is caught up in. The answer lies in the singularity or the universal i. Singularity is not just an inifinite point in relativiy, but the absolute whole taken together (it is like the quantum vector field you are proposing in NQP). Our bodies and minds are nothing but a certain frequency of that entirity and we feel that we are independent observers relative to this entirity and to each other and this perspective is the root of all misinterpretations of the absolute truth. Our conscience or soul can be merged with that entirity and that is when we realize that we are all but one singularity. I wish you all the best and I hope that human consciousness will be merged with cosmic consciousness with all our effrots put together and that we can all live in love and peace.

Please see the essay I posted in this contest at Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 09:11 GMT
Okay Sridattadev, will do. Thank you for your kind words as always.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Roger Schlafly wrote on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 19:08 GMT
Are you claiming to have a Kuhnian paradigm shift? Do you agree that your approach has not measurable advantages over conventional quantum mechanics?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Alan Kadin,

I found your reference to Duanes's momentum transfer quite interesting. Thanks for the link to his paper.

As I understand it, your non-point particle is a self-interacting (self-sustaining) distributed field based on "real physical fields" where quantized spin is key to particle integirity. Does this imply a structure, and have you elaborated it in any of your other papers? Also, is there an explanation of charge built into the model?

Your abstract states that the NQP does not support point particles which seems compatible with the above, but you also seem to forego the probability interpretation that is the root of most quantum approaches. So if I understand you correctly, the self-interacting fields produce particles that behave (essentially) classically and do not have the "wave" nature associated with the de Broglie model. Is this correct?

In some ways our models are similar. I agree that particles form from a self-interacting field and do not shrink to a point particle but are essentially spin-stabilized. But my model supports induced waves that provide the interference phenomena and the link to probability. I do not describe particle generation in my current essay, but I do focus on the induced wave and its link to probability in The Nature of the Wave Function. Based on the weak field approximation to general relativity, I suspect this model would be compatible with your particle model. I invite your comments on this.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven B. Kaplan replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Drs. Klingman and Kadin,

I have read Dr. Kadin's essay several times, and I truly believe that he does NOT suggest that fundamental quantum entities are quantum waves. These waves, with an amplitude and a phase, interfere with other quantum waves, and produce results that are decidedly NOT classical.

According to this understanding, quarks, which are fundamental quantum entities, behave wavelike, but neutrons, in which quarks are confined, can be described by a relativistic Hamiltonian that is consistent with the new QM picture, yet leads to a classical trajectory.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT
Dear Steven B. Kaplan,

I do not suggest that fundamental quantum entities are quantum waves either, but that they exist as particles and *induce* waves according to the equations described in my essay. In my model the composite particles would also induce such associated waves, although, having less mass density than elementary particles, the waves would be correspondingly 'weaker'. Both particles would, within context, lead to 'classical' trajectories.

As noted we do agree that that particles form from a self-interacting field and do not shrink to a point particle but are essentially spin-stabilized.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ed Unverricht wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 20:44 GMT
Very nicely done. You start with the comment "Unfortunately, the physical nature of the matter wave was obscured by the assertion that it consisted of both a point particle of mass m and a distributed field with wavelength Lambda = h/mv (h = Planck's constant and v is the velocity of the particle)."

Then go on to show "(a) Electron field rotating at frequency f = mc2/h, with uniform phase angle ø, and total spin S = h-bar/2 perpendicular to the plane, corresponding to electron at rest. (b) Electron moving at velocity v, showing phase gradient dø/dx = p/h-bar and de Broglie wavelength Lambda = h/p from Lorentz transformation."

As I understand this, you have applied a periodic property to an object travelling through space. This gives the object properties that vary on a periodic basis as they travel and interact with other objects. You are very clearly demonstrating the wave nature of a particle.

Great read. Thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Kadin wrote on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 18:29 GMT
My essay asserts that the paradoxes associated with wave-particle duality have prevented the realization of a consistent physical picture of the microscopic world. Indeed, it is generally believed that no such clear physical picture is possible. This in turn has led to the over-reliance on abstract mathematical formalism. In contrast, I present the outlines of a theory whereby coherently oscillating fields on the microscopic level give rise to essentially classical particles. This is compatible with local reality, being based on special relativity. There is no physical duality, no fundamental indeterminacy, and no long-distance entanglement, paradoxical concepts that have plagued quantum theory from the beginning. Classical physics follows directly from the microscopic quantum fields, with no mysterious decoherence needed.

With respect to the specific comments:

1) The present theory focuses on rotating vector fields carrying angular momentum. No rotating solid bodies are necessary.

2) In my view, mind and consciousness are higher-level constructs in networks of neurons, not related to quantum effects on the atomic level.

3) While the term "paradigm shift" has been overused, the conventional confusion of duality, indeterminacy, entanglement, and decoherence have so permeated the language and concepts of modern physics, that eliminating them really would constitute a paradigm shift and a scientific revolution.

4) The wave aspect of fundamental particles reflects internal rotating vector fields. The de Broglie wavelength is a direct consequence of Lorentz transformation of these rotating fields. Their external motion, however, follows classical particle trajectories, as derived from the coherent internal oscillations.

5) The particle aspect of fundamental particles reflects quantization of spin. This may require a nonlinear self-interaction of the internal field, leading to spontaneous formation of domains, which is not evident in the standard wave equations. This feature of the theory is still incomplete, but hopefully will be defined before the 100th anniversary of de Broglie waves in 2024!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 22:16 GMT
We've been so conditioned to remember that quantum events cannot be explained by classical models -- and we've got the theories and experimental data to prove it -- that most have forgotten that this need not hold for the converse statement, i.e., deriving classical physics from the quantum field. (My own essay implies the same.)

Thanks, Alan Kadin. You said it well. And I think we're going to be hearing a lot more along these lines in the not too distant future.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 23:37 GMT
Congratulations,

You know I liked your essays for all its informations and relevances.

Good luck .

ps the wave duality is explained with my equations and the sense of rotation different for hv and m.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 23:45 GMT
:) and princeton which becomes crazy.....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Alan:

I enjoyed reading your paper, especially as the NQP described in the paper mirrors the wave-particle model based on the Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) described in my posted paper – “From Absurd to Elegant Universe” and my book – “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, cosmology, and Universal Reality”. Following your arguments, a relativistic model of the particle mass is represented by GNM equation (4) in my paper. When this relativistic relationship is combined with deBroglie model, the governing equations for the photon matter-wave frequency and wavelength are derived as equations (4-7) and (4-8) given in the attached pdf file to this post. Also, attached figure 4-20 shows the ratio of the predicted and classical deBroglie frequency and wavelengths fo various V/C values.

GNM dissolves the existing puzzles and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories via providing a new relativistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics as described below (Detailed mathematical treatise is published in references [15,16,17, & 18]):

- Heisenberg Uncertainty: GNM based explicit formulations for Heisenberg Uncertainty, presented in reference [15], show that this uncertainty is not inherent in nature but an artifact of the limitations of the classical measurements in the fixed space and time that fail to account for the relativistic effects governing the quantum phenomena being observed. The errors inherent in this method for measuring the behavior of slow moving (V

attachments: Response_to_AlanKadin_Attachment.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary Simpson wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 06:13 GMT
Dear Alan Kadin,

Thanks for an interesting read. For whatever it is worth, I agree completely regarding spin and vector rotations.

It is very easy to go from a complex exponential to a rotating vector. Euler's Equation can be interpreted as a quaternion therefore multiplying by a complex exponential causes a rotation. It is very unfortunate - at least in my opinion - that vector analysis has almost completely replaced quaternions. I was never taught quaternions as either an undergrad or a grad student.

It is even more interesting to multiply a complex exponential based on say plus/minus i*alpha*c*t by a vector such as (j plus k). That rotates the entire jk plane with the plus i being clock-wise and the minus i being counter-clockwise. That also makes it possible to use either the plus i*alpha*c*t or the minus i*alpha*c*t exponentials alone rather than as a sum. Using either the plus or the minus rotation about the i axis makes it possible for a wave function to satisfy both the classical wave equation and Schrodinger.

Good Luck in the contest.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 16:21 GMT
The Poynting vector ExH = ħk used in |ExH|/ω = ħ can be used in the CHSH inequality, where implicit is the quantum of electric and magnetic field. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔpΔx = ħ/2 holds for the minimal electric and magnetic fields

E_0(ω) = sqrt{ħω/2Vε}, B_0(ω) = sqrt{ħVε/2ω}

with E_0(ω)B_0(ω) = ħ/2. Here ω is the frequency of the field-wave, ε is the electric permittivity of the vacuum and V is a volume used in this box normalization. E_0(ω) and B_0(ω) are the fluctuations in the electric and magnetic field at a particular frequency for that field-wave. A photon is then built from these minimal units. This vector quantity can be used in the CHSH inequality, which is a form of the Bell inequality.

Your scheme is a putative way that quantum physics has an underlying “wiring” or mechanism that is classical. It is very unlikely that any such hypothesis is going to win the day.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Kadin wrote on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 23:58 GMT
"What an entangled web we weave, when first ourselves we do deceive!"

(with apologies to Sir Walter Scott)

Universal de Broglie waves and quantum entanglement are inconsistent with physical realism, but have long been accepted as established facts. Dropping these "facts" leads to a simple self-consistent physical picture (as presented in the essay), which has not previously been examined. This is not a classical picture; matter is composed of confined quantum fields, which require quantum transitions to change their coherent internal oscillations (rotations). But unlike the statistical Copenhagen interpretation, here classical physics arises directly from these coherent quantum oscillations, with no mysterious decoherence. This is conceptually elegant, in contrast to the awkward hybrid of Wave-Particle Duality. This is a direct challenge to quantum orthodoxy, and deserves to be examined carefully.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 01:52 GMT
Dear Alan Kadin,

When you mention wave-particle duality, that means to me "wave OR particle" whereas there is also the possibility (as Bell points out) of "wave AND particle" of the type I treat in my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function .

In your New Quantum Paradigm "there are no point particles or entangled probability waves, and classical trajectories follow directly from coherent quantum dynamics." If you read my essay closely, you will find that we agree on these points. You state that "matter is composed of confined quantum fields". We agree on this also, although I am not sure that our confinement mechanisms are identical. Mine are described elsewhere, and I do not recall that you explained in any detail how yours are confined.

You are quite certain that there is no wave involved, but as I show in my essay, the weak field equations of general relativity imply that there *is* a wave induced by each material particle. Are you rejecting general relativity also?

You say, "This is the key physical picture of the NQP; matter consists of spatially localized coherently rotating relativistic vector fields, each rotating at its characteristic frequency." To some extent this also describes the matter in my theory, although, as I mentioned above, I believe that our means of confinement differ. It appears that your frequency is simply the Zitterbewegung frequency. Is there a difference? So we agree to some extent, but we part company with "Within the NQP, electrons and photons are waves, while neutrons and atoms are particles "

Do you have a description of your confinement mechanism that you can direct me to? And do you explain how charge arises and how the probability interpretation must fit in with your model. As you mention above, it is quite easy to deceive ourselves.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


N.D. Cook wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 23:13 GMT
Wonderful essay! While the wave-particle debate continues (for the additional 12 years you have allowed!), every physics book should include your Table 1 in the Introductory Chapter… just to get people thinking. Conceptually, I find it difficult to sort out which are the starting assumptions and which are the related assertions. I wonder if the idea of “point particles with mass” isn’t the initial error – the faulty starting assumption on which the particle-wave duality is then built. If the singularity of a massive point particle is not assumed, then all the theoretical paraphernalia built around that assumption becomes unnecessary. Isn’t that what the quark theorists today have constructed?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 04:52 GMT
Dear Alan,

Please accept my sincere apology for confusing your first name with Alexander in Jonathan Dickau's thread. In my essay I quoted you as A Kadin, and the style of reasoning in your essay was the only one with this contest which I kept worth quoting even if I do not exclude that you could be wrong but for instance Edwin Klingman correct.

Sincerely,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 06:12 GMT
There are many ideas here I agree with and others I do not. I am not convinced that neutrons are not a matter wave, like you say. How would the distance between scattering centers express itself except by wave interference? Also, neutron waves cancel out in interferometers. So to me (and many others), it has been firmly established that we cannot use particles to explain neutron interference. Please illuminate me if I missed something. Also, you seem to embrace hf=mc^2 for matter. Every time I work it out numerically, it does not work. Try it for electron interference. I contend that light is classical, and the wave effects in matter are due to a matter-wave. The particle-like effects are due to loading and thereshold effects. I tested my ideas by splitting the gamma-ray and alpha-ray, each as a wave in an essay here in this contest: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory (1344). I further conclude that matter can take on either a particle OR wave state. It is all in my essay in detail. I would like to hear your feedback. Thank you, Eric Reiter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Andreas Boe wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 20:53 GMT
It is with great joy I read your essay about the New Quantum Paradigm.

The hypothesises of non-local entanglement and of wave-particle duality is the two most unsatisfying concepts I find in physics. NQP seems to be a possible and elegant way out of the mess.

Whather or not your essay is recieved well in the contest, I appreciate it a lot.

Andreas Bøe, Norway

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
Dear Alan M. Kadin

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven B. Kaplan wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear Dr. Kadin,

You and I have been arguing Quantum Mechanics for many years. I originally thought all "particles" behaved as waves. Over the years, and especially after reading your essay, I finally have a visceral, mathematical, and deeper understanding this subject. The concept of fundamental quantum fields and quantum entities such as quarks and electrons, with quantized spin and charge, is compelling. The distinction of composite particles from their fundamental constituent fundamental entities is key to understanding things like neutron diffraction.

The heuristic device of looking back from a future time was amusing, but an interesting choice, considering the NQP is not widely accepted today. What you have, though, is a good foundation for a step-by-step re-examination of QM.

Perhaps the strongest aspect of your essay is the exposition of quantum mechanics by going step by step, examining caviats and "simplifications" that were handed to us by our professors. The best example of this is the inclusion of the i(mc^2)t/hbar exponent in the wave function and how an engineer could easily see the suppression of the relativistic "carrier wave" is suppressed by a downconversion process to arrive at the usual Schrödinger equation.

For all these reasons, your essay should rank with the highest-rated essays submitted. However, there is one attribute that is paramount -- your exposition is clear and accessible to anyone willing to read it carefully. There is nothing particularly arcane in it to the scientifically minded. Nevertheless, my understanding after reading it is truly profound. Re-examination of neutron scattering experiments and Bose-Einstein work with fermions are two phenomena that need to be compared to your NQP.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:24 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Bill Christie wrote on Apr. 6, 2014 @ 19:33 GMT
Hi Alan and everyone,

I pretty much concur with your idea of the rotating field. I have referred to it as a rotating wave of the electron (or positron or more generally the fermion). The electromagnetic wave is rotated about its axis of spin in the case of a 'stationary' rotating wave. One way for the electron rotating wave to move in forward motion is along its axis of spin. This is...

view entire post


attachments: Rotating_Wave_-_Wavicle.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.