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

Malcolm Macleod: on 3/12/11 at 22:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul, I see that you reference dark energy. Although not mentioned...

Paul Halpern: on 3/12/11 at 2:13am UTC, wrote Dear Malcolm, Your idea of Planck units is intriguing. There may be...

Peter Jackson: on 3/1/11 at 12:37pm UTC, wrote Malcolm An excellent essay and theories, though I came to a halt at the...

Malcolm Macleod: on 2/26/11 at 14:38pm UTC, wrote The integer Planck units (mass, time, energy...) lie in the digital domain,...

Malcolm Macleod: on 2/26/11 at 14:28pm UTC, wrote Aside from gravitational force, how would this physically drive an orbit?

Alan Lowey: on 2/21/11 at 14:44pm UTC, wrote Wow, I was very impressed with the Yin-yang link you provided. The...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 2/20/11 at 16:07pm UTC, wrote Hi Malcolm, When I saw the title of your essay, I was directly very...

Malcolm Macleod: on 2/20/11 at 9:30am UTC, wrote Hi Jim, Sorry for the delay in reply. You seem to have come to a similar...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant. I can..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, "You referred to..." I was referring only to my final comments..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, One Objection. Don't blame Fourier: his original series is..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.


FQXi FORUM
October 17, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Planck Units and Wave-Particle Duality by Malcolm J Macleod [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Malcolm Macleod wrote on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 11:10 GMT
Essay Abstract

In this essay, I show how a basic Planck unit theory could be theoretically deduced simply by treating wave-particle duality as an oscillation between an analog wave-state and a digital point-state, whereby the frequency of discrete (digital) Planck events (Planck mass, energy, time, force…) are regulated via (analog) particles (i.e. particles become dimensionless waves that intersperse digital Planck events). If a Planck universe is akin to a computer, then particles are the means by which its data is stored and manipulated.

Author Bio

Malcolm Macleod’s work as a radio engineer led to an interest in wave theory and then to the concept of an analog to digital oscillation and to its logical inferences; both physical and philosophical.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 15:02 GMT
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?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Malcolm Macleod replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 22:26 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 14:44 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Malcolm Macleod replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 14:28 GMT
Aside from gravitational force, how would this physically drive an orbit?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jim Dwyer wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 22:42 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 01:27 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 01:37 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James T. Dwyer wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 01:08 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Malcolm Macleod replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 09:30 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 16:07 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Malcolm Macleod replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 14:38 GMT
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!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 12:37 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 02:13 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Malcolm Macleod replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 22:33 GMT
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

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.