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

James T. Dwyer: on 3/2/11 at 2:19am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Certainly any obstruction of wave propagation by matter of...

Peter Jackson: on 3/1/11 at 12:52pm UTC, wrote James Good stuff. I'd go a touch further still, in that the act of any...

James T. Dwyer: on 3/1/11 at 11:28am UTC, wrote Dear Reader, Most seem to consider that particle-wave duality describes...

James T. Dwyer: on 2/26/11 at 12:29pm UTC, wrote Chris, Thanks very much for your comments and questions. Admittedly I'm...

Chris Kennedy: on 2/25/11 at 17:15pm UTC, wrote Jim, As usual - thought provoking observations. I don't know what to think...

James T. Dwyer: on 2/22/11 at 10:47am UTC, wrote Dear Readers, I found evidence supporting my assertion, that low mass,...

James T. Dwyer: on 2/21/11 at 5:57am UTC, wrote Dear (lonely) Readers, It may be heresy to argue against one's own essay,...

James T. Dwyer: on 2/15/11 at 16:16pm UTC, wrote Dear Readers, I have to admit that I'm not a physicist, mathematician or...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of..." in First Things First: The...

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

Robert McEachern: "In the case of a polarized coin, the "matched filter" detector simply adds..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Digital-Analog Duality Produces Mass Reality by James T. Dwyer [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James T. Dwyer wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
Essay Abstract

As yet no theory of quantum mass has been confirmed for the standard model of particle physics. A generalized mechanism for explaining the mass effect is introduced, in simple language, based on a resonating frequency manifestation of matter in alternatingly particle and wave states. In this explanation, the concept of complementarity, that a phenomenon can be viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously, directly applies to particle-wave states because they do not simultaneously coexist. In this context, the particle state can be considered to be the digital modal manifestation of matter, whereas the wave state is its analog manifestation.

Author Bio

Federal Express (retired): Technical Fellow, Information Technology Systems Planning

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 11:12 GMT
Hi James, I just read your essay abstract and was confused by this:

"In this explanation, the concept of complementarity, that a phenomenon can be viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously, directly applies to particle-wave states because they do not simultaneously coexist."

An Archimedes screw has both wave/particle states that do coexist simultaneously. This is a model for the GRAVITON imo which Newton failed to identify. His legacy is a mathematics now set in stone which negates the possiblity of a particle model for the gravity force. What a mistake!

Best wishes for the competition,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 14:52 GMT
Alan,

Sorry, but I'm confused as to why an Archimedes screw or Graviton has any relation to the oscillating particle-wave states I'm proposing.

Perhaps I didn't explain well enough, but I suggest that the kinetic energy of wave state emission/propagation is physically reconfigured as the potential energy of particle state mass. Photons have no rest mass because they 'never' physically manifest as a particle - until they might be terminally detected.

My reference to gravitation was intended to illustrate that the effect of mass is not a particle mediated effect but an indirect effect inparted to spacetime which produces a secondary effect on matter.

IMO, the velocity physically imparted to matter by external gravitational fields is a contraction of kinetic energy contained within all spacetime. However, this is not central to the proposed oscillation of elementary matter between particle and wave states at specific frequencies for each class of element as determined by the temporally varying thermal density of the early universe.

Thanks for your comment. I hope this helps to clarify - if it does not, please explain further how an Archimedes screw or graviton relate to my essay.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James T. Dwyer wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 16:16 GMT
Dear Readers,

I have to admit that I'm not a physicist, mathematician or scholar but merely an information systems analysts. However, I do have several decades of highly successful experience helping to resolve very difficult problems that subject area experts could not solve on their own. I certainly am not as knowledgeable as experts in the field, but in my experience, it's much easier to 'think outside the box' when one has not been inside the box.

I tend to view all problems in terms of a systems requirements analysis - identifying functional elements that must be applied. I am struck by the reliance of established mathematical processes and analytical models to develop effective predictive methods regardless of any physical processes that actually produce observed effects. I think an excellent example of this is in GR which affects abstract spacetime coordinates, presumedly through some undescribed physical effect.

So I suggest solutions not based on any established theory but on an analysis of physical problem requirements. I merely wish to suggest potentially useful new areas for investigation.

In my submitted essay, I think the most promising area for further research is the initial attribution of mass to specific particles. As I understand, particles of varying classification types are thought to have been produced at different stages of temporal universe development. It seems most likely to me that thermal density is the principal variable parameter in the developing universe. For this reason I strongly suggest that it be investigated as a principal factor in the association of mass quantity to each classification of particle, i.e., the Higgs field function.

I'm also struck by the inverse relationship between mass and the amount of external energy required to produce motion. Again, low mass elements seem to require no external kinetic energy to produce perpetual moton, whereas massive elements seem to inhibit the effects of kinetic energy, apparently absorbing external energy. I think this suggests a profoundly direct, physical relationship that has yet to be fully defined.

I'm sorry I cannot produce a more professional, convincing argument for my assertions, but I ask any readers to please carefully consider how these factors might be better evaluated in the context of established physics.

Thanks,

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James T. Dwyer wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 05:57 GMT
Dear (lonely) Readers,

It may be heresy to argue against one's own essay, but I am an admitted heretic. I have an alternative design to speculatively propose.

Refining my argument that fundamental elements oscillate between particle and wave states, let me suggest that elements manifest in some state with duration of Planck-time. Each manifestation can be either as a particle state or a wave state, with a probability characteristically determined in accordance with the classification of particle and its macro scale properties, initially determined by the temporally varying external thermal density of the developing universe.

For example, light always manifests as a kinetic energy wave unless its directed propagation through spacetime is obstructed by matter capable of absorbing its momentum.

Conversely, a quark most frequently manifests in its localized particle state with its kinetic energy reconfigured such that it is self-directed (prohibiting propagation through spacetime) potential energy - mass. When a quark does manifest in its wave state, it linearly propagates (in the direction determined by the spin of its prior particle state manifestation) for probably a single Planck-time interval duration before again manifesting as a localized, spinning, massive particle. The infrequent, randomly directed wave state manifestations of bound quarks may produce phenomena such as Fermi motion. Perhaps the frequency of quark mass manifestation produces the strong force, locally effective with a range related to mass manifestation duration.

Perhaps electromagnetic charge is a macro scale property determined by some range of accumulated directional propagation and spin orientation in conjunction with mass manifestations.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James T. Dwyer wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear Readers,

I found evidence supporting my assertion, that low mass, self-propagating particles such as photons and electrons are not frequently manifested as localized particles, in wikipedia's 'Double-slit experiment' entry, 'Summary' section:

"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. After many photons are emitted one at a time, and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film, the pattern of interference remains the same, even though each photon produces only a dot on the film. The clear implication is that for each photon, something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself so affecting the probability of its dot position.[14] (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too [15].)"

ref. 14; ref. 15

I also highly recommend the section 'When observed emission by emission' which discusses how, when observed individually, emissions of ‘electrons’ produce single electron detections that, accumulated over time, produce an interference pattern as if they had propagated through both slits.

To account for these observational data, I suggest that emissions of quantum electron wave packets, while partially obstructed by a two slit screen, produce an extrusion of two independently directed wave fronts passing through the slits. The two independently directed waves interfere with each other: while only a single electron is detected for each quantum emission, in the two slit experiment it is detected at an apparently random location within an interference pattern that emerges following repeated individual quantum emissions.

Conversely, in individual quantum emissions through a single slit, electrons are detected in linear alignment with the slit - no interference pattern emerges because there is only a single wave passing through the slit.

That two waves emerge from a two slit grating, producing an interference pattern (even when only a single particle is detected), is evidence that propagating, non-localized elements dispersed through spacetime are only or most frequently manifested as waves, not particles. Non-propagating particles are detected when dispersed wave energy is collapsed to a single location. This seems to argue against the duality of elementary particle-wave states simultaneous coexisting in reality.

Sincerely,

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chris Kennedy wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 17:15 GMT
Jim,

As usual - thought provoking observations. I don't know what to think of the state of the particles while in flight. I don't object to the Bohm theory (or something like it) that suggests that the electron remains as something resembling a point charge while the wave guides it. Of course if that is true - does the electron ride the wave front or does the wave propagate ahead of the electron? I don't think the 2nd choice is as likely since the same pattern is observed with photons, and we can't have light traveling faster than light.

Keep up the good work.

Chris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 12:29 GMT
Chris,

Thanks very much for your comments and questions. Admittedly I'm not firmly basing my conceptions on established theories but I claim no original ideas, either.

In my conception of a wave state manifestation of material energy, there is no separate energy wave propagating through some material medium, such as water, upon which matter is transported, but it is the material energy itself that is waving as it is directionally dispersed and propagated through spacetime.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea of a pointlike physical particle any more than I do a macroscopic point mass. I think the point represents a geometrical radial source or destination of directional energy. As a self-propagating wave, the characteristic properties of particles are dispersed throughout the linearly directed wave, I think temporally spanning space frames.

In my conception there is no separate wave pushing a pointlike particle but a directional dispersal of material energy waving through spacetime.

I hope this helps at least to better explain this conception.

Thanks,

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James T. Dwyer wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 11:28 GMT
Dear Reader,

Most seem to consider that particle-wave duality describes that matter is in an indeterminate state until it is measured (or detected, or observed) - that it is the action of measurement that determines whether matter exists as a particle or a wave.

I suggest that this is coincidental, that the act of determining particle characteristics such as location can only detect matter in its particle state while the act of determining wave characteristics such as wavelength can only detect matter in its wave state.

In this view, it is not the action of measurement that determines matter's manifestation state. Whenever matter is in motion it is a wave; when matter is stationary it is a particle. I further suggest that these two states are intermittently manifestd at a specific frequency for each type of fundamental element as determined by the mass-energy density into which it was emitted.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 12:52 GMT
James

Good stuff. I'd go a touch further still, in that the act of any measurement needing an instrument with mass, has the simple causal effect of symmetry breaking waves into particles. That provided a simple twin slit solution, also explaining surface charge. There are some more complex slit experiments reported in some of my papers (follow the links). the fact is a slit has two edges, and surface charge is found peaked at topological points. Blocking the 'photons' from slit 2 still produces interference! there are few logical solutions that fit all results, this is the only one I know.

You may like my essay too, but don't try to scan it too quickly if you read it or you'll miss it's value.

Peter

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 02:19 GMT
Dear Peter,

Certainly any obstruction of wave propagation by matter of sufficient mass to absorb the wave's momentum will produce a particle manifestation.

Perhaps I'm too dense to understand, but are you saying that the slot material absorbs the wave momentum, producing a particle?

My limited resources prevent me from following your references at this time, but my quick check of wikipedia 'double-slit experiment' states:

"If either slit is covered, the individual photons hitting the screen, over time, create an ordinary diffraction pattern. But if both slits are left open, the pattern of photons hitting the screen, over time, again becomes a series of light and dark fringes."

Does this conflict with your statement: "Blocking the 'photons' from slit 2 still produces interference!"?

The wiki section: 'When observed emission by emission' describes emissions of 'particles' such that a single particle is detected, the two slot experiment produces detection of the single particle, but its detection location is within the two-slit interference pattern. When the two-slit experiment is repeated the particle detection location form an interference pattern.

In this case the interference could only be produced by two waves passing through the two slits - even though they combine to collapse to a single localized particle on detection/absorption.

If interfering waves are passing through the slots, there would seem to be no localized particles passing through: otherwise the detected particle(s) should form two independent diffraction patterns.

Please let me know if I've misunderstood.

Sincerely,

Jim

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.