In-between my real daily-life work, I did manage to revise the very first version of my book – so that feels good. In addition, I also published some very deep (read: crazy) thoughts on that idea I’ve been promoting for a while: an elementary particle comes with its own space. Some kind of physical space (as opposed to a merely mathematical space – spacetime coordinates, that is).
I had developed that idea in some of my previous papers by developing metaphors – most notably the metaphor of the two-dimensional oscillator (like a V-2 engine, or two springs attached to a crankshaft), but so now I think I have a better approach to thinking about physical space – one that matches or complements the dual view of the reality of the wavefunction I’ve been developing as part of my explorations of the Zitterbewegung model of an electron. Do check it out (click the link right here) and let me know what you think ! 🙂
I am still struggling a bit with the interpretation of the de Broglie wavelength. On page 23 and 24 of the book, I write that it’s the distance between crests of the wavefunction, but it cannot be. Note that it converges to the Compton wavelength as v goes to c:
λ = h/p = h/mc = a for v = c
The standard interpretation of quantum physics (mainstream or Copenhagen) always brings some complicated argument involving uncertainty – but we do not have any uncertainty in the Zitterbewegung model (we can introduce uncertainty later but – at this stage – we’re really looking at an electron model without uncertainty). So… Well… It requires some further thinking. At a minimum, I guess we should measure time and distance in equivalent units to say something meaningful about the λ = h/p relation. Of course, if v = c, and we measure x and t in equivalent units, then we get the λ = h/p relation from the universal λ = c/f relation for a wave and the Planck-Einstein relation (E = mc2 = hf). We can then write: λ = c/f = ch/mc2 = h/mc = h/p. Perhaps it’s that simple. Any thoughts? Anyone?