Tag: interpretation of the wavefunction

Another tainted Nobel Prize…

Last year’s (2022) Nobel Prize in Physics went to Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science.โ€

I did not think much of that award last year. Proving that Bell’s No-Go Theorem cannot be right? Great. Finally! I think many scientists – including Bell himself – already knew this theorem was a typical GIGO argument: garbage in, garbage out. As the young Louis de Broglie famously wrote in the introduction of his thesis: hypotheses are worth only as much as the consequences that can be deduced from it, and the consequences of Bell’s Theorem did not make much sense. As I wrote in my post on it, Bell himself did not think much of his own theorem until, of course, he got nominated for a Nobel Prize: it is a bit hard to say you got nominated for a Nobel Prize for a theory you do not believe in yourself, isn’t it? In any case, Bell’s Theorem has now been experimentally disproved. That is – without any doubt – a rather good thing. ๐Ÿ™‚ To save the face of the Nobel committee here (why award something that disproves something else that you would have given an award a few decades ago?): Bell would have gotten a Nobel Prize, but he died from brain hemorrhage before, and Nobel Prizes reward the living only.

As for entanglement, I repeat what I wrote many times already: the concept of entanglement – for which these scientists got a Nobel Prize last year – is just a fancy word for the simultaneous conservation of energy, linear and angular momentum (and – if we are talking matter-particles – charge). There is ‘no spooky action at a distance’, as Einstein would derogatorily describe it when the idea was first mentioned to him. So, I do not see why a Nobel Prize should be awarded for rephrasing a rather logical outcome of photon experiments in metamathematical terms.

Finally, the Nobel Prize committee writes that this has made a significant contribution to quantum information science. I wrote a paper on the quantum computing hype, in which I basically ask this question: qubits may or may not be better devices than MOSFETs to store data – they are not, and they will probably never be – but that is not the point. How does quantum information change the two-, three- or n-valued or other rule-based logic that is inherent to the processing of information? I wish the Nobel Prize committee could be somewhat more explicit on that because, when everything is said and done, one of the objectives of the Prize is to educate the general public about the advances of science, isn’t it? :-/

However, all this ranting of mine is, of course, unimportant. We know that it took the distinguished Royal Swedish Science Academy more than 15 years to even recognize the genius of an Einstein, so it was already clear then that their selection criteria were not necessarily rational. [Einstein finally got a well-deserved Nobel Prize, not for relativity theory (strangely enough: if there is one thing on which all physicist are agreed, it is that relativity theory is the bedrock of all of physics, isn’t it?), but for a much less-noted paper on the photoelectric effect – in 1922: 17 years after his annus mirabilis papers had made a killing not only in academic circles but in the headlines of major newspapers as well, and 10 years after a lot of fellow scientists had nominated him for it (1910).]

Again, Mahatma Gandhi never got a Nobel Price for Peace (so Einstein should consider himself lucky to get some Nobel Prize, right?), while Ursula von der Leyen might be getting one for supporting the war with Russia, so I must remind myself of the fact that we do live in a funny world and, perhaps, we should not be trying to make sense of these rather weird historical things. ๐Ÿ™‚

Let me turn to the main reason why I am writing this indignant post. It is this: I am utterly shocked by what Dr. John Clauser has done with his newly gained scientific prestige: he joined the CO2 coalition! For those who have never heard of it, it is a coalition of climate change deniers. A bunch of people who:

(1) vehemently deny the one and only consensus amongst all climate scientists, and that is the average temperature on Earth has risen with about two degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution, and

(2) say that, if climate change would be real (God forbid!), then we can reverse the trend by easy geo-engineering. We just need to use directed energy or whatever to create more white clouds. If that doesn’t work, then… Well… CO2 makes trees and plants grow, so it will all sort itself out by itself.

[…]

Yes. That is, basically, what Dr. Clauser and all the other scientific advisors of this lobby group – none of which have any credentials in the field they are criticizing (climate science) – are saying, and they say it loud and clearly. That is weird enough, already. What is even weirder, is that – to my surprise – a lot of people are actually buying such nonsense.

Frankly, I have not felt angry for a while, but this thing triggered an outburst of mine on YouTube, in which I state clearly what I think of Dr. Clauser and other eminent scientists who abuse their saint-like Nobel Prize status in society to deceive the general public. Watch my video rant, and think about it for yourself. Now, I am not interested in heated discussions on it: I know the basic facts. If you don’t, I listed them here. Look at the basic graphs and measurements before you would want to argue with me on this, please! To be clear on this: I will not entertain violent or emotional reactions to this post or my video. Moreover, I will delete them here on WordPress and also on my YouTube channel. Yes. For the first time in 10 years or so, I will exercise my right as a moderator of my channels, which is something I have never done before. ๐Ÿ™‚

[…]

I will now calm down and write something about the mainstream interpretation of quantum physics again. ๐Ÿ™‚ In fact, this morning I woke up with a joke in my head. You will probably think the joke is not very good, but then I am not a comedian and so it is what it is and you can judge for yourself. The idea is that you’d learn something from it. Perhaps. ๐Ÿ™‚ So, here we go.

Imagine shooting practice somewhere. A soldier fires at some target with a fine gun, and then everyone looks at the spread of the hits around the bullseye. The quantum physicist says: “See: this is the Uncertainty Principle at work! What is the linear momentum of these bullets, and what is the distance to the target? Let us calculate the standard error.” The soldier looks astonished and says: “No. This gun is no good. One of the engineers should check it.” Then the drill sergeant says this: “The gun is fine. From this distance, all bullets should have hit the bullseye. You are a miserable shooter and you should really practice a lot more.” He then turns to the academic and says: “How did you get in here? I do not understand a word of what you just said and, if I do, it is of no use whatsoever. Please bugger off asap!”

This is a stupid joke, perhaps, but there is a fine philosophical point to it: uncertainty is not inherent to Nature, and it also serves no purpose whatsoever in the science of engineering or in science in general. All in Nature is deterministic. Statistically deterministic, but deterministic nevertheless. We do not know the initial conditions of the system, perhaps, and that translates into seemingly random behavior, but if there is a pattern in that behavior (a diffraction pattern, in the case of electron or photon diffraction), then the conclusion should be that there is no such thing as metaphysical ‘uncertainty’. In fact, if you abandon that principle, then there is no point in trying to discover the laws of the Universe, is there? Because if Nature is uncertain, then there are no laws, right? ๐Ÿ™‚

To underscore this point, I will, once again, remind you of what Heisenberg originally wrote about uncertainty. He wrote in German and distinguished three very different ideas of uncertainty:

(1) The precision of our measurements may be limited: Heisenberg originally referred to this as an Ungenauigkeit.

(2) Our measurement might disturb the position and, as such, cause the information to get lost and, as a result, introduce an uncertainty in our knowledge, but not in reality. Heisenberg originally referred to such uncertainty as an Unbestimmtheit.

(3) One may also think the uncertainty is inherent to Nature: that is what Heisenberg referred to as Ungewissheit. There is nothing in Nature – and also nothing in Heisenberg’s writings, really – that warrants the elevation of this Ungewissheit to a dogma in modern physics. Why? Because it is the equivalent of a religious conviction, like God exists or He doesn’t (both are theses we cannot prove: Ryle labeled such hypotheses as ‘category mistakes’).

Indeed, when one reads the proceedings of the Solvay Conferences of the late 1920s, 1930s and immediately after WW II (see my summary of it in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341177799_A_brief_history_of_quantum-mechanical_ideas), then it is pretty clear that none of the first-generation quantum physicists believed in such dogma and – if they did – that they also thought what I am writing here: that it should not be part of science but part of one’s personal religious beliefs.

So, once again, I repeat that this concept of entanglement – for which John Clauser got a Nobel Prize last year – is in the same category: it is just a fancy word for the simultaneous conservation of energy, linear and angular momentum, and charge. There is ‘no spooky action at a distance’, as Einstein would derogatorily describe it when the idea was first mentioned to him.

Let me end by noting the dishonor of Nobel Prize winner John Clauser once again. Climate change is real: we are right in the middle of it, and it is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better – if it is ever going to get better (which, in my opinion, is a rather big ‘if‘…). So, no matter how many Nobel Prize winners deny it, they cannot change the fact that average temperature on Earth has risen by about 2 degrees Celsius since 1850 already. The question is not: is climate change happening? No. The question now is: how do we adapt to it – and that is an urgent question – and, then, the question is: can we, perhaps, slow down the trend, and how? In short, if these scientists from physics or the medical field or whatever other field they excel in are true and honest scientists, then they would do a great favor to mankind not by advocating geo-engineering schemes to reverse a trend they actually deny is there, but by helping to devise and promote practical measures to allow communities that are affected by natural disaster to better recover from them.

So, I’ll conclude this rant by repeating what I think of all of this. Loud and clear: John Clauser and the other scientific advisors of the CO2 coalition are a disgrace to what goes under the name of ‘science’, and this umpteenth ‘incident’ in the history of science or logical thinking makes me think that it is about time that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences does some serious soul-searching when, amongst the many nominations, it selects its candidates for a prestigious award like this. Alfred Nobel – one of those geniuses who regretted his great contribution to science and technology was (also) (ab)used to increase the horrors of war – must have turned too many times in his grave now… :-/

The End of Physics

I wrote a post with this title already, but this time I mean it in a rather personal way: my last paper – with the same title – on ResearchGate sums up rather well whatever I achieved, and also whatever I did not explore any further because time and energy are lacking: I must pay more attention to my day job nowadays. ๐Ÿ™‚

I am happy with the RG score all of my writing generated, the rare but heartfelt compliments I got from researchers with far more credentials than myself (such as, for example, Dr. Emmanouil Markoulakis of Nikolaos, which led me to put a paper on RG with a classical explanation of the Lamb shift), various friendly but not necessarily always agreeing commentators (one of them commenting here on this post: a good man!), and, yes, the interaction on my YouTube channel. But so… Well… That is it, then! ๐Ÿ™‚

As a farewell, I will just quote from the mentioned paper – The End of Physics (only as a science, of course) – hereunder, and I hope that will help you to do what all great scientists would want you to do, and that is to think things through for yourself. ๐Ÿ™‚

Brussels, 22 July 2023

Bohr, Heisenberg, and other famous quantum physicists โ€“ think of Richard Feynman, John Stewart Bell, Murray Gell-Mann, and quite a few other Nobel Prize winning theorists[1] – have led us astray. They swapped a rational world view โ€“ based on classical electromagnetic theory and statistical determinism โ€“ for a mystery world in which anything is possible, but nothing is real.

They invented โ€˜spooky action at a distanceโ€™ (as Einstein derogatorily referred to it), for example. So, what actually explains that long-distance interaction, then? It is quite simple. There is no interaction, and so there is nothing spooky or imaginary or unreal about it: if by measuring the spin state of one photon, we also know the spin state of its twin far away, then it is โ€“ quite simply โ€“ because physical quantities such as energy and momentum (linear or angular) will be conserved if no other interference is there after the two matter- or light-particles were separated.

Plain conservation laws explain many other things that are being described as โ€˜plain mysteriesโ€™ in quantum physics. The truth is this: there are no miracles or mysteries: everything has a physical cause and can be explained.[2] For example, there is also nothing mysterious about the interference pattern and the trajectory of an electron going through a slit, or one of two nearby slits. An electron is pointlike, but it is not infinitesimally small: it has an internal structure which explains its wave-like properties. Likewise, Mach-Zehnder one-photon interference can easily be explained when thinking of its polarization structure: a circularly polarized photon can be split in two linearly polarized electromagnetic waves, which are photons in their own right. Everything that you have been reading about mainstream quantum physics is, perhaps, not wrong, but it is highly misleading because it is all couched in guru language and mathematical gibberish.

Why is that mainstream physicists keep covering up? I am not sure: it is a strange mix of historical accident and, most probably, the human desire to be original or special, or the need to mobilize money for so-called fundamental research. I also suspect there is a rather deceitful intention to hide truths about what nuclear science should be all about, and that is to understand the enormous energies packed into elementary particles.[3]

The worst of all is that none of the explanations in mainstream quantum physics actually works: mainstream theory does not have a sound theory of signal propagation, for example (click the link to my paper on that or โ€“ better, perhaps โ€“ this link to our paper on signal propagation), and Schrรถdingerโ€™s hydrogen model is a model of a hypothetical atom modelling orbitals of equally hypothetical zero-spin electron pairs. Zero-spin electrons do not exist, and real-life hydrogen only has one proton at its center, and one electron orbiting around it. Schrรถdingerโ€™s equation is relativistically correct โ€“ even if all mainstream physicists think it is not โ€“ but the equation includes two mistakes that cancel each other out: it confuses the effective mass of an electron in motion with its total mass[4], and the 1/2 factor which is introduced by the m = 2meff substitution also takes care of the doubling of the potential that is needed to make the electron orbitals come out alright.

The worst thing of all is that mainstream quantum physicists never accurately modeled what they should have modeled: the hydrogen atom as a system of a real proton and a real electron (no hypothetical infinitesimally and structureless spin-zero particles). If they had done that, they would also be able to explain why hydrogen atoms come in molecular H2 pairs, and they would have a better theory of why two protons need a neutron to hold together in a helium nucleus. Moreover, they would have been able to explain what a neutron actually is.[5]

[1] James Stewart Bell was nominated for a Nobel Prize, but died from a brain hemorrhage before he could accept the prize for his theorem.

[2] The world of physics โ€“ at the micro-scale โ€“ is already fascinating enough: why should we invent mysteries?

[3] We do not think these energies can be exploited any time soon. Even nuclear energy is just binding energy between protons and neutrons: a nuclear bomb does not release the energy that is packed into protons. These elementary particles survive the blast: they are the true โ€˜atomsโ€™ of this world (in the Greek sense of โ€˜a-tomโ€™, which means indivisible).

[4] Mass is a measure of the inertia to a change in the state of motion of an oscillating charge. We showed how this works by explaining Einsteinโ€™s mass-energy equivalence relation and clearly distinguishing the kinetic and potential energy of an electron. Feynman first models an electron in motion correctly, with an equally correct interpretation of the effective mass of an electron in motion, but then substitutes this effective mass by half the electron mass (meff = m/2) in an erroneous reasoning process based on the non-relativistic kinetic energy concept. The latter reasoning also leads to the widespread misconception that Schrรถdingerโ€™s equation would not be relativistically correct (see the Annexes to my paper on the matter-wave). For the trick it has to do, Schrรถdingerโ€™s wave equation is correct – and then I mean also relativistically correct. ๐Ÿ™‚

[5] A neutron is unstable outside of its nucleus. We, therefore, think it acts as the glue between protons, and it must be a composite particle.

Epilogue: an Easter podcast

I have been thinking on my explanation of dark matter/energy, and I think it is sound. It solves the last asymmetry in my models, and explains all. So, after a hiatus of two years, I bothered to make a podcast on my YouTube channel once again. It talks about everything. Literally everything !

It makes me feel my quest for understanding of matter and energy – in terms of classical concepts and measurements (as depicted below) – has ended. Perhaps I will write more but that would only be to promote the material, which should promote itself if it is any good (which I think it is).

I should, by way of conclusion, say a few final words about Feynman’s 1963 Lectures now. When everything is said and done, it is my reading of them which had triggered this blog about ten years ago. I would now recommend Volume I and II (classical physics and electromagnetic theory) – if only because it gives you all the math you need to understand all of physics – but not Volume III (the lectures on quantum mechanics). They are outdated, and I do find Feynman guilty of promoting rather than explaining the hocus-pocus around all of the so-called mysteries in this special branch of physics.

Quantum mechanics is special, but I do conclude now that it can all be explained in terms of classical concepts and quantities. So, Gell-Mann’s criticism of Richard Feynman is, perhaps, correct: Mr. Feynman did, perhaps, make too many jokes – and it gets annoying because he must have known some of what he suggests does not make sense – even if I would not go as far as Gell-Mann, who says “Feynman was only concerned about himself, his ego, and his own image !” :-/

So, I would recommend my own alternative series of ‘lectures’. Not only are they easier to read, but they also embody a different spirit of writing. Science is not about you, it is about thinking for oneself and deciding on what is truthful and useful, and what is not. So, to conclude, I will end by quoting Ludwig Boltzmann once more:

โ€œBring forward what is true.

Write it so that it is clear.

Defend it to your last breath.โ€

Ludwig Boltzmann (1844 – 1906)

Post scriptum: As for the ‘hocus-pocus’ in Feynman’s Lectures, we should, perhaps, point once again to some of our early papers on the flaws in his arguments. We effectively put our finger on the arbitrary wavefunction convention, or the (false) boson-fermion dichotomy, or the ‘time machine’ argument that is inherent to his explanation of the Hamiltonian, and so on. We published these things on Academia.edu before (also) putting our (later) papers ResearchGate, so please check there for the full series. ๐Ÿ™‚

Post scriptum (23 April 2023): Also check out this video, which was triggered by someone who thought my models amount to something like a modern aether theory, which it is definitely not the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X38u2-nXoto. ๐Ÿ™‚ I really think it is my last reflection on these topics. I need to focus on my day job, sports, family, etcetera again ! ๐Ÿ™‚

Dirac’s wave equation and particle models

Introduction

I had not touched physics since April last year, as I was struggling with cancer, and finally went in for surgery. It solved the problem but physical and psychological recovery was slow, and so I was in no mood to work on mathematical and physical questions. Now I am going through my ResearchGate papers again. I start with those that get a fair amount of downloads and – I am very pleased to see that happen – those are the papers that deal with very fundamental questions, and lay out the core of an intuition that is more widely shared now: physicists are lost in contradictions and will not get out of this fuzzy situation until they solve them.

[Skeptical note here: I note that those physicists who bark loudest about the need for a scientific revolution are, unfortunately, often those who obscure things even more. For example, I quickly went through Hossenfelder’s Lost in Math (and I also emailed her to highlight all that zbw theory can bring) but she did not even bother to reply and, more in general, shows no signs of being willing to go back to the roots, which are the solutions that were presented during the early Solvay conferences but, because of some weird tweak of the history of science, and despite the warnings of intellectual giants such as H.A. Lorentz, Ehrenfest, or Einstein (and also Dirac or Bell in the latter half of their lifes), were discarded. I have come to the conclusion that modern-day scientists cannot be fashionable when admitting all mysteries have actually been solved long time ago.]

The key observation or contradiction is this: the formalism of modern quantum mechanics deals with all particles – stable or unstable – as point objects: they are supposed to have no internal structure. At the same time, a whole new range of what used to be thought of as intermediate mental constructs or temporary classifications – think of quarks here, or of the boson-fermion dichotomy – acquired ontological status. We lamented that in one of very first papers (titled: the difference between a theory, a calculation and an explanation), which has few formulas and is, therefore, a much easier read than the others.

Some of my posts on this blog here were far more scathing and, therefore, not suitable to write out in papers. See, for example, my Smoking Gun Physics post, in which I talk much more loudly (but also more unscientifically) about the ontologicalization of quarks and all these theoretical force-carrying particles that physicists have invented over the past 50 years or so.

My point of view is clear and unambiguous: photons and neutrinos (both of which can be observed and measured) will do. The rest (the analysis of decay and the chain of reactions after high-energy collisions, mainly) can be analyzed using scattering matrices and other classical techniques (on that, I did write a paper highlighting the proposals of more enlightened people than me, like Bombardelli, 2016, even if I think researchers like Bombardelli should push back to basics even more than they do). By the way, I should probably go much further in my photon and neutrino models, but time prevented me from doing so. In any case, I did update and put an older paper of mine online, with some added thoughts on recent experiments that seem to confirm neutrinos have some rest mass. That is only what is to be expected, I would think. Have a look at it.

[…]

This is a rather lengthy introduction to the topic I want to write about for my public here, which is people like you and me: (amateur) physicists who want to make sense of all that is out there. So I will make a small summary of an equation I was never interested in: Dirac’s wave equation. Why my lack of interest before, and my renewed interest now?

The reason is this: Feynman clearly never believed Dirac’s equation added anything to Schrรถdinger’s, because he does not even mention it in his rather Lectures which, I believe, are, today still, truly seminal even if they do not go into all of the stuff mainstream quantum physicists today believe to be true (which is, I repeat, all of the metaphysics around quarks and gluons and force-carrying bosons and all that). So I did not bother to dig into it.

However, when revising my paper on de Broglie’s matter-wave, I realized that I should have analyzed Dirac’s equation too, because I do analyze Schrรถdinger’s wave equation there (which makes sense), and also comment on the Klein-Gordon wave equation (which, just like Dirac’s, does not make much of an impression on me). Hence, I would say my renewed interest is only there because I wanted to tidy up a little corner in this kitchen of mine. ๐Ÿ™‚

I will stop rambling now, and get on with it.

Dirac’s wave equation: concepts and issues

We should start by reminding ourselves what a wave equation actually is: it models how waves – sound waves, or electromagnetic waves, or – in this particular case – a ‘wavicle’ or wave-particle – propagate in space and in time. As such, it is often said they model the properties of the medium (think of properties such as elasticity, density, permittivity or permeability here) but, because we do no longer think of spacetime as an aether, quantum-mechanical wave equations are far more abstract.

I should insert a personal note here. I do have a personal opinion on the presumed reality of spacetime. It is not very solid, perhaps, because I oscillate between (1) Kant’s intuition, thinking that space and time are mental constructs only, which our mind uses to structure its impressions (we are talking science here, so I should say: our measurements) versus (2) the idea that the 2D or 3D oscillations of pointlike charges within, say, an electron, a proton or a muon-electron must involve some kind of elasticity of the ‘medium’ that we commonly refer to as spacetime (I’d say that is more in line with Wittgenstein’s philosophy of reality). I should look it up but I think I do talk about the elasticity of spacetime at one or two occasions in my papers that talk about internal forces in particles, or papers in which I dig deep into the potentials that may or may not drive these oscillations. I am not sure how far I go there. Probably too far. But if properties such as vacuum permittivity or permeability are generally accepted, then why not think of elasticity? However, I did try to remain very cautious when it comes to postulating properties of the so-called spacetime vacuum, as evidenced from what I write in one of the referenced papers above:

“Besides proving that the argument of the wavefunction is relativistically invariant, this [analysis of the argument of the wavefunction] also demonstrates the relativistic invariance of the Planck-Einstein relation when modelling elementary particles.[1] This is why we feel that the argument of the wavefunction (and the wavefunction itself) is more real โ€“ in a physical sense โ€“ than the various wave equations (Schrรถdinger, Dirac, or Klein-Gordon) for which it is some solution. In any case, a wave equation usually models the properties of the medium in which a wave propagates. We do not think the medium in which the matter-wave propagates is any different from the medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate. That medium is generally referred to as the vacuum and, whether or not you think of it as true nothingness or some medium, we think Maxwellโ€™s equations โ€“ which establishes the speed of light as an absolute constant โ€“ model the properties of it sufficiently well! We, therefore, think superluminal phase velocities are not possible, which is why we think de Broglieโ€™s conceptualization of a matter particle as a wavepacket โ€“ rather than one single wave โ€“ is erroneous.[2]“

The basic idea is this: if the vacuum is true nothingness, then it cannot have any properties, right? ๐Ÿ™‚ That is why I call the spacetime vacuum, as it is being modelled in modern physics, a so-called vacuum. ๐Ÿ™‚

[…] I guess I am rambling again, and so I should get back to the matter at hand, and quite literally so, because we are effectively talking about real-life matter here. To be precise, we are talking about Dirac’s view of an electron moving in free space. Let me add the following clarification, just to make sure we understand exactly what we are talking about: free space is space without any potential in it: no electromagnetic, gravitational or other fields you might think of.

In reality, such free space does not exist: it is just one of those idealizations which we need to model reality. All of real-life space – the Universe we live in, in other words – has potential energy in it: electromagnetic and/or gravitational potential energy (no other potential energy has been convincingly demonstrated so far, so I will not add to the confusion by suggesting there might be more). Hence, there is no such thing as free space.

What am I saying here? I am just saying that it is not bad that we remind ourselves of the fact that Dirac’s construction is theoretical from the outset. To me, it feels like trying to present electromagnetism by making full abstraction of the magnetic side of the electromagnetic force. That is all that I am saying here. Nothing more, nothing less. No offense to the greatness of a mind like Dirac’s.

[…] I may have lost you as a reader just now, so let me try to get you back: Dirac’s wave equation. Right. Dirac develops it in two rather dense sections of his Principles of Quantum Mechanics, which I will not try to summarize here. I want to make it easy for the reader, so I will limit myself to an analysis of the very first principle(s) which Dirac develops in his Nobel Prize Lecture. It is this (relativistically correct) energy equation:

E2 = m02c4 + p2c2

This equation may look unfamiliar to you but, frankly, if you are familiar with the basics of relativity theory, it should not come across as weird or unfathomable. It is one of the many basic ways of expressing relativity theory, as evidenced from the fact that Richard Feynman introduces this equation as part of his very first volume of his Lectures on Physics, and in one of the more basic chapters of it: just click on the link and work yourself through it: you will see it is just another rendering of Einstein’s mass-equivalence relation (E = mc2).

The point is this: it is very easy now to understand Dirac’s basic energy equation: the one he uses to then go from variables to quantum-mechanical operators and all of the other mathematically correct hocus-pocus that result in his wave equation. Just substitute E = mc2 for W, and then divide all by c2:

So here you are. All the rest is the usual hocus-pocus: we substitute classical variables by operators, and then we let them operate on a wavefunction (wave equations may or may not describe the medium, but wavefunctions surely do describe real-life particles), and then we have a complicated differential equation to solve and โ€“ as we made abundantly clear in this and other papers (one that you may want to read is my brief history of quantum-mechanical ideas, because I had a lot of fun writing that one, and it is not technical at all) โ€“ when you do that, you will find non-sensical solutions, except for the one that Schrรถdinger pointed out: the Zitterbewegung electron, which we believe corresponds to the real-life electron.

I will wrap this up (although you will say I have not done my job yet) by quoting quotes and comments from my de Broglie paper:

Prof. H. Pleijel, then Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, dutifully notes this rather inconvenient property in the ceremonial speech for the 1933 Nobel Prize, which was awarded to Heisenberg for nothing less than โ€œthe creation of quantum mechanicsโ€[1]:

โ€œMatter is formed or represented by a great number of this kind of waves which have somewhat different velocities of propagation and such phase that they combine at the point in question. Such a system of waves forms a crest which propagates itself with quite a different velocity from that of its component waves, this velocity being the so-called group velocity. Such a wave crest represents a material point which is thus either formed by it or connected with it, and is called a wave packet. [โ€ฆ] As a result of this theory, one is forced to the conclusion to conceive of matter as not being durable, or that it can have definite extension in space. The waves, which form the matter, travel, in fact, with different velocity and must, therefore, sooner or later separate. Matter changes form and extent in space. The picture which has been created, of matter being composed of unchangeable particles, must be modified.โ€

This should sound very familiar to you. However, it is, obviously, not true: real-life particles โ€“ electrons or atoms traveling in space โ€“ do not dissipate. Matter may change form and extent in space a little bit โ€“ such as, for example, when we are forcing them through one or two slits[2] โ€“ but not fundamentally so![3]

We repeat again, in very plain language this time: Dirac’s wave equation is essentially useless, except for the fact that it actually models the electron itself. That is why only one of its solutions make sense, and that is the very trivial solution which Schrรถdinger pointed out: the Zitterbewegung electron, which we believe corresponds to the real-life electron. ๐Ÿ™‚ It just goes through space and time like any ordinary particle would do, but its trajectory is not given by Dirac’s wave equation. In contrast, Schrรถdinger’s wave equation (with or without a potential being present: in free or non-free space, in other words) does the trick and – against mainstream theory – I dare say, after analysis of its origins, that it is relativistically correct. Its only drawback is that it does not incorporate the most essential property of an elementary particle: its spin. That is why it models electron pairs rather than individual electrons.

We can easily generalize to protons or other elementary or non-elementary particles. For a deeper discussion of Dirac’s wave equation (which is what you probably expected), I must refer, once again, to Annex II of my paper on the interpretation of de Broglie’s matter-wave: it is all there, really, and – glancing at it all once again – the math is actually quite basic. In any case, paraphrasing Euclid in his reply to King Ptolemy’s question, I would say that there is no royal road to quantum mechanics. One must go through its formalism and, far more important, its history of thought. ๐Ÿ™‚

To conclude, I would like to return to one of the remarks I made in the introduction. What about the properties of the vacuum? I will remain cautious and, hence, not answer that question. I prefer to let you think about this rather primitive classification of what is relative and not, and how the equations in physics mix both of it. ๐Ÿ™‚

 

[1] To be precise, Heisenberg got a postponed prize from 1932. Erwin Schrรถdinger and Paul A.M. Dirac jointly got the 1933 prize. Prof. Pleijel acknowledges all three in more or less equal terms in the introduction of his speech: โ€œThis yearโ€™s Nobel Prizes for Physics are dedicated to the new atomic physics. The prizes, which the Academy of Sciences has at its disposal, have namely been awarded to those men, Heisenberg, Schrรถdinger, and Dirac, who have created and developed the basic ideas of modern atomic physics.โ€

[2] The wave-particle duality of the ring current model should easily explain single-electron diffraction and interference (the electromagnetic oscillation which keeps the charge swirling would necessarily interfere with itself when being forced through one or two slits), but we have not had the time to engage in detailed research here.

[3] We will slightly nuance this statement later but we will not fundamentally alter it. We think of matter-particles as an electric charge in motion. Hence, as it acts on a charge, the nature of the centripetal force that keeps the particle together must be electromagnetic. Matter-particles, therefore, combine wave-particle duality. Of course, it makes a difference when this electromagnetic oscillation, and the electric charge, move through a slit or in free space. We will come back to this later. The point to note is: matter-particles do not dissipate. Feynman actually notes that at the very beginning of his Lectures on quantum mechanics, when describing the double-slit experiment for electrons: โ€œElectrons always arrive in identical lumps.โ€

[1] The relativistic invariance of the Planck-Einstein relation emerges from other problems, of course. However, we see the added value of the model here in providing a geometric interpretation: the Planck-Einstein relation effectively models the integrity of a particle here.

[2] See our paper on matter-waves, amplitudes, and signals.

Deep electron orbitals and the essence of quantum physics

After a long break (more than six months), I have started to engage again in a few conversations. I also looked at the 29 papers on my ResearchGate page, and I realize some of them would need to be re-written or re-packaged so as to ensure a good flow. Also, some of the approaches were more productive than others (some did not lead anywhere at all, actually), and I would need to point those out. I have been thinking about how to approach this, and I think I am going to produce an annotated version of these papers, with comments and corrections as mark-ups. Re-writing or re-structuring all of them would require to much work.

The mark-up of those papers is probably going to be based on some ‘quick-fire’ remarks (a succession of thoughts triggered by one and the same question) which come out of the conversation below, so I thank these thinkers for having kept me in the loop of a discussion I had followed but not reacted to. It is an interesting one – on the question of ‘deep electron orbitals’ (read: the orbitals of negative charge inside of a nucleus exist and, if so, how one can model them. If one could solve that question, one would have a theoretical basis for what is referred to as low-energy nuclear reactions. That was known formerly as cold fusion, but that got a bit of a bad name because of a number of crooks spoiling the field, unfortunately.

PS: I leave the family names of my correspondents in the exchange below out so they cannot be bothered. One of them, Jerry, is a former American researcher at SLAC. Andrew – the key researcher on DEPs – is a Canadian astrophysicist, and the third one – Jean-Luc – is a rather prominent French scientist in LENR.]

From: Jean Louis Van Belle
Sent: 18 November 2021 22:51
Subject: Staying engaged (5)

Oh โ€“ and needless to say, Diracโ€™s basic equation can, of course, be expanded using the binomial expansion โ€“ just like the relativistic energy-momentum relation, and then one can โ€˜cut offโ€™ the third-, fourth-, etc-order terms and keep the first and second-order terms only. Perhaps it is equations like that kept you puzzled (I should check your original emails). In any case, this way of going about energy equations for elementary particles is a bit the same as those used in perturbation equations in which โ€“ as Dirac complained โ€“ one randomly selects terms that seem to make sense and discard others because they do not seem to make sense. Of course, Dirac criticized perturbation theory much more severely than this โ€“ and rightly so. ๐Ÿ˜Š ๐Ÿ˜Š JL

From: Jean Louis Van Belle
Sent: 18 November 2021 22:10
Subject: Staying engaged (4)

Also โ€“ I remember you had some questions on an energy equation โ€“ not sure which one โ€“ but so I found Diracโ€™s basic equation (based on which he derives the โ€˜Diracโ€™ wave equation) is essentially useless because it incorporates linear momentum only. As such, it repeats de Broglieโ€™s mistake, and that is to interpret the โ€˜de Broglieโ€™ wavelength as something linear. It is not: frequencies, wavelengths are orbital frequencies and orbital circumferences. So anything you would want to do with energy equations that are based on that, lead nowhere โ€“ in my not-so-humble opinion, of course. To illustrate the point, compare the relativistic energy-momentum relation and Diracโ€™s basic equation in his Nobel Prize lecture (I hope the subscripts/superscripts get through your email system so they display correctly):

m02c4 = E2 โ€“ p2c2 (see, for example, Feynman-I-16, formula 16-3)

Divide the above by c2 and re-arrange and you get Diracโ€™s equation: W2/c2 โ€“ pr2 โ€“ m2/c2 = 0 (see his 1933 Nobel Prize Lecture)

So that cannot lead anywhere. Itโ€™s why I totally discard Diracโ€™s wave equation (it has never yielded any practical explanation of a real-life phenomenon anyway, if I am not mistaken).

Cheers โ€“ JL

From: Jean Louis Van Belle
Sent: 18 November 2021 21:49
Subject: Staying engaged (3)

Just on โ€˜retarded sourcesโ€™ and โ€˜retarded fieldsโ€™ โ€“ I have actually tried to think of the โ€˜force mechanismโ€™ inside of an electron or a proton (what keeps the pointlike charge in this geometric orbit around a center of mass?). I thought long and hard about some kind of model in which we have the charge radiate out a sub-Planck field, and that its โ€˜retarded effectsโ€™ might arrive โ€˜just in timeโ€™ to the other side of the orbital (or whatever other point on the orbital) so as to produce the desired โ€˜course correctionโ€™ might explain it. I discarded it completely: I am now just happy that we have โ€˜reducedโ€™ the mystery to this โ€˜Planck-scale quantum-mechanical oscillationโ€™ (in 2D or 3D orbitals) without the need for an โ€˜aetherโ€™, or quantized spacetime, or โ€˜virtual particlesโ€™ actually โ€˜holding the thing togetherโ€™.

Also, a description in terms of four-vectors (scalar and vector potential) does not immediately call for โ€˜retarded timeโ€™ variables and all that, so that is another reason why I think one should somehow make the jump from E-B fields to scalar and vector potential, even if the math is hard to visualize. If we want to โ€˜visualizeโ€™ things, Feynmanโ€™s discussion of the โ€˜energyโ€™ and โ€˜momentumโ€™ flow in https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html might make sense, because I think analyses in terms of Poynting vectors are relativistically current, arenโ€™t they? It is just an intuitive ideaโ€ฆ

Cheers โ€“ JL

From: Jean Louis Van Belle
Sent: 18 November 2021 21:28
Subject: Staying engaged (2)

But so โ€“ in the shorter run โ€“ say, the next three-six months, I want to sort out those papers on ResearchGate. The one on the de Broglieโ€™s matter-wave (interpreting the de Broglie wavelength as the circumference of a loop rather than as a linear wavelength) is the one that gets most downloads, and rightly so. The rest is a bit of a mess โ€“ mixing all kinds of things I tried, some of which worked, but other things did not. So I want to โ€˜cleanโ€™ that upโ€ฆ ๐Ÿ˜Š JL

From: Jean Louis Van Belle
Sent: 18 November 2021 21:21
Subject: Staying engaged…

Please do include me in the exchanges, Andrew โ€“ even if I do not react, I do read them because I do need some temptation and distraction. As mentioned, I wanted to focus on building a credible n = p + e model (for free neutrons but probably more focused on a Schrodinger-like D = p + e + p Platzwechsel model, because the deuteron nucleus is stable). But so I will not do that the way I studied the zbw model of the electron and proton (I believe that is sound now) โ€“ so thatโ€™s with not putting in enough sleep. I want to do it slowly now. I find a lot of satisfaction in the fact that I think there is no need for complicated quantum field theories (fields are quantized, but in a rather obvious way: field oscillations โ€“ just like matter-particles โ€“ pack Planckโ€™s quantum of (physical) action which โ€“ depending on whether you freeze time or positions as a variable, expresses itself as a discrete amount of energy or, alternatively, as a discrete amount of momentum), nor is there any need for this โ€˜ontologizationโ€™ of virtual field interactions (sub-Planck scale) โ€“ the quark-gluon nonsense.

Also, it makes sense to distinguish between an electromagnetic and a โ€˜strongโ€™ or โ€˜nuclearโ€™ force: the electron and proton have different form factors (2D versus 3D oscillations, but that is a bit of a non-relativistic shorthand for what might be the case) but, in addition, there is clearly a much stronger force at play within the proton โ€“ whose strength is the same kind of โ€˜scaleโ€™ as the force that gives the muon-electron its rather enormous mass. So that is my โ€˜beliefโ€™ and the โ€˜heuristicโ€™ models I build (a bit of โ€˜numerologyโ€™ according to Dr Pohlโ€™s rather off-hand remarks) support it sufficiently for me to make me feel at peace about all these โ€˜Big Questionsโ€™.

I am also happy I figured out these inconsistencies around 720-degree symmetries (just the result of a non-rigorous application of Occamโ€™s Razor: if you use all possible โ€˜signsโ€™ in the wavefunction, then the wavefunction may represent matter as well as anti-matter particles, and these 720-degree weirdness dissolves). Finally, the kind of โ€˜renewedโ€™ S-matrix programme for analyzing unstable particles (adding a transient factor to wavefunctions) makes sense to me, but even the easiest set of equations look impossible to solve โ€“ so I may want to dig into the math of that if I feel like having endless amounts of time and energy (which I do not โ€“ but, after this cancer surgery, I know I will only die on some โ€˜moralโ€™ or โ€˜mentalโ€™ battlefield twenty or thirty years from now โ€“ so I am optimistic).

So, in short, the DEP question does intrigue me โ€“ and you should keep me posted, but I will only look at it to see if it can help me on that deuteron model. ๐Ÿ˜Š That is the only โ€˜deep electron orbitalโ€™ I actually believe in. Sorry for the latter note.

Cheers โ€“ JL   

From: Andrew
Sent: 16 November 2021 19:05
To: Jean-Luc; Jerry; Jean Louis
Subject: Re: retarded potential?

Dear Jean-Louis,

Congratulations on your new position. I understand your present limitations, despite your incredible ability to be productive. They must be even worse than those imposed by my young kids and my age. Do you wish for us to not include you in our exchanges on our topic? Even with no expectation of your contributing at this point, such emails might be an unwanted temptation and distraction.

Dear Jean-Luc,

Thank you for the Wiki-Links. They are useful. I agree that the 4-vector potential should be considered. Since I am now considering the nuclear potentials as well as the deep orbits, it makes sense to consider the nuclear vector potentials to have an origin in the relativistic Coulomb potentials. I am facing this in my attempts to calculate the deep orbits from contributions to the potential energies that have a vector component, which non-rel Coulomb potentials do not have.

For examples: do we include the losses in Vcb (e.g., from the binding energy BE) when we make the relativistic correction to the potential; or, how do we relativistically treat pseudo potentials such as that of centrifugal force? We know that for equilibrium, the average forces must cancel. However, I’m not sure that it is possible to write out a proper expression for “A” to fit such cases.

Best regards to all,

Andrew

_ _ _

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 1:42 PM Jean-Luc wrote:

Dear all,

I totally agree with the sentence of Jean-Louis, which I put in bold in his message, about vector potential and scalar potential, combined into a 4-vector
potential A, for representing EM field in covariant formulation. So EM representation by 4-vector A has been very developed, as wished by JL,
in the framework of QED.

We can note the simplicity of Lorentz gauge written by using A.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_gauge_condition

We can see the reality of vector potential
in the Aharonov-Bohm effect:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect.
In fact, we can see that vector potential contains more information than E,B fields.
Best regards

   Jean-Luc
Le 12/11/2021 ร  05:43, Jean Louis Van Belle a รฉcrit :

Hi All โ€“ Iโ€™ve been absent in the discussion, and will remain absent for a while. Iโ€™ve been juggling a lot of work โ€“ my regular job at the Ministry of Interior (I got an internal promotion/transfer, and am working now on police and security sector reform) plus consultancies on upcoming projects in Nepal. In addition, I am still recovering from my surgery โ€“ I got a bad flue (not C19, fortunately) and it set back my auto-immune system, I feel. I have a bit of a holiday break now (combining the public holidays of 11 and 15 November in Belgium with some days off to bridge so I have a rather nice super-long weekend โ€“ three in one, so to speak).

As for this thread, I feel like it is not โ€˜phrasingโ€™ the discussion in the right โ€˜languageโ€™. Thinking of E-fields and retarded potential is thinking in terms of 3D potential, separating out space and time variables without using the โ€˜powerโ€™ of four-vectors (four-vector potential, and four-vector space-time). It is important to remind ourselves that we are measuring fields in continuous space and time (but, again, this is relativistic space-time โ€“ so us visualizing a 3D potential at some point in space is what it is: we visualize something because our mind needs that โ€“ wants that). The fields are discrete, however: a field oscillation packs one unit of Planck โ€“ always โ€“ and Planckโ€™s quantum of action combines energy and momentum: we should not think of energy and momentum as truly โ€˜separateโ€™ (discrete) variables, just like we should not think of space and time as truly โ€˜separateโ€™ (continuous) variables.

I do not quite know what I want to say here โ€“ or how I should further work it out. I am going to re-read my papers. I think I should further develop the last one (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351097421_The_concepts_of_charge_elementary_ring_currents_potential_potential_energy_and_field_oscillations), in which I write that the vector potential is more real than the electric field and the scalar potential should be further developed, and probably it is the combined scalar and vector potential that are the โ€™realโ€™ things. Not the electric and magnetic field. Hence, illustrations like below โ€“ in terms of discs and cones in space โ€“ do probably not go all that far in terms of โ€˜understandingโ€™ what it is going onโ€ฆ Itโ€™s just an intuitionโ€ฆ

Cheers โ€“ JL

From: Andrew
Sent: 23 September 2021 17:17
To: Jean-Luc; Jerry; Jean Louis
Subject: retarded potential?

Dear Jean-Luc,

Becasue of the claim that gluons are tubal, I have been looking at the disk-shaped E-field lines of the highly-relativistic electron and comparing it to the retarded potential, which, based on timing, would seem to give a cone rather than a disk (see figure). This makes a difference when we consider a deep-orbiting electron. It even impacts selection of the model for impact of an electron when considering diffraction and interference.

Even if the field appears to be spreading out as a cone, the direction of the field lines are that of a disk from the retarded source. However, how does it interact with the radial field of a stationary charge?

Do you have any thoughts on the matter.

Best regards,

Andrew

_ _ _

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:05 AM Jean-Luc wrote:

Dear Andrew, Thank you for the references. Best regards, Jean-Luc

Le 18/09/2021 ร  17:32, Andrew a รฉcrit :
> This might have useful thoughts concerning the question of radiation
> decay to/from EDOs.
>
> Quantum Optics Electrons see the quantum nature of light
> Ian S. Osborne
> We know that light is both a wave and a particle, and this duality
> arises from the classical and quantum nature of electromagnetic
> excitations. Dahan et al. observed that all experiments to date in
> which light interacts with free electrons have been described with
> light considered as a wave (see the Perspective by Carbone). The
> authors present experimental evidence revealing the quantum nature of
> the interaction between photons and free electrons. They combine an
> ultrafast transmission electron microscope with a silicon-photonic
> nanostructure that confines and strengthens the interaction between
> the light and the electrons. The โ€œquantumโ€ statistics of the photons
> are imprints onto the propagating electrons and are seen directly in
> their energy spectrum.
> Science, abj7128, this issue p. 1324; see also abl6366, p. 1309

Feynman’s Lectures: A Survivor’s Guide

A few days ago, I mentioned I felt like writing a new book: a sort of guidebook for amateur physicists like me. I realized that is actually fairly easy to do. I have three very basic papers – one on particles (both light and matter), one on fields, and one on the quantum-mechanical toolbox (amplitude math and all of that). But then there is a lot of nitty-gritty to be written about the technical stuff, of course: self-interference, superconductors, the behavior of semiconductors (as used in transistors), lasers, and so many other things – and all of the math that comes with it. However, for that, I can refer you to Feynman’s three volumes of lectures, of course. In fact, I should: it’s all there. So… Well… That’s it, then. I am done with the QED sector. Here is my summary of it all (links to the papers on Phil Gibbs’ site):

Paper I: Quantum behavior (the abstract should enrage the dark forces)

Paper II: Probability amplitudes (quantum math)

Paper III: The concept of a field (why you should not bother about QFT)

Paper IV: Survivor’s guide to all of the rest (keep smiling)

Paper V: Uncertainty and the geometry of the wavefunction (the final!)

The last paper is interesting because it shows statistical indeterminism is the only real indeterminism. We can, therefore, use Bell’s Theorem to prove our theory is complete: there is no need for hidden variables, so why should we bother about trying to prove or disprove they can or cannot exist?

Jean Louis Van Belle, 21 October 2020

Note: As for the QCD sector, that is a mess. We might have to wait another hundred years or so to see the smoke clear up there. Or, who knows, perhaps some visiting alien(s) will come and give us a decent alternative for the quark hypothesis and quantum field theories. One of my friends thinks so. Perhaps I should trust him more. ๐Ÿ™‚

As for Phil Gibbs, I should really thank him for being one of the smartest people on Earth – and for his site, of course. Brilliant forum. Does what Feynman wanted everyone to do: look at the facts, and think for yourself. ๐Ÿ™‚

Re-writing Feynman’s Lectures?

I have a crazy new idea: a complete re-write of Feynman’sย Lectures. It would be fun, wouldn’t it? I would follow the same structureโ€”but start with Volume III, of course: the lectures on quantum mechanics. We could even re-use some languageโ€”although we’d need to be careful so as to keep Mr. Michael Gottlieb happy, of course. ๐Ÿ™‚ What would you think of the following draft Preface, for example?

The special problem we try to get at with these lectures is to maintain the interest of the very enthusiastic and rather smart people trying to understand physics. They have heard a lot about how interesting and exciting physics isโ€”the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and other modern ideasโ€”and spend many years studying textbooks or following online courses. Many are discouraged because there are really very few grand, new, modern ideas presented to them. The problem is whether or not we can make a course which would save them by maintaining their enthusiasm.

The lectures here are not in any way meant to be a survey course, but are very serious. I thought it would be best to re-write Feynmanโ€™s Lectures to make sure that most of the above-mentioned enthusiastic and smart people would be able to encompass (almost) everything that is in the lectures. ๐Ÿ™‚

This is the link to Feynman’s original Preface, so you can see how my preface compares to his: same-same butย veryย different, they’d say in Asia.ย ๐Ÿ™‚

[…]

Doesn’t that sound like a nice project? ๐Ÿ™‚

Jean Louis Van Belle, 22 May 2020

Post scriptum: It looks like we made Mr. Gottlieb and/or MIT very unhappy already: the link above does not work for us anymore (see what we get below). That’s very good: it is always nice to start a new publishing project with a little controversy. ๐Ÿ™‚ We will have to use the good old paper print edition. We recommend you buy one too, by the way. ๐Ÿ™‚ I think they are just a bit over US$100 now. Well worth it!

To put the historical record straight, the reader should note we started this blog before Mr. Gottlieb broughtย Feynman’s Lecturesย online. We actually wonder why he would be bothered by us referring to it. That’s what classical textbooks are for, aren’t they? They create common references to agree or disagree with, and why put a book online if you apparently don’t want it to be read or discussed? Noise like this probably means I am doing something right here. ๐Ÿ™‚

Post scriptum 2: Done ! Or, at least, the first chapter is done ! Have a look: here is the link on ResearchGate and this is the link on Phil Gibbs’ site. Please do let me know what you think of itโ€”whether you like it or not or, more importantly, what logic makes sense and what doesn’t. ๐Ÿ™‚

Gottlieb

The last words of H.A. Lorentz

I talked about the Solvay Conferences in my previous post(s). The Solvay Conference proceedingsย are a real treasury trove. Not only are they very pleasant to read, but they also debunk more than one myth or mystery in quantum physics!

It is part of scientific lore, for example, that the 1927 Solvay Conference was a sort of battlefield on new physics between Heisenberg and Einstein. Surprisingly, the papers and write-up of discussions reveal that Einstein hardly intervened. They also reveal that ‘battlefield stories’ such as Heisenberg telling Einstein to “stop telling God what to do” or – vice versa – Einstein declaring “God doesn’t play dice” are what they are: plain gossip or popular hear-say. Neither Heisenberg nor Einstein ever said thatโ€”or not at the occasion of the 1927 Solvay Conference, at least! Instead, we see very nuanced and very deep philosophical statementsโ€”on both sides of the so-called ‘divide’ or ‘schism’.

From all interventions, the intervention of the Dutch scientist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz stands out. I know (most of) my readers don’t get French, and so I might translate it into English one of these days. In the meanwhile, you may want to google-translateย it yourself!

It is all very weird, emotional and historical. H.A. Lorentz – clearly theย driving force behind those pre-WW II Solvay Conferences – died a few months after the 1927 Conference. In fact, the 1927 conference proceedings have both the sad announcement of his demise as well his interventionsโ€”such was the practice of actually physically printing stuffย at the time.

For those who do read French, here you go:

DISCUSSION GENERALE DES IDEES NOUVELLES EMISES.

Causalitรฉ, Dรฉterminisme. Probabilitรฉ.

Intervention de M. Lorentz:

“Je voudrais attirer l โ€™attention sur les difficultรฉs quโ€™on rencontre dans les anciennes thรฉories. Nous voulons nous faire une reprรฉsentation des phรฉnomรจnes, nous en former une image dans notre esprit. Jusquโ€™ici, nous avons toujours voulu former ces images au moyen des notions ordinaires de temps et dโ€™espace. Ces notions sont peut-รชtre innรฉes; en tout cas, elles se sont dรฉveloppรฉes par notre expรฉrience personnelle, par nos observations journaliรจres. Pour moi, ces notions sont claires et j โ€™avoue que je ne puis me faire une idรฉe de la physique sans ces notions. L โ€™image que je veux me former des phรฉnomรจnes doit รชtre absolument nette et dรฉfinie et il me semble que nous ne pouvons nous former une pareille image que dans ce systรจme dโ€™espace et de temps.

Pour moi, un รฉlectron est un corpuscule qui, a un instant donne, se trouve en un point dรฉtermine de l โ€™espace, et si j โ€™ai eu l โ€™idรฉe quโ€™a un moment suivant ce corpuscule se trouve ailleurs, je dois songer ร  sa trajectoire, qui est une ligne dans lโ€™espace. Et si cet รฉlectron rencontre un atome et y pรฉnรจtre, et quโ€™aprรจs plusieurs aventures il quitte cet atome, je me forge une thรฉorie dans laquelle cet รฉlectron conserve son individualitรฉ; cโ€™est-ร -dire que j โ€™imagine une ligne suivant laquelle cet รฉlectron passe ร  travers cet atome. Il se peut, รฉvidemment, que cette thรฉorie soit bien difficile ร  dรฉvelopper, mais a priori cela ne me parait pas impossible.

Je me figure que, dans la nouvelle thรฉorie, on a encore de ces รฉlectrons. Il est possible, รฉvidemment, que dans la nouvelle thรฉorie, bien dรฉveloppรฉe, il soit nรฉcessaire de supposer que ces รฉlectrons subissent des transformations. Je veux bien admettre que lโ€™รฉlectron se fond en un nuage. Mais alors je chercherai ร  quelle occasion cette transformation se produit. Si lโ€™on voulait mโ€™interdire une pareille recherche en invoquant un principe, cela me gรชnerait beaucoup. Il me semble quโ€™on peut toujours espรฉrer quโ€™on fera plus tard ce que nous ne pouvons pas encore faire en ce moment. Mรชme si lโ€™on abandonne les anciennes idรฉes, on peut toujours conserver les anciennes dรฉnominations. Je voudrais conserver cet idรฉal dโ€™autrefois, de dรฉcrire tout ce qui se passe dans le monde par des images nettes. Je suis prรชt ร  admettre dโ€™autres thรฉories, ร  condition quโ€™on puisse les traduire par des images claires et nettes.

Pour ma part, bien que nโ€™รฉtant pas encore familiarisรฉ avec les nouvelles idรฉes que jโ€™entends exprimer maintenant, je pourrais me reprรฉsenter ces idรฉes ainsi. Prenons le cas dโ€™un รฉlectron qui rencontre un atome; supposons que cet รฉlectron quitte cet atome et quโ€™en mรชme temps il y ait รฉmission dโ€™un quantum de lumiรจre. Il faut considรฉrer, en premier lieu, les systรจmes dโ€™ondes qui correspondent ร  l โ€™รฉlectron et ร  lโ€™atome avant le choc. Aprรจs le choc, nous aurons de nouveaux systรจmes dโ€™ondes. Ces systรจmes dโ€™ondes pourront etre dรฉcrits par une fonction ฯˆ dรฉfinie dans un espace a un grand nombre de dimensions qui satisfait une รฉquation diffรฉrentielle. La nouvelle mรฉcanique ondulatoire opรจrera avec cette รฉquation et รฉtablira la fonction ฯˆ avant et aprรจs le choc.

Or, il y a des phรฉnomรจnes qui apprennent quโ€™ il y a autre chose encore que ces ondes, notamment des corpuscules; on peut faire, par exemple, une expรฉrience avec un cylindre de Faraday; il y a donc ร  tenir compte de lโ€™individualitรฉ des รฉlectrons et aussi des photons. Je pense que je trouverais que, pour expliquer les phรฉnomรจnes, il suffit dโ€™admettre que lโ€™expression ฯˆฯˆ* donne la probabilitรฉ que ces รฉlectrons et ces photons existent dans un volume dรฉtermine; cela me suffirait pour expliquer les expรฉriences.

Mais les exemples donnes par M. Heisenberg mโ€™apprennent que jโ€™aurais atteint ainsi tout ce que lโ€™expรฉrience me permet dโ€™atteindre. Or, je pense que cette notion de probabilitรฉ serait ร  mettre ร  la fin, et comme conclusion, des considรฉrations thรฉoriques, et non pas comme axiome a priori, quoique je veuille bien admettre que cette indรฉtermination correspond aux possibilitรฉs expรฉrimentales. Je pourrais toujours garder ma foi dรฉterministe pour les phรฉnomรจnes fondamentaux, dont je nโ€™ai pas parlรฉ. Est-ce quโ€™un esprit plus profond ne pourrait pas se rendre compte des mouvements de ces รฉlectrons. Ne pourrait-on pas garder le dรฉterminisme en en faisant lโ€™objet dโ€™une croyance ? Faut-il nรฉcessairement รฉriger lโ€™ indรฉterminisme en principe?”

I added the bold italics above. A free translation of this phrase is this:

Why should we elevate determinism orย  – as Born en Heisenberg do โ€“ its opposite (indeterminism) to a philosophical principle?

What a beautiful statement ! Lorentz died of a very trivial cause: erysipelas, commonly known as St Anthony’s fire. :-/

Where things went wrong, exactly !

As mentioned in my previous post, Oliver Consa traces all of the nonsense in modern physics back to the Shelter Island (1947), Pocono (1948) and Oldstone (1949) Conferences. However, the first Solvay Conference that was organized after WW II was quite significant too. Niels Bohr and Robert Oppenheimer pretty much dominated it. Bohr does so by providing the introductory lecture โ€˜On the Notions of Causality and Complementarityโ€™, while Oppenheimerโ€™s โ€˜Electron Theoryโ€™ sets the tone for subsequent Solvay Conferencesโ€”most notably the one that would consecrate quantum field theory (QFT), which was held 13 years later (1961).

Indeed, the discussion between Oppenheimer and Dirac on the โ€˜Electron Theoryโ€™ paper in 1948 seems to be where things might have gone wrongโ€”in terms of the ‘genealogy’ or ‘archaelogy’ of modern ideas, so to speak. In fact, both Oppenheimer and Dirac make rather historical blunders there:

  1. Oppenheimer uses perturbation theory to arrive at some kind of โ€˜newโ€™ model of an electron, based on Schwingerโ€™s new QFT modelsโ€”which, as we now know, do not really lead anywhere.
  2. Dirac, however, is just too stubborn too: he simply keeps defending his un-defendable electron equationโ€” which, of course, also doesnโ€™t lead anywhere. [It is rather significant he was no longer invited for the next Solvay Conference.]

It is, indeed,ย very weird that Dirac does not follow through on his own conclusion: โ€œOnly a small part of the wave function has a physical meaning. We now have the problem of picking out that very small physical part of the exact solution of the wave equation.โ€

Itโ€™s the ring current or Zitterbewegung electron, of course. The one trivial solution he thought was so significant in his 1933 Nobel Prize lectureโ€ฆ The other part of the solution(s) is/are, effectively, bizarre oscillations which he refers to as โ€˜run-away electronsโ€™.

Itโ€™s nice to sort of โ€˜getโ€™ this. ๐Ÿ™‚

Explaining the Lamb shift in classical terms

Corona-virus is bad, but it does have one advantage: more time to work on my hobby ! I finally managed to have a look at what the (in)famous Lamb shift may or may not be. Here is the link to the paper.

I think it’s good. Why? Well… It’s that other so-called ‘high precision test’ of mainstream quantum mechanics (read: quantum field theory)m but so I found it’s just like the rest: ‘Cargo Cult Science.’ [I must acknowledge a fellow amateur physicist and blogger for that reference: it is, apparently, a term coined by Richard Feynman!]

To All: Enjoy and please keep up the good work in these very challenging times !

๐Ÿ™‚

Mainstream QM: A Bright Shining Lie

Yesterday night, I got this email from a very bright young physicist: Dr. Oliver Consa. He is someone who – unlike me – does have the required Dr and PhD credentials in physics (I have aย drs.ย title in economics) – and the patience that goes with it – to make some more authoritative statements in the weird world of quantum mechanics. I recommend you click the link in the email (copied below) and read the paper. Please do it!ย 

It is just 12 pages, and it is all extremely revealing. Very discomforting, actually, in light of all the other revelations on fake news in other spheres of life.

Many of us – and, here, I just refer to those who are reading my post – all sort of suspected that some ‘inner circle’ in the academic circuit had cooked things up:the Mystery Wallahs, as I refer to them now. Dr. Consa’s paper shows our suspicion is well-founded.

QUOTE

Dear fellow scientist,

I send you this mail because you have been skeptical about Foundations of Physics. I think that this new paper will be of your interest. Feel free to share it with your colleagues or publish it on the web. I consider it important that this paper serves to open a public debate on this subject.

Something is Rotten in the State of QED
https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0011v1.pdf

Abstract
“Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today.” ย (12 pag.)

Best Regards,
Oliver Consa
oliver.consa@gmail.com

UNQUOTE

The Mystery Wallahs

I’ve been working across Asia – mainly South Asia – for over 25 years now. You will google the exact meaning but my definition of a wallahย is a someone who deals in something: it may be a street vendor, or a handyman, or anyone who brings something new. I remember I was one of the first to bring modern mountain bikes to India, and they called me a gear wallahโ€”because they were absolute fascinated with the number of gears I had. [Mountain bikes are now back to a 2 by 10 or even a 1 by 11 set-up, but I still like those three plateauxย in front on my older bikesโ€”and, yes, my collection is becoming way too large but I just can’t do away with it.]

Any case, let me explain the title of this post.ย I stumbled on the work of the research group around Herman Batelaan in Nebraska. Absolutely fascinating ! Not only did they actually do the electron double-slit experiment, but their ideas on an actual Stern-Gerlach experiment with electrons are quite interesting: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=physicsgay

I also want to look at their calculations on momentum exchange between electrons in a beam: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/701/1/012007.

Outright fascinating.ย Brilliant ! [โ€ฆ]

It just makes me wonder: why is the outcome of this 100-year old battle between mainstream hocus-pocus and real physics so undecided?

I’ve come to think of mainstream physicists as peddlers in mysteriesโ€”whence the title of my post. It’s a tough conclusion. Physics is supposed to be the King of Science, right? Hence, we shouldn’t doubt it. At the same time, it is kinda comforting to know the battle between truth and lies rages everywhereโ€”including inside of the King of Science.

JL

A common-sense interpretation of (quantum) physics

This is my summary of what I refer to as a common-sense interpretation of quantum physics. It’s a rather abstruse summary of the 40 papersย I wrote over the last two years.

1. A force acts on a charge. The electromagnetic force acts on an electric charge (there is no separate magnetic charge) and the strong force acts on a strong charge. A charge is a charge: a pointlike โ€˜thingโ€™ with zero rest mass. The idea of an electron combines the idea of a charge and its motion (Schrรถdingerโ€™s Zitterbewegung). The electronโ€™s rest mass is the equivalent mass of the energy in its motion (mass without mass). The elementary wavefunction represents this motion.

2. There is no weak force: a force theory explaining why charges stay together must also explain when and how they separate. A force works through a force field: the idea that forces are mediated by virtual messenger particles resembles 19th century aether theory. The fermion-boson dichotomy does not reflect anything real: we have charged and non-charged wavicles (electrons versus photons, for example).

3. The Planck-Einstein law embodies a (stable) wavicle. A stable wavicle respects the Planck-Einstein relation (E = hf) and Einsteinโ€™s mass-energy equivalence relation (E = mยทc2). A wavicle will, therefore, carry energy but it will also pack one or more units of Planckโ€™s quantum of action. Planckโ€™s quantum of action represents an elementary cycle in Nature. An elementary particle embodies the idea of an elementary cycle.

4. The โ€˜particle zooโ€™ is a collection of unstable wavicles: they disintegrate because their cycle is slightly off (the integral of the force over the distance of the loop and over the cycle time is not exactly equal to h).

5. An electron is a wavicle that carries charge. A photon does not carry charge: it carries energy between wavicle systems (atoms, basically). It can do so because it is an oscillating field.

6. An atom is a wavicle system. A wavicle system has an equilibrium energy state. This equilibrium state packs one unit of h. Higher energy states pack two, three,โ€ฆ, n units of h. When an atom transitions from one energy state to another, it will emit or absorb a photon that (i) carries the energy difference between the two energy states and (ii) packs one unit of h.

7. Nucleons (protons and neutrons) are held together because of a strong force. The strong force acts on a strong charge, for which we need to define a new unit: we choose the dirac but โ€“ out of respect for Yukawa, we write one dirac as 1 Y. If Yukawaโ€™s function models the strong force correctly, then the strong force โ€“ which we denote as FN – can be calculated from the Yukawa potential:

F1

This function includes a scale parameter a and a nuclear proportionality constant ฯ…0. Besides its function as an (inverse) mathematical proportionality constant, it also ensures the physical dimensions on the left- and the right-hand side of the force equation are the same. We can choose to equate the numerical value of ฯ…0 to one.

8. The nuclear force attracts two positive electric charges. The electrostatic force repels them. These two forces are equal at a distance r = a. The strong charge unit (gN) can, therefore, be calculated. It is equal to:

F2

9. Nucleons (protons or neutrons) carry both electric as well as strong charge (qe and gN). A kinematic model disentangling both has not yet been found. Such model should explain the magnetic moment of protons and neutrons.

10. We think of a nucleus as wavicle system too. When going from one energy state to another, the nucleus emits or absorbs neutrinos. Hence, we think of the neutrino as the photon of the strong force. Such changes in energy states may also involve the emission and/or absorption of an electric charge (an electron or a positron).

Does this make sense? I look forward to your thoughts. ๐Ÿ™‚

[…]

Because the above is all very serious, I thought it would be good to add something that will make you smile. ๐Ÿ™‚

saint-schrodinger-as-long-as-the-tomb-is-closed-jesus-is-both-dead-and-alive

God’s Number explained

My posts on the fine-structure constant – God’s Number as it is often referred to – have always attracted a fair amount of views. I think that’s because I have always tried to clarify this or that relation by showingย how and why exactlyย it pops us in this or that formula (e.g. Rydberg’s energy formula, the ratio of the various radii of an electron (Thomson, Compton and Bohr radius), the coupling constant, the anomalous magnetic moment, etcetera), as opposed to what most seem to try to do, and that is to further mystify it. You will probably not want to search through all of my writing so I will just refer you to my summary of these efforts on the viXra.org site: “Layered Motions: the Meaningย of the Fine-Structure Constant.”

However, I must admit that – till now – I wasn’t quite able to answer this very simple question: what is that fine-structure constant?ย Whyย exactlyย does it appear as a scaling constant or a coupling constant in almost any equation you can think of but notย in, say, Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation, or theย de Broglieย relations?

I finally have a final answer (pun intended) to the question, and it’s surprisingly easy: it is the radius of the naked charge in the electron expressed in terms of the natural distance unit that comes out of our realist interpretation of what an electron actually is. [For those who haven’t read me before, this realist interpretation is based on Schrรถdinger’s discovery of theย Zitterbewegungย of an electron.]ย That natural distance unit is theย Comptonย radius of the electron: it is the effective radius of an electron as measured in inelastic collisions between high-energy photons and the electron. I like to think of it as a quantum of space in which interference happens but you will want to think that through for yourself.ย 

The point is: that’s it. That’s all. All the other calculations follow from it. Why? It would take me a while to explain that but, if you carefully look at the logic in my classical calculations of the anomalous magnetic moment, then you should be able toย  understand why these calculations are somewhat more fundamental than the others and why we can, therefore, get everything else out of them. ๐Ÿ™‚

Post scriptum: I quickly checked the downloads of my papers on Phil Gibbs’ site, and I am extremely surprised my very first paper (the quantum-mechanical wavefunction as a gravitational wave) of mine still gets downloads. To whomever is interested in this paper, I would say: the realist interpretation we have been pursuing – based on the Zitterbewegung model of an electron – is based on the idea of a naked charge (with zero rest mass) orbiting around some center. The energy in its motion – a perpetual current ring, really – gives the electron its (equivalent) mass. That’s just Wheeler’s idea of ‘mass without mass’. But the force is definitelyย not gravitational. It cannot be. The force has to grab onto something, and all it can grab onto here is that naked charge. The force is, therefore, electromagnetic. It must be. I now look at my very first paper as a first immature essay. It did help me to develop some basic intuitive ideas on what any realist interpretation of QM should look like, but the quantum-mechanical wavefunction has nothing to do with gravity. Quantum mechanics is electromagnetics: we just add the quantum. The idea of an elementary cycle. Gravity is dealt with by general relativity theory: energy – or its equivalent mass – bends spacetime. That’s very significant, but it doesn’t help you when analyzing the QED sector of physics. I should probably pull this paper of the site – but I won’t. Because I think it shows where I come from: very humble origins. ๐Ÿ™‚