Is Quantum Mechanics obscure in its soul as formulated or are its limits attributable to the Theory of Probability at its heart?

“the Theory of Probability (ToP), might be the first element responsible for the weaknesses of QM as a science”

You may be right in above comment. The following quantum mechanics theory does not have statistical interpretation for the radial distance and the velocity of electron in Hydrogen atom.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319291737_Hydrogen_spectra_using_Einstein%27s_field_equations

Bad answer to a wrong problem in a wrong tribal mythologyy.

For ninety years, the copenhaguists must invoke magics to have photons converging on, say a retinal in an opsin.

Their "wave function" only shares one property with real world waves : they share the same equation of evolution. But not the boundary conditions, nor the same time nor the same space.

Try to answer to this question :

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_astigmatism_of_the_eye_some_quantic_problems_Ideas_and_experiments?_tpr_view=14T00wJt0ZlzuEvgfLhJ6TM7mEbI1H0Y3a21_3

@ Vikram Zaveri

Took the time to go over your paper. You make a consistent and well developed effort to adapt the EFE’s to the interpretation of quantum scale physics, in particular the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom. Was on the look out as to how G and h come together in the Theory. I started having hesitations beginning with equation 3-26. In all, my impression is that the effort amounts more to a methodology than a Theory, given that in addition you introduce ah hoc parameters.

My take away is that, when it comes to Unification, you have shown the importance of rotational symmetry in all-scale physics. I will add that an elucidation of the quantum wavefunction as addressed in the referred Chapter 7 of my publication, which is indeed intimately related to rotational symmetry, is one of the most important roads to Unification.

Thanks for your input, Vikram.

>>>For ninety years, the copenhaguists must invoke magics to have photons converging on, say a retinal in an opsin.

Jacques,

If you put a piece of paper at the focal spot of a magnifying glass long enough under the mid-day sun under some latitudes, you will start seeing smoke coming out of the bright spot on the paper. I am sure that the magnifying glass does not suffer from astigmatism, nor does it know anything about the Copenhaguists’ theories. Do you agree?

Just an effect of geometrical optics, no quantum theory involved…

Cheers.

We were speaking about quantum physics. Ja oder nein?

The capture of a photon by a retinal in an opsin in the retina is a quantic phenomenon, about 1,8 nm long, less than 1 nm wide. Ja oder nein ?

However, if the eye is astigmatic, the traditional laws of optics, and the traditional habits of reasoning, full of "then" and "after" do not allow the focalization of a photon on such a tiny target.

However, they succeed in these forbidden focalizations.

What was wrong ?

Jacques,

If you are saying that there is a problem in reconciling the electromagnetic wavefunction consigned in Maxwell Theory, a classical time-driven variable, with the wave function of the quantum of that field (the photon), a time-free quantum variable normally expressed in terms of its wavelength, I completely agree with you.

But if you are saying that focalization cannot result from interaction with a medium whose size is not quite commensurable with that of the wavelength of the photon particle, I am not sure I would agree. Admittedly I have not looked at the problem that you suggest before. But this situation does not seem to be so much different from that of interference patterns coming out of travel light thru a slit.

Have you elaborated anywhere on this issue?

Cordially.

In the anti-transactional tradition, the Fermat spindle of the photon "cannot know" it will soon come into an astigmatic lens or cornea, so cannot adapt its incident angles to achieve the final absorption by the tiny dye molecule, the opsin.

But if you reason by the end, the emission of an anti-photon by the absorber, with negative energy, negative frequency and negative flowing of time, you have no more difficulty to rate how much the section of the tangent cone of the photon should be elliptical in the air to accomodate the astigmatism.

@ Joseph Jean-Claude

If you are looking for how G and h come together, you should look at following quantum gravity theory. Eqn. 3.26 is a major surgery on Dirac’s theory, so no wonder it causes some discomfort. Thanks for your comments.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262492889_Periodic_quantum_gravity_and_cosmology

Jacques,

Do you have a theory for the internal structure and the morphology of the photon (its architecture in other words)? If you do, please point me to the same. Seems to me that that much is required in order to properly ground your claim.

Joseph Jean-Claude .

Transactional definition of a photon :

A photon is a successful transaction between three partners: an emitter, an absorber, and the space or optical devices between them. This transaction transfers by electromagnetic means, a quantum of looping h, and an energy-momentum that depends on the respective frames of the emitter and the absorber.

Of course the Maxwell equations are incomplete, as not rendering the bosonic effects, such as the Handbury Brown and Twiss bunching. For more than half a century, experiments have proved that the length of coherence of a photon in the visible range, from an incoherent source, is in the decimetric-metric range.

Lots of other experiments gave floor values for the width of a photon, given a minimum distance from the emitter and the absorber. The most common of them are the interferential colors in some feathers, beetles, butterflies, scales of some lizards, fishes, so on. The anti-reflect coatings on our binoculars and photo lenses are also good illustrations of these floor values for the width of each photon in the bulk of their Fermat spindles.

Floor values have been proved for the electrons, too, depending on the dimensions of the apparatus.

@ Vikram Zaveri

Equation 3-26 means that the wavelength λ of the defining wavefunction is a fraction of a circular curvature if your propagation coefficient ξ > 2πr, or a multiple of the full curvature if 0 < ξ

Is it pure fiction or not, to delimit and isolate a quantic system ?

Question https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_pure_fiction_or_not_to_delimit_and_isolate_a_quantic_system

Waldemar,

Sorry we are confusing you even more. The intention is definitely to clarify instead. Feel free to discuss any statement you disagree with. For one, I like attentive and respectful conversations.

Just so we don’t spread even more confusion, I will take issue a little bit with your statement that “Einstein was against the Quantum Theory”. He was not exactly against the Quantum Theory but against the interpretation and some of the implications of quantum theory. He thought that there must be a deterministic variable not yet recognized to explain the unconventional behavior of quantum objects, i.e. that the bound electron did not have a momentum and can only be approached from the view of probability density. Or the philosophical interpretation of the quantum wavefunction by Copenhaguists, and he tried to no avail to develop his own real-valued quantum wavefunction.

Einstein had made many contributions to the Quantum Theory, not the least of which is the principle of quantum yield in Quantum Chemistry: Quantum yield ϕ.

Cordially.

Jacques,

For sake of clarity and discussion, it may be that you need to elaborate your idea as a thesis, in a paper that does not have to be long, where you illustrate the concept and perhaps relate it to other known artifacts.

It is difficult to do physics only at a pure conceptual level, without details on paper. Unless you are like Euler, who could perform deep mathematical calculations in his mind...

Respects.

@Jacques Lavau

>>>The capture of a photon by a retinal in an opsin in the retina is a quantic phenomenon, about 1,8 nm long, less than 1 nm wide.

if the eye is astigmatic, the traditional laws of optics... do not allow the focalization of a photon on such a tiny target. However, they succeed in these forbidden focalizations

Joseph Jean-Claude

Depending on you read french or english, I have laid the four first chapters of the english translation on Researchgate.

The french book is at http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/microphysique-quantique-transactionnelle-principes-et-applications/paperback/product-23362834.html

The version available on RG is one year old, and lacks lots of corrections made since.

The whole english translation will be ready in April.

As written above, a photon is not "a quite another thing" than an electromagnetic wave. It is still an electromagnetic wave, but an individual one, with only one emitter and only one absorber, transmitting only one quantum of Planck h.

Though the Göttingen-Københavnists invoke magics with their mystic "collapse of the function wave exempted from all physical laws", in Transactional Quantum Physics we never exempt the photon from any physical law. It is still submitted to the laws of the diopter.

What rendered the standard QM doctrine impossible to understand ? Lots of weird and surreptitious postulates, and mainly, their confusion between the transfer itself, and the ground noise of Broglian waves, from which sometimes emerge the successful transactions.

Waldemar,

The perspective of stage development of quantum mechanics that you raised is certainly an interesting one. For me “old quantum mechanics” refers to the early stages of development of quantum mechanics kicked off by Planck’s discovery of the empirical formula to compute the distribution of radiation by a black body. Quantum mechanics became mature, in my view, with Schrodinger’s Hamiltonian with its tremendous success in elucidating chemical behavior of atomic elements. Up to that point quantum science was essentially about the behavior of bound electrons or the external configuration of atoms of natural elements. I will even incorporate in that second phase Dirac’s effort with his Lagrangian of the hydrogen atom that incorporated in the mathematical formulation Pauli’s exclusion principle and the correction that took care of the necessary non-zero level of the energy density distribution of orbitals at minima.

From there we have a new phase in quantum theory which was about the interpretation of interaction between particles known as quantum electrodynamics which extended into the standard model of particle physics. That third phase has been fraught with all kinds of problems and developed under the umbrella of field physics otherwise called Quantum Field Theory.

A list of all the problems encountered along the way in the 3rd phase would be very long to recount. But I would say that the basic problem, in my view, is that quantum science is attempting to explain phenomenology (interaction) while ignoring internal ultra-structure or ontology, or underestimating the importance of the latter. And that has to do with the two most ubiquitous variables that make up objects in all-scale physics: mass and spatial wavefunction. That is the very root of all the confusion and esoteric conceptualization, fictitious spaces and virtualizations that are reflected everywhere in the science, in particular in the very complex mathematics that lead to nowhere, because among other things they contribute not a single bit more to intelligibility of quantum systems and render failing predictions, for the most part.

Jacques,

If I may ask, how does “Transactional Quantum Physics” reconcile geometric optics (what you call the laws of the diopter) with quantum behavior of the photon, in particular entangled behavior of particle pairs and collapse of the wavefunction under measurement? Keep in mind that in all these experiments, geometric optics almost always play an admittedly incipient role as the photon must be steered along specific paths.

Just briefly.

Furthermore, Jacques, I take issue with your characterization that “the photon is still an electromagnetic wave but an individual one”. The photon is not an electromagnetic wave.

For me the photon is the quantum of the magnetic portion of our artificial electromagnetic wave, or the quantum of all natural sources of light. Its wavefunction is not to be assimilated to the oscillation characterizing the electromagnetic envelope of the man-made radiation. Its wavefunction is of a different nature and responds to the De Broglie view of the wavefunction, characterizable with λ. In fact the nature of that wavefunction pertains to the same order of the Compton wavelength figure, which puts it on the same grounding as the other fermion particles, all of which are characterized by their Compton wavelength. In that sense a beam of X ray for example is comparable to a natural beam of light, but not to our electromagnetic radiation. And to my best knowledge we do not quite commonly call a beam of X ray or gamma ray electromagnetic wave. Albeit in the nomenclature, the entire spectrum bears the name of Electromagnetic Spectrum.

@ Joseph Jean-Claude

ξ takes on only the integer values and λ is incorporated in the material wavefunction as a propagation number k which is the standard procedure of the Schrodinger theory.

in a)��`�,

Quantum Mechanics is a complete science?

The approach science takes to investigation assumes direct objectivity at all scales usually attempted through instrumentation designed with that assumption hardwired into its design.

Even when the records from the instrumentation by default discover the shortfall, the approach does not change.

Instead the issue is projected onto the universe.

Reality is a relationship we form with the real.

The issue lies within that relationship.

It's the total reliance on the 3rd party ontology that has to be reviewed.

The reality problem is one that we have created by separating the arts from the sciences.While this separation may have served us well in some respects, it is ultimately insufficient and misleading.

Until we understand what's involved in us being objective and this is going to involve us coming to terms with the phenomenon of vision and our (complex bio systems) relationship to EMR, we won't understand how to make meaningful approaches to remote scales.

QM is missing US. Ultimately it's meaningless to take us out of acts of observation as if we fail to account for this, ultimately, that is what we will end up coming face to face with. We must not let instrumentation stand in for us without understanding what that involves with respect to data-capture. We need to ask; what do the records from our current instrumentation actually mean? In addition to; what do they contain?

"All knowledge has its origins in perception" L. Da Vinci.

When I study the structure of the phenomenon of vision on an experiential basis I find a data structure that can't be aligned to the fundamentals of optics. This data structure is fundamental to us and is likely to involve cell-to-cell coms via the glial network. It affords us 'implicit' spatial awareness. The suggestion is that this could be aligned to something contained in the magnetic component of EMR. This data potential having the capability to embed us into the universe in ways that our current instrumentation is not.

This missing data-potential is not a matter of accuracy and it won't manifest for us by applying more power to existing systems. We need to refine and adopt a different approach strategy?

Joseph Jean-Claude: you still have to prove your many assertions.

Example : " the photon is the quantum of the magnetic portion of our artificial electromagnetic wave" is still to be proved.

" a beam of X ray for example is comparable to a natural beam of light, but not to our electromagnetic radiation" is still to be proved.

I feel that you never practiced radiocrystallography, nor coherent optics.

Jacques,

No, I never practiced radiocrystallography. As an associate laser engineer however, I do know a thing or two about coherent optics at the experimental level. In any case, do we have to practice every single aspect of a science as a professional in order to discuss the principles behind that science? I think not.

As to the proof of my assertions, they are all given in my Quanto-Geometry publication, in terms of an assertive (quantitative) theoretical derivation of such constants as the fine structure constant (alpha), the unit of charge e, etc., from an axiomatic system.

I will say this, Jacques. Of the photon what we know from quantum theory, geometric optics and relativity is that it has zero mass, it has momentum, it has a wavelength, it has a travel speed, its relative travel speed is an invariant, it has a polarization plane, in the form of a topology the several units may be coherent with one another, the several units in a topology are transparent to one another (bosonic behavior), etc. The question I ask you is: what of these qualities, or any other quality of your preference, makes the photon an electric or electrically-sensitive entity? Which is a requirement if it must be an electro-magnetic wave as you contend.

Cordially.

Hello John Jupe.

In the quantum debate, you seem to be taking the Copenhaguists’s side that reality is observer-dependent.

My little bit of philosophy!

Joachim Domsta

Dear followers,

I am trying again to get some comment about my proposal on a model of the way we are reading the real world within quantum theory. The details are elaborated in a conference paper (see the link below). It's basis is close - with respect to the philosophical principles - to Joseph's point of view:

What we see is our own state which is a result of the developement of the JOINT system built of our (call it observer's) and the outer (observed) parts.

My proposal (I am not the first exploiting it) does not go beyond the standard quantum theory which allows us to assume as a postulate, that our whole knowledge is encoded in the reduced quantum state corresponding to our part (via the partial trace). As a side effect - this postulate gives us a strict definition of the reault of the quantum measurement as a entity of the information about the outer part reflected in our reduced state. Moreover, within this model there is no need to introduce the wavefunction collapse caused in some mysterious way by the measurement. Yes, there are some traces of such a phenomenon but of completely different origin: Assuming that the initial state is just our reduced stte at the initial instant of the observation, our knowledge about the whole system increases due to the quantum evolution of the joint system, even though we see just our (=reduced) state at the next instants. Obviously, the longer is the time of observation, and the stronger is the impact of the outer part (expressed by the interaction Hamiltonian), the more properties of the outer state are recoverable from our state.

In this approach - strangely enough - there is now wave collaps of the outer state; contrarily, the outer state is seen better and beter with elapsed time.

What is interesting, that depending on the type of the interaction we can arrive to the whole information about the state of the whole system or just to some part of it. I have shown by exact solutions, that in case of interaction built of operators commuting with the Hamiltonians responsible for the own evolution of the subsystems (when left without interaction) the most information of the outer system available by the observer is the mixture of pure states determined by the eigenststes of the own Hamiltonian of the observed/measured part (i.e. if the initial state of the outer system is a superposition \alpha \psi + \beta \phi , then the whole info read by us is the mixture of |\psi>

" it has a polarization plane " , is true only for the plane polarized photons.

Fully circular (or magnetic) photons do exist, see the transition rules for the atoms.

And the quater-waves plates prove that a photon can have all the intermediate stades from fully circular to fully plane. When a circular ray (circular by the rule of emission) is absorbed by a linear absorber, I presume that the dephasings are localized in the near fields (emitter and absorber), but I do not see any experimental mean to prove or disprove this statement.

" what of these qualities, or any other quality of your preference, makes the photon an electric or electrically-sensitive entity? "

Most of the emitters, most of the absorbers are tightly held by quantic rules, as long as the involved transition goes from a stationary state to another stationary state.

Not held by a rule of stationarity : the Brehmstrahlung, the synchrotron radiation.

But if you wish a report on the spectrum emitted by a synchrotron, you need spectral filters and absorbers...

" Which is a requirement if it must be an electro-magnetic wave as you contend."

Are you sure that the interferences are not enough ?

Plus the interferential colors.

Plus the anti-reflect coatings.

Plus the quarter-wave plates.

Plus the Bragg law, founding the radiocrystallography.

Plus the Scherrer relation, giving the width of the diffraction reflex.

Plus so many antennas, including the loop or ferrite and coil antennas.

Plus the anti-radar technologies...

Hi Joseph and thanks for the response.

For me reality is a relationship we have with the real. The real being the physically real. Reality being something that we generate in response to the real. In the case of vision the real relates to the local environment and EMR and our biology.

Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real – Part 2 https://youtu.be/hbFtIIHOQ9Y

This is not the Copenhagen interpretation although I can see why at the time it was arrived at.

"It is a difficult debate because there is no possible point of reference for that assessment."

This is what I am working. It is possible but GR has to go in the bin and QM must address and embrace subjectivity. The issue with relativity is that there aren't any reference frames so God knows why that has persisted for so long? ie the point of reference is just made up.

"At the end only prediction that is positively reflected in phenomenology can tell us where we are as to sound understanding of mother nature."

That actually runs the other way. By actually taking to time to study perceptual structure we are able to make predictions the explain Q reality issues.

" the Copenhagen interpretation " got its hegemony by killing the two competitors.

http://deonto-famille.org/citoyens/debattre/index.php/topic,1141.0.html

Nothing scientific in this process. Only pack violence.

Only in the Nobel lecture of Dirac you can see, in one sentence, the result from Schrödinger that the Compton scattering comes from the Bragg law, on the Dirac-Schrödinger equidistance of the electron.

A result I had to re-discover in 2011, as it is unknown elsewhere.

Article The Zitterbewegung : key of the electron-photon scattering u...

The thing about the Copenhagen agreement is this: and it's important!

The requirement for the notion that "we are required" is something science has been backed into from following the 3rd party ontology to its end game.

NEVER did it occur to them to challenge the basis of the approach that got them into the position in the first place.

It's not we (as observers) are required to make the math work etc. It's that were are present, we are embedded within the universe. This means that 3rd party ontology is inappropriate in these circumstances.

This suggests (strongly) that there has to be new paradigm physics to be engaged with and that it is approachable by adopting a different ontology (experiential) and so 'knowable'.

The key is going to be to understand how we are embedded within our local environment. The critical factors in this are: to appraise

1. Our relationship with EMR

2. The function of the retina

3. The perceptual structure that we generate as vision

We need to be able to plot our way out of our heads!

Quite interesting comments above by all.

They attempt in one way or another to deal with the indeterminate wavefunction that the quantum theory has accustomed us with. I however favor the view that we have to remove ourselves as much as possible from reality or interaction with reality in order to appropriately comprehend its physicality. For one. And for the other part, we have to learn to see things that are under our nose but which we fail to perceive.

The most important obstacle that in my mind we have ever been faced with both in philosophy and in physical science is the understanding of the void of the vacuum. And it is no doubt because we cannot perceive it. What is it that makes the dynamics of a bound electron and the repetitive throwing of a dice by a human hand so similar events that the same mathematical category of Probability Theory can assertively describe the both? My answer is that there is something intangible in both events that cause Pattern and Structure to emerge as a distribution, an identical distribution. If you look at the electron alone, or the dice with the throwing hand alone, you will never understand what is happening. You have to look at the medium, which is in fact not a medium but a component of the action, the void spread of space that circumvents the object in motion.

The cause of the action is indeed the space spread. In the case of the dice, it is not the throwing hand but the underlying space spread that generates the wavefunction characterizable with the De Broglie wavelength. The hand throwing the dice gives us a layer in phenomenology that we can perfectly describe with classical physics, but the time-free dimension of the phenomenology which is the emerging Pattern and Structure of the distribution can only be attributed to the action by the wavefunction of the space spread. Remember that according to De Broglie all motion entails a concomitant material wavefunction.

So the void of space possesses momentum which is best expressed as space momentum (not the fictitious momentum space but true coordinate space momentum). This occurs thru de-foliation of the space matrix in a hierarchy that I have described with Quanto-Geometric Tensors and Operators. But to come back to the statistical distribution, you can see the nature of the action behind the distribution and perhaps as well why the notion of probability amplitude is closely related to the wavelength of the material wavefunction.

This long post is to open up the perspective that reality is not necessarily observer-dependent but that the observer most Probably fails to perceive important aspects of reality, in particular the void of space.

Hi Joseph,

Its the instrumentation that fails to observe. We do the observing, the instrumentation records what it was designed to encounter by us. So its the concept of the void of space that's suspect?

The hand throwing the dice is part of us and we are embedded in the unfolding action. There is a 3rd party position to recount of course but conducted at the micro scale we are crossing a membrane where that 3rd party position isn't valid. Is possible to organise situations of contingent and a non-contingent observation.

There is a fundamental duality and we (as macro enteritis) can't assume direct observation of one of them.

It's why within the phenomenon of vision we are able to manifest two data potentials from EMR. A situation that requires us to infer between them to get at the measure. Experiential reality is composite and the experiential measure is achieved by inference.

Our instrumentation fails to engage with one of the data-potentials ensuring that we never infer from the artificial records we take? The measurement problem is a problem with measurement...and EMR is the both the culprit and redeemer! To get 'redemption' we have to understand and work on the basis that 3rd party observation is not what its cracked up to be! We are however.

Sure, sorry Joseph I rattle this out without explanation, which is not a good idea.

Relativity still uses this system. There is an observer of an event that is given a position and the event taking place is also given a location (or a movement vector based on this). Then there has to be the observer of the situation and this is the 3rd party scenario. The inertial frame is another manifestation?

The assumption is that light can be used to directly sort the relationships out. However as we approach speed of light as you know, things go a bit tits-up and we have to develop notions of curved spacetime.

The assumption involved also suggests that we can develop instrumentation that can do a better job than us. The instrumentation then stands in for the 3rd party position but ultimately we then encounter issues with measurement at remote scales.

QM should have finally called ‘time’ on it all but the direct measurement culture has persisted – don't think, just calculate!

We need to get back to us experiencing an event using EMR. We need to abandon the measurement approach for a while at least until we have understood the mechanism. It’s not like taking a picture. Hence Vision-Space (VS) and there are a shed load of on-line videos, some words and the VS project on my RG page. There are also the experiential records made by the other great observers, Chardin, Turner, Cezanne, Degas, Van Gogh, Bonnard, Picasso, Bacon etc!

It’s all currently inadmissible to science and that is the extent of its problem? The basis of the solution is on every serious Nation Gallery in the world. How do we tap into the knowledge?

There are no ‘pictures’ in the visual system. Vision is non-photographically rendered, there is not information structure blur, no motion blur, no depth-of-field, no frames, no frames per-second, as there are no pictures to fuse there is no binocular fusion going on. The entire paradigm of frames and existing data-capture has next to nothing to do with the phenomenon. The basis of the phenomenon is not being recorded by our instrumentation so what do all there records mean?

The phenomenon of vision holds the answers to just how it is that we are embedded in the universe. There is no valid 3rd party position to be had and it needs to be abandoned as the primary methodology of approach.

Hello Vikram Zaveri.

I wanted to find a chance to respond to your last post regarding Equation 3-26 in your referred paper. You wrote:

>>> ξ takes on only the integer values and λ is incorporated in the material wavefunction as a propagation number k which is the standard procedure of the Schrodinger theory.

Your use of the wavelength figure has particularly caught my attention as relates to the notion of quantum wavefunction that it characterizes. Again it is fair to say that the equation does not provide any further clarification on the nature of the material wavefunction, to my personal dissatisfaction. What the equation does is to set a mathematical quantity 2πr to be equal to a physical quantity ξ λ. When we see an interference pattern coming out of one photon or two photons, the only thing we know is that the pattern is similar to the one pattern coming out of two sound waves i.e. While we can perfectly describe the physical oscillations of sound wave via the eternal sinusoid, with λ being the time it takes to complete an oscillation, we do not know what the oscillatory wave function internal to the photon consists of. In Schrodinger’s theory of the bound electron, he assumed and incipiently expressed the stationary wave function in terms of the eternal sinusoid running in time as well. Just to find that the time variable unexpectedly canceled itself out in the course of the procedure, which culminated in the time-free quantum Hamiltonian. So we know that the material wave function, whether visualized thru Schrodinger or De Broglie, is not to be consigned as a time wave function but a space wave function, space being the only other figure to characterize λ. However the way that your equation characterizes it gives it to us as a fraction of full circular curvature, which is not a representation for a wave or oscillatory artifact, but instead of spin. I remind you that despite the fact that we use a circle to define a sinusoid, the geometry of a circle does not model oscillation but strictly spin. When I “surgically” analyze that part of your development, that is what I find.

Cordially.

Hello Joseph Jean-Claude,

Circumference of a circle given by 2πr has nothing to do with representation for a wave or oscillatory artifact. In this theory 2πr circle does not define a sinusoid. Clarification on the nature of the material wavefunction could be part of the further development of the theory, however my current interests are limited to the fundamental development.

Regards.

argi� �Co�

Hello Vikram Zaveri

You wrote: "Circumference of a circle given by 2πr has nothing to do with representation for a wave or oscillatory artifact."

Are you really sure, Vikram?

If you picture the trigonometric circle on the regular x-y coordinate system, choose any point on the circle and join it to the origin of the coordinate system to form a segment. The angle Ɵ formed by that segment with the x or cosine axis is given by the relation: y = x sinƟ. Since Ɵ is a variable as a result of the moving point, the relation is best expressed as the function f(Ɵ) = A sin Ɵ. Now, the projections of the circling point onto the x axis will give you a pictorial representation of what we call an oscillatory or wave function, if you were to replace the x-axis with a moving plane orthogonal to the y-axis instead. That is how we obtain the eternal sinusoid and that is how we define a wave function and the eternal sinusoid mathematically. In physics, the period of that waveform is a time quantity which we call the wave-length.

Vikram, I fully understand that you don’t view this as the essential part of your development. My insistence however is to show that your use of λ, which is typical of how it is used in quantum physics, does not go to the fundamental nature of the wavefunction it characterizes. Because what makes a bouncing electron around a nucleus a wave is unknown (the motion cannot be consigned as a sinusoidal waveform), just as what makes a free travel electron or any other object in rectilinear motion a (de Broglie) wave is unknown (even though such effects as interference patterns and spectral lines associated with them overwhelmingly point to a wave ontology). My point being that this indetermination is at the root of all the obscure representations that abound in the quantum theory. I am proposing a solution to cure this problem once and for all which I believe is worth exploring.

Hello Joseph Jean-Claude,

The high school math that you have described in your first paragraph is all correct but that is not what I have utilized in my eqn.(3.26). I think my use of λ does go towards describing the fundamental nature of the wavefunction. Your proposed solution for curing the “obscure representations” appears to be founded on Dirac Heisenberg representation which I consider to be inferior compared to the De Broglie Schrodinger representation of wave mechanics.

Regards.

becauj��W�

Hello Vikram Zaveri

I am glad you now remember the elementary trig construction (with 2πr) at the basis of the representation of a wavefunction in math and wave mechanics. It is from the basis of that simple function that you can go all the way up to the Schrodinger’s time-independent expression of the wavefunction, and subsequently the operator equation, by imposing a series of conditions and constraints in step with obtained results. No need to go over this development here, since this is not a course but a conversation.

And no, overall my proposed solution for a clear representation of the wavefunction is definitely closer to Schrodinger’s wave mechanics than Dirac’s Lagangian or Heisenberg matrix formulation. That may transpire better thru the other papers I have published here, and most definitely in the book from which I extracted Chapter 7.

What I am doing in that Chapter is showing the underlying physics that make a probability density a wave phenomenon by uncovering the origin of the action. I do so by showing that Statistical variance is not just a flat numeric identity but a covariant product borne out of the void of the vacuum AT ALL SCALE. And what we “blindly” call in quantum theory the wavelength of the material wavefunction is essentially a reflection of the probability amplitude of the action.

There was more work to do at the notional and representational level in order to clarify the nature of the material wavefunction than there probably ever was at the mathematical level. Because most of the math was already there, in the form of Probability Theory, although it also took an important re-dimensioning of the latter in order to extract causation from the distribution.

Hello Vikram.

Wish you well equally in the needed works of unblocking the avenues of theoretical physics.

Cordially.