Dear All

I'm taking this opportunity to give a summary of the discussion about Self-Field Theory (SFT), a deterministic version of quantum theory. I have appreciated the opportunity to discuss with Dan, Chris, and Daniel this dramatic development in the evolution of mathematical physics. Although the discussion has been foisted upon this discussion about photons and the types of field they support, I did ask Chris that we should go somewhere else to have this discussion, but he insisted.

The highlights of the new formulation are as follows: 

(a) SFT can be called a quantum theory because it finds the eigenvalues for the hydrogen atom (it finds the discrete solutions for the hydrogen atom)

(b) the fact that it is deterministic has its foundation in the mathematical  formulation and not in any philosophical point of view

(c) the deterministic solution has direct links to Planck's constant, Bohr's early quantum solution (1913), and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

(d) the solution can be validated by obtaining the various orbitals from the eigensolutions.

There is much more that SFT can do that conventional quantum theory cannot do. Among these additional features is that it indicates that the particle physics view that the particles are 'elementary' is most probably incorrect; all particles including the photon are composite according to the theory of SFT; there may be many, if not an infinite number levels of structure below the photon. Now physics is 'double-ended' at both ends of the size spectrum

I have a couple of e-Chapters from the book Self-Field Theory: A New Mathematical Description of Physics by Tony Fleming, Pan Stanford, 2012 which I will attach to this post and also make available from my publications.

Dear Mr. Fleming,

As you surely known, if a theory is supposed to replace QM it has to account for the Young's experiment. I read your (SFT) version of it on your site:

http://www.unifiedphysics.com/unified-physics/double-slit-the-emperors-got-no-clothes-on/

I don't like the QM explanation of DSE but I couldn't find any explanation in your site too. You didn't even receive the formula?

Can you give a more comprehensive version for me?

Dear Ilian

I agree I should flesh this out with more equations. However see if this helps:

The explanation is centred around the coherence of the electrons in the outer shell of the material of the disk. By this I mean the way each atom in a crystal of identical material from which the slit is made performs has the same phase in its rotational motions (each electron performs two rotations, one is called orbital rotation, while the other is called cyclotron motion.

So it means that there will be a stochastic build up of the diffraction picture regardless of the time intervals between photons. It is the geometric relationship between the two slits, and the fact they are from the same material.

Three facts are critical assumptions: (a) the two slits are cut from the same piece of material; (b) the two slits are 'anti-symmetric' and (c) all atoms are coherent; they all spin with the same phase(s).

Overall this gives the same picture we see via quantum theory.

Hi Ilian

I’ve been thinking about an experiment to test the new mathematics  and it goes like this:

Instead of double ‘slits’ we make two small ‘square holes’ in the one material.

I believe the image would now be a two-dimension version of the diffraction pattern because now we have not only a left-right anti-symmetry but also a top-bottom anti-symmetry.

There could also be two circular holes used.

If there is full coherence nothing will bring interference pattern. I suppose you mean a change in the phase of the two last electrons of the bar between the slits, which can happen as a corollary of the lack of electrons in the space of the slits? But then you must show how does this happen and why. Also it must bring the pattern of interference for any material (capable to pass) trough the slits. Also have in mind that it is reasonable that the wider the slits the bigger will be change of phase of this two electrons and hence the greater the interference. But on the contrary in reality the wider the slits the fainter the pattern.

Ilian

Yes I agree that the bigger the slit the weaker the pattern, so it is needed to make the slit pretty small. Do you know what slit size has been used experimentally?

While you're suggesting some more parts to any paper I assume you understand what I'm saying about coherence across the crystal structure and how the image can build up stochastically? In terms of the slit dimensions do you agree that the picture that builds up is a picture of the outer shell of electrons as they rotate in their orbitals??

Dear Ilian

I've been reading your paper on quantum entanglement and find much that is interesting in terms of self-field theory. In SFT there is what is called ' photon chemistry. Photon chemistry is analogous to atomic chemistry except it is one level of interaction below atomic physics from which we get atomic chemistry. So the fields are able to interact with each other in the same way you are suggesting in your quantum entanglement paper.

Any comments? 

Well done, Tony.  You have "solved" the 1D Fourier Analysis of the H-atom.  However, Sommerfeld already solved the 2D problem with his elliptical model in 1916, since the motion around a single ellipse is equivalent to contra-rotations around two circles, he had solved the 2D SHM equivalence. Then in 1924, Louis de Broglie, in his Ph.D. thesis, suggested a math equivalence with the 1D motion of a particle and a plane wave.  This was soon seized on in 1926 by Schrodinger who used these ideas in the 3D hydrogen atom.  Bingo!  Quantum theory had its 3D formulation in terms of partial differential equations and 10,000 papers were written using 'his' equation in the following 15 years.  Ironically, all these dimensional extensions only added a few tiny percentage amounts in Bohr's 'fundamental' result but physicists jumped into the swamp of "realistic" interpretations as they tried to reify all this mathematics.  Really, guys?  You think there an infinite number of harmonics in any finite melody fragment? 

PS Where can we download YOUR paper on Bohr? 

Dear all: One important difficulty in the approach of Bohr Sommerfeld is the halves integer Bohr magneton measured in the different magnetic moments supposed to be the property of the spin.

To clarify the notion of spin there is an interesting question; why we do not consider the possibility of one additional quantum along the axis of rotation. In the study of “The quantum state and the notions of spin, wave function and action” I suggest that, for the wave function characteristic of the first subshell np1/2, nd3/2 and so on, there is one unit of quantum associate to the radial function. If it is like this then the quantification concerns the momentum and the perpendicular direction.

Thus the quantification implies the momentum and the perpendicular direction to it. As a result for the ns states this suggest that already the quantification involves the both dimensions. According to measurements of the magnetic moments, this means that for the ns states there is one quantum divided in two to half quanta, one for the momentum the second for the perpendicular direction.

Concering an understanding of DSE in a deterministic manner without any mystical "interference" one must abandon the traditional idea of emptyness of the vacuum, and must follow the idea of a vacuum which is filled with chaotically or quasi-stochastically "vacuum fluctuations" which are thought of as fluctuating massless dipoles. Then it is possible to imagine a new kind of e.m.-like local interactions which take into account the strucure of the shape of distant material objects (e.g. the second slid in DSE). It can be expected that the conservation of angular momentum is involved with the structure of the diffraction patterns in DSE with photons and electrons, as well as neutrons, atoms, huge molecules.

How to overcome the difficulty of the interference with low flux of light? Consider the interpretation of the Michelson and Morley experiment, it leads to that there is no ether. When Einstein take this hypothesis he does not yet propose that of the photon. I think that the most important difficulty is to think with just individual photons that is a flux of small grains all travelling with the light speed in a vacuum space. With this approach it is evident that two photons cannot arrive in the same place simultaneously and interfere. We must suppose that the photons are absorbed on the place of the interferences. Then when they are in sufficient number they are reemitted giving the interference pattern. See “Interferences and periodicity” and “The wave and the quantum state” on my ResearchGate site.

Dear Karl, Xavier and Herb

In this question I began by looking looking at Bohr's work, but we've moved on the double slit experiment. These two phenomena are somewhat different. I'll try to give a separate physics for each where both use SFT to examine each phenomena. First I'll look at the hydrogen atom that is close to Bohr's work. and in a separate post I'll talk about DSE. I'm trying to put this in its simplest form.

What SFT says (in brief) is that the atom has two sub-particles, the electron and the proton. The self-field of each of these particles is a photon and the photon gets swapped by both the electron and the proton. So this is a bit like a virtual particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle). The 'particle' (which we call a photon) only exists within the atom. I'm pretty sure there's a Feynman diagram for this swapping.

At the same time SFT uses the Lorentz and Maxwell's equations to solve for the condition needed to solve for the electric and magnetic fields of both the electron and proton and the motions of both the electron and proton; no need for quantum mechanics. The equations can be solved deterministically for the two subparticles, each having two rotations. Notice that the whole problem is not just an electron or a proton but is a combination of BOTH particles where the photon acts as the binding energy of the atom. It is thus via a series of elastic collisions within each orbit that we get Planck's energy. So each particle performs a series of elastic collisions with the photon via which the photon is swapped between the two subparticles.

This is a special form of resonance where the half-wavelength is equal to the circumference of each rotation. So the resonance is deterministic. This is found to be equal to De Broglie's wavelength.

When we get to the helium atom I think the electric field has been traditionally calculated incorrectly because the helium atom is composed of orthogonal fields (two electrons and two protons) giving four orthogonal fields in space and time. Each field is orthogonal to the other 3; the same logic continues through the periodic table.

A remark concerning (quasi-)stochastically fluctuating massless dipoles and "ether" :

 The idea of (quasi-)stochastically fluctuating massless dipoles (FMD), which are thought to fill the vacuum and thereby surround any material object, is different from the old ideas of an "ether" which is thought to be resting somehow or moving somehow . Because of the fluctuating character of the FMDs it makes no sense to ask for a velocity of a particle 'relative' to the FMDs. Since the 'lifetime' of a single fluctuation is to short to measure a distance twice at different times t_1 and t_2, it is not possible to specify or to 'measure' twice any distances s_1 and s_2 which might serve for the definition of velocity of an FMD. Hence, classical physical theories which are based on the idea of the traditional continuum for time and space cannot be applied to specify the 'dynamics' of alleged FMDs. I think that a reasonable mathematical description of the 'dynamics' of alleged FMDs cannot be achived at all in the framework of a continuum-based structure for space and time at atomic and subatomic scales. The question is how to overcome the notion of the continuum.

Karl

First of all my work over the past year has involved matters 'far-afield' from quantum theory (including the Shroud of Turin, and the cell cycle) so I'm sorry for the delay; I've had to make a similar apology to @Joseph Jean-Claude I'm beginning to read your hypotron theory. It seems there's parts you're looking at (particle physics) that is similar to SFT. I'm wondering if your work supports the SFT idea of virtual photons inside the hydrogen atom. It seems there's a little group of us who are 'punching through' the probabilistic formulation of quantum theory.

It seems we have have all chewed off different parts of physics, but overall we are on a similar path.

kind regards

Tony

Dear Tony, Karl and Herb, You must first realize that the old corpuscular model of Bohr can work. As I explain in my post 2d ago there is one quantum divided into two equal parts giving the halves Bohr magnetons one add to the momentum and the other to the axe of rotation. I am surprise that nobody has consider this possibility. Dirac indeed found them and believed to have found the spin, but in fact it is not the spin which provide the explanation of the two subshells np, nd and nf as it was supposed. I suggest you to have a look on my work with G. Lochak “Total angular momentum and atomic magnetic moment”. Of course the wave associated to the electron is an obstacle, but it is an hypothesis which allows to transform a particle in a continuum, by the opposite process it is also possible to transform a wave in a set of particles as did Einstein to propose the photon. See “The Wave and the Quantum State” on my site.

Yes, that's what I've found Xavier. The corpusular model does work.

BTW I'm reading your paper now; I also found your paper with G Lochak (Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 65 (1987) 99-122)

Actually it's 12.39 am so I'm going to bed, perchance to dream!

But! Before I go, on reading your work "The Wave and the Quantum State", I am reminded of an insight I had on reading a book I have titled "The Strangest Man: the hidden life of Paul Dirac Mystic of the Atom"  by Graham Farmelo 2009 by Faber and Faber. 

The Poisson bracket is discussed (~p 86) and looks like a form of 'curl' equation from Maxwell's equations. Dirac was seeing the non-commutative algebra in Werner Heisenberg's (and Niels Bohr's) work (AB-BA). But I see it as Maxwell's curl equation...a direct link between Dirac's quantum theory and electromagnetics.

kind regards Tony

Dear Tony I am glad that you find the corpuscular model working.

Now one additional remark about the Dirac model; it is important to know that in few crystals there is an electric dipole and people speak of ferroelectric compounds. This suggest that the electric dipole is the result of the electric dipole found by Dirac. This implies that the axe of rotation is quantified.

On the other hand I am first an experimenter, I got two experimental thesis, as a result if I was good in mathematics, I am now 81old and I do not use them sufficiently to follows easily many papers.

Kind regards Xavier

THank you Xavier, you're a young 81 old eh?? I'll be there in 13 years

kind regards Tony

Dear All

The main feature of this new Bohr formulation is that it finds the deterministic solution of both the electron and the proton including both their orbital and cyclotron motions. It should be able to give us many spectroscopic matches including the Stark and Zeeman effects. This will probably be the next part of the project: to match the complete solution with the Stark and Zeeman spectroscopic data.

After this I will write up the complete solution paper (especially for @Herb Spencer

Dear Tony Thank for your comment, now if we are a few to restore the Bohr Sommerfeld approach, there is still work before a large consensus.  For me I am glad that I have not work for nothing. Regards

Xavier

Your words are very poignant; you lived through some of the 'great debate' between Einstein and Planck on the one side and Heisenberg and Bohr on the other.  Although Bohr and his young student Heisenberg played a major role in this debate and played a major role in setting physics in neurological concrete for the next 90 years, they are both heroes of mine; Heisenberg in my opinion played a role in 'white anting' the Nazi's plans to build an atomic bomb. Bohr also played a major role in all this. 

I didn't quite get to understand this debate until later on in my life when I discovered Albert had sent a letter to FDR to warn him about what the Nazis were up to. While Max was a true patriot who hated the Nazis but felt he was the leader of German science at that time after 1927 when Solvay was to decide the fate of physics for the next 90 years.

Of course every action in history has many consequences: without the work of Bohr and Heisenberg we would not have had emphasis on numerical techniques that accompanied quantum theory. So after 90 years we have the computer and the internet; these followed the early mathematics as sure as night follows day. I'm very interested in the role statistical mechanics (SM) had to play in the rise of probabilistic quantum theory (QM); there are many connections between the two, SM and QM. 

Now, we are finally in a position to reexamine the role of quantum theory and how it has become so entrenched in science without the slightest inkling that it may have eventually become a waste of time and effort that could have been diverted into more productive areas of mathematics. But it's never too late. We now need fusion engineering to replace fossil fuel as quickly s we can. The old and the new can live beside each other as scientific partners as they have done in the past as technological priorities have changed.

Over the course of those 90 years the arguments have not stayed the same; they have 'ripened on the vine' so to speak.

You will like the following paper on the differences between classical EM, quantum field theory and Self-Field Theory. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290542773_Self-field_theory-new_photonic_insights?origin=mail The future has arrived scientifically.

Article Self-field theory-new photonic insights

Dear Tony: you tell me “Your words are very poignant; you lived through some of the 'great debate' between Einstein and Planck on the one side and Heisenberg and Bohr on the other.” It was a long way. I learn physics with my professors at Sorbonne, a good place in Paris. But before I have already practice chemistry since about the time of my 16years. During my Science degree I first remark a difficulty in statistic, to find the distribution of the energy it was suppose it depend of the position of the atoms, in place of the energy alone, see “Perturbation and statistical distribution of the thermal energy”. I met many difficulties to published it without explanation and this has reinforced me in place to discourage me.

The second step was when I learned the existence of the rare gas compounds, 30years after their discovery. This existence oblige to reconsider the QM, furthermore it appears that the xenon shell of the rare earths play an important role in the High-Tc superconductors. This teach us that it is very difficult to change the mind of people.

Now the result that I obtain in magnetism are large support to improve the understanding of the QM.

Dear Tony I hope I will not doomed to still consider the old Bohr-Sommerfeld approach.

Dear all, there are several questions or projects on ResearchGate where the problem is to understand the QM. There is a difficulty to find the solution since for long time many people have forget to learn the old approach of Bohr and Sommerfeld. At this time according to the attraction between the proton and the electron, the electron describe an ellipsoidal curve around the proton considered as fixed. The quantification is attributed only to the magnetic moment. The difficulty encountered with the half integer number of the momentum were attributed to the rotation of the electron around itself, the spin. With his equation Dirac found half-integer value of the momentum. But it is not evident that the origin of this result find its origin in the own-rotation of the electron or spin. Consider now the old model and suppose that the fundamental quantum of action h quantified all the possible direction of a motion. Now at the differential scale any motion have two possible directions one giving the rotation the other a motion along the perpendicular to the rotation. If the quantification concern the three equivalent directions of the space, then the quantum of quantification is divided into two equal parts for the two possible directions of the motion at the differential scale of the space. This hypothesis give a different explanation of the half integer number to that of the classical notion of spin.

"The second step was when I learned the existence of the rare gas compounds, 30years after their discovery. This existence oblige to reconsider the QM"

Bonjour Xavier,

I'm quoting one sentence from your post, could explain with more details why the "rare gas" offers path the reconsider Quantum Mechanics.

Dear Albert: The explanation of the valence suppose the octet rule that is a tendency for the ions to have a full outermost shell supposed to do not have any chemical property! The noble gas compounds are a strong contradiction with this explanation. Chernick in his memory [Rec. Chem. Progr., 24, 139-155, (1962)] on these compounds stressed this difficulty in these terms: The noble gases, since their discovery, have presented a challenge to the chemist to attempt to form compounds in which gas is bonded to another element. From time to time reports have appeared in which the authors have claimed to have made such compounds, but until recently there was no conclusive proof of the formation of stable compounds in which one of the noble gas was chemically bound to another element. The paucity of publications of attempted preparations of noble gas compounds may be a result of the early discovery of their inertness, and the theoretical explanation for their inability to form ordinary chemical compounds, which led to what has been called "close shell-close mind” attitude toward such attempts. If the concept of ion remains today useful there is place to give a comment indicating its historical and explanatory value while stressing that it is an imperfect image there.

There is a simple consequence when with the lanthanum or the barium the interatomic distance becomes of the order to that of the xenon compounds, the xenon shell of the lanthanum can exhibit at least one valence state of the xenon and also for Ba. Indeed its valence states are modified with the presence of the two 6s electrons, but one state can take place for example with one of the two 5s. This approach is corroborates with the high Tc superconductors as La2-xBaxCuO4 where the bivalent barium replace the trivalent lanthanum (Inner shell and bonds in high Tc superconductors with Mishra).

Dear Xavier

The 'old Bohr-Sommerfeld approach' is part of our scientific heritage, and was a step along the road to quantum theory (QT);  the B-S approach is still used across the globe, so I had better praise it!! The elliptical solutions are still important in understanding molecular dynamics, e.g. how metaphase works: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319618449_A_RANGE_OF_FIELDS_OVER_THE_SPECTRUM_IN_A_CELL_COLONY_MAY_CONTROL_THE_TIMING_OF_ITS_CELL_CYCLE. 

QT was in my opinion an evolution from the statistical mechanics that has a very similar approach to probabilities and the use of the formal mathematics of the time.

While there were 'victims' of quantum theory (QT), there have been unintended successes, not the least of which have been the numerical methods that grew up around quantum mechanics (QM) and its children, QED and QCD. I have great respect for Heisenberg and Bohr who pushed ahead with their QM at a time when it could have been lost in the fog of 'war' with Albert Einstein and Max Planck (the great debate, as it is sometimes called).I have great respect too for Albert and Max whose day is yet to emerge and hopefully they will be vindicated in the history of science.

Xavier, I'm still reading your work, but you may have been one of those 'victims' whose work was lost in the 'war'. Maybe the cause of this was the way in which QT treats the magnetic field, as an 'add-on' to the lagrangian so that the photon can be treated as a simple one-variable entity.

One final note, I consider self-field theory as a deterministic form of QT since it finds analytic forms for Planck's Constant and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

More to come later; meantime take mainstage my friend and continue to teach us your findings. 

Conference Paper A range of fields over the spectrum in a cell colony may con...

 Dear Tony: Many Thanks for your comment. They give me the strength to pursue the struggle. 

Sommerfeld's elliptical theory produced an accuracy of prediction that was not matched until Dirac's relativistic electron theory was applied to the hydrogen atom.  This was a deep embarrassment to the Math Gang at Goettingen and has never been explained away.

What we are left with is the snobbery of 2500 years of mathematics feeling superior. 

Yes, Bohr is the first approximation: spherical solutions.

Sommerfeld is the second approximation (2D ellipses + calculus).

My third level approximation (sphere/2D ellipse) with finite math (no calculus) and introducing recursive math (like Nature).

Herb

Do you have some references for us all? Your work without calculus especially.

Tony: Check out my papers on Academia with the prefix UET.

The discrete math begins with UET5 but its not obvious as I was aiming for a new theory of electron spin.

My 'Big One' is UET7C but that's not finished yet (at 100+ pp) - I may pre-release a chapter on Finite Mechanics that is a discrete (Impulse) alternative to Newton's Laws based on his continuous 'Force' concept. I am using it to extend Sommerfeld's 2D continuous H-atom model into 3D with discrete path segments.