Sorry it is

"For example, if quanta are particles separated by empty space, distant nonlocal conections become incomprehensible.”

Thanks

Edgar Paternina

Yes

The wave is just a sort of particle

Location pattern.

Dear Edgar Paternina

Art Hobson also published “There are no particles, there are only fields”. American journal of physics 81, 211 (2013). DOI:10.1119/1.4789885. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616

In this paper Art Hobson starts with his discovery that the text books about quantum field theory (QFT) in the university libraries are mainly about quantum mechanics (QM), instead of QFT.

The difference between quantum mechanics and QFT is that QM is phenomenological physics. That means that the focus is upon the phenomenon (wave; particle) instead on the spatial field structure.

In phenomenological physics we select a point of reference – e.g. our planet – and start measuring and reasoning from the point of reference. Some centuries ago we had even a universal point of reference in the macrocosm: the planet Earth as the centre of the universe (geocentric model).

But in QFT the general concept is that the properties of the basic quantum fields are responsible for the emergence of the phenomena as we know it (particles, atoms, objects, planets, etc.). So if we want to calculate what is going on with phenomena within a volume somewhere in the universe we have to import the whole structure of the fields in our model. The properties of the units of the structure determine the evolution (transformation) of the whole energy configuration within the volume. So we have to simulate a synchronous input and output at the “boundary” of the volume too.

The latter is because our universe is non-local (Noble prize Physics 2022). That means that everything in the universe influence everything at exactly the same moment (instantaneous influence).

So it is reasonable to conclude that at the moment scientists experience a new paradigm shift. However, that shows to be wrong. Because about 2500 years ago the Eleatic school of philosophy (ancient Greece) had already an similar concept about reality in our universe. The most famous members of the Eleatic school are Parmenides of Elea and Zeno of Elea. The Eleatic school of philosophy has influenced the whole history of Western philosophy. For example Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover is directly related to the ontology of the Eleatic school. (The unmoved mover "predicts" non-locality too.)

Most people prefer the phenomenological point of view because that is what our senses “tell” us. Moreover we use the phenomenological point of view with the help of the isolation of one or more phenomena to examine the mutual relations. That is the basis of the scientific method.

So it isn’t strange that we use terms that are directly related to the phenomenological point of view. Besides that, the conceptual framework of QFT is a mixture of Gauge theories, parts of Special relativity and quantum mechanics (inclusive some concepts that originate from classic mechanics). Thus the formalism of QFT originate from theories that are developed with the help of the phenomenological point of view.

With kind regards, Sydney

“…The emeritus professor Art Hobson in his article "Realist Analysis of Six Controversial Quantum Issues" … Schrödinger's equation for, say. a moving electron is clearly a "field equation" for a scalar (i.e. number-valued rather than vector-valued) field y(x, y, z,t)....I doubt we will transcend our quantum confusion until we adopt more appropriate words. Electrons, photons, and other quanta are not "particles."….”

- that above and the rest in the preface is/are rather, if too, questionable attempt to analyze some real problems in QM. Say that in the quote above looks by no means is some real QM problem. Electrons, photons and other “quanta” experimentally are quite undoubtedly “particles” - and n most practical cases “point-like” particles - since interact really in some “points”, the size of which is determined essentially by strength and rank of fundamental Nature forces that are involved in interactions;

- however the point interactions also happen as a particle is a “wave”.

Why that is so? – real scientific answer is possible, and is given, only in the in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read one of 3 main papers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- where, first of all it is explained – what is “particle”, which – as everything in Matter – is some specific cyclic disturbance in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

So particle exists as sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping along some 4D space “helix” 3D projection of which is 3D wave; and at every current time moment essentially exists as the “FLE flipping point” that has ~ Planck length size.

At that, including because of that in 4D space angular momentums don’t exist as 4D vectors, this point at interactions at really random time moments, can be in other points of the “helix’s volume”, moreover, if a particle moves in 3D space with 3D momentum p, , in this case the flipping point moves additionally along 3D helix, i.e.” quite wave” with λ=ћ/p, etc.

That is practically all. Really there is no any “scalar”, “vector”, etc. “fields”; “pilot waves”, etc., as , say, quite equally when a coin falls, it has “Ψ – function” ( ½ , ½), which evidently isn’t a “field”, etc.

More see the linked paper, SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_particle_be_its_own_antiparticle , and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_make_the_teaching_of_quantum_physics_easier_to_highschool_students/1

- are relevant in this case.

Cheers

Dear Edgar Paternina

By accident I stumbled on an easy article from 2019, 13 January, about the creation of particles by the basic quantum fields. I have enclosed the pdf document.

Anyway, this does not mean that I agree with all the details that are described in the article. But a lot of active RG members that are interested in physics deny the existence of basic quantum fields as an underlying “reality” that creates physical reality (reality as we know it with the help of observations and measurements).

So it is not easy to get clear answers at ResearchGate if many active members don’t like the modern developments in physics during the last 4 decades.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Grimm,

Thank you for the for the document in pdf that is quite informative regarding the concept of particle in normal physics, that really seems to me quiet complicated, which is one of the main point of the The emeritus professor Art Hobson in his article "Realist Analysis of Six Controversial Quantum Issues" in which he put the concept of quantum as the main issue in this topic.as quantum is a unit that explains that "entanglement" concept of QP, that cannot be explained by the mainstreams physics. In fact as electrical engineer, I found that Basic Systemic Unit, based on Euler's relation, with which the Schrödinger's wave equation can be deduced, just as you can see in the small paper in the attachment. The BSU, is a certain sense the same concept of Quantum, of professor Art Hobson, as the BSU, remains the same in spite of change, due to the remarkable property of Euler's relation, to remain the same in spite of change. Please not that DS is a complex Trajectory, in the Complex Plane, that remains invariant, and its square is precisely that function from which most problems of QP, are solved. and which was presented by Schrödinger as a postulate, in 1926, and that solved the duality of wave-particle, as in fact, that duality is included in that unit based on Euler's relation, and it is the symbol of yin yang that was found by investigator of Ottawa University in an experiment of the "entanglement" concept, i.e, a Unity in Duality.

My best Regards

Edgar

Dear Edgar Paternina

I have read your enclosed paper (inclusive “Is reality simple or complex?”). I have tried to understand the choice for Euler’s relation (complex numbers) but that is not easy because I am not familiar with the “tangible” relation between physical reality and complex numbers (Wikipedia uses the term: Euler's formula of complex analysis).

It is difficult to categorize physical reality because physical reality doesn’t manifest itself in a single way. For example, energy is a manifestation of the universal electric field and the mutual influences within the structure of this field are quantized (h) and have a constant linear velocity (c). At least the quantization is directly related to our existence as objects of matter. This in contrast to the experience that the universe is a continuum too (smooth geometrical transformations).

So if we examine the transformation of the local energy of 1 unit of the structure of the universal electric field we have to conclude that the smooth transformation must have a start and an end. So it has a duration – constant of time – and it has a velocity (c) because the structure must have a type of fixed metric (otherwise it cannot be a basic structure at all).

Unfortunately, the universal electric field has a corresponding field, the magnetic field. But the magnetic field doesn’t “transfer” energy, it is a vector field. Vectors are 1-dimensional mathematical objects and – more confusing – cannot exist without a rigid medium. Of course there is evidence (experiments with Newton’s cradle).

If the increase or decrease of local energy generate a quantum of energy, the corresponding vector(s) of the local magnetic field isn’t quantized at all. It is impossible to quantize vectors if the origin of the vector is a smooth geometrical transformation of the local electric field (3D topological deformation under invariant volume).

Vectors don’t transfer energy, vectors determine direction. But because all the energy in the universe is conserved, all the vectors in the universe must be conserved too (corresponding fields). Indeed, because the other known universal conservation law is the law of conservation of momentum. And momentum is energy + generated vector by the energy).

The influence of vectors are not limited by the speed of light. Thus the magnitude of a vector is determined by its origin – a local amount of energy – and the influence of the other vectors around.

However, causality is directly related to the energy transformations of the universal electric field. The influence of a vector is instantaneous but its “point of influence” is determined by the other vectors around.

The consequence is – in my opinion – that it is nearly impossible to categorize physical reality in an absolute non-disputable way. Because we humans represent the same complexity and our opinions are determined by our point of view. In practise we constantly change our point of view because it is determined by the focus. Actually, you have started a really “complex topic”! ;-)

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney

You wrote:

“I have tried to understand the choice for Euler’s relation (complex numbers) but that is not easy because I am not familiar with the “tangible” relation between physical reality and complex numbers”

Non bother about the difficulty you have with complex number, as in fact, they had a long history to be accepted, and even such a powerful mind such as that on of Gauss, had problems with its acceptance. It was an unknown person Oliver Heaviside, the one that really showed, their power in defining reality, with its works, showing that with them, differential equations, can be reduced to algebraic equations, and that solved the war, well known as the “war of currents”, between a genius as Edison, and others as Westinghouse, Tesla an others, that finally demonstrated, that the Alternating Current, i.e. that sinusoidal current we use daily in our home, the one that was the real solution for the future of electrical energy, which as a matter of fact, is based not in the electric field, but in the magnetic field. It is this magnetic field the one that “transfer” energy to our home, not the “electric” field which is a derived field, not the fundamental one. In fact in the magnetic field, there is an internal dual nature, a unity in duality, that cannot be destroyed, just as that symbol of yin yang that they found in Ottawa University, related, with another mystery that was spooky to such a powerful mind such as that one of Albert Einstein. This concept I have dealt with for almost 52 five years, with my wife Josefina, as a matter of fact. It is not an easy matter to conceive a unity in duality, and that is what can be done with Euler’s Relation, that remains the same in spite of change. With it is possible defined a unit in the complex plane, such as DS(that I use in my work) or the well known Psi symbol used by Schrödinger in his Complex Wave equation that solved the duality of wave-particle, when he presented in it 1926 as a postulate as, I think he also had problem with that symbol the defines a complex number, i.e, sqr(-1), bad called imaginary, as it is just a symbol to differentiate two different orders of reality such as Time and Space.

My best Regards and thank you very much for participating in this discussion

Edgar

Dear Edgar Paternina

The paper I enclosed in a previous comment, has a link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/13/ask-ethan-how-do-quantum-fields-create-particles/?sh=753448e4330a

The 4th image from above shows a simulation (short video) of virtual particles. What it shows, isn’t important. It is the way the simulation was calculated, that is interesting. If they followed the general concept of QFT the simulation represent a sequence of interactions between all the units of the structure of the involved basic quantum fields. Actually, we need a parallel computer with as many ALU’s (arithmetic units) as the involved units of the structure of the fields (metric). The consequence is that mathematics as we know it, isn’t well suited to calculate the interactions within and between the basic quantum fields in a straightforward way.

Parallel computing is like physical reality, because everywhere in the universe everything is changing at the same moment. The process of changing – in relation to the geometrical properties of the basic quantum fields (the metric) – is what we experience as time.

It is supposed – foundations of mathematics – that every geometrical change can be described with the help of addition and subtraction. That means that at the most fundamental level values (variable properties) are like integers. That doesn’t mean that complex numbers don’t exist. It only means that in mathematics there exists mathematical reductionism too (like reductionism in physics).

If reality is build up with the help of 3 “parts”, it is impossible to argue that 1 part is more important than the other parts. Nevertheless your point of view in relation to the magnetic field – vector field – is interesting. Although vectors need a flat Higgs field, so we only find vectors of the magnetic field in vacuum space.

The present experiments that reveal the principle of non-locality (e.g. Noble prize Physics 2022) suggest that non-locality is directly related to the influence of vectors (instantaneous influence). It is in line with your opinion that vectors are more influent than the quanta of the universal electric field that are restricted to the speed of light. I have to think about it.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney

You wrote:

"The process of changing – in relation to the geometrical properties of the basic quantum fields (the metric) – is what we experience as time."

Yes, time is associated, with that metric in the complex plane, that can be represented as:

DS = c*dt + I*DSr

where DSr= dx , supposing a movement just in x direction.

i = sqr(-1)

Whose square gives

DS² = c² *dt² - dx²

Which is exactly that one presented by Minkowski in 1905 when he wrote:

“Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve and independent reality”

So what preserve an independent reality, is that union of the two in the complex plane which allows us to define the concept of Basic Systemic Unit as

i(q)

DS = Abs(DS)* e

being q = the angle and

i(q)

e = Cos(q) + ixSen(q)

the Euler's relation

It is this concept the one that I have used to deduce not only, the Schrödinger’s wave equation, but those of Special Relativity, and that one of the Pendulum.

With complex numbers addition and subtraction, can be done, but independently in of each the one components separated by I, so in the result can be sort of “a greater sum that the sum of its parts”, i.e., a triadic unity, a unit that is not reductionist anymore, It is this unity that remains the same in spite of change, the one that is similar to the Quantum presented by professor Art Hobson in his book Tales of the Quantum, that has clarified even more, the BSU.

And thanks so much for your very helpful discussion!

My Best Regards

Edgar

Dear Cosmin Visan,

Certainly it is the religion of materialism, the great cause in a certain, of the Great Crisis of Humanity, not just the Great Crisis of Physics, in which Reductionist is the real problem, when everything is reduced to just one aspect of Reality. In fact Time is reduced to a Space dimension, in such a way that that Time is not anymore a Flow from the Past,to the Present, to the Future.

Edgar Paternina

Retired electrical engineer

[email protected]

But what is a quale? Could you please send your Paper The Quale of Time, as an attachment in pdf.

Thanks so much

Edgar Paternina