The church of SM physics

In popularized QM material I've read, it is a single photon interfering with itself, not necessarily with other photons. So for instance an experiment where only a single photon is fired at a time into the double slit apparatus will yield, over time, a visible pattern of interference on the recording screen.

But the thing is this : it is not really a single photon, or groups of photons. It is a single photon or group of photon interacting with matter - specifically, the electrons of atoms comprising material slits or material lenses or reflectors. In other words, it is a hybrid energy phenomenon - not pure photon, not pure electron - that is moving through or along the material substrate. When it is doing so, it will travel at less than light speed because it is not true light, but an energy hybrid of some kind.

I fully expect an interference pattern from two different sources, as the experiment Stefan linked to shows. But as it is easy to see, the light from those two different sources is interacting at a material substrate.

Quote from Mark U

In popularized QM material I've read, it is a single photon interfering with itself, not necessarily with other photons. So for instance an experiment where only a single photon is fired at a time into the double slit apparatus will yield, over time, a visible pattern of interference on the recording screen.

But the thing is this : it is not really a single photon, or groups of photons. It is a single photon or group of photon interacting with matter - specifically, the electrons of atoms comprising material slits or material lenses or reflectors. In other words, it is a hybrid energy phenomenon - not pure photon, not pure electron - that is moving through or along the material substrate. When it is doing so, it will travel at less than light speed because it is not true light, but an energy hybrid of some kind.

I fully expect an interference pattern from two different sources, as the experiment Stefan linked to shows. But as it is easy to see, the light from those two different sources is interacting at a material substrate.

I agree that this is sort of obvious to us. But there are nice double slit experiments with a single laser where 100 photons / s is detected and fringes still show up when you aggregate them during a long time, (this is taken for proof that QM needs to be real. and used by the proponents). If there is a combined phenomena than the time separation between the individual photons are so large (in 1 micro second light travels 300m) that a combined phenomena could not explain the results. So due to this they conclude that the photon, that we know only goes through one slit, somehow mysteriously interacts with itself and you get the usual talking points of QM, note if you close the other slit, then you will not get this interference so it is not the physics in one slit that creates the pattern. Now if you do the similar with two lasers that is separated you may see that you get the same result e.g. that it has to be self interaction, which is impossible without a magic wand as the beams are separated. Now 100 photons / s is a bit of overkill, but a possible setup as it's been done with high intensity in other papers is to take a photo during 1ms and turn down the intensity so that it collects around 1000 photons in 1ms. this still most likely means that there cannot be a photon to photon interaction and as it is two separated beams it cannot be self interaction. The best conclusion then is that there is a wave part going out of the laser (that actually are well known, just that current physics assume that the EM waves consists of only a bunch of QM photons) that the sensors misses. My conclusion if fringes is still seen in this case are that (as Mark claims) there is a wave that is not seen by the photon counters that travels with the photons and it is due to interaction with this field that causes the interference pattern. Note how neat this also explains all double slit experiments like the one with low photon counts / s.

This is a nice site that describes a nice result: double slit 1ms quite exact frequency match

I had some fun doing this blog post. I hope to continue an a discussion about the idea in the weekend with an expert on the

double slit experiment at redit. Maybe he will shoot it down we'll see. Anyway it was great fun to put some effort writing the post and try be a writer. Enjoy,

an interesting experiment

Suppose they replace the slits with circles. What then? Maybe they should go back to electrons. What happens when they are focused? Have they really exhausted all possibilities?

Just remembered that Randell Mills explores this.

Here is his version of electrons going through double slits.

Double Slit | Brilliant Light Power

Essentially he is saying that an electron goes through just one slit, but as it approaches the slits mirror currents are created on the slit surfaces and also photons are created that then interact with the electron and change its transverse angular momentum vector.

The electron only goes through one slit but is imprinted with the wave character of photons that are created across both slits due to electron-slit interaction. An electromagnetic wave exists. Quantum mechanics reproduces the mathematics that corresponds to this physical electromagnetic wave by invoking a nonsensical waving probability. Thus, it is stuck with the unfortunate result that the “wave-particle duality is unlike anything in our common everyday experience.”

I definitely prefer that kind of thinking to the probability wave, magical type of thinking where the electron (or photon) goes through both slits.

Quote from Mark U

Just remembered that Randell Mills explores this.

Here is his version of electrons going through double slits.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/double-slit/

Essentially he is saying that an electron goes through just one slit, but as it approaches the slits mirror currents are created on the slit surfaces and also photons are created that then interact with the electron and change its transverse angular momentum vector.

The electron only goes through one slit but is imprinted with the wave character of photons that are created across both slits due to electron-slit interaction. An electromagnetic wave exists. Quantum mechanics reproduces the mathematics that corresponds to this physical electromagnetic wave by invoking a nonsensical waving probability. Thus, it is stuck with the unfortunate result that the “wave-particle duality is unlike anything in our common everyday experience.”

I definitely prefer that kind of thinking to the probability wave, magical type of thinking where the electron (or photon) goes through both slits.

Display More

Unfortunately the QM folks that are experts in these double slit experiments seam to be able to rule out this explanation from what they know about the field.

Simply, the probability amplitude wave-function is a trick to coverup an incomplete understanding of Maxwell equations and the very basic, fundamental role of electromagnetic potentials.

Quote from gio06

Simply, the probability amplitude wave-function is a trick to coverup an incomplete understanding of Maxwell equations and the very basic, fundamental role of electromagnetic potentials.

Actually think about it. We do have a very complete knowledge. Maxwell's equations are there and it explains all we see on the macroscopic level. Somehow when you enter the roam

of the atoms where atoms level they willy nilly assumes it there sometime's when it fit's them and it disappears when it does not fit them. With a sleight of a magic wand Maxwell is not there to generate waves as all waves are just "Photons". If Maxwell was there in any form you would have waves as all those wave solutions are perfectly valid in this model. Removing the waves completely and saying that it's all photons is actually very very much wishful thinking.

"Removing the waves completely and saying that it's all photons is actually very very much wishful thinking."

Actually "it's all photons" is plain wrong, I never said that .

What I mean is that it's possible to formulate an electromagnetic interpretation of Aharonov-Bohm, Proca, Klein Gordon and Dirac equations:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330619569_Electron_Structure_Ultra-Dense_Hydrogen_and_Low_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/q033

Quote from stefan

Actually think about it. We do have a very complete knowledge. Maxwell's equations are there and it explains all we see on the macroscopic level. Somehow when you enter the roam

of the atoms where atoms level they willy nilly assumes it there sometime's when it fit's them and it disappears when it does not fit them. With a sleight of a magic wand Maxwell is not there to generate waves as all waves are just "Photons". If Maxwell was there in any form you would have waves as all those wave solutions are perfectly valid in this model. Removing the waves completely and saying that it's all photons is actually very very much wishful thinking.

Quote from gio06

"Removing the waves completely and saying that it's all photons is actually very very much wishful thinking."

Actually "it's all photons" is plain wrong, I never said that .

What I mean is that it's possible to formulate an electromagnetic interpretation of Aharonov-Bohm, Proca, Klein Gordon and Dirac equations:

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/q033

Display More

Actually I was referring to common practice in handling this. Not you specifically.

Checking What’s Inside a Proton

Matt Strassler [February 17, 2012] Final draft form; comments welcome. You’ve heard the famous statement that “a proton is made from two up quarks and a down…

profmattstrassler.com

Checking What’s Inside a Proton

Matt Strassler [February 17, 2012]

Final draft form; comments welcome.

You’ve heard the famous statement that “a proton is made from two up quarks and a down quark”. But in this basic article, and this somewhat more advanced one, and in a recent post where I went into some details about what we know about proton structure, I’ve claimed to you that protons are chock full of particles, most of which carry a tiny fraction of the proton’s energy, and most of which are gluons, along with a substantial number of of quarks and antiquarks. [If this sounds unfamiliar, you should read those articles and posts before reading this one, which is a follow-up.] And I claimed that these complications make a big difference at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC].

What I want to do in this article is show you evidence that the statements made about proton structure in this post are true. After all, why should you have to take my word for such things? Let’s look at some LHC data, and see how it confirms these notions (though the current understanding of the proton itself arose three to four decades ago, through numerous past experiments which would form a story of their own.)

In the more advanced article I referenced above, I described the benefits (not all of them obvious) of running the Large Hadron Collider at an energy per collision of 8 TeV in 2012 instead of 7 TeV as in 2011. And at least one of the benefits — more Higgs particles for the same number of collisions — is a consequence of there being so many gluons in the proton. I showed you evidence [reproduced here in Figure 1] that most particles in the proton carry a tiny fraction of its energy. The plot in Figure 1 is made by looking at collisions in which something like what is shown in Figure 2 occurs: a quark or antiquark or gluon from one proton hits a quark or antiquark or gluon from another proton, scatters off of it (or might do something more complicated — for example, two gluons might collide and be converted into a quark and an antiquark), with the result that two particles (again, quarks, antiquarks or gluons) come flying out from the collision point. These two particles turn into jets (sprays of hadrons) for reasons you can learn by clicking this link. And the energies and directions of these jets are observed in whichever of the big particle detectors surrounds the collision point. That information is then used to infer how much energy the collision of the original two quarks/gluons/antiquarks must have had. (Precisely speaking, the invariant mass of the two jets, times c-squared, gives the energy of the collision of the initial quarks/antiquarks/gluons.)

And much more at the link....

Excellent. We have a number of contributors on here who will be able to show Matt where he has gone wrong.

Agree with what you said however you don't took in account complementary hypothesis ..

This main question remaining:

In your understanding all things should be as 4D entities, so could entities with a different number of dimensions coexist in the same space, repository ?

For example, an electron could be a 3 or 4D entity when its staying inside an atom and losing or gain a dimension when it leaves that atom ?

This explaining its particle/wave duality.

Quote from Wyttenbach

On nuclear level the some Maxwell equation obviously can not hold. Also the Coulomb law breaks down what we know since 50 years. What holds is the Biot-Savart operator or the Lorenz force and Faraday law.

Standard model is full of garbage. E.g. the 4 potential is OK for macroscopic modelling but there is no known particle source in physics for a 4 potential...All particles generate 3 different fields ...

preprint: Proton model with Aharonov-Bohm electrodynamics

Abstract:

"Otto Stern's 1933 measurement of the unexpectedly large proton magnetic moment indicated to most physicists that the proton is not a point particle. At that time, many physicists modeled elementary particles as point particles, and therefore Stern's discovery initiated the speculation that the proton might be a composite particle. In this work, we show that despite being an elementary particle, the proton is an extended particle. Our work is motivated by the experimental data, which we review in section 1. By applying Occam's Razor principle, we identify a simple proton structure that explains the origin of its principal parameters. Our model uses only relativistic and electromagnetic concepts, highlighting the primary role of the electromagnetic potentials and of the magnetic flux quantum Φ = h /e. Unlike prior proton models, our methodology does not violate Maxwell's equation, Noether's theorem, or the Pauli exclusion principle. Considering that the proton has an anapole (toroidal) magnetic moment, we propose that the proton is a spherical shaped charge that moves at the speed of light along a path that encloses a toroidal volume. A magnetic flux quantum Φ = h /e stabilizes the proton's charge trajectory. The two curvatures of the toroidal and poloidal current loops are determined by the magnetic forces associated with Φ. We compare our calculations against experimental data."

From Dirac Nobel Lecture

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/dirac-lecture.pdf

"It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light. This is a prediction which cannot be directly verified by experiment, since the frequency of the oscillatory motion is so high and its amplitude is so small. But one must believe in this consequence of the theory, since other consequences of the theory which are inseparably bound up with this one, such as the law of scattering of light by an electron, are confirmed by experiments"