Here’s something else I wrote years ago….
Please note that I don’t actually know anything
about physics or quantum physics or anything else
for that matter. At the time I was a security guard
who had just read a book about quantum physics. This
is my own theory and probably has no scientific basis.
If you remember from science class, light has properties
of both a wave and a particle. Physicists still haven’t
figured out why. This is my guess.
95f the terms used below are more than likely being used improperly.
—————-
Goal: A proposed alternative to the wave-partical
duality theory.
Background:
The world around us is made up of systems. On a
cosmic scale we have the tetonic system, atmosphere,
moons, and the solar system. Biologically we have
atoms that make up cells, organs and organisms.
Atomically we have protons, nuclei and atoms. There
is no reason not to assume that these systems extend
in both smaller and larger scales. The establishment
of any particular system of scale (ie organisms) is
due to the interconnectedness and interdependance of
the next smallest system. (ie organs)
Problems often arise when trying to describe patterns
in one scale with terminology and understanding of
another scale. While this can often help in the long
run, the problems arise when one is forced to use a
familiar word for an unfamiliar concept. The wave
versus particle debate of light is an example.
Current physicists consider photons to be both a wave
and a particle. Physicists continue to insist that
common sense is wrong.
Rather than photons exhibiting wave characteristics
AND particle characteristics. I propose that the term
photon is more or less describing the interaction of
sub-photons (quarks) as they behave while travelling
between two points. While measuring wave properties
of photons, what experimenters are really observing
are the paths of multiple quarks, like jet streams in
the sky. The average trajectory of these quarks is
described as the frequency of the wave. Quarks are
not observable because they are travelling faster than
the speed of light (the amplitude of the perceived
wave).
The experiment with two holes:
This experiment has been considered as proof of the
wave-particle duality. When photons travel through
the experiment, depending on setup, the result on the
screen can give an interference pattern (indicating light is a wave) or not (indicating light is a particle),
depending on whether or not detectors were set up on
the second set of holes. Taking each in turn.
No detectors (interference pattern)
The photon disperses itself into quarks all following
a general forward trajectory. Many quarks are
travelling faster than light, in every possible route
towards the screen. Passing through the first hole, a
pattern emerges from the averaged paths of the quarks,
resembling a wave. At this point, the photon does not
exist, as such. Instead there are many quarks in
every possible space, and there is potential for the
photon to re-exist anywhere as well. However, as the
photon is travelling from the source to the screen,
the `sum-over-histories’ of the quarks is such that
they are on their way to the screen. Passing through
the second set of holes, quarks have a 50 hance of
going through each hole. When those 50 ass through
each hole, those 50 egin the process of
`sum-over-histories’ all over again based on their
current position. At this point the two sets of quark
`sums-over-histories’ interfere with each other. The
interference pattern on the screen is created based on
the averaged interference of the quarks. When the
quarks approach the screen, somehow they `decide’ to
turn back into a photon thereby registering itself on
the screen. My guess is that the first quark to hit
the screen (and thus become observable) causes the
probability wave to collapse and all quark
simultaneously combine into the single photon.
Detectors in second set. (No interference)
Quarks behave as above until one reaches either one of
the second gates (50 hance of either). When it
reaches the detector, the probability wave collapses
and the photon re-exists at that point, registering on
the detector. The photon then changes back into
quarks and continues from there. Interference does
not occur because the quarks are coming from a single
source — the previous known location of the photon.
One detector. (No interference)
Option 1:
There is a 50 hance that quarks will hit the screen
or the detectored hole first. Whichever situation
arises, the probability wave collapses and the photon
either hits the screen on the undetected side of the
experiment OR the probability wave collapses at the
detectored hole and the only option for the photon is
to hit the screen on that side of the experiment.
Option 2:
When quarks hit the detected hole, there is a 50[r>chance of registering as a photon based on the
location of the other quarks. If they are
concentrated near that hole they merge as a photon, if
not, that quark immediately `decides’ it is not a
photon and travels to the other side of the experiment
where there is a greater concentration of quarks.
The perceived photon:
Photons are how quarks are percieved at a certain
place and time and not an individual particle. In a
sense, photons are a quanta of quarks.
c:
Einsteins speed of light is the average forward motion
of a quanta of quarks along a general vector. It is
perhaps due to resistance in the medium of the
universe (a neo-ether) or a constant describing the
threshold between the real (or physical) and another
phase of existance (where quanta exist)
The speed of light:
Would be more accurately described as the speed of
individual photon-quarks.
Problems:
If `sum-over-histories’ is true, do all possibilities
exist at the same time. i.e. The shortest distance
travelled (ie the averaged trajectory) would be the
first to be perceived, and all others would occur
later (albeit not much) So would some photons (or
quarks) travel faster than others? (Possible solution
to option 1 of one detector example)
Experiments: Detectors in places other than the holes.
What happens if photon is detected elsewhere (on the
side of the wall — where would it end up on the
screen?)