Particle or wave, object or path of object

Quantum Mechanics — a particle is a solid thing at any given single moment of time; a wave is a process that happens over time. They’re two different sorts of things. The difference between them is the difference between a point and a path. To say something is either a particle or a wave, depending on how you look at it, is like saying that I am either standing still or I’m running around the room. You’re either looking at me, or you’re looking at the path I’m following in running around the room. The first is a solid object at one moment, or multiple moments, of time, while the second is merely an abstract thing that only exists across multiple moments, as a mental construct assembled from a real solid object in motion. So the particle wave distinction in quantum mechanics is really a distinction between the time taken to measure the particle and the particle itself. Wait long enough, and it will become a wave; but if the smaller your measurement’s temporal interval is, the wave will become more particle-like, as you narrow down its location. The supposed paradox of the particle/wave duality of matter is really no paradox, as there is really no duality. To say that there is a duality here is like saying that, when I am standing still at precisely ten o’clock, I am an entirely different thing than I would be if you were to consider me running around the room between ten o’clock and five after ten. In the latter case you are considering the path of my motion, but the path is not me. Examining the path would tell you nothing about me other than the state of my motion.

An idea about time

The common view of “block time,” where everything that has happened, is happening or will happen, exists statically in a sort of three-dimensional block, is wrong. In such a model, the perception is that each moment of time is merely a slice of a greater whole, separated from one another by some sort of space, forming a block. That is, each moment of three dimensional space is but a slice of the block, each slice being an entire three dimensional universe stacked one on top of the other until a block is formed.

But this is an error. In actuality, each moment exists superimposed with all other moments, in a sort of jumble. For example, The block view would have my life strung out in a sort of temporal space, with, say, a million versions of myself strung out in a sort of line, each one separated from the others by some sort of distance. But such a view is too spacialized. This is how it really is: my nine-year-old self coexists in the same space with my current self, just as my current self exists in the same space with my ninety-year-old self. We are bound into a whole by the temporal dimension; space and time are bound inextricably together. But they are not a singular spacetime, as relativity would have us believe, and they are not bound together in the manner of the “block” view, where time is reduced to a merely spatial dimension. They are each unique and separate, yet bound into a whole in such a way that they cannot be separated, in much the same way that none of the supposed three dimensions of space can be isolated from the others. Much as my body has a volumetric extension in space, that spatial volume, at one and the same time, has a temporal component; not a component that is “stacked” as in the “block” view, but rather a component that occupies the same spatial position, but in a different temporal position—but yet not even really the same spatial position, for the space itself, seemingly the same, occupies a different temporal position. My consciousness spans the whole of my life, right now and at every moment. The consciousness I am thinking with now is the exact same consciousness that my nine-year-old and ninety-year-old self are also thinking with, “right now.” Every moment of my entire life is sort of “plugged in” to the same consciousness. Or, put another way, each moment of my life is like a different “frequency” to my consciousness, which is “global” to my whole temporal lifespan. “We” are all here, right “now,” each aspect of me being merely a different spatio-temporal side, much the way a cube has different spatial edges. That same cube also has a temporal “edge.” For example, suppose I sat and stared at a motionless cube for years. Each and every moment, though it looks the same, it is actually presenting me with a different aspect of itself. I am, as it were, seeing it from a different side, each and every moment, for I am viewing different temporal sides of it, much in the same way that, were I to walk around it, I would see different spatial sides of it. Yet in each case it is the same cube.

An idea about electrons

Just an idle thought--

Suppose the electron is constantly exploding into a cloud of debris, which then implodes, reforming the electron.

In its compressed form, it is solid—an electron. It’s pulled together by some sort of attractive force similar to the nuclear force. But thus compressed, its energy is so great that its solid form can’t be maintained. It explodes, dissolving into a cloud of debris, or gas. With its energy thus dispersed, the attractive force again dominates, and the cloud, the gas, collapses in on itself, reforming the electron, whereupon it explodes again…. This happens continuously, perhaps millions of times a second, so that, in effect, the electron is both a particle and a wave.

What we know as magnetism is actually the electron in its exploded, gaseous state. This constant cycle of explosion and implosion is electromagnetism.

This cycle also somehow propels an electromagnetic wave forward, much like a blowfish (or whatever that fish is) moves by drawing in water and expelling it. Perhaps when it implodes a small burst of energy is released that sort of knocks the newly-re-formed electron forward.

Kinetic Theory of Light?

In the double-slit experiment, the outcome—the interference pattern—is the same whether you fire photons individually or as a continuous beam. The difference is, individually, you’re spreading the process out over time. Just as in relativity, the observer in motion measures the same speed of light, but over a “longer” time.

You need to fire X number of individual photons to get a recognizable pattern, and a steady beam has to shine for X minutes to emit an identical number of photons.
X photons/time=interference pattern.

For example, for single photons, X photons/30 minutes (or whatever) = interference pattern. This is a timelike light wave—spreading the wave across time, i.e. the wave emerges over time.

Conversely, X photons/1 nanosecond (or whatever, just much less time)=interference pattern. This is a spacelike light wave—the wave exists all at once in space.

A timelike light wave has particulate properties, whereas a spacelike light wave has wave-like properties.

So light requires a certain number of photons to take on wave-like properties. The wave nature of light is thus an emergent property of the large number of photons. Just like with a gas—one atom does not a gas make. A gas is an emergent property of a large number of particles and temperature acting in concert.

Light wave = photons + time

Gas= particles + temperature

Can the kinetic theory of gases be applied to light?

Post 6

Y575BE96HYUW 

Classic illustration of relativity: On a spaceship in uniform motion, a crewmember turns on a light in the middle of the ship and sees it hit the front and rear walls of the cabin at the same time. However, a stationary observer watching the spaceship from the outside sees that the light hits the front wall and the back wall at different times, since the forward wall is receding from the light while the rear wall is racing toward it. So who’s right? Both are! Events that are simultaneous in one moving frame are not simultaneous in another.

This is a major error in relativity. When we say “the crewmember sees” the light hit both walls simultaneously, what this means is that the light has reflected off both walls and returned to his eyes. But in the thought experiment, the outside observer is only concerned with when the light hits the walls! This thought experiment, so often used to illustrate the relativity of simultaneity, concerns one event (light making a round trip journey back to crewmember’s eyes) from one perspective, and a separate event (light striking the walls) from another perspective, and compares them as if they’re the same event that is somehow out of synch. But there’s no contradiction here: if you examine the same event from either reference frame (either look at the light striking the walls, or the light returning to the crewmember’s eyes) then it has the same outcome, namely that the light hits the walls at different times. The crewmember merely believes the light hits the walls at the same time because the light that took longer going out has a shorter path back due to the crewmember’s motion, and vice versa. Sweeping conclusions about how the universe works have been drawn from the erroneous thought experiment. This is preposterous, and it’s such an obvious error, I don’t understand why everyone is making it.

What about all the supposed experimental confirmations of relativity?

Take for one the case of muons, particles that have a half-life measured in nanoseconds. When these particles are accelerated to near light speed, their lifespans are lengthened dramatically, which scientists attribute to the dilation of time. Time for the muon is “slowed down,” so its decay happens at a slower rate from our point of view.

But the muon does not automatically score a point in favor of relativity’s validity. One can come up with other equally plausible, far simpler explanations for the life-extension of accelerated muons. Mark McCutcheon, in his book, The Final Theory, proposes that the normally unstable muons, when accelerated, are held together longer by the crushing pressures of their acceleration. Basically they’re experiencing an external pressure that overcomes their internal pressure to fly apart. There’s no need to appeal to relativity for an answer.

Another proof offered is that Einstein’s calculation explains the orbit of Mercury. He came up with numerous equations before he settled on the right one, and he settled on that one because it fit the data of Mercury’s aberrant orbit. In other words, he built his final field equations around Mercury’s orbit, he fit them to it purposely. Apparently he came up with earlier equations that didn’t fit. While it looks like he predicted Mercury’s orbit, he actually tailored his equations to fit it. It’s not like he slaved away at his equations completely ignorant of Mercury’s orbit and then, lo and behold! Mercury’s aberrant orbit conveniently and magically fell out in the numbers. “Perfect, Einstein! Do you realize your equations explain Mercury’s puzzling orbit?” “Oh, really? Wow!” He slaved away at his equations, already fully aware of the decades-old puzzle of Mercury’s orbit, hammering at his numbers and twisting them around until he managed to fit them around the fact of Mercury’s aberrant orbit. He would have developed his equations with the thought in mind, “Okay, I know about the slight bit of Mercury’s precession that can’t be explained. So I need to play around with my equations, adding variables here and there and tweaking the numbers, until my equations explain Mercury.”

It’s a stretch to say that because he stumbled upon an equation that explains astronomical data, relativity must be true. You can’t deny the mathematical truth of his equation, but you can deny his claims about what it means. For example, suppose I’m a detective investigating a crime scene where gunplay was involved. I may be able to calculate the precise angles and trajectories of every bullet in the walls, but that data alone will not tell me the identity and motive of those involved in the crime. I can draw my conclusions, and another detective could draw his own that are completely at odds with mine—but neither of us will disagree about the mathematics of the gunplay. Einstein’s mathematics may thus support any number of theories at odds with his own, all of which would share and be supported by his mathematics. Relativity is a philosophical interpretation of the implications of his mathematics. Much like reading a book, where two readers may come up with two wholly different themes—but this difference does not alter the fact of the words or the book as a whole. The book can even be said to support whatever theme the reader wishes to read into it, but the only correct theme, it can be argued, is that which the author himself had in mind when writing it. Einstein, with his field equations, is not to be equated with the author of the book in my metaphor. Rather, he would be a librarian, perhaps, who has opened the book and exposed the words to other readers.

So what about the supposed confirmation of relativity by GPS satellites? They have to be corrected because the clocks on the satellites get out of synch with the clocks on the ground?

Let’s look at what GPS is. A device on the ground, to determine its position, transmits a signal to a satellite in orbit. The satellite in orbit must take into account the time to calculate the device’s position on the ground. But the signal from the device has taken time to travel to the satellite, so the satellite’s clock is obviously “out of synch” with the time reading from the device, since the encoded time stamp is from a few nanoseconds earlier. So the satellite has to compensate for this. But there’s nothing strange or unexpected here. There really is no time difference. The clock in orbit and the clock on the ground are still reading the same time. If they want to compare their times using electromagnetic signals, they obviously must compensate for the travel time of the signal. The clock on the ground says, “It’s five o’clock,” and transmits that information to the satellite. Five seconds pass on both clocks, and the satellite receives the signal and hears, “It’s five o’clock.” The satellite looks at its own clock and says, “No, it’s not, it’s five seconds after five o’clock.” Only an idiot would conclude that there is an actual time difference between the two clocks due to some strange property of nature. A reasonable person obviously concludes that there is merely a lag due to the travel time of the signal that must be taken into account.

Let’s pretend the GPS satellites were in orbit around Mars. The GPS device on Earth transmits its signal, the signal travels to Mars. And lo and behold, the clocks are now “out of synch” by a whopping ten minutes.

Of course the above has neglected to take into account the supposed influence of gravity on time. But again, there’s no mystery, or mysterious force of nature warping time. Time is not being warped. It’s merely the travel time of the signal that must be compensated for. Gravity pulls at the signal, and so affects its travel time. But just as I’ve outlined above, the clocks are not reading two different times. At each instant, when the signal is transmitted and again when the satellite compares the signal’s time stamp to its own clock, the clocks still reading the exact same time. It doesn’t matter that the signal says differently. The signal took time to travel. Big deal. There’s no mystery. It’s simple classical physics. The real mystery is why so many supposedly intelligent people conclude that there must be an actual, physical difference in time and its rate of passage between the satellite’s position and the device on the ground, that can only be explained by Einstein’s relativity.

Let’s take another illustration. Suppose my friend lives on the other side of the world from me. We’re conversing by cell phone. The distance is such that it takes four seconds for the signal from my phone to reach his, and vice versa. I look at my clock and tell him, “It’s five o’clock.”

He hears me say this and looks at his own clock. “No, it’s not. You’re mistaken. It’s four seconds after five.” Assuming we’re both nitpickers here, and such a miniscule difference matters to us.

Of course, when I hear him say this, by my clock it is now eight seconds after five. Therefore, according to relativity, I must conclude that his time actually lags four seconds behind mine. We live in different times, we have s separate experience of time. Likewise, he must conclude the same thing about my time. And we must both wonder, what a strange phenomenon, that our times, our nows, are different.

This is stupidity! Who in their right mind would think that the signal’s travel time indicates an intrinsic difference in the physical times of our two locations? What kind of obtuse nut wouldn’t merely shrug it off with the knowledge that there’s no real difference in time, it just seems that way due to the travel time of our signals?

A nut who believes in relativity, that’s who.

Post 5

So what do we have? We have a thing, light, which possesses a property, velocity, that apparently alters depending on the state of motion of the observer, so that each observer will measure the same momentary speed, but such that nothing else about the thing changes, i.e. the total distance traveled remains the same for all observers. To me, my instincts are telling me that this is somehow related, possibly identical, to the quantum mechanical phenomenon of light being either a wave or a particle depending on how you measure it. Perhaps light has an equal probability of being everywhere along its entire path at once, and when an observer measures its speed, the particle or wave sort of “coalesces” at that point along the path, and keeps pace with the observer until the measurement is complete. In other words, just as in the double slit experiment of quantum mechanics, when an observer in a speeding rocket shines his light beam, the light has no exact position or velocity along its path, until the rocket’s observer measures the beam, whereupon it takes on the velocity alongside the observer. Likewise if a stationary observer were to measure the same beam, the light would take on its appropriate velocity in relation to the stationary observer. So light has no momentary velocity until it is actually measured, whereupon each observer will measure the same velocity regardless of his state of motion.