0.9k
1.1k
788
404
1kIs our universe made up of particles or fields?
On the one hand quantum physics tells that the universe is made up of discrete units of energy/mass while relativistic physics tells us it is composed of a continuous field of space-time
Unfortunately these two ideas do not work well together because a continuous field by definition cannot be made up of discrete parts as is suggested by quantum mechanics.
Some have tried to merge them by defining what is has come to be called a relativistic quantum field theory. It assumes that particles can be understood as the quanta of some quantum field which in essence elevates fields to the most fundamental objects in nature and that each type of field generates its own particular type of particle.
However, you cannot have it both ways because by definition a field is continuous and saying they can be understood in terms of some quantum field does not mean that you have connected them to the continuous properties of a relativistic space-time field or any field for that matter. All it does is elevate its size to that of the entire universe because by definition a field is continuous throughout its entire domain. Therefore if the fundamental component of the universe is a quantum field as quantum field theory suggests then it could only contain one quantum entity because if it contained more the continuity of the field would be broken. In words saying one can understand the continuous properties of a field in terms of a quantum field is like saying that one can understand why a circle is round is because it is a circle.
Another reason why it is so difficult to conceptually to integrate Quantum theory with the field properties of Einstein’s theories is because it defines space in terms of a field consisting of time or a space-time dimension while Quantum theory defines itself in terms of its spatial properties of energy/mass.
For example Schrödinger’s wave equation only defines the probability of a particle will be located in a given volume of space without giving a reference to time while Einstein defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of a dynamic balance between mass and energy defined by the equation E=mc^2.
Yet one can overcome the difficultly by redefining the field properties of space-time Einstein associated with energy/mass to its spatial properties Quantum field theory associates with it.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when used the equation E=mc^2 and the velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of displacement he associated with energy in a four dimensional space-time universe to an equivalent spatial displacement it would create in four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words because he defined the geometric relationship between energy and mass in terms of the constant velocity of light means that one can quantitatively and qualitatively define a one to one between the properties of energy in a space-time universe to the physical properties of space four *spatial* dimensions.
One of the theoretical advantages to assuming that the universe is made up of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time is that it allows one to derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of the field properties of four *spatial* dimensions instead of defining the field properties of space in terms of its quantum mechanical properties as is done in quantum field theory.
The field properties of four *spatial* dimension was developed in the article “Electromagnetism in four *spatial* dimensions†Sept 27, 2007 where it was shown the forces associated with an electromagnetic field can be explained and predicted in terms of matter wave on a continuous field consisting of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly it showed that one can derive its properties by extrapolating the laws of Classical Wave Mechanics to a field consisting of fourth *spatial* dimensions.
A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.
Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.
Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us the force developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.
This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.
Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.
One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.
However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it. This force is called magnetism.
This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.
This shows how one can explain and predict the electrical and magnetic field properties of an electromagnetic wave by extrapolate the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However, as was shown in the article “The Photon: a matter wave?†Oct. 1, 2007 the quantum field properties of four *spatial* dimensions can be explained and predicted by extrapolating the resonant properties of field in a three-dimensional environment to one consisting of four *spatial* dimension.
There are four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment an object or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the continuous surface or field of three-dimensional space manifold (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
Therefore, these oscillations in four *spatial* dimensions, would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in space.
Observations of a three-dimensional environment show the energy associated with resonant system can only take on the incremental or discreet values associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.
Similarly the energy associated with resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions could only take on the incremental or discreet values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.
These resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the incremental or discreet field energies associated with relativistic quantum field theories.
This shows that it is possible to logically and consistently explain and predict the quantum mechanical field properties energy/mass in a microscopic environment by assuming that space is composed of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time.
However it also shows it is more logical and consistent with observations to assume that our universe is fundamentally composed of fields not quanta of energy/mass as is assumed by quantum field theory
It should be remember Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to define the energy of all systems in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined it and the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories making them applicable to both the field as well as the quantum properties of our universe thereby giving us a new perspective on its causality.
Latter Jeff
Copyright 2013 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
0.9k1.1k7884041k
Pete
Exactly !!!
As we have pointed out in the above article one can derive the connecting media responsible for particle separation in both quantum physics and General Relativity in terms of the geometry of space-time if one transposes it to four *spatial* dimensions.
The Laws of Physics point to the Universe to be a single media or constituent at some basic level, where if it were possible to account for all “Mass and the Energy Equivalent” or all “Energy and its Mass Equivalent” the value would equate to 100 percent of the Universe, which BTW is easy as the Universe is a closed system. closed because all of it is something opposed to nothing, thus we can refer to 100% of the Universe.
Physical Laws are basically logical truth statements, and truth statements are simply non contradictory references or inferences, where comparisons or Values must exchange with each other as per a closed system is defined, thus the check-sum or total value to said closewd system can be utilised to investigate which values, comparisons or dimensions have exchanged, thus why the laws of physics are so indisputable.
Obviously the reference or total value I refer too – would be the check-sum “single dimensional expresion” to a single equation that would point out that the universe is a field consisting of a basic and common constituent, thus each and every “THEORETICAL” Particle obviously would have to be based on some 3 dimensional wave form within said field consisting of a common constituent or said “Check-Sum”, only problem is that currently “theoretical particles” ignore aspects of the field that seperates one “3 dimensional wave” or “Particle” to another “3 dimensional wave” or “Particle” which is why “General Relativity” and “Quantum Theory” are still at odds with each other.
I am quite confident once the seperating media or said particles separation is properly accounted for “Quantum Theory” and “General Relativity” will actually in the future compliment each other, just as “Mass & Energy” or “Force and Motion” compliment each other..