PG23_Physics_and_Theory_Journal

April 26 2005

More on the flat rotation curavture "problem" of some galaxies.

First a refresher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_Laws_of_Planetary_Motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics

Dont read to much into MOND for now. I have a very simple solution, its so simple and obvious in fact it begs the question of whether people already know this. Know that not all galaxies share this "problem", however a majority of mature spiral galaxies appear to have a flat rotation curve.

First of all, since how we measure the velocities of stars depends entirely on spectrum analysis it would be nice to assume that we are indeed measuring the true physical velocity of stars. This may or may not be the case, as many sources of interference are possible that would lead to a false representation of velocity. I could go into further detail, but it is not important for what I need to say.

In the case that the spectrum analysis represents the true velocites in relation to each other, I have some new insite.

In order to maintain a flat rotation curve accross the galaxy, the stars near the outter edge will have to have a greater velocity than those near the middle. With no modification to Newtonian mechanics, nor invocation of dark matter, I can explain why this may be.

It breaks down like this, we introduce a Total Mass TM variable to the equation that represents the force of gravity assumed to a star via not only the central massive blackhole but the stars inbetween as well so that adding them we get a force of G equal to a Total Mass. Now the only reason such a TM concept is not very applicable with regards to our own Solar System, is because for the most time, the planets are not lined up. However, in a galaxy things are much different with respect to where the force of gravity comes from and what value it assumes to each star dependent on that stars location and what is around it as a function of eccentric orbit around the galatic buldge. We realize that in fact many many stars can and often are lined up along the galatic radius that makes up the galaxy circumference in which the stars maintain thier orbit. I will explain briefly what this means.

If a star S located near the middle feels a force of G equal to x where x equals the mass_volume_diameter (or more simply the Schwarzschild Mass) of the galatic center plus any stars in front of it (roughly speaking), a star T directly behind it along the galatic radius will feel a force of G equal to y where y equals x + the mass of star S divided by difference in distance of S and T (inverse square law derives force of G that S assumes to T) = TM. In general, y > x therefore acceleration is greater. However thats not the whole picture, we now discuss what difference the differences in distances makes. Lets not forget that at the Distance of star T the force of G that only the blackhole assumes to T is less than it assumes to S so that the statement y > x needs to be understood accordingly. In most instances the differences in Distance between a star S and T, y will still be greater than x. Only when the Distance between S and T is great enough can y closely equal x. When y equals x the force of gravity or TM is equal, so a star T because it is at a greater Distance and maintains a larger orbit its period will be greater than star S. So for example, if stars in a galaxy were still lined up yet much more spread out where y is not greater than x in most cases, we would observe a rotation curvature that falls off.

If we are to apply what we just said to the dynamics of our own Solar System, we realize that for example when Jupiter and Neptune line up, Neptune at that time feels a force of G or TM greater than when they are not lined up, this in effect gives Neptune a slight boost in acceleration; The result, an acceleration greater than Jupiter.

If we were to graph the force of G or TM assumed to stars in these "problem" galaxies we will find that TM or gravity actually increases with distance from the center - mind you this is not saying the gravitational constant changes, where that deals with 2 bodies, here we are dealing with more than 2. Any time that we can say G increases we know that acceleration or velocity increases.

If Kepler's or Newton's laws are accurate we require an addition to them in galatic instances non-the-less. So it is not that Newton's laws are incorrect or unable to solve the equation we just need to add to them. This is outside the scope of and exactly opposite of what MOND suggests; that acceleration and gravity decrease with distance. So where in MOND a direct modification of Newton's laws is presented, I'm saying that no direct modification is necessary. I would not dare to guess what the equation would look like, that is beyond my interests at this point. I do know this much, Distances between individual stars including thier individual masses would be required to prove what I'm saying. That is almost infeasable considering how many stars were talking about and constraints on and limitations of observations, so you can either take my word for it or forget it; I have solved the rotation curveature problem in my mind. There my be other simpler ways to prove it, such for example showing that when Jupiter and Neptune line up and where y > x, Neptune's acceleration increases.

On second thought it should be more simple, take a star S that feels a force of G equal to g1, take another star T directly behind BUT besides it that feels a force of g2. Moving T behind S, the force of G that T feels is now, (g1/D1) + g2 where D1 is the distance between S and T. Understand that g2 is the force of G that T feels independently of the presence of S, or in other words the force of the blackhole and any stars in front of it aside from S.

Of course all that said there is still a questionable variable we left out, and that has to do with stars that are not only in front of stars but ones that are behind it as well. Such hindsite forces of G is where people derive the concept of dark matter halos coincidently. I ignore the force of hindsite G as a means to explain increase in acceleration, as I've said before I do not understand the mechanics behind that concept and fortunatly I don't need to - unless that hindsite force has a rotation period less than an object in front of it. In general, the force maintaining the circular motion of an object thus acceleration is the centripetal acceleration, not a force which derives from hindsite.

My search now turns into a model or mathmatical description that explains gravitation in terms of more than 2 bodies. So I immediately type in 3 body gravitation into google. What I come up with is exactly that, "3-body problem" as described by Newton himself. More generally "n-body problem"

So my next topic will have to be to discuss the dynamics of n-body problem or Three-body problem graviatation as no doubt there already exsists a mathmatical solution to the above.

May 14 2005

How is an electron completly "isolated" from an atom? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization. What functions change as a result? Does the electron maintain its role in photon absorption and emission once free of the atomic coulomb force that binds it to the nucleus? An electron in motion exibits a magnetic moment, in turn it radiates energy to create a magnetic field given other electrons nearby. A question is, does this magnetic field really radiate energy eg. require photon emission to maintain it, or is the field itself just the electrons themselves. Since we previously covered this, that the E and B fields are mediated by photons the answer is yes (yes to both). So an electron in motion constantly? radiates energy.
A side question is what are the conditions of photon emission, is it a time interval period emission, not random, or according to what exactly?

Sticking with what we know, we will answer that most likely an isolated electron in motion emits photons, but does it absorb photons? Is this act of emisson what we want to call decay? By the electron emiting photon energy it loses that much mass energy. If it does not absorb anything thereafter what happens?

Since it is outside the atom now, we no longer relate level state change, because it has no level to jump to relative to an atomic nucleus.

In any case, the idea that an electron will emit radiation in motion suggests that we should be able to tell what behavior it exibits in diffraction experiments, because we no longer have to have an area of detection in where we bounce photons off of it. We modify our method of detection to simply "passively observe" instead of "direct observation" where in direct observation I mean bouncing photons off of it which induces a state collapse (which is what we want to avoid) and subsequent interference disappearence. This assuming for the moment that electrons are similar to photons and can "collapse", according to what I have read that is the case, interference disappears.

The problem lies in discerning radiation from the electron from normal environment radiation. This technique could apply to other particles if not the electron, say ones that rapidly decay, to tell which slit it passes through. The real point is that we should be able to plot the path taken over time eg. its trajectory - which is seemingly random (that aside from polarization), but why?. By now your saying, "you dont think they have thought of that?" Well I dont know, it seems like a clear solution to me if technology is up to it. Every method of quantum detection I've read involves "direct observation", we need to go from that to passive observation by any means possible if we ever hope to solve these quantum mysteries.

If we want to just know what slit it passes through all we have to do is place two separate detectors directly behind each slit. The reason an electron chooses 1 path or the other is due to, among other things, it's intrinsic 1/2 spin magnetic moment and angular momentum upon interaction with the obstruction. There is no big mystery there...the mystery lies in large deviations in final impact coordinantes (random path) that occurs despite which slit it went through. I have explained my theory on this previously no need for me to repeat it, just a reminder.

More on Ionization

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/bond.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/lewis.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod4.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/radrisk.html#c2

Covalent bonds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch8/valenceframe.html
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/covalent.html

Do covalent bonds violate the pauli exclusion principle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

"The Pauli exclusion principle, commonly referred to simply as the exclusion principle, is a quantum mechanical principle formulated by Wolfgang Pauli in 1925, which states that no two identical fermions may occupy the same quantum state."

"...consider a neutral helium atom, which has two bound electrons. Both of these electrons can occupy the lowest-energy (1s) states by acquiring opposite spin. This does not violate the Pauli principle because spin is part of the quantum state of the electron, so the two electrons are occupying different quantum states. However, the spin can take only two different values (or eigenvalues.) In a lithium atom, which contains three bound electrons, the third electron cannot fit into a 1s state, and has to occupy one of the higher-energy 2s states instead. Similarly, successive elements produce successively higher-energy shells. The chemical properties of an element largely depend on the number of electrons in the outermost shell, which gives rise to the periodic table of the elements."

So apparently no. We can apply the same logic given of different spin to covalent bonding. If I were to further interpret it, no two electrons may be in the same place at the same time with the same spin state or, there cannot be a local superposition of identical fermions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

Although bosons like the photon have spin, they can share the same quantum state. The photon besides having no mass, has no charge or magnetic moment and does not have an orbital spin because it does not orbit anything, only can it have an intrinsic quantum spin. (However it may be argued that is has an half orbital spin in relation to transition from peak wavelength to trough) Orientation of spin of the photon is closely related to polarization.

Electron spin, magnetic moment, Stern-gerlach experiment, Larmor Precession and the Zeeman effect

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magmom.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/magpr.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/orbmag.html#c2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/zeeman.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydazi.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/larmor.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/esr.html#c1
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/app5.html
http://www.britannica.com/nobel/cap/omechan063a4.html
http://www.if.ufrgs.br/~betz/quantum/SGtext.htm?CFID=4630585&CFTOKEN=64960186#Run
http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys301/LectureNotes/Spin.pdf

Ferromagnetism, Magnetic Domains and Hysteresis

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/ferro.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/hyst.html

The Lamb Shift experiment

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lamb.html#c1

proves that electrons continually Exchange photons (we want to know if it continually emits photons regardless)

To be discussed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

Bohmian mechanics

May 15 2005

I just recently discovered Bohmian mechanics and coincidently it describes a deterministic approach to quantum mechanics particle behavior, which is what I was hoping for and theorizing about in a previous excerpt on the 2-slit diffraction random path problem. The theory describes pilot waves whereby the wave goes through both slits and a particle that follows the pilot wave but goes through one slit, in the process it appears that the particle because it follows the wave path, exibits interference. This is a slightly different twist on the concept in which I oringinally stated, however we may be getting into semantics; I have said that its "a particle that travels in a wavelike motion." I'm still investigating Bohmian mechanics myself but it looks very agreeable, a significant step in the right direction and a far cry from orthodox quantum theory. I immediatly want to know the origin of the pilot wave, what form it assumes and rules it obeys as it implies a "more than one part" to the electron which is what I also concluded previously.

The following is a very technical and quite possibly very confusing description of Bohmian mechanics

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

"3. History
The pilot-wave approach to quantum theory was initiated, even before the discovery of quantum mechanics itself, by Einstein, who hoped that interference phenomena involving particle-like photons could be explained if the motion of the photons were somehow guided by the electromagnetic field -- which would thus play the role of what he called a Führungsfeld or guiding field (Wigner 1976, p. 262). While the notion of the electromagnetic field as guiding field turned out to be rather problematical, the possibility that for a system of electrons the wave function might play this role, of guiding field or pilot wave, was explored by Max Born in his early paper founding quantum scattering theory (Born 1926) -- a suggestion to which Heisenberg was profoundly unsympathetic.
Not long after Schrödinger's discovery, in 1926, of wave mechanics, i.e., of Schrödinger's equation, Louis de Broglie in effect discovered Bohmian mechanics: In 1927, de Broglie found an equation of particle motion equivalent to the guiding equation for a scalar wave function (de Broglie 1928, p. 119), and he explained at the 1927 Solvay Congress how this motion could account for quantum interference phenomena. However, de Broglie responded poorly to an objection of Wolfgang Pauli (Pauli 1928) concerning inelastic scattering, no doubt making a rather bad impression on the illustrious audience gathered for the occasion.

Born and de Broglie very quickly abandoned the pilot-wave approach and became enthusiastic supporters of the rapidly developing consensus in favor of the Copenhagen interpretation. Bohmian mechanics was rediscovered in 1952 by David Bohm (Bohm 1952), the first person genuinely to understand its significance and implications. Its principal proponent during the sixties, seventies and eighties was John Bell."

And another reference site

http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/gallery/

"David Bohm (1917-1992)
Bohm was the first to really appreciate that BM actually works. It explains the quantum measurement and solves the measurement problem. Bohm, in one of his 1952 papers, explained in detail how. More than this, it does away with anything mysterious or inexplicable about quantum mechanics."

"John Clarke Slater (1900-1976) ( biography)
In 1923, Slater worked on an idea anticipating Bohmian mechanics: that the photon is an actual particle with an actual trajectory, guided by the Maxwell field. He wrote down a guiding equation for the photon, an analogue of Bohm's equation of motion, and argued that this model would provide a very simple and elegant solution of the puzzles of emission and absorption of light."

"This simple mechanism achieves what has so very often been claimed impossible: to explain the diffraction pattern in terms of trajectories."

And another

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9504/9504010.pdf

"When all is said and done, Bohmian mechanics emerges as a precise and coherent "quantum theory" providing a microscopic foundation for the quantum formalism.

May 24 2005

Oscillators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_oscillator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/oscillator.htm
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/quartz-watch.htm

"...Quartz crystals have been in regular use for many years to give an accurate frequency for all radio transmitters, radio receivers and computers. Their accuracy comes from an amazing set of coincidences: Quartz -- which is silicon dioxide like most sand -- is unaffected by most solvents and remains crystalline to hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit. The property that makes it an electronic miracle is the fact that, when compressed or bent, it generates a charge or voltage on its surface. This is a fairly common phenomenon called the Piezoelectric effect. In the same way, if a voltage is applied, quartz will bend or change its shape very slightly...."

"Quartz clocks employ a tuning fork made from quartz that uses a combination of both direct and converse piezoelectricity to generate a regularly timed series of electrical pulses that is used to mark time. The quartz crystal (like any elastic material) has a precisely defined natural frequency (caused by its shape and size) at which it prefers to oscillate, and this is used to stabilize the frequency of a periodic voltage applied to the crystal."

Piezoelectric effect

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/piezo.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric

Oscillation, Resonance, Natural Frequencies and Simple Harmonic Motion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillation
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/rescon.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/reson.html#resdef
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/shm2.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/shm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion

"In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to absorb more oscillatory energy when the frequency of the oscillations matches the system's natural frequency of vibration (its resonant frequency) than it does at other frequencies."

How atomic clocks work

http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock.htm
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clocks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_transition

I recently read an article in the print edition of New Scientist talking about a new kind of atomic clock. I will get to that in a minute but let me just point out something I found very surprising. The outer electrons of a caesium-133 atom resonate between two energy states exactly 9,192,631,770 times each second, emitting microwaves of exactly that frequency as they do so. This property has been used since 1967 to define what we mean by 1 second - it is officially the time it takes for a caesium atom to resonate 9,192,631,770 times. What that is saying in effect according to bohr's model is that more than 9 billion photons are absorbed and emmited in the process over 1 hertz! Even more hard to believe is ytterbium, mercury and strontium, which resonates 429,228,004,229,952 times each second.

"Now Hidetoshi Katori and his colleagues at the University of Tokyo have come up with an elegant solution that combines the advantages of both systems (Nature, vol 435, p 321). Katori uses six laser beams to create a pattern of standing electromagnetic waves. This creates a series of energy wells, each of which supports one strontium atom, in much the same way as each dimple in an egg box holds an egg (see Diagram). This prevents the electromagnetic fields of individual atoms interfering with those of their neighbours, and allows the oscillating signals of many atoms to be measured at once.

Previous attempts to make clocks this way failed because the trapping lasers themselves interfered with the atoms' oscillation frequency. Katori's group has got round this by tuning the frequencies of the lasers so they alter the upper and lower transition energy levels of strontium by exactly the same amount, so the oscillation frequency remains unaltered. Katori claims that this "optical lattice clock" will keep time with an accuracy of 1 part in 1018."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7397

Principal Microwave Resonance

Standing Waves

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/microwaves/standing_wave1.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/standw.html

Fourier Analysis, Synthesis and Fast Fourier Transforms

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/Fourier.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/fft.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis

MRI
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mri.html
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/mri.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging

May 25 2005

Why the model of the photon is clearly wrong

The typical description of a photon involves an E field and a B field, indicating two separate parts corisponding to two different physical phenonmenons. As has been said, the photon itself has no mass no charge so it cannot be directly associated with the E or B forces. It is absolutley the electrons that are the E and B field, and only the photon is a passive information carrier between electrons. In the instance that photons are incident on an electron or in special cases and atomic nucleus, they will be absorbed and tranfer thier energy, this energy however is not in the form of either electric or magnetic charge. Although the photon is not directly associated with the E or B force, it can according to intricate spin and angular momentum be directly responsible for a change in electron spin and momentum such that effectively the properties of the photon when incident on the electron translate into the observed shift in the electron position and momentum as well as energy that when in the context of many photons incident on many electrons is the E or B field system.

To explain how a particle with no mass nor charge can be absorbed and affect the physical properties of an electron requires some biased thought to "make the theory work" and faith that this is in fact the case. Yet when all is said and done, what other options do we have? A photon has no mass but it has energy, E=MC2 states that energy can be converted into mass yet it is not equivelent to mass and vice versa. So essentially we want to answer very specifically in a way that has a physical relateable meaning, what is energy then if energy is not mass at some almost indivisible point? Something that has no mass has no meaning to most people, either it has mass and exsists or it has no mass and does not exsist. So in that sense if I cannot answer what having no mass means but still exsisting then I cannot answer what is energy. Having geometry alone means nothing if you have no mass, gravity means nothing if you have no mass, transfer of force in every context of the word, should not be possible if you have no mass so says logic and common sense. Simply put, energy cannot logically be a force nor excert a force nor translate indirectly into a force by means of interaction with other massive particles, because interaction logically requires a mass of greater than absolute zero for both interacting systems.

Now if we were to say the photon has no significant or detectable, measurable mass by us, that is entirely different because it has at least mass greater than zero which by my logic is the requirement for interaction and exsistence for that matter. Additionally if we say the photon has a charge associated with it then we also meet the requirement for interaction.
Electrically charged particles in motion is the logical way to explain the E and B field, so it makes little sense to say the photon has no charge yet is still directly the source of the E and B fields.

Consider the following quoted text from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

"Electric fields are composed of photons and contain electrical energy with energy density proportional to the square of the field intensity. In the static case, an electric field is composed of virtual photons being exchanged by the charged particle(s) creating the field. In the dynamic case the electric field is accompanied by a magnetic field, by a flow of energy, and by real photons."

"In physics, a magnetic field is an entity produced by moving electric charges (electric currents) that exerts a force on other moving charges. (The quantum-mechanical spin of a particle produces magnetic fields and is acted on by them as though it were a current; this accounts for the fields produced by "permanent" ferromagnets.)"

Now you tell me what is going on. 1) Either the photon has a charge or 2) it is not the photon that is the E or B field, it's free electrons as I describe above. Let me emphasize this text "In the static case, an electric field is composed of virtual photons being exchanged by the charged particle(s) creating the field." What does "charged particles" refer to? Electrons.

And I still havent figured out why particles travel in a wavelike motion, much less why a massless particle the photon does such.

Which leads me to my newer theory of EMR. A particle wave may be best described using no less than two parts ideally along the same plane yet spacially independent as in for example 1 part being located at, and actually defining, the trough of a wave while the other part being the peak of the wave. A force, similar to the strong force, (a force which gets stronger the greater the distance between the 2) is the reason why momentum slows down and shifts back to the hypocenter of the wave form whereby the 2 parts switch relative positions - like a double pendulum. Exactly like a pendulum, gravity gets stronger the greater the distance of travel, however in the case of quantum physics gravity cannot be used as a likely force. Additionally what gravity explains as top down force cannot be used when the orinatation of the particle wave is allowed and likely to be any angle relative to any point in space. Furthermore the idea that we are dealing with two separate parts of any orientation requires a direct force between them to explain the wave parity because gravity as a linear vector force in a specific frame of reference will not work, as well as the fact that the force of gravity felt is related closely to the momentum of a mass relative to the vector plane of gravity.

I have not stated that we need 2 electrons to describe a wave. We only need 1 electron, but we need a 2nd part to complete the wave (or alternatively explain how a single particle can travel in a wave motion), consider the other part the "anti-electron" or Positron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

The positron has an equal mass of the electron so it works well to maintain symmetry of the waveform. Note that in the case they collide they annihilate each other so we have a problem. The positron also has an opposite charge so they attract for whats its worth... Be sure to note that the trough(electron) and peak(positron) are spacially separate along the x axis as well as the y axis, so collision in both cases is unlikely in normal forward propagation, yet cases of reflection and resonance collisions is something to consider. If they avoid collision/annihilation, then it could work to describe the wave. This alternating dual system I have used before to describe light waves.

Alternatively We could use two electrons to describe a wave. Since the force that bonds the two is a strong force like one, the electrons because they are similarly charged repel each other at the hypocenter which acclerates them outward and the strong like force brings them back to hypocenter where they rapidly repel each other again. The repulsion force between the electrons is so great that thier momentum is likewise, the force that binds the two is equally strong so the electrons recoil back to hypocenter with extreme velocity. On thier path back to hypocenter they begin to feel the repulsive force of the other electron slowing it down which helps to explain why the wave amplitude does not increase over time it remains constant.

Macro objects do not exibit wavelike motion, quantum particles do. My goal is to explain how this works, and as I have explained we can best describe a wave with no less than 2 particles.

Continuing with the topic, we know why in the 2 slit experiment with classical particles when you reduce the width of the slit the pattern particle distribution also reduces because classical macro particles travel in a straight path. By constrast quantum particles that travel in a wave motion exhibit the opposite behavior, the distribution pattern gets larger when the width of the slit is reduced or <= the wavelength of the particle. Some might try and convince you this effect is the HUP staring you in the face, however that may be I will say it has nothing to with it for the sole purpose of understanding the mechanics of it. Consider the idea that there is a "recoil" effect that takes place as a result of the quantum particle wave going through a slit less than its wavelength. When the width of the slit is greater than the wavelength it is as if the wave motion of the particle has no influence on the distribution, as in the case of classical particles it may as well be traveling in a straight path because it simply does not interact with the obstruction, its passes through freely. The recoil effect comes about due to the particle wave forcing itself through the slit, and in the process it has to rapidly modify its position thus momentum. The more it has to change its position to get through the slit, the more momentum increases to accomplish this, therefore the greater the subsequent recoil and therefore greater the distribution pattern. In all honesty I dont think "recoil" is the word I want to use but hopefully it conveys the concept. Note the degree of recoil is not only according to the width of the slit but the position along its wavelength at the moment of interaction, meaning that if its position for example is pretty close to what it needs to be to pass through then the recoil will be less, in turn if its position is far from what it needs to be then it needs to rapidly adjust its position inducing a greater recoil effect.

So what is the basis for this mechanism of re-positioning itself instead of say just being absorbed or even reflected by the obstruction? What is to say that it does not? Of course it can be reflected or absorbed and will be in some cases, If its position does not ever change to pass through the obstruction it will not pass through (given we simply this and only consider a non transparent or solid material). We know that classical particles, macro objects would simply bounce off or be reflected according to angle of incidence. Quantum particles like the photon or electron will not always do this and there are many reasons why this is and one I will emphasize is that fact that electrons exhibit an extremely rapid de broglie wavefunction and have substantial momentum and position shifts, because of this it will change its position to pass through the slit Before it can be reflected or absorbed.

This whole senerio is complicated by the idea that any wave must be described with no less than 2 parts, where 1 part can concieveable be in the pass through area while the other is not. Recall there is an attractive force (similar to the strong force) between these 2 parts, if by interaction with the obstruction the distance between these 2 parts increases (which is likely) then the force that bonds them is the cause of the increase in momentum for the lagging second part.

I should point out that in the process of describing a wave as 2 particles it will be difficult to explain why only one particle is ever detected. But again it is equally difficult to explain how a single electron or photon (particle and wave) can travel in a wavelike motion. Needless to say its quite obvious that I am attempting to theorize of a physical theory of quantum mechanics, that which reduces to classical mechanics. As it is, I do not believe in magic, so I cannot readily accept what quantum mechanics suggests.