WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF TODAY’S PHYSICS?

 WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF TODAY’S PHYSICS?

This is a fair question that needs to be asked, and answered, by every current physicist and it needs to be asked of every student graduating with any level of a physics degree. Specifically, every graduating physics student needs to have an understanding of what is next for them in a physics life. While every current physicist needs to understand where their work is going, how is it going to get there and how it is going to help all of us understand the universe in which we live. In simple English, there has to be an “end game” and a thorough understanding of what that “end game” actually means. 

There is a related question to this, “Is Physics Dead” and this question has the additional variation of “Is Physics at a Dead End?” To me the answer is a “Qualified NO.” The real problem is the mere fact that these questions, and others like them, are being asked at all. And, that I cannot simply answer “NO” instead of having to qualify my “NO.” Why? Because changes must be made by today’s physicists at what we are looking at, and looking for, or today’s physics could be dying. It is time to go back to the basics and ask more questions associated with what we already know. It is time to take a hard look at what is known and to ensure that as we move forward there are no conflicts and unanswered questions within what we have already discovered. Most importantly, it is time for some imagination, some thinking outside of the box, and to really ask a lot of questions about where we can go with the knowledge already discovered. 

As a species we are very lucky to be living in the universe we do at the time we do. Nobody can deny that our universe is a wondrous and fabulous place that needs to be, and is waiting to be, physically explored by our species. We have to work on touching and personally seeing our universe rather than simply sitting here and thinking about it through mathematical or computer modeling. 

Our universe is just under 14 billion years old. The current estimates are that our species is about 200,000 years old. If we accept that physics first started for our current time here on earth with Newton in about 1687 with the publication of the Principia then physics for us is about 334 years old. If we accept that our most recent concepts in physics started with Einstein and Planck, then our current physics is about 121 years old. The physics of our universe started with the “birth” of our universe a little less than 14 billion years ago. We only know a very small amount of the physics of our universe. And to be perfectly honest, we have not learned very much about our universe in the last 121 years.

Saying what I stated directly above is an easy thing to do, providing information that supports what I just said is a completely different story so let’s talk about the last 121 years of our physics. 

One of the biggest leaps in physics over the last 121 years comes in the form of quantum physics, which in turn has brought us the standard model. Since the beginning of quantum physics there has been an unsolved and not understood problem, particle-wave duality and its associated measurement problem. The first potential solution to the measurement problem was associated with the Copenhagen interpretation and this solution was to literally ignore the problem. Simply do not talk about the measurement problem or discuss it. There have subsequently been multiple different interpretations of quantum physics to try and address the measurement problem, but all of them have associated problems. In other words, the measurement problem is still very real. And more importantly, still very unsolved or understood. 

Has anybody ever thought about quantum physics without wave-particle duality? Maybe it is not a “real” issue. Wave-particle duality was determined via the double slit experiment. There are some rigid qualifications associated with this experiment, like a coherent light source, which is not consistent with our “real” universe. Additionally, there are other possible explanations for this duality and it is possible to make some changes to the experiment that undoes the wave-particle duality. However, this duality and its strict interpretation in quantum physics, despite the unsolvable measurement problem, is so ingrained that nobody questions it. Rather than following the simplest path of another explanation for duality, today’s physicist tries to come up with whole new interpretations for quantum physics to try and account for duality. 

As for the standard model of particles, it is truly a critical and monumental discovery. But it too has many associated issues that are simply not understood or questioned. One of the things directly associated with the standard model of particles is a unifying theory, a single theory or mathematical equation that unifies all forces and particles and explains everything. Before we can move forward and completely understand what the standard model is telling us and discover a single theory for everything, don’t we have to completely understand the standard model and not have any conflicts within it?

The model for today’s physics path to a unifying theory within the standard model of particles is String Theory combined with Supersymmetry (SUSY). It must be stated up front that String Theory is a mathematical model. There is no experiment that can be performed today, or in the foreseeable future, that can test, prove or disprove string theory. One other note, some of the math associated with string theory and the standard model of particles is so complex that it cannot be completed. Again, this begs the question, if we do not understand it to start with how can we possibly figure out or understand where it is leading us?

Trying to find the path from the standard model alone to a unifying theory proved to be unattainable as there were simply too many problems. A solution to the problems was found in SUSY. In essence SUSY expands the standard model of particles by adding over three times more particles. Originally with SUSY the added new particles were supposed to be at the same energy level as the current particles of the standard model. However, those particles should have been discovered by now and they still have yet to be found. So, the new version of SUSY makes the additional particles a bit “heavier.” Even the heavier version of SUSY particles should have been found by now, but they 

still have not been found. So the next version of SUSY invokes spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is basically a “property” of quantum physics that is completely unexplained and for which there is no understanding that in essence is claimed because it makes things work out for physicists without having to make adjustments. 

Needless to say, SUSY is no longer the apple of a lot of physicist’s eyes, and they are starting to question it. However, if SUSY fails, the most accepted version of string theory also fails and this would be huge. Specifically, there is no other path to a unifying theory, and string theory has been worked on for over 50 years. In other words, over 50 years of work and a concept that has been ingrained in physics for over 100 years, goes right out the window. Needless to say shaking the core of today’s physics this much is not something that any current physicist is willing to step up to the plate and talk about. 

The failure of SUSY should not come as a surprise to any of today's physicists as a close look shows that it really was doomed for failure. Even though the standard model of particles really is a tremendous discovery, there are so many open questions associated with it and so many things that simply have yet to be understood. It is impossible to expand something over three-fold without expanding all of the associated questions, issues and parts that are not understood. Just consider the following few questions:

1. There are three generations of quarks. The best that can be said is that it is not known if there is more generation of quarks or not. If there are, then SUSY also has to account for all of the extra generations and there is no work with respect to adding more particles to SUSY.

2. Anti-matter asymmetry. All of the particles in the standard model have an anti-matter partner that for the most part does not exist in our universe. SUSY also has to account for all of these particles. Again, no explanation about this within SUSY.

3. And the biggest issue of all: the understanding of mass. The fact of the matter is there is no real understanding of what mass is. The mass of the proton is known, and the mass of the quarks that make up the proton are known. But, adding the mass of the quarks inside the proton up gives a total mass that is nowhere near the mass of the proton. How can this be? Nobody knows. And SUSY would just make this problem even worse. 

Just two more points for the standard model and SUSY. First, in one of the pieces I read regarding SUSY falling out of favor with some of today’s physicists, there were some physicists saying that there must be something else going on that we do not understand that is hiding the SUSY particles. In other words, if something doesn’t exist that you want to exist in order to make your theory work all you have to do now is call upon some unknown quantum physics to justify what can’t be found. Is SUSY so ingrained in today’s physics that it is going to be made to work no matter what? What kind of physics is this? It is not physics and it will never be physics. 

Second, and the more important point has to do with unification, there is nothing in nature or today’s physics that requires unification or dictates that it must exist. Unification is nothing more than a 100 year old physicist’s “want to exist” concept that has become so ingrained in today’s physics that it is considered the ultimate goal. Such an ultimate goal that some of today’s physicists will go to any length to make it happen, refer to SUSY. This is not physics, and it will not lead us anywhere regarding understanding the spectacular universe we live in.

Trying to discover a unifying theory goes back to the same basic time as the measurement problem. That is that the two greatest discoveries of modern physics have unsolvable problems ingrained in them under the current direction of today’s physics. However, nobody is willing to try anything new, look in other directions or even accept that maybe, just maybe, the current working theories are incomplete or possibly even wrong. Even more importantly, nobody is willing to slow down and answer questions about what we already know before speeding ahead hoping to find answers tomorrow to what we have passed by today. Staying on this course means there is no future for physics. A radical statement to make and position to hold, but it is as valid as the current direction of today’s physics.

Consider this as one last point: I have referenced the passage of “time” throughout this piece. However, when it comes to “time” the only thing we know is Einstein showed us via his Equivalence Principle that time is not constant. There are changes in the speed at which time moves that depend on gravity, acceleration and speed of an object at any location in the universe. In other words, the rate of the passage of time is pretty much different by some amount virtually everywhere in our universe. Understanding time and what it means for the universe rather than just what “time” means to us is one of our first steps toward moving forward in physics. This, and the other things discussed, is why when the hard question is asked, “Is Physics Dead, Dying or at a Dead End” the “NO” has to be qualified. 

I take my dogs out every night for a last outing before bedtime.  Every night I look up into the night sky and every night I am still amazed at the expanse and beauty of the universe we are so lucky to exist in. I also marvel at the distinctiveness and richness of who we are as a species. I simply cannot believe that we are destined for confinement to this infinitely small planet in our small part of the universe. I believe, rather I know, that we are supposed to be a real, functioning part of our universe with everything else that exists within this universe. 

The physics of the universe has been around for almost 14 billion years. We cannot make up for our “lost time” in a couple of hundred years. It is time for us to slow down and take the time to really understand what we know and answer all of the questions associated with what we know so that we can move forward with confidence and understanding. 

TITLES FOR FUTURE WRITING

 

I have so many different things to write about bouncing around in my head. There really is that much to talk about regarding the future of the physics of our universe and how much is being accomplished today. So here are a few “Titles” that I am I promised someone that I would get to work on.

1. Building Dimensions.

The last piece I posted was a paper about how looking at the physics and information that we know right now, today, points to the possibility of our universe actually consisting of multiple large, overlapping dimensions. And, this also answers some of the more perplexing problems of today’s physics that currently have no known solution, or work toward finding a solution. Well, it is one thing to talk about having multiple large, overlapping dimensions; it is another to be able to show how they are formed. Turns out that this too can be accomplished by simply following the math and physics we use today. No science fiction or math that only a few people can understand but is too complicated to solve. Just an uncomplicated and straight forward solution.

2. Is Physics Broken?

Well, for the sake of looking to entice more readers I am going to say that the answer to this question is a qualified “Yes.” Once again, no science fiction or outlandish claims to support this, just simple facts about the way things are today in the world of physics.

3. UFOs-ETs, Spirits-Beings, Unicorns and Physics

The main question is how can the first three things be related to physics? Well, believe it or not they really are. In fact, there is a relationship between this title and the one above it. Therefore, in all likelihood these two titles will be posted one after the other. And, the Unicorn part is a “bait” word to get attention. I will use the mythical concept of the Unicorn with things happening in the physics world today. This last sentence is also a teaser.

4. Space-Time, Quantum Field Theory and the Expansion of the Universe.

Do not let the complicated topics of Space-Time and QFT drive you away from this one. Space-Time and QFT are staples of today’s physics and our universe. So is the expansion of the universe. So, is there a direct relationship between these things that can affect our universe? Yes! And it is very straight forward and worth significant questioning and a far greater understanding than we currently have. I promise you no complex or complicated physics that nobody can understand, just a simple look at the easy stuff we already know.

5. Time

I have been fascinated by this topic for a year now. In fact it has driven me in an investigative direction and I have done what I can to read up on this topic. Unfortunately most of the literature and books on this subject are philosophical in nature and do not address the very real physical concepts our universe faces regarding time. I know that this sounds like it will be technical, but it won’t be. Just more looking at what we know and asking questions that should have answers and do not.

6. Multiverse verse Many Worlds

OK, this one could be a bit on the technical side. Let me say here that my version of Multiverse is not like the current version, and it is not the Many Worlds version. Simply put, to me Many Worlds refers to the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Physics where Multiverse refers to a physical concept of our overall universe. Let me say up front, like many I am not a fan of the Many Worlds Theory in its current form. However, if there are some positive changes I could alter my opinion. I must also say that when I first started looking at multiple large, overlapping dimensions, I did not consider any form of a Multiverse. However, right now after doing some more work it is not possible to discount a Multiverse Theory. This theory does not have to be true, but right now I cannot rule it out as it is almost a direct consequence of building multiple dimensions.

In case you did not notice, my general position and hopefully theme is keeping physics simple. I am trying to take this route for a very specific reason, by looking at the simple things and discovering problems without solutions, and questions without answers maybe we can get some in the physics community to stop what they are doing. They need to take a look at what we already know, answers some questions that really do need answers, and then look at where our current knowledge and information in physics is telling us to go. I believe that physics has been chasing the same mythical unicorn for over 100 years, and I think that the information is the simplest cases of what we know show us this. This is why I have the six titles above.

MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS, A UNIVERSE OF LARGE NOT SMALL DIMENSIONS

 

MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS, A UNIVERSE OF LARGE NOT SMALL DIMENSIONS

 

Abstract

We have learned so much about how our universe and our world operate through the science of physics. It only makes sense for us to rely on physics to provide us with hints and clues regarding where to look next, or a direction to go in order to build upon what we already know and have learned. Our responsibility to the universe is to look hard at what we have learned. Asking questions in order to learn more and to better understand what we know is the first step to moving forward and moving outward into our universe.

Introduction

In 1868 Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann's paper on 'N' dimensional space was published. Essentially, Riemann’s paper mathematically showed that it was possible for the geometry of our universe to have ‘N’ dimensions. Information regarding Planck length was not known at this time. This infers that the conclusion in Riemann’s ‘N’ dimensional space paper was for large overlapping dimensions. This is significantly different from the seven dimensions of space down below the Planck length currently theorized in string theory. In other words, our universe does not have to be limited to the three-dimensions in which we live. The universe could be any number of dimensions over and above three.

Theodor Kaluza in 1921 theorized a unification of gravity with electricity and magnetism in five dimensions (four dimensions of space and one time). In his original theory Kaluza looked at the extra dimension of space to be large not small. After being given feedback on his original large dimension theory, Kaluza modified his theory and lowered the size of his extra dimension. He did not, however, lower the size of his fourth dimension of space to below the Planck length. Kaluza’s use of an extra dimension of space was primarily done as a mathematical tool in order to try and combine gravity with electricity and magnetism as a follow up to Maxwell’s unification of electricity and magnetism. Specifically, the presumption at the time was that the three forces: gravity, electricity and magnetism had to all be associated through one set of equations. Unification of forces via the extra dimension theorized by Kaluza ultimately had some problems, the biggest of which was there was no “evidence” of a large overlapping fourth dimension. Thus Kaluza’s theory fell out of favor.

However, 100 years later the question arises as to what evidence would a fourth dimension present to those living in three dimensions? A Side Note: There is information/indication that in his original unification of electricity and magnetism Maxwell used four dimensions of space and one of time. Did Kaluza follow Maxwell’s initial use of five total dimensions? It should also be noted that work has been done to extend Maxwell’s equations into ‘N’ dimensional space.

Some additional questions for future consideration regarding ‘N’ dimensional space:

1.    Why not keep dimensions large rather than going small as in string theory? 

2.  That concept, mathematics or physics prevents large, overlapping dimension? 

3.    Riemann’s original theory had ‘N’ dimensions of space, so why stop at four? 

4.    What in nature or physics requires unification beyond electricity and magnetism?

5.    Why not expand our knowledge and/or theoretical physics into four dimensional or higher spaces first and then look to see if unification of forces is possible? 

Discussion

Established mathematics as well as previous theories that looked at a universe with more than three-dimensions shows that a multi-dimensional universe is not a “new” idea. String theory, the current unification theory, looks at a multi-dimensional universe. With string theory, the extra dimensions are confined to an unimaginably small space that is experimentally impossible to reach and/or to verify the existence of such dimensions. In other words, in general a universe of multi-dimensional space is an excepted theory. So, why can’t a multi-dimensional universe be comprised of larger, overlapping dimensions, and does our current physics and knowledge provide any foresight for a universe with large, overlapping multiple dimensions?

Large Overlapping Dimensions Overview

Presume that a one-dimensional space is embedded in a two-dimensional space which in turn is embedded in our three-dimensional space. This presumption is very straight forward given that a two-dimensional space can be created by stacking one-dimensional spaces and a three-dimensional space can be created by stacking two-dimensional spaces. Additionally, two-dimensional spaces are routinely used in mathematics and physics as a tool for extending concepts and theories into higher dimensional space. Therefore, by extension we can presume that our three-dimensional space is embedded in a four-dimensional space. Like Russian nesting dolls and this can go on beyond four-dimensions.

Gravity is a real physical part of all mass in our three-dimensions and it envelopes all of space and time in our universe. Therefore, our three-dimensional gravity will also have an influence on the embedded two-dimensions. Again, by extension it is not unreasonable to presume that four-dimensional gravity will exist and have some influence on our three-dimensional space. With the presumption that our three-dimensions of space are embedded in four-dimensional space the expectations is the influence of four-dimensional gravity would look like what we call dark energy in our three-dimensional space.

Standard Model

In the standard model there are three generations of elementary quarks. From the first generation of the “up” and “down” quarks comes the proton and neutron that make up the nucleus of every atom in our universe. The second generation of quarks is exactly like the first generation of quarks, only a bit more massive and energetic. The stability of our three-dimension proton is well known, why would we think that a second quark generation proton does not exist as the “charm” and “strange” quarks are nothing more than heavier versions of the “up” and “down” quarks? Currently this second generation of quarks, as well as the third generation, simply exists in our three-dimensional universe with no specific purpose. The question of concern is why would nature provide us with a second and third generation of quarks that do nothing?

The physics of our universe has shown us that nature is purposeful, that things happen for a reason. This observation and belief is in general the basis of “Unification.” Keeping things consistent, why is there not a second generation of proton and neutron? The short answer for now in particle physics would be that these second generation nucleons cannot exist in three-dimensions as they are too heavy and therefore too energetic. But, the general expectation is a larger fourth dimension would allow for more energetic particles to exist. In other words, the second generation nucleons could exist in a fourth dimension and their existence there could mimic the dark matter we see here in our three-dimensional space.

Due to energy constraints only three generations of quarks have been discovered. However, there is no physics or concepts that prohibit more generations of quarks and associated particles. In other words, much like Riemann’s ‘N’ dimensions of space, there could also be ‘N’ generations of elementary particles. 

Antimatter Asymmetry

One of the largest questions associated with our universe and its physics is the lack of any antimatter in our universe. However, the existence of antimatter is real in that it has been created through experiments and used in some experiments. The reality of the existence of antimatter, but the fact that none of it is present in our universe represents a very large issue with respect to one of the basics principles of physics, symmetry.

So far antimatter is nowhere to be found in our universe creating a huge symmetry issue. Adding multiple, larger, overlapping dimensions allows for a place for antimatter to exist outside of our universe and therefore maintaining antimatter symmetry in the overall universe. A simple solution to what is currently a significant problem that has no other known potential solutions.

Right-Handed Asymmetry

The antimatter asymmetry is not the only asymmetry within our universe and our current physics with no solution, no explanation and no ideas on how to handle the asymmetry. The second asymmetry, and arguably a more significant asymmetry is “Right-Handed Asymmetry.” This very real issue within our universe and physics is for the most part not discussed or considered.

A quick discussion regarding right and left-handed particles is in order here. This will be a very down and dirty discussion. One of the quantum characteristics of elementary particles is “spin.” There is much more associated with spin but for the purposes of this paper we will only worry about right-handed and left-handed spin, which is a description of the direction of a particle spin.

Within our universe Neutrinos are by far the most abundant particles. There are millions upon millions of Neutrinos passing through our bodies every second of every day. All of the observed Neutrinos in our universe have left-handed spin. A Neutrino with right-handed spin has never been observed. In other words, there is a right-handed spin asymmetry in our universe with the most abundant elementary particle in our universe.

The next left-handed only interaction is one of great importance in chemistry and particle physics. This is the weak nuclear force also known as beta decay. The weak nuclear reaction/force changes neutrons into protons, and vice-versa, change protons into neutrons. Once again, maintaining a short down and dirty description for this paper, the weak nuclear force and/or beta decay is the process where a neutron decays into a proton and an electron. The weak nuclear force also includes a proton becoming a neutron with the addition of an electron. This is where the particle physics part comes in, the changing/decaying processes for protons and neutrons involve the W (plus and minus) and Z Bosons. The issue here is W and Z Bosons are only left-handed and they only interact with left-handed spin protons, neutrons and elementary particles. As for right-handed protons and neutrons and reactions or interactions, that is a physics family secret that is not discussed.

The proton and neutron are the basic building blocks of all matter in our universe. Yet there is a very distinct asymmetry associated with these building blocks for which there is no answer or understanding. The asymmetry associated with “building blocks” goes much deeper than the elementary particles that make up the universe as we know it. The right-handed asymmetry also involves another set of building blocks on earth. Amino acids are the basic building blocks of all life here on earth and they also come in right-handed and left-hand molecules. It turns out that only the left-handed amino acid molecules are used as the building blocks for the proteins in all of the life that we know.

To put all of this into perspective, all of the matter that we know of in the universe, and all of the life that we know of here on earth are all about left-handed interactions. In other words, as we know it, we live in a left-handed only universe and there is no known reason or explanation for this. This begs the question; does a right-handed antimatter universe exist in another dimension of the overall universe since it does not exist in our known universe? If it does, it would account for the missing symmetry in our known universe.

Large Overlapping Dimension Further Information

Information and evidence indicating the existence of large, overlapping dimensions within our current knowledge of physics and the universe goes beyond what was covered above. We know that our universe is expanding which affects the vacuum energy of space. In order to maintain the same energy density in the vacuum of space there has to be an influx of energy. Larger overlapping dimensions can account for and/or supply the required influx of vacuum energy. This could be considered as being directly related to a fourth dimension accounting for the expansion or our universe.

One of the principle endeavors of physics today is unification of quantum physics with relativity through a “Grand Unification Theory” or a “Theory of Everything.” Adding large overlapping dimensions increases the overall platform available to work forward on unification. Specifically, increases in the amount of energy, gravity, and particles available in more dimensions provide more opportunities for achieving unification.

One additional possible aspect of multiple overlapping dimensions is independence. That is our three-dimensional space/universe can be independent from other dimensions thus allowing us to have physics concepts that are unique to our space. As we expand and learn more about additional dimensions of space we will be provided with new frontiers of space to learn about and new levels of energy to help us learn. This additional knowledge through additional dimensions can also help us understand what we currently do not completely understand in our own three-dimensional physics.

Riemann’s paper was proof for ‘N’ dimensions. Relating this to the standard model, there is nothing that says there are only three generations of particles. It is not unreasonable to presume that there are more, possibly ‘N’ generations of quarks and elementary particles corresponding with more dimensions of space. We cannot claim that because it has not been discovered it does not exist. This is particularly true when established mathematics and previous theories have looked at multiple dimensions for solutions. Moreover, given that our current knowledge indicates there are more dimensions and potentially more generations of elementary particles, we need to move forward looking for these things until we can prove they do not exist

Conclusion

When was the last major discovery in physics? If we think about quantum physics and relativity, both were discovered over 100 years ago. Additionally, both quantum physics and relativity were based on moving forward with physics concepts that were already in place. Relativity was based on Maxwell’s work with electricity and magnetism while quantum physics was based on Planck’s work with black body radiation. A universe of multiple dimensions is the main theory being worked on today, string theory. So a multi-dimensional theory is not something new. The current theory looks at dimensions compacted into a small area of space. If it is possible for extra dimensions to be small, then symmetry would suggest that our universe could also be comprised of large, overlapping dimensions. Furthermore, there is nothing in today’s physics that forbids large, overlapping dimensions.

This paper looked at our current knowledge base for physics and picked out some of the most direct pieces of evidence/information that point to our universe having multiple large dimensions. Furthermore, past and present theories and mathematical papers have done work in multiple dimensions showing multiple dimensions as being a part of our overall universe. Additionally, multiple large, overlapping dimensions are the most direct and easiest way to account for the asymmetries in our current physics and understanding of our three-dimensional universe. There is also direct visual evidence for multiple large, overlapping dimensions; consider the Klein bottle and other objects we see in three-dimensions that  can only be “opened” up in four dimensions of space.

There is purpose to all things about the universe we live in. Therefore, the physics of the universe and everything we discover about the universe and in physics must also have purpose. If we do not have a physics purpose for any of the things discovered, then there is more to be discovered. Furthermore, a purpose to our universe and its physics also dictates that we do not have unanswered questions about anything we have discovered. If we have to rely on something that is unknown and not understood then we have a hole in our understanding of physics and our universe. Today’s physics provides us hints and clues that are pointing us in directions to look further. It is up to us to accept this challenge and move toward a greater understanding of more of our universe.

 

THE DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT PART 2, PROVE OR DISPROVE

My first paper looking at the double slit experiment hypothesizes that the wave function could be the result of quantum entanglement. This conclusion was reached through an evaluation of the information from the original double slit experiment involving individual particles. In other words, I simply carried the original experiment one step further. Given that the hypothesis is based on information from the first experiment, it is a valid experimentally based hypothesis. The next step would be to try and experimentally validate the hypothesis. This paper outlines steps that can be added to the original double slit experiment that can be used as an initial evaluation toward proving, or disproving, my quantum entanglement hypothesis for the wave function of a particle as established in the original double slit experiment. My first paper is also posted on this blog.

The original double slit experiment is such that a single particle is independently sent toward double slits. The slits are monitored to see which one the particle goes through. The particle continues on hitting a screen leaving a dispersed particle pattern on the screen. The act of measuring the particle for the slit it travels through determines it position and in essence removes the wave function of the particle. This results in a particle only dispersion pattern on the screen. My experiment simply builds on this.

On the screen where the particle pattern has been determined, cut another double slit. This way after traveling through the first double slit and determining which slit the particle goes through, which removes the wave function, we can see if the particle still acts like a particle after traveling through the second double slit and hitting a screen behind the second double slit. The pattern on the screen after the second double slit will show us if the particle is still a particle after traveling through both double slits, or if at some point the particle obtained another wave function. If the particle obtains a second wave function the questions would be where did the wave function come from, and is it the “same” as the initial coherent particle from the original source?

It should be noted that there are multiple versions or variations that could be done with this experimental set up. For example, there could be two sets of double slits set up on the second screen after the initial set, one at each particle dispersal pattern to see if one or both of the particle dispersal patterns have the same pattern on the final screen. One additional parameter that I would add to the experiment at some point, a complete account, tracking and total count of all particles released from the source.

My initial hypothesis is that the measurement at the first set of double slits removes the wave function of the particle and that from this measurement point forward the only thing left is a particle. In my experimental setup we know that when the particle reaches the second set of double slits it is acting as a particle. This was established in the original double slit experiment. This means that there is only a particle reaching the second double slits, which is the exact same process for the first double slits. The difference is that there is no longer a guarantee of particle coherence that was established in the initial particle source. From this point forward there are only two basic things that can return a wave function to the particle, the second set of double slits, or the virtual field. But, not just any wave function can be returned, it has to be the wave function corresponding to the original coherence of the source. A return of the wave function would by necessity have to be associated with quantum mechanics. The question would be what quantum process could return a distinct or specific wave function to what is in essence a free particle. Furthermore, returning the particle to its original state established at the particle source would require energy. At this point the most likely source of this energy is the virtual field. However, removing this energy from the field would result in an energy drain from the field which in turn results in a number of other issues.

My hypothesis for this experiment is that it will show that the measurement done at the first set of double slits removes the wave function and creates a “wave-free” particle. Furthermore, the establishment of wave-free particles does not result in a significant change to current quantum physics. Rather, it simply adds another characteristic to be used and evaluated as physics moves forward. The wave function is still a part of many aspects of particle interactions thus keeping relevant parts of quantum physics intact. Having a wave-free particle is not that much different many other aspects associated with the standard model of particles.

THE DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT

My position on what we know about physics is that the information we have discovered clearly shows us that there is so much more for us to learn. For me the evidence starts with UFOs/ETs and Beings/Ghosts. We have thousands of years of history telling us all about these things that do not correspond with the physics we think we know. However, rather than telling ourselves that there has to be more for us to learn from these things, scientists will continue to tell us that they cannot be real because the physics we know will not allow for them. In other words, since science and physics cannot explain these things, they cannot be real.

Well, from everything I read and research, the physics we know is telling us that there is more for us to learn. But for one reason or another today’s scientists simply want to try and build further on what we know rather than looking hard at what is known and asking questions. One of the crowning glories of quantum physics is the Standard Model of Particles. I have already written about what is one of the most glaring questions of many questions associated with the Standard Model and will post that in this blog. The questions I have are real, and they represent areas that we need to dig into rather than just ignoring them for convenience sake.

The standard model is not the only thing that points to more physics for us to learn about, there is experiment that is so ingrained in today’s quantum physics, the Double Slit Experiment that presents a huge question that needs to be answered. The Double Slit Experiment is the experiment that is responsible for giving us one of the most confusing and complicated aspects of quantum physics, Wave-Particle Duality. This is the quantum property of atoms and particles where they act like both a particle and a wave at the same time.

In 1801 physicist and physician Thomas Young performed the double slit experiment. He sent the light from the sun through a single slit, which made the sunlight somewhat in phase. After passing through the single slit the sunlight continued through to two closely spaced narrow slits. From the two slits the light went onto a screen where it showed wave interference patterns. Young’s experiment settled the debate on the nature of light and from this point on light was accepted as traveling as a wave.

Fast forward to 1961 when the first double slit experiment was done with electrons as individual particles and the wave interference pattern first observed by Young was observed with the individual electrons/particles. Further experiments done by sending single particles one at a time through the double slits still showed the wave interference pattern on the final screen. So, the wave nature of individual particles in quantum physics was verified and this is where we stand today.

However, there is a second part to the double slit experiment that I do not believe has been completely evaluation for further interpretations and conclusions. This second part is when the individual particles are measured after going through one of the slits so that it can be determined which slit the particle went through. That is it, a simple measurement telling us which slit the particle used. Well it turns out that this determination changes the whole dynamic of the experiment. There is no longer a wave interference pattern on the final screen. Rather there are just two piles or particles behind each slit. The wave is gone and the particle is acting like a particle when it hits the final screen. In other words, the simple act of measuring which slit the particle went through removes the wave nature of the particle.

So here is the question, I have a particle go through one of the slits and I measure that particle to see which slit it went through. Because of this measurement the particle is no longer a wave, it is now moving as a particle toward the final screen as clearly shown on the screen. What if right before the particle hits the screen and is brought to a stop, I move the screen an infinite distance away, or I move the screen at a speed just above that of the particle so that it cannot reach the screen? In other words, the particle is now moving through space as a particle with no wave form.

This completely upsets the wave-particle duality as now there is a particle moving through space as only a particle with no “wave function.” The duality is gone. However, the standard answer maybe that a particle has to move through space as a wave so there must be something in quantum physics that gives the wave function back. In other words, unknown quantum magic that cannot be explained occurs and the particle regains a wave function. Or maybe there is another possible explanation, and nature is trying to tell us to dig deeper.

The double slit experiment gives us a particle without an associated wave, which is clear in the experiment itself. Additionally, without going into a lot of detail, the measurement of the slit that the particle uses corresponds with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Specifically, we measured position through the slit determination so the momentum (velocity) of the particle is still present. This accounts for the particle striking the final screen. So, if the wave is removed from the particle, and the particle still exists there are two basic questions;

Where did the wave form come from in the first place?

If there is still a wave form with the particle as it moves through space where did it come from?

Regarding the first question, how about another form of quantum entanglement? As for the second question, the answer is simple, nobody knows.

Regarding quantum entanglement, let’s recall that for this experiment there has to be a particle source, and this source has to in essence make the particles sent through the slits coherent. In other words, the source gives all of the particles a common characteristic. This common characteristic is pretty much what quantum entanglement is all about. Once you give a particle a common characteristic, it is related to other particle(s) by this consistent characteristic. In the case of the individual coherent particles, the common characteristic is the wave form embedded into the particles by the source of the particles. So, as long as you do not measure the particle position, which slit it goes through, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is intact and the particles will form the wave pattern on the final screen. This can also show in the measurement portion of the double slit experiment. Measuring the slit used removes the wave and gives a particle pattern on the final screen. Stop the measuring and the wave form returns for the individual particles on the final screen.

The wave particle duality associated with quantum physics is ingrained in so many things that are part of the physics of life. In particular atomic and molecular structures of the atoms we need and work with every day. But we really need to look at what this wave form does for us that cannot be handled in some other manner. Looking specifically at atomic structure, the wave form gives us the probability of finding an electron in a certain place. Since it is a probability, the electron may or may not be where the wave form says it is most likely to be. It could actually be in the area of the least probability. Furthermore, this wave is not static it is dynamic in that it oscillates. In other words, the position of the electron moves within its orbital, which means the most probable place the electron is supposed to be also moves which is also as expected. When we look at all of the other restrictions on electron placement in an atom, it just seems logical that the whole wave-particle duality and probability function is not the only way to find an electron.

The overriding question is why we have accepted things to be so complicated without even looking at other possible solution, especially when nature itself seems to be telling us there is more for us to find?

WE HAVE TO MAKE IT SO THAT WE CAN BREAK IT

Quantum physics is very interesting physics, to say the least. There are a lot of unique nuances in quantum that have to be accounted for in many instances. The Standard Model of Particles is considered by many physicists to be one of the greatest accomplishments of modern physics. I can agree with this, but not for the reasons held by most physicists, and this is a topic for other papers. A close look at the Standard Model and the quantum physics that has gone into establishing it reveals that there are a number of “guesses” that have been made in order to “make it work.” One of the most interesting of these guesses is what I would like to write about today.

Probably one of the most unique nuances in quantum physics is known as “duality.” This is where particles have a “dual” nature in that they act like both waves and particles. The wave nature of quantum physics and particles is where a significant problem lies. There are multiple ways in which particles are allowed to have a wave property. However, quantum physics being what it is, particles cannot have a certain type of wave. Specifically, particles in their wave form are not allowed to have a longitudinal wave in quantum physics.

Since quantum physics does not allow for a longitudinal wave, but particle physics does scientists had to come up with something to address the issue of a longitudinal wave for a particle wave. In other words, there has to be something associated with quantum mechanics that prohibits a longitudinal wave. The best thing that scientists could come up with, the quantum aspects of a particle wave are such that there is a property associated with the quantum wave that does not allow for a longitudinal wave. Said another way, quantum physics being what it is, it has its own special and unique property that does not allow longitudinal particle waves. Nobody has any idea what this property actually is or how it got there, it is just “there.” This special action regarding cancelling the longitudinal wave of the wave-particle duality of quantum physics is known as “spontaneous symmetry breaking” and it makes everything right in quantum physics for a particle wave.

Now the wave nature of quantum physics being what it is, when a particle is acting under its wave form of wave-particle duality, the particle does not have any mass. Now this can be a problem. As any particle is moving through space as a wave without mass, how can this particle possibly become part of a planet, any part of a galaxy, or even a part of us? It can’t. In other words, the wave nature of a particle prevents it from having mass, which in turn prevents this particle wave from becoming any part of matter. If this were allowed to hold turn it would mean no universe as we know it because there would be no mass to form anything. So now physicist had to come up with something that can make a particle a real particle with mass from its massless wave form.

Enter the Higgs Boson and its accompanying Higgs Field, specifically the non-zero Higgs Field. Another little caveat associated with this massless to mass transformation.

Before I can go any further, I need to give a down and dirty description of a field. Basically a field is just like what you are use too seeing in everyday life. A big open space of grass, wheat, corn or anything else stretching out in front of you for as far as you can see. Only in quantum physics you do not have plants, you have some type of energy. Every particle and a few other things have their own distinct and specific associated energy fields stretching throughout all of space. You cannot see, touch or interact with these energy fields but they are out there, everywhere. It turns out that it is very convenient to have these fields everywhere in the universe.

All of the different energy fields out there have a unique purpose; whenever necessary they kick out a virtual particle. Now a virtual particle is exactly like a real particle except for the fact that it does not exist in our universe, rather it exists in the field and pops into our universe when necessary to complete an interaction of some type. After the interaction is over, the virtual particle goes back into the field. And all of the interactions associated with any virtual particle, there are virtual particles for all fields, are done in a time span that is so quick it cannot be seen or recorded. This too is very convenient.

Getting back to giving the wave form of our particle some mass, this is where the Higgs Boson and the Higgs field come in. When a particle that is in its wave form needs to have mass for an interaction, a Higgs Boson pops out of the Higgs field, it interacts with the particle wave and gives the particle mass while also slowing down its motion. This former particle wave now it is ready to become part of our universe. Everything is smooth and straight forward, except that for the most part this is all theory. The Higgs Boson has been discovered in high energy particle acceleration collisions, but other than this everything else is a theory. And, it is a theory based on the initial presumption that the spontaneous symmetry breaking discussed above is real. Quantum physics being what it is, spontaneous symmetry breaking is simply accepted as being real because it can never be observed in any form. Put in simplest terms, “spontaneous symmetry breaking” was pulled out of nowhere in order to get rid of the longitudinal wave so that quantum wave particles can exist.

To be fair, the above explanation is a simplification of what happens. However, it is a valid description of what is occurring with “spontaneous symmetry breaking” and then the follow up interaction with the Higgs Boson. In other words, physicists had to make “spontaneous symmetry breaking” in order for a particle to have a quantum wave form. And then there has to be the Higgs Boson to interact with a particle wave and break the spontaneous symmetry order to give the particle mass. This is the way that it is, it had to be made so it could be broken.

21st CENTURY LUMINIFEROUS AETHER

In 1665, just before Newton’s work with light and prisms, the Italian Physicist Francesco Maria Grimaldi discovered the diffraction of light and said that light was behaving like a wave. In 1678 Dutch Physicist Christian Huygens established the wave nature of light. So, for around 200 years light was known to be a wave and the knowledge base at the time was that waves could only travel through some kind of medium like the waves on water. However, it was also known that light travelled through the vacuum of space, so the scientists of the day believed that there was a medium throughout the universe that light could travel through that scientist could not see or find.

The theoritical medium throughout the universe that light was using to travel as a wave was known as the Luminiferous Aether. The long story made short, in 1887 physicists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley performed the Michelson -  Morley Experiment in an attempt to locate and/or “see” the Aether. The experiment failed and is considered the first step toward showing that the Aether did not exist. In other words, before the Michelson – Morley experiment all of space in the universe was considered to be filled with an invisible medium that allowed light to travel throughout the expanse of the universe. We now know and clearly understand through experiments that light waves, or any electromagnetic waves, do not need a medium of any kind to travel through space or anywhere else.

Fast forward to today where 21^st century quantum physics has established the theory of “fields” that permeate all of space. These fields throughout space are associated with all of the known particles and they are in essence energy fields for the particles. Whenever interactions among particles are taking place these fields can kick in, or take away, energy to an interaction whenever it may be necessary. The process of energy exchange between a particle and its field is accomplished through virtual particles. These virtual particles pop out of the field add or remove energy as needed and then pop back into the energy fields all faster than the blink of an eye. The existence or life span of these virtual particles is so fast that they have never been seen in an experiments or particle collisions. Rather, they are theorized out of particle collisions to account for all of the collision energy. Out of all of the fields existing through space, the most important of these fields is the theorized “Non-Zero Higgs Field” and its associated particle the Higgs Boson.

The non-zero Higgs Field is in essence responsible for the Higgs Boson, which is a very special “force” carrying particle because without the Higgs Boson and its associated non-zero Higgs field there would be no mass in the universe and the universe as we know it would not exist. It should be noted that when I talk about “particle(s)” I am talking about the particles of the “Standard Model.”

In 1964 Belgium’s Francois Englert and Britain’s Peter Higgs independently theorized a subatomic particle that was an integral part of what ultimately became the Standard Model. This particle was later named the Higgs Boson, and along with this new particle comes the new Higgs field. The Higgs Boson was “discovered” in 2012 in a high energy particle collision. Based on current theories, the discovery of the Higgs Boson implies the existence of the Higgs Field.

The science of the time accepted that the theorized Luminiferous Aether had to be there throughout all of space in order for light to propagate even though the Aether was never seen. Today’s science theorizes fields, in particular the non-zero Higgs field, even though it has never been seen. The Higgs Boson and its theorized associated field throughout all of space are necessary for particles to have mass thus allowing matter to exist so the universe we live in can exist. When we look at the similarities of the Luminiferous Aether and light waves with the non-zero Higgs Field and its necessity for mass/matter, it’s difficult not to wonder if physics history is repeating itself. Given that the Higgs Boson and the Higgs Field must exist throughout all of space for mass/matter, just like the Luminiferous Aether had to for light waves, one has to wonder if it will be 200 years before science recognizes that the acceptance of this theory is also a mistake?

The Higgs Aether, also known as the Higgs Field, the 21^st century equivalent of the the 17^th century Luminiferous Aether.