Despite the profound success of these theories, there are significant issues, in particular:
That in effect, there is curently a classical "window" that is imposed over our view of those theories that restricts our understanding and limits new developments.
If this is so, then there is an interesting problem: How to break out of the very framework upon which we base our understanding.
I suggest that the best way to start is to admit that we don't particularly know how to do this and then allow ourselves the freedom to play with some new ideas and see where that takes us.
The approach I have chosen here is to examine the difference between observed relationships and our interpretations of those relationships in order to provide a clearing in which to develop and explore new approaches that are consistent with observation and not limited by classical interpretations.
My intention is to present a series of articles at this
site. At present, I have prepared articles on the interpretation of quantum
theory and a second on relativity and the structure of time. I am continually
engaged in revising and extending the work. Nevertheless, I would appreciate
your interest and feedback.
That instead, the effects are are able to be modelled by as a scattering process that is the result of local effects (i.e. not breaking relativistic constraints) that arise during particle interactions and are consistent with quantum electrodynamics.
This new approach requires giving up the assumption that quantum probability equations such as those in Schrödinger's "wave mechanics" have an equivalence with the wave propagation effects models based on Louis de Broglie's postulates. The latter being used to stitch the mathematical models inherent in quantum theory into the "Copenhagen Interpretation" that was developed by Neils Bohr.
The article explains how Schrödinger's mechanics can be used to exactly predict the far field outcome of the "twin slit" experiment without the requirement to model particles as propagating wave packets.
From feedback so far, I can see that many readers are left with the impression that my intention is to eliminate wave effects from quantum theory and replace all with "point" particles.
In one sense, that is true. I do repudiate the conventional interpretation of quantum effects wherein long range, non-local, wave propagation effects are seen as the only possible cause of the observed phenomena, my position being that (relativistically) localized interactions, together with a scattering model, can also reproduce those effects.
However, it is also clear that there is a form of dynamic oscillatory behaviour that characterizes particle interactions and that this behaviour does suggest to me that particles have a structure and an extent.
What kind of structure that is, remains an interesting mystery, and my intention is to open up that inquiry by throwing doubt on established interpretations.
The rationale for this approach came from what I perceive as a major roadblock in the application of relativity. The roadblock results because conventional expressions of relativity are framed in a global geometric context that is based on classical fields and results in a model in which one cannot readily model matter, nor relate the distinct existence of one particle to another.
To date, there has been little cause to question the conventional approach because, despite inconsistencies, quantum theory has been taken to indicate that particles have a distributed, wave-like, existence and (because waves are a field phenomenon) it has seemed reasonable to seek a solution within a "field based" context. Hence the current interest in such areas as string theory and "spinor" and "twistor" fields.
From my work in quantum theory I can see that a local (i.e. within relativistic limits) model for quantum mechanics could be possible and felt that it would be unworkable to address particle states and interactions within the conventional geometric representation of relativity.
In saying this, I do not mean to invoke a universe of "point" particles. What I can see from quantum mechanics is that particles (with extent and structure) appear to adopt a kind of distinct existence with respect to one another. Consequently, I'm interested in seeking an approach that separately allows for a distinct existence of one particle with respect to another (this exists in the domain of special relativity) and still provides for an integrated modelling of action at a distance (as per general relativity) and yet does not "collapse" both into a morass of abstraction.
To the best of my understanding, the interpretation that
is presented in my article is fundamentally consistent with special and
general relativity. It's different, and I'd appreciate your feedback.
[Top of Page] [Site Index]
This Boundaries of Science site owned by John Murphy.