Demystifying Quantum Physics

            Feb 3, 2021

Updated Feb 15, 2021

Quantum physics is a mystery to many people, including physicists. Some say that it is proof that reality is materialistic, made up of physical “quantum” units. Others say that it is proof of just the opposite – that reality is ethereal in nature, that the physical nature only appears in the mind, when the “potential”, expressed as the wave function, is observed by a conscious being. As long as it is a mystery, can the physics be considered to be mystified? Or does that word apply to the people? People are mystified, not the physics. And the way to become demystified is to answer the question, “WHY?” – So why is energy quantized into units?

            A very bright 19-year old physics student, who entered college at age 16 and is about to graduate, is looking for a thesis for graduate school. He read my previous post, A Geometric Model Based on Frequency That Reveals the Nature of Time and wondered why I was motivated to present it the way I did; why I would make such an assertion. He sent me the following:

Student:

            “The idea seems very coherent. I do however have a question regarding the graph of spatial energy vs temporal energy. In that graph you use the two equations to represent energy, one with wavelength and one with frequency, but I thought that those are just two expressions of the same thing, two sides of the same coin so to speak. How is it possible to assert that they are independent of each other in the way that you assert with the graphs?”

Before I give my response, notice that the student went back to the standard way of thinking when he said "one with wavelength and one with frequency". In the paper, I emphasized that the graph expressed  the relationship of "spatial frequency vs. temporal frequency". That's because we are taught from PHYS 101 to think in terms of wavelength, which we measure as linear, rather than spatial frequency, which is also expressed wrapped up as a single number but it represents the whole, so it is a non-linear, quantized expression. It is this inverse way of thinking that creates the twist that I am trying to unfold.

My response:

            Your question makes me want to say, That’s the whole point. If I rephrase your question to say: How is it possible to represent two different expressions of the same thing (say a coin) as being independent of each other? My answer is: by using two different scales – one that is linear and the other non-linear. You could characterize the size of the coin either by using a linear scale (radius) or by a non-linear, “holistic” measure of circumference.  Then make a plot of size measured on the front (using radius; r) vs back (using circumference; c). The plot (shown below) would be a point at

(r, c) = (1, 2pi).

            Now imagine that a coin-making machine makes coins of any size you choose but it requires an algorithm to scale the size of the image being stamped on either side. Suppose the backside image-maker was made to read in units of circumference and the frontside image in units of radius. Assuming you used the same measuring scale to measure radius and circumference, a plot (e.g. using the linear measuring-tape scale) of the function for the algorithm would be a line from zero through (1, 2pi) and out to the limit of the machine. And the slope of the line would be r/c = 1/2pi. 

            I said that the circumference scale was “holistic”, which is the same as saying it is quantized (as a whole) because you can’t have fractional values for that scale. It would be like asking someone to dig a hole and then dig half of a hole. Each whole unit on the front (circumference) scale, would correspond to the back (radius) scale in quantized units of 2pi. So if you made the plot in “natural units”, i.e. 2pi on the c axis would be labeled as 1 one “natural”, “holistic”, or “quantum” unit of c. Then a plot of circumference units vs radial units would be a diagonal line at 45 degrees. And you could convert one to the other using 2pi as a conversion factor. That is why Planck’s constant is equal to 2pi in natural units. It simply converts the frequency scale to the holistic energy scale.

Student:

            “I think I see what you are getting at, but at least in the physical sense, it sounds more like a conjecture than a hypothesis, because while you state your geometric model, there does not seem to be any motivation behind the reasoning, or I may be missing something.”

My response:

If you look up conjecture vs hypothesis, you will find:

“Conjecture is an idea, hypothesis is a conjecture that can be tested by experiment or observation, and consensus emerges when other interested colleagues agree that evidence supports a hypothesis that has explanatory value.” (Reference)

            The hypothesis is stated in the first sentence in the Abstract: That frequency is the key to understanding the fundamental nature of time. Again, under the heading, The Hypothesis: “The hypothesis presented here is that frequency, which is defined as inverse time, e.g. in cycles per second, should be considered the most fundamental spatiotemporal process-unit in nature. Then time, as the inverse of frequency, is simply a mirror image of a quantum unit of energy, both of which are byproducts of relative motion.”

The motivation behind the reasoning is stated in the second sentence of the introduction, referring to physicist Lee Smolin, who said that “understanding the nature of time might be the most important question for this generation of physicists to answer because time holds the secret to understanding the universe.”

            The explanatory value that makes it a hypothesis is that it provides an interpretation (to supplement the Copenhagen interpretation) of quantum physics. It explains WHY energy is quantized into units: because relative motion separates it (the field of undifferentiated energy, i.e. potential) into one unit of space and one unit of time, yet upon reflection we realize that it is recombined into a spatiotemporal unit that must be modeled as both particle and wave. And the model is the proving ground where “conjecture” is theoretically tested and proven to provide the correct relationships. This geometric model does that by using the correspondence between vector and phasor formats. The fact that it reconciles the two formats, and reveals the fine structure constant, Planck’s constant, and the nature of spin in accordance with the golden ratio tells me that it is testable in the lab. I’m just not sure how to set up the experiment. That would be a great research project for a graduate thesis in my humble opinion. 

My student hasn’t replied to this yet, but if I were to anticipate his next question, it might be:

Question:

So how does this relate to the golden ratio?

My response:

The golden ratio is a numerical value that corresponds to a condition, situation or perspective in which two characteristics that appear to be different from one perspective, are the same from another perspective. In the coin example, the number 2pi does just that. Although it is not the number that most people recognize as the golden ratio, Phi, the two numbers are related in the equation:

Phi = 2*cos(pi/5)

In my next post, I hope to show how one of these constants can be considered more fundamental than the other. I’ll also illustrate with simple math how the equation for the golden ratio can be rearranged and written in a way that represents wholeness on one side of the equation and separateness on the other. This form of the equation will then be used to illustrate how a rational worldview based on separateness, or separation, which is the first step in the holomorphic process, naturally leads to a point of reflection that invites reunification. This is where this dualistic projection of reality looks the same when viewed from a perspective of separateness (the projection) as it does from a perspective of wholeness (the reflection).

The goal is to mathematically prove the value of the holomorphic process model and demonstrate how the reflection naturally presents itself with mathematical certainty. My hope is that, by knowing what to expect, i.e. knowing that we will be facing our true selves regardless of which worldview or perspective we take during the projection phase, and knowing that the reflection actually leads to reunification with Truth, we will make decisions in life that make it less painful to look at our reflection when it appears.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.