Files
memex/0_inbox/books/TWOW/html/30 Solutions to quantum puzzles.html

1088 lines
80 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Solutions to quantum puzzles</title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="author" content="Amr Gharbeia">
<meta name="created" content="20010831;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150722;204133502934005">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 1.2cm; margin-top: 1.2cm; margin-bottom: 1.25cm }
p { text-indent: 1.27cm; margin-bottom: 0.25cm; direction: ltr; color: #99ccff; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
p.western { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US }
p.cjk { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt }
p.ctl { font-family: "Simplified Arabic"; font-size: 10pt; so-language: ar-EG }
p.sdendnote-western { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
p.sdendnote-cjk { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
p.sdendnote-ctl { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: ar-SA; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
a:link { color: #0000ff }
a.sdendnoteanc { font-size: 57% }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-GB" text="#99ccff" link="#0000ff" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font color="#993366"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><b>S<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLQm_17" align="right" hspace="5" width="200" height="59" border="0">olutions
to quantum puzzles.</b></font></font> The nature of the three forms
of quantum matter has explained several quantum puzzles, and Bohms
interpretation of the Schrödinger wavefunction points the way to a
solution of those that remain. We have seen how both photons and
particles with rest mass have both a wave-like and particle-like
nature, though they are fundamentally different forms of matter on
this explanation and have fundamentally different explanations.
Photons are waves that have a particle-like nature because each such
bit of matter is a complete cycle of quantum events, whereas
particles with rest mass have a wave-like nature because their motion
is constituted by another form of matter attached to the rest mass
that endures through time as a series of cycles of quantum events.
This points the way to a certain kind of ontological explanation of
quantum mechanics, and in order to test its adequacy, let us consider
how it would handle the three quantum puzzles: the structure of the
atom, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and the Bell
correlations.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">S<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLQm_18" align="right" hspace="5" width="200" height="31" border="0">tructure
of the atom.</font> Bohms interpretation of the Schrödinger
equation is the key an ontological explanation of the structure of
that atom. Schrödingers equation determines a wavefunction for
the conditions that hold in atoms, with a positively charged nucleus
surrounded by electrons (but since it is too complex to solve when
many electrons are involved, each electron is usually treated
separately, taking the mean position of the other electrons as
boundary conditions). The time-independent Schrödinger wavefunction
for the atom has an amplitude for the electron that varies with
locations in space, and as Max Born suggested, the square of that
amplitude (when normalized) in any region of space can be interpreted
as the probability of finding an electron located there. The
wavefunction describes various orbitals, or regions of space relative
to the nucleus where two electrons (with opposite orientations of
spin) are most likely to be found. This is the structure that
explains the periodic table of elements and is used to explain
chemical bonds among atoms. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
orbitals of the atom are identified by quantum numbers, such as the
principle quantum number (indicating the energy levels: <i>n = 1, 2,
3 . .</i>), the orbital angular momentum quantum number (<i>l = 0, 1,
2, . . </i>), and the magnetic quantum number (<i>m, </i>which
determines the orientation of the orbital angular momentum as a
magnetic moment it has in a magnetic field imposed in some
direction). Electrons also have an intrinsic spin quantum number, <i>s
= ½</i>, and two electrons, with opposite orientations of spin can
occupy each orbital. Here is a rough description of the possible
orbitals. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Electrons
occupy shells, corresponding to different energy levels, and in the
lowest energy shell (<i>n&nbsp;=&nbsp;1</i>), there is only one
orbital (the <i>s </i>orbital), which can contain two electrons (with
opposite intrinsic spin). It has no orbital angular momentum (<i>l&nbsp;=&nbsp;0</i>).
The probability of finding the electron in the s orbital is highest
at the center of the nucleus, and the probability of finding it
farther away falls off exponentially. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In the
second shell (<i>n&nbsp;=&nbsp;2</i>), with the next higher permitted
energy, there is not only an <i>s </i>orbital, but also three
different <i>p </i>orbitals. The <i>p </i>orbitals correspond to
electrons having an orbital angular momentum (<i>l&nbsp;=&nbsp;1</i>,
as if they were in orbit around the nucleus), and each such orbital
has a node running through the nucleus, indicating that a <i>p</i>
electron will never be found to be located where the nucleus is.
Moreover, in the plane in which it has its orbital angular momentum,
the real (that is, non-complex) component of the wavefunctions
amplitude has the <i>p </i>electron located in one or another region
on opposite sides of the nucleus, that is, 180<sup>o</sup> apart.
Thus, since there are three <i>p </i>orbitals at the second energy
level, atoms in which the second shell of electrons is full have
(real valued) orbitals arranged in 3-D space that look like three,
mutually perpendicular barbells. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In the
third shell, at the next energy level, there is another s orbital,
three p orbitals, and five d orbitals with a more complex geometrical
structure, and so on through the energy levels of the atom. Since
each orbital can contain two electrons (with opposite intrinsic spin
orientations), the number of protons in the nucleus determines the
structure of the lowest energy atom of each elemental kind. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">In
order to explain the structure of the atom ontologically, we need to
recognize that it is constituted by three forms of matter and an
interaction between them that can be seen as involving something in
the nature of a photon (that is, virtual photons). </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><i>Rest
mass matter.</i> The particles with rest mass include the neutrons
and protons that make up the nucleus as well as the electrons. But
each proton and electron carries an electric charge, which is a form
of force-field matter that helps constitute each particle, though as
we have seen, the quantity of such matter is already counted in the
rest masses of the particles. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><i>Kinetic
energy matter.</i> Both the nucleus and the electrons are in motion
as a result of their interaction, but the nucleus is so much more
massive than the electrons that its quantum kinetic energy cycles are
very small compared to those of electrons (and can be ignored in
estimating quantities). Bohr assumed that electrons are in motion
relative to the nucleus in order to explain the structure of the
hydrogen atom, and despite doubts about electrons following
determinate trajectories like classical material objects, it is clear
that electrons have some kind of motion. (Electrons must move in
order to have orbital angular momentum, and unless electrons in the s
orbital had some kind of motion, there would be no explanation of how
there could be s orbitals at higher energy levels.) Thus, according
to this ontological explanation of the forms of matter, the electrons
bound to the nucleus in an atom must have kinetic matter in addition
to their rest mass matter, that is, the electrons are moved around by
quantum kinetic cycles. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><i>Force-field
matter.</i> Since protons and electrons carry opposite electric
charges, they jointly impose a force field on the part of space
occupied by the atom. The forces that these particles exert on one
another change how they move, and the attraction of positive and
negative charges is great enough to bind the electrons to the nucleus
(with the negative potential energy representing the loss of some
force-field matter that was counted in their rest masses as
independent objects). But part of the force-field matter that the
particles have given up still exists in the atom as the kinetic
energy matter by which the electrons (and the nucleus) move across
space as time passes, and the motion of electrons relative to the
nucleus entails a change in the force field that is jointly imposed
by them. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><i>Virtual
photons.</i> The interaction between these particles is a process
that is continually converting potential energy into kinetic energy
and kinetic energy into potential energy, that is, converting matter
between force-field matter and quantum kinetic cycles. Electrons (and
the nucleus) are continually either giving up force-field matter and
acquiring kinetic energy matter or giving up kinetic energy matter
and acquiring force-field matter, and such transfers of matter are
represented in the gauge field theory for electrodynamics as bosons,
called &quot;virtual photons.&quot; </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
structure of the atom can be explained by the quantum nature of the
kinetic energy matter of the particles with rest mass and the gauge
bosons that transfer momentum and energy between them and force-field
matter. Both the changes in the locations of the particles and the
changes in the motion of the particles occur in a step like way,
because they both involve quantum events. That can explain the
structure of the atom, because those quantum events must fit together
neatly in the spatio-temporal geometry determined by the inherent
motion in space in order for them all to coincide with the same part
of space. It is as if the quantum events constituting the atom were
spatio-temporal bricks, and the existence of an atom were a result of
their fitting together both spatially and temporally like a brick
wall being built into the future. The masonry is so neat and well
organized that the wall can be built indefinitely high, making the
atom stable. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The quantum
nature of kinetic energy matter means, as we are conceiving it in our
possibly too crude way, that electrons (and nucleus) change location
in a step-like way, that is, covering some whole distance in a period
of time as a single, indivisible event. It is as if the electron must
first complete an entire quantum kinetic cycle before it can change
its momentum, and when it does change momentum, it must complete
another complete quantum cycle before it can change again. Thus, only
at certain locations and at certain moments does the electron change
how it is moving. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Any changes
that occur in an electrons motion depends on the electric forces
being exerted by all the electrons and protons, that is, on the field
that they jointly constitute (because they are all made partly of
force-field matter). These forces cause electrons to change how they
move (that is, change their momentum), and that depends on some kind
of (virtual) photon which gives the electron momentum and energy or
takes it away. But on this model, such interactions occur only at the
end of each quantum kinetic cycle, and it is a step-like change that
determines the nature of the next quantum kinetic cycle. The quantum
nature of the process makes the quantity of the change clear, because
according to Newtons laws of motion, the amount of energy and
momentum that is transferred to the electron each time would depend
on how much of energy and momentum the electron picked up from the
force field matter in space during its previous quantum kinetic
cycle. The change in the electrons kinetic energy would depend on
the <i>distance </i>it covered in the force field during the last
kinetic event, and the change in the electrons momentum (including
its change of direction) would depend on the period spent being
subject to the force field during the last quantum kinetic cycle. (Or
more precisely, since the strength of the force varies over that
distance and period, the change in energy would be the integral of
the force over that distance, and the change in the electrons
momentum would be the integral of the force over that period of
time). </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">This way of
thinking about the quantum nature of the kinetic cycles may be an
overly crude way of portraying the electromagnetic interactions, but
the step-like changes bring out how the interaction involves not just
the electron, but a complete quantum event making up its kinetic
matter. The change occurs in a cyclic fashion, in which the last
quantum kinetic cycle combines with the force-field matter to
determine how much the next quantum kinetic cycle differs in momentum
and energy. Such electromagnetic interactions are geometrically
complex, because changes in electric forces cause changes in <i>magnetic
</i>forces, which affect their motion, and what is more, these
particles also have magnetic moments due to their intrinsic spin,
which affects them in a different way. The way that these forces work
is what is described by the gauge field theory for electrodynamics.
The transfer of matter from force-field matter to kinetic matter or
back is mediated by the gauge boson for the electromagnetic field,
that is, by the exchange of a particle between them. This particle is
like a real photon, because it is constituted by electric and
magnetic forces interacting in some way. But it is unlike the photons
that constitute light, because the momentum and energy it carries is
not related by <i>E&nbsp;=&nbsp;pc</i>. They cannot have a constant
proportion, because the energy and momentum needed to change the
motion of objects with inertial mass as required by Newtons laws
do not have the same proportion in every case. (That is, momentum is
a function of velocity, whereas energy is a function of the square of
velocity, and so the proportion between them will vary with the
velocity involved.) But this is just the nature of virtual photons,
as opposed to real photons, which can exist independently and make up
ordinary light. The matter constituting virtual photons can come from
the force-field matter included in the rest masses of the particles,
but they must have whatever unit-like nature is required to transfer
all of the momentum and energy picked up from the force-field matter
during the last quantum kinetic cycle at the moment that cycle ends,
whatever the real nature of this possibly crude representation may
be.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US">[When
electrons do finally exchange a photon with the nucleus and their
next quantum kinetic cycle is changed, they have a different location
from where they were at the end of the last quantum kinetic cycle and
their motion is changed for the next quantum kinetic cycle. This
step-like change in their motion is the effect of virtual photons on
the electron, but since the electron is a charged particles, it is
also helping to impose the force field from which the virtual photons
arises. And that is something that we must assume the electron does
constantly, not just at the end of each quantum kinetic cycle, for as
we shall see when we take up the gauge field theory, the electric
charge is explained ontologically as a pulsation of electric forces
emanating from the center of rest mass that is synchronized with
electric charges throughout the universe. That is, all negative
electric charges exert their maximum electric force at the same time
in a cyclic way, and what makes positive electric charges opposite is
that they exert their maximum electric force 180</span></font></font><font color="#000000"><sup><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US">0</span></font></sup></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US">
out of phase. (The synchronization of their pulsations is what is
represented by their &quot;orientation in complex vector fields,&quot;
and the virtual photons of the gauge filed theory are the forces that
must be exerted on charged particles as a result of their motion in
order to conserve electric charge, that is, to keep their pulsations
in synch with the universal pulsation of electric charges everywhere
despite their motion.) In any case, in order to be able to explain
quantum electrodynamics in this way, we will assume that electron is
exerting its electric force in synch with the universal pulsation,
and thus, it must occurs constantly during each quantum kinetic
cycle. And that means that we are assuming that the electron has a
determinate location at each moment during each quantum kinetic
cycle. (For furthere discussion, see </span></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/Lo/L/LoOtkCaLeCosGaugeField.htm" target="Lo"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><span lang="en-US"><u>Change:
Basic Objects: Gauge Field.</u></span></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US">)]
</span></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">If the
interactions among these forms of matter must have the unit-like
nature that we are assuming explains Plancks constant
ontologically, the structure of the atom can be explained as a result
of how all the kinds of quantum events involved fit together in the
spatio-temporal geometry determined by the inherent motion in the
part of space where they exist. This means that the interactions
between the electrons and the nucleus would have a cyclic character,
and all the interactions between electrons and the nucleus (as well
as between the electrons themselves) would give them quantum kinetic
cycles that are synchronized and related spatially, so that they fit
together neatly in space and time like spatio-temporal brick in the
atom as a brick wall being built into the future. But since there are
slightly different combinations of momentums (quantum kinetic cycles)
and positions (the locations where one quantum kinetic cycle ends and
another begins), there is no way to say precisely where any
particular electron is at any time. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Without
trying to explain the orbitals in detail, it is clearly possible that
the electrons are following determinate pathways as a result of
interactions of this kind, changing their quantum kinetic cycles in a
step-like way while all the time helping constitute the
electromagnetic force field by way of their (pulsating) electric
charges. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Though
electrons in the <i>s </i>orbital are most likely to be found in the
nucleus, that does not mean that they do not have a regular motion at
all. Assume that each such electron is in a cyclic interaction with
the nucleus in which it is accelerated first in one direction across
the nucleus and then back in the opposite direction. The changes in
how it moves come at the end of each lap when it is maximally far
away from the nucleus, and it does not change its velocity during the
trip, because it is a single quantum kinetic cycle (at least in the
lowest energy state). That is, where one quantum kinetic cycle ends
and another one begins, the electron changes its momentum all at
once, without slowing down or speeding up. The reason it is most
likely to be found at the center of the nucleus is that it can have
any direction of back and forth motion through the nucleus, and the
nucleus is the one part of space traversed by every possible pathway.
At higher energy levels, the electron would be moving faster, and
thus, it would have quantum kinetic cycles that are shorter and
quicker, and at the <i>n=3</i> energy level, it means that the
electron has a good chance of being located either with the nucleus
or at a distance from it, but not in between. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Electrons
in the <i>p </i>orbital at the <i>n=2 </i>higher energy level have an
orbital angular momentum. But it may seem that they cannot have a
circular orbit around the nucleus in the relevant plane, because its
orbital is usually represented as being a sphere located mostly on
opposite sides of the nucleus. But the regions on opposite sides of
the nucleus are just the real component of the amplitude its
Schrödinger wavefunction, and the complex component puts it on
opposite sides of the nucleus in the same plane, except for being
rotated by 90<sup>0</sup>. The <i>p </i>orbital could, therefore, be
a result of two quantum kinetic cycles, each trying to pull it back
and forth across the nucleus in perpendicular directions (as in the <i>s
</i>orbital), but perpendicular to one another. The quantum
interactions with the nucleus that keeps changing their quantum
kinetic cycles would have to be synchronized to occur 90<sup>0</sup>
out of phase to have this result, but that could be just the
condition of such quantum events being able to coincide with the same
part of space at all. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Even though
different <i>p </i>orbitals are rotating electrons in independent
planes of three dimensional space, they may also be synchronized in a
certain way so as to keep the electrons from exerting too great a
repulsive force on one another. (The general synchronization of these
quantum kinetic cycles and changes in them is evident in the <i>s
</i>electron at the third energy level, for its probable location is
either outside the lower level shell or at the nucleus, suggesting
that it is continually moving through those shells in some way.)</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The reason
that two electrons can fit into each orbital is that, with opposite
orientations of spin, they can be synchronized in exactly the same
way, but 180<sup>0</sup> out of phase or in the opposite directions.
Their opposite orientations of their intrinsic spins would exert a
force (a &quot;magnetic moment&quot;) that lines them up in opposite
ways in the magnetic field, and that suggests that the magnetic
fields plays the central role in making it possible for the exchange
of virtual photons to generate such a neat pattern in the
spatio-temporal geometry of the inherent motion. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Much more
needs to be worked out in order to show how all the electrons in the
orbitals could be following determinate trajectories determined by
quantum kinetic cycles, but there seems to be no reason to deny that
they have such step-like trajectories, even if they cannot be
measured precisely. And it could be extended to include the other
orbitals of atoms and the molecular orbitals that explain chemical
bonds among atoms and groups of atoms. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>Quantum
jumps.</i> Finally, the puzzle about the electron jumps entailed by
the step-like changes in the energy level of atoms would be solved.
All the changes in momentums of electrons, even those within its
energy level, are step-like jumps. They occur at the end of one
quantum kinetic cycle (in our possibly crude way of thinking about
it) and before the next quantum kinetic cycle begins. It is clear
that the change in energy state is a change in the orbital occupied
by an electron is a step-like change, because it occurs with the
absorption and emission of a single photon of the appropriate energy
(and momentum). But that is just what would be expected, if the atom
has a structure that is determined by the way that the quantum events
of the various forms of matter constituting the atom must fit
together in order to coincide with the same part of space given the
spatio-temporal geometry determined by the inherent motion in space.
The electron absorbs or emits a real photon, which changes its next
quantum kinetic cycle so that it is part of a different orbital. The
only possible changes are step-like changes, because they are changes
in the structure of the atom. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
structure I have tried to describe here is the same structure that is
determined by the “quantum potential” that David Bohm found in
the Schrödinger wavefunction by mathematically separating out the
classical forces. That left a force with a localized effect that did
not decline with distance in the way electric forces do, but spread
throughout space. Though Bohm thinks of it as “active information”
which tells the electron how to play out its classical role, it can
be explained, as I have suggested here, by recognizing that kinetic
energy exists as a form of quantum matter by which objects with rest
mass coincide with space, because that determines the same structure
in the inherent motion in space. Quantum kinetic cycles and the
inherent motion in which they are fit together are, in other words,
another ontological explanation of Bohms quantum potential.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i>Lorentz
distortions.</i></span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">
By the way, this explanation of the structure of the atom affords an
of the inevitability of the Lorentz distortions. In explaining the
truth of Einsteins special theory of relativity, I showed that the
Lorentz time dilation and length contraction would be inevitable in
the atom, if the electrons were bound to its nucleus by a unit-like
two-way electromagnetic interaction. (See </span></font></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/Lo/L/LoOtkCaLbStrLorentzDist.htm" target="Lo"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><u>Change:
Special theory of relativity</u></span></font></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">.)
That is apparently the implication of the Schrödinger wavefunction
that describes the motion of such an electron subject to the positive
charge of the nucleus, as can be seen in the </span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><i>s
</i></span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">orbital.
</span></font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The <i>s
</i>orbital corresponds to a standing wave (as in a plucked string)
without a node, and that means that the path of the electron is only
half the total Schrödinger wavelength. (A standing wave of the
complete cycle would have a node, because one half would be positive
amplitude and the other half would have negative amplitude.) Since
the momentum of an electron cannot change during a quantum kinetic
cycle, it seems that either a single cycle of the wavefunction must
be responsible for both legs of its trip across the nucleus, or else
a complete cycle of the wavefunction is responsible for each leg. In
either case, the electromagnetic interaction between the electron and
the nucleus involves a two-way motion across the <i>s </i>orbital. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Such a
two-way, unit-like interaction would cause Lorentz distortions in the
atom, as explained in the discussion of special theory of relativity,
because the inherent motion is what mediates changes in the force
field (and quantum potential) caused by the electron motion. Thus,
when the atom has a high velocity relative to the inherent motion,
the periods of the cyclic interactions between the electrons and the
nucleus increases (causing a time dilation), and the difference
between the one-way velocity of light in opposite directions in space
changes in the longitudinal distance across which they act (causing a
length contraction). </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">As we have
seen, the relativistic increase in inertial mass is simply the
addition of quantum kinetic cycles to the rest mass cycles, which
determines the scaling factor for quantum kinetic cycle and
determines the force required to change its momentum. Thus, the
quantum nature of matter affords an ontological explanation of the
Lorentz distortions, which should eliminate the suspicion that they
are simply ad hoc assumptions contrived to defend classical physics
from the Einsteinian revolution. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">H<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLQm_19" align="right" hspace="5" width="200" height="31" border="0">eisenbergs
uncertainty principle. </font>The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
holds that it is not possible to measure both the position and
momentum of a particle, or indeed both members of any pair of
complementary variables, with arbitrarily high precision. According
to the Copenhagen interpretation, this is because these classical
properties do not describe the real nature of what exists at the most
elementary level. Position and momentum are just properties we read
into the world by using instruments designed to measure material
objects according to principles of classical physics. Since both
position and momentum are needed to predict what a classical particle
will do, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle entails, at least, a
limitation in what can be known, and it can be taken to mean that
what exists at one moment does not determine what happens the next
moment, or the denial of determinism. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
Heisenberg uncertainty principle is equivalent, as mentioned above,
to the non-commutability of operators on the Schrödinger
wavefunction: </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">When the
Schrödinger equation is set up for a given situation, such as an
atom or the two-slit experiment, the time-dependent Schrödinger
wavefunction is a complete description of how interactions unfold
over time. They unfold in a completely deterministic way, just like a
classical wave function, except that the Schrödinger wavefunction
uses complex numbers to describe the wave and it describes a wave in
a configuration space with as many dimensions as three times the
numbers of particles involved. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In order to
make predictions from the Schrödinger wavefunction, mathematical
operators must be applied. They generate real numbers as expectation
values for the relevant property. But what is predicted is either
just a mean value for many such measurements, that is, a
probabilistic prediction, or if it does predict a precise value for
the property involved, that property is one of a pair of
complementary properties, and the other member of the pair cannot be
predicted precisely. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In other
words, classical properties come in complementary pairs that do not
commute. The values predicted for such properties depend on which
complementary operator is applied first. The application of an
operator changes the wavefunction, so that the next operator is
actually applied to a different wavefunction. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">When
a measurement is actually made, the quantum system turns out to have
a property with a determinate value. The standard interpretation of
what happens in such an measurement is called the “collapse of the
wavefunction.”</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">What
actually exists in the system represented by a Schrödinger
wavefunction is assumed to be a superposition of all the states that
might be revealed by a measurement. That is, states corresponding to
all possible outcomes of measurements actually exist at the same
time. Thus, what happens when a measurement is actually made is that
the wavefunction collapses into one of those superposed states. The
system is changed, and then another wavefunction describes the
system, representing a different superposition of states. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Since there
is nothing to determine which way the wavefunction collapses, this
view denies determinism. In effect, it explains the truth of the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle by the actual indeterminacy about
what happens. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">There
is, however, no collapse of the wavefunction, according to
ontological explanations of quantum mechanics along the lines
presented here. In any quantum system, every particle with rest mass
has a determinate position and momentum and follows a classical
trajectory, and measurements reveal properties that the system
actually has. Instead of <i>giving </i>the system the measured
property, as the “collapse of the wavefunction” interpretation
implies, measurement discovers which property the system already had.
</font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">This
way of interpreting measurements of quantum systems is entailed by an
ontological explanation, because it explains the properties and
regularities described by physics as aspects of the substances
constituting the world (and if it is to be genuinely explanatory, it
cannot depend on any randomizing factor assumed as part of the basic
nature of the substances constituting the world). But the price of
holding such a view is explaining why the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle is true. And that can be accomplished by explaining why the
operators corresponding to complementary variables are
non-commutable. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
ontological explanation of complementarity is just the quantum nature
of matter. What “quantum” refers to ontologically are the
elementary events of which everything but space is composed. Each
quantum event is a unit, which either occurs as a whole or not at
all, and every such quantum event has the size of a single quantum of
action, denoted by <i>h,</i> Plancks constant. This explains, as
we have seen, both the particle-like nature of photons as well as the
wave-like nature of particles with rest mass. In the case of such
particles, the complementarity comes from the quantum nature of their
kinetic energy, that is, from the nature of the form of matter that
changes the locations of particles with rest mass. Kinetic energy is
constituted by quantum kinetic cycles, implying that the motion of a
rest mass involves a series of cyclic quantum events, each of which
is a unit of action that moves the rest mass across space a certain
distance during a certain period of time. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">What
ultimately causes the Heisenberg uncertainty is the quantum kinetic
cycle. The velocity of a particle with rest mass moving through space
depends on the wavelength of its quantum kinetic cycle, but the
particle can have a range of different positions in space at the
beginning and end of each quantum kinetic cycle. That is, each
quantum kinetic cycle involves a certain <i>phase </i>as well as a
certain <i>wavelength</i>. But since the particle is located in a
potential field, in order for its energy level to be fixed, a
different location at the end of each cycle may require a slightly
different wavelength the next cycle. Thus, the quantum state of the
particle is some combination of wavelength and phase at its energy
level, but there are many combinations that might satisfy those
conditions. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Both
complementary properties cannot be measured with arbitrary precision
at the same time, because they are different aspects of the same bit
of matter, which is a series of cycle of quantum events, each of
which can interact only as a whole. Either it interacts in a way that
reveals the wavelength of quantum kinetic cycle, which leaves its
phase undetermined, or else it interacts in a way that determines its
phase (that is, the position of the rest mass at the beginning or end
of a quantum kinetic cycle), and its wavelength is undetermined. But
both cannot be measured at the same time, because a quantum event
interacts only as a whole. And complementary aspects cannot be
measured is succession, because such interactions change the cycles
of quantum events. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
Schrödinger equation describes the motion of particles with rest
mass in a potential field where there is a continual exchange between
kinetic energy and potential energy, and on this ontological
explanation, the wavefunction that holds for any given system
describes the quantum kinetic cycles that result for such an
interaction. I have suggested what such an explanation implies about
the atom and the two-slit experiment, but it can be generalized.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">One way
that the Schrödinger wavefunction is different from a classical
wavefunction is that it is complex. There are complex numbers,
involving the square root of minus one, that cannot be eliminated,
and that makes its relationship to the actual world problematic. On
this ontological interpretation, however, they represent the
different possible phases of the quantum kinetic cycles constituting
the momentum of the rest mass cycles. That is, on our crude
interpretation, the starting points and ending points of the quantum
kinetic cycles can have different locations in space and time and
still be quantum kinetic cycles of the kind that can exist under
those circumstances. The complex numbers are a mathematical device
for representing all those different possible phases and keeping
track of how they affect one another. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The other
way in which the Schrödinger wavefunction is different from a
classical wavefunction is that it describes a wave in a configuration
space with three times as many dimensions as there are particles in
the system, and that also makes its relationship to the actual world
of three dimensions problematic. On this interpretation, however,
each of the 3-dimensional spaces is used to keep track of how the
phases of the quantum kinetic cycle a particle involved in the system
unfolds in time. Though the quantum kinetic cycles of all the
particles depend on classical forces and laws, each particle needs a
3-D space of its own in order to represent all its possible phases
separately. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">When a
mathematical operator is applied to the wavefunction and a prediction
is made about the value of some property, the different possible
phases for all the particles are all reconciled with one another,
working out the interference effects they have on one another. And
the prediction is still usually just a mean value for many
experiments, because there is a range of different states in which
the system might be at that point, depending on which precise phases
and wavelengths the quantum kinetic cycles actually had. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The reason
that operators on the Schrödinger wavefunction do not commute is
that they predict two aspects of the same quantum event, such as the
wavelength and phase of the quantum kinetic cycle (as in the
explanation of the Heisenberg uncertainty above). It is possible to
predict a property precisely when it has already been measured once.
But the wavefunction that represents the quantum system as having
that precise property cannot be used to predict the complementary
property of the particle precisely. For example, when a measurement
of the momentum has been made, there is an operator that can be
applied to the wavefunction that will predict the momentum precisely.
But then the phase cannot be predicted precisely, because quantum
kinetic cycles with that wavelength can have different phases. The
same holds in reverse if the phase of the cycle is measured.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The “hidden
variable,” on this explanation, is space and how bits of matter
coincide with it, because the quantum nature of the kinetic energy of
the particles is the factor that determines what happens to the
particles. They need a complete quantum kinetic cycle to get from one
place to another, and thus, at the end of each quantum kinetic cycle,
the forces picked up during that cycle are what determines the next
complete quantum kinetic cycle. The interaction is step-like, and
though I may be portraying it too crudely by thinking of the quantum
events as having definite beginning points and ending points, the
requirement that particles travel across space by such cyclic quantum
kinetic events is what needs to be added in order to see how what
happens to the particle is determined. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">On
this ontological explanation, therefore, the quantum system is
deterministic, and we can understand in principle how it is
determined. But it is not possible to overcome the Heisenberg
uncertainty because of the nature of the quantum kinetic cycles that
constitute the motion of particles with rest mass. They exist only as
a whole or not at all, and thus, they are the smallest unit that can
interact with other bits of matter as a unit, which means in only one
way at a time. That is, the uncertainty comes from an incompleteness
about the representation of the Schrödinger wavefunction: it
represents quantum kinetic cycles, but it does not reveal which of
all possible combinations of wavelengths and phases is actual.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">This
incompleteness interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty solves
the problem of Schrödingers cat. Such cases arise when the phases
of the quantum cycles interfere in such a way that the system can
unfold in radically different ways. For example, in one case
Schrödingers cat is alive and well, and in the other case it is
dead. On the collapse of the wavefunction view, the Schrödinger
wavefunction is a complete description of the situation, implying
that what exists is a superposition of all the possible outcomes, and
thus, since it turns out one way or another when someone looks, which
one actually happens must depend on the measurement. But if which of
the radically different alternatives is actual depends on the phases
of their quantum cycles at the beginning, it is determined, and the
uncertainty about what happens comes from that information not being
included in the wavefunction representing the system. The
incompleteness is inevitable, but that does not mean that it is
indeterministic. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
phenomenon of tunneling can also illustrate the uncertainty. In
tunneling, a charged particle moves past a force field that is
classically strong enough to contain it. It occurs, for example, when
there is a potential barrier separating electrons from protons
attracting them that is just large enough to overcome the attractive
force between them. But different electrons have different quantum
kinetic cycles, setting up different patterns of spacetime cells in
the inherent motion, and depending on whether they reinforce or
cancel out the waves set up by the kinetic cycles of the protons, the
force of attraction will sometimes be great enough for the electron
to tunnel across the barrier.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US">The
situation can be described by a Schrödinger wavefunction, which
represents it as a packet of waves, each standing for a different
possible combination of positions of the particles. As the situation
evolves, however, the packet splits into two different parts, one in
which electrons escape and one in which they do not. Thus, the
equation represents two distinct channels, which subsequently do not
interact. Which member of the packet is actual depends on precise
locations and kinetic cycles of the particles (both wavelengths and
phases). But they behave in a way described by the Schrödinger
wavefunction because they follow the wave pattern set up by their
kinetic cycles (See </span></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/ObjText/#Bohm"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US"><u>Bohm</u></span></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span lang="en-US">
Ch. 5).</span></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">B<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLQm_20" align="right" hspace="5" width="200" height="29" border="0">ell
correlations.</font> The final quantum puzzle is the violation of the
“Bell inequality” by certain quantum systems. John Bell pointed
out that quantum theory predicts that there are correlations between
distant events that cannot be explained without supposing that there
is a causal influence of some kind that travels between them faster
than the velocity of light. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Bell
correlations occur when symmetrical particles, with opposite spin
orientations, travel apart from one another in opposite directions
and the spin of each is measured far away from the other. They always
have opposite spin orientations when measured by imposing a magnetic
field in the same direction in space. When one is up, the other is
down. But the spin orientation they have in one direction of three
dimensional space should not affect the spin orientation in either of
the other two independent directions of space. And thus, the
measurement of the spin of one of the separated particles in one
direction should not affect the spin measured in the other particle
in a different direction. Nevertheless, it is possible to use the
measurement of the spin orientation of one of the particles in one
direction to predict better than expected what spin the other
particle will have when it is measured in an independent direction.
That would be impossible, if spin orientation is a property that each
particle has from the moment they separate and carry with them. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The greater
than expected correlations are predicted by quantum theory. The
prediction is made by applying the appropriate operators to the
Schrödinger wavefunction for the system, and so the measurements are
usually interpreted as involving a collapse of the wavefunction. That
makes it seem as though the measurement of the spin of one of the
particles helps determines which orientation of spin the other
particle will have. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The Bell
correlation is not only a prediction of quantum mechanics, but it has
been confirmed by experiments. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Bohm
(1993, Ch. 7) treats Bell correlations like any other puzzling
phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, that is, as an indication
of the quantum potential. Bohm is also giving an ontological
explanation, but on his theory, the quantum potential is just a
“non-local” aspect of the processes themselves, as if the common
pool of information were broadcast faster than the velocity of light.
Indeed, Bohm takes the world as a whole to have such a non-local
aspect to it. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Non-locality
seems to deny substantivalism about space, and that would make it
incompatible with spatiomaterialism. If space is a substance, then
what separates one part of space (and what happens there) from any
distant part of space (and what happens there) are parts of space
between them that have an existence that is distinct from both of
them. Thus, the only way that this real separation between the parts
of space can be overcome is by something traveling across space as
time passes. To put it negatively, immediate action at a distance
would seem to deny that there really is any substance between the
distant points of interaction that is enduring through time distinct
from them. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
inherent motion in space is a dramatic way of representing this fact
about space as a substance. It is, perhaps, conceivable that Bohms
non-locality is compatible with spatiomaterialism, because I have
been speaking of the inherent motion in a more realistic way than may
be necessary. That is, instead of thinking of space as containing an
inherent motion, we can think of space as having a spatio-temporal
geometry. Thus, what I have described as waves laid out in space by
the inherent motion could likewise be just an aspect of the essential
nature of space everywhere that always exists at the moment. That is,
when the quantum kinetic cycle of a rest mass coincides with space,
it has a certain wavelength and phase, and that wavelength and phase
give it a different relationship to other parts of space with the
same wavelength that are in phase with it than it does with those
that are not in phase. Thus, what I have described as a particle
“broadcasting” its wavelength and phase throughout space would be
just a relationship that always already exists in the spatio-temporal
geometry of space. If that were how the quantum potential is
mediated, as Bohm assumes, it would explain the Bell correlation in
the same way as other quantum phenomena.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">I doubt
that any such ontological explanation is adequate, however, because
in order to explain interference phenomena in the two-slit
experiment, for example, the quantum potential at any point in space
would have to depend not only on the wavelength and phase of the
particle, but also on the geometrical structure of the wall with
two-slits. The waves laid out by the inherent motion that guide the
particle to one of the fringes of the interference pattern must be
singled out from all the other spacetime cells by the structure of
the apparatus and how it fits together with the wavelength of the
particle, and that would also have to be something about each
location in space that always already exists for each possible
arrangement of particles and wall with two-slits. This would be to
attribute an enormously complex structure to the essential nature of
space at every moment of its existence, and the complexity of such an
explanation makes it look rather ad hoc. It would be a much simpler
ontological explanation if the quantum potential were determined by
an actual wave from the moving particle in the inherent motion that
interacts with the two-slit wall, but that is not action at a
distance. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">There
is, however, another explanation of the Bell correlations which is
compatible with the principle of local action. Contrary to what many
philosophers and physicists assume, what is actually known about this
phenomenon does not force us to believe that the principle of local
action is violated. There is a way of interpreting these phenomena
that is compatible with explanation of the quantum potential by waves
laid out in space by the inherent motion. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
predictions from quantum mechanics have to do with measurements of
spin orientation, and they cover only those cases in which both
events are actually measured. As a matter of fact, however, every
experiment that can test Bells theorem involves many, many runs in
which a measurement is simply not successfully made of one or the
other particle (or of both particles). It is possible, therefore,
that the cases in which both measurement are made are a biased
sample. That is, if we could know the spin orientations in <i>all </i>the
cases in which two particles split, it could turn out that their spin
orientations in different directions were indeed independent and
there is no Bell correlation.<sup><a class="sdendnoteanc" name="sdendnote1anc" href="#sdendnote1sym"><sup>i</sup></a></sup>
</font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Such a bias
in the experiment cannot be just an accident. The many cases that
must be ignored because no measurement was made must, for physical
reasons, be mostly of a kind that, if included, would wipe out the
improbable correlation between the distant events. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">It may not
seem like there can be any such factor, because the Bell correlations
are predicted by quantum theory. That makes it seem that the Bell
correlations are just another puzzling quantum phenomena, which
manifest the same underlying mechanisms (whatever they are) as in any
case of measurement. This is the assumption that is made in taking
the correlation to involve the collapse of the wavefunction, except
that unlike the other puzzling phenomena, it cannot be explained by
the kinds of ontological causes described above, because Bell
inequalities show that the collapse of the wavefunction involves
action at a distance. That is, the hidden variable cannot be a local
property, but must be a property that somehow holds of the whole
system, including both particles, regardless how far they are apart
at the time. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
prediction of the Bell correlation by quantum mechanics shows,
however, only that some quantum phenomenon is involved. It may not,
however, be the kind of phenomenon it is seems to be. The nature of
intrinsic spin is not well understood, and it is treated as though it
were completely described by the outcome of a measurement. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In the case
of fermions, of particles with ½ spin, such as electrons, spin is
measured by imposing a magnetic field and measuring the magnetic
moment, that is, the force. The orientation of spin is simply the
sign of that force, positive or negative: if the force is in one
direction, it is spin up, and if it is in the other direction, it is
spin down. Though that is how spin is measured, it is possible that
particles have a more determinate spin orientation that is not
measured in that way. An electron, for example, could have a precise
orientation in three dimensional space, and though that is what
determines the result of the measurement in the one direction that is
singled out by the magnetic field applied, it also has other, more
subtle effects on how the particle interacts.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In the case
of photons, which are what has been used in the experiments that
confirm the Bell correlations, spin is even more puzzling. Since the
photon is a boson with a spin of <i>1</i>, it should have three
different possible orientations in a magnetic field, but since it
moves through space with the velocity of light, one theoretically
possible way of interacting is eliminated, leaving two possible
orientations of spin. Opposite orientations of spin in the case of
photons can be understood as opposite ways in which their electric
force rotates as they move across space, one clockwise in the
direction of motion and the other counterclockwise. However, it is
usually measured by the polarization of the photon as it passes
through a polarizer which is at rest and in which perpendicular
directions, usually called vertical and horizontal, correspond to the
two orientations of spin. But it is not clear why a rotation through
a right angle would change whether a photon with, say, a clockwise
rotation of its electric force, would pass through the polarizer. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">In
the case of both electrons and photons, there is enough uncertainty
about the nature of spin and what is being measured that it is
possible that the Bell correlations depends in some way on how spin
orientation is measured. In either case, the three independent
directions in which spin orientation (up or down or vertical or
horizontal) can be measured are measured by an apparatus that is
rotated in a two-dimensional plane perpendicular to the pathway of
the particle. Thus, what may be a three-way symmetry among spins in
three dimensional space is, in effect, reduced to a three-way
symmetry in a two-dimensional plane. It is possible that in
projecting that the three dimensional structure of spin orientations
onto the two-dimensional plane of the measuring apparatus, some
orientations of spin are more likely to pass by undetected than
others, and they could be ones that would destroy the Bell
correlation. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
selectivity may depend, furthermore, on an interaction between the
actual orientation of spin in three dimensional space and the phase
of its quantum kinetic cycle. Though the quantum potential that is
responsible for interference and other real quantum phenomena
requires a real effect propagating through space with the inherent
motion, there could be an aspect of the waves set up in space by the
inherent motion that makes all wavelengths with the same size and
phase, wherever they exist in space, relate in a special way to the
three dimensions of space. For example, the two particles have
quantum kinetic cycles that are not only of the same wavelength, but
also in phase with one another, and thus, if certain phases make it
easier for them to interact from certain directions in
three-dimensional space than others, the direction used by the
detectors to test for spin orientation could result in a biased
sample, making it appear that distant events are correlated. Such a
factor would bias the sample in a way that makes it seem there are
effect traveling faster than the velocity of light. And it would be
local, because it depends only on the two particles having kinetic
cycles that are in phase.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">There
is reason to think that some such explanation is correct, because
Bell correlations occur only with measurements of spin orientation
and the non-locality exhibited by the Bell correlations in
measurements of spin is not an essential part of any other quantum
phenomena. If it really were a result of action at a distance, it
should be possible to make what happens at one location determine
what happens elsewhere. But Bell correlations are not of a kind that
can be used even to send signals from one place to another. In short,
the Bell correlations are such a limited, subtle and questionable
violation of the principle of local action that it would be foolish
to use it as a reason for denying that spatiomaterialism can be used
as an ontological foundation for a new way of doing philosophy,
especially when that foundation works out so well in every other way.
</font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Though
much more would have to be said to show that this kind of ontological
explanation of the nature of matter and space accounts for all the
phenomena described by quantum mechanics, including quantum field
theory and what it says about the nature of spin, this is enough to
show <i>that there is no good reason to believe that it is impossible
</i>to reduce quantum mechanics to spatiomaterialism. What is known
by physics does not force us to give up the principle of local action
entailed by this ontology, because neither experiment nor quantum
mechanics is sufficient to demonstrate that the principle of local
action does not hold. But this particular ontological theory is just
a possibility introduced in order to speculate about a deeper
explanation of the nature of matter and space, and what is relevant
here is that, even this first approximation shows that there is no
reason to believe that anything established empirically by quantum
physics forces us to give up spatiomaterialism. There is at least one
way that a two-substance ontology like ours can account for the
quantum mysteries. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Let
me emphasize, however, that it is not necessary to believe that what
has been described here is completely accurate. It is only one of a
family of ontological interpretations of quantum theory. What is
common to the family is that the essential nature of matter involves
the ability of bits of matter (of the same form) to exist
independently of one another so that they can acquire spatial
relations by being contained by different parts of space. There may
be reasons for preferring another member of that family to this one.
But this explanation of the quantum mysteries is enough to show that
we do not have to give up the belief that space and matter are
substances that exist continuously over time. </font></font></font>
</p>
<div id="sdendnote1">
<p lang="en-US" class="sdendnote-western" style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.25cm">
<a class="sdendnotesym" name="sdendnote1sym" href="#sdendnote1anc">i</a>
Abner Shimony (1989, p. 31) points out that many pairs tested for
correlation in Bells experiment are not detected and so a (local)
hidden variable could “not only determine passage or non-passage
or a particle through an analyzer but also detection or
non-detection.” This possibility is also recognized by Bohm (1993,
pp. 144-5).</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>