Full text PDF (233 KB) - IOPscience

Journal of Physics Conference Series

OPEN ACCESS

Qualitative insights on fundamental mechanicsTo cite this article Ghenadie N Mardari 2007 J Phys Conf Ser 70 012012

View the article online for updates and enhancements

You may also likeTsallis and Kaniadakis statistics from apoint of view of the holographicequipartition lawEverton M C Abreu Jorge Ananias NetoAlbert C R Mendes et al

-

Jeans gravitational instability with -deformed Kaniadakis distribution inEddington-inspired BornndashInfield gravityWei-Heng Yang Yu-Zhen Xiong et al

-

Quantum entanglement and KaniadakisentropyKamel Ourabah Amel Hiba Hamici-Bendimerad and Mouloud Tribeche

-

This content was downloaded from IP address 472432084 on 21122021 at 0330

Qualitative insights on fundamental mechanics

Ghenadie N MardariRutgers University Piscataway NJ 08854 USA

E-mail gmardarirutgersedu

Abstract The gap between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics has an importantinterpretive implication the Universe must have an irreducible fundamental level whichdetermines the properties of matter at higher levels of organization We show that the mainparameters of any fundamental model must be theory-independent Moreover such models mustalso contain discrete identical entities with constant properties These conclusions appear tosupport the work of Kaniadakis on subquantum mechanics A qualitative analysis is offered tosuggest compatibility with relevant phenomena as well as to propose new means for verification

1 IntroductionIn most interpretations of quantum mechanics the act of observation can determine the natureof real physical properties Probabilistic wave-functions are described as collapsing on singlewell-defined values during this process The problem is that observation is an operation thatpresupposes the existence of an observer (whether it is actually engaged in observation or not)Moreover the being that is qualified as an observer must also be aware of the fact that it can beobserving In other words it has to be self-conscious By default observation cannot happenwithout the existence of a self-conscious observer Yet human beings are known to exist for ashort time in the history of the Universe Physical properties had to be well-defined for billionsof years prior to the emergence of humanity Hence we must assume that some sort of self-conscious entity observed the Universe prior to the development of human beings or else thatthe principles of logical analysis which entail this conundrum must be superseded None ofthese options are scientifically valuable or even informative for the development of physics Thisanalytical dead-end is a well-known aspect of the measurement problem in quantum mechanicsHowever it is remarkable that some physical processes appear to be so closely connected tophilosophical concepts

This link raises an interesting question when we cannot get satisfactory philosophicalimplications from physical hypotheses would it be more useful to do the opposite Perhapsit is possible to describe the emergence of self-conscious beings in material contexts that donot already involve their operation If so it could be useful to identify the class of physicalsystems that are compatible with such a process In a separate paper currently prepared for aphilosophical forum we have shown indeed that self-consciousness can only emerge in few typesof material contexts A structure of a matter based on discrete and well-defined elementaryentities is required Moreover a self-conscious being which is also endowed with freedom ofthe will can only come into existence in a world in which fundamental constituents of matterproduce energy in discrete steps This description leads to a verifiable model in which energyquanta and the speed of their sources must be constant and indestructible It is highly consistent

Third Feynman Festival IOP PublishingJournal of Physics Conference Series 70 (2007) 012012 doi1010881742-6596701012012

ccopy 2007 IOP Publishing Ltd 1

with the foundations of modern physics in which Planckrsquos constant and the constant speedof light are central concepts However the same description is incompatible with the collapsehypothesis as presented above Either we have discovered a way to an alternative self-consistentinterpretation or we have another source of theoretical confusion The answer depends on thenature of additional physical implications that can be traced to these conclusions

In order to narrow down the number of possible models which fit a general descriptionit is frequently useful to consider a greater number of variables With regard to fundamentalprocesses an important aspect is the causal structure of the Universe Does the Universehave infinitely many levels of material organization or does it have a fundamental level withirreducible qualities This question can be answered by taking into account the physicalimplications of each scenario The properties of a coherent system with infinite structure canbe exhausted by a single set of laws The features of any level must always reduce to those oflower levels without any break in causality In contrast a system with finite structure requiresthe existence of two sets of laws One set of laws must describe the macroscopic dynamicsThe second set of laws is required in order to describe the microscopic processes that makeit possible A fundamental level cannot be featureless if it is to determine anything Yetits properties cannot be produced by the same type of interactions that apply to other levelsbecause of its causative function This difference between the two types of systems has a clearobservable implication physical laws must operate without exception in the first case but theymust break down at some level of organization in the second In other words the unavoidablegap between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics is an important indicator It showsthat our Universe contains a fundamental level whose properties must be theory-independent

In light of the above it is acceptable to develop fundamental models without justifying theirexact properties as long as they simplify our understanding of Nature This is a liberatingconclusion but not without constraints The fundamental model must be conceived in a waythat excludes the necessity of reduction to lower-level mechanics Also its properties mustbe able to produce the entirety of macroscopic phenomena including the emergence of self-conscious beings It was mentioned above that fundamental entities must be discrete and alsoact as sources of discrete energy in order to fit the last requirement The best way to satisfy thesecriteria is to develop a model with a constant number of elementary entities whose propertiesare also constant and unchanging If the number of elements in a system is not allowed tochange there is no need for a mechanism to explain change If all the members of a system areidentical there is no need for a mechanism to explain variation Moreover their behavior mustalso be theory-independent When it comes to energy generation it is very difficult to imagine apure particle mechanism whose details do not depend on lower-level processes Wave mechanicsis much more appropriate for this task If the elementary entities are embedded in some sort ofmedium without being able to collide with each other directly and if they can influence eachotherrsquos motion by producing waves on the medium the causal details become irrelevant againEvery material unit in the universe from nucleons to galaxies can be interpreted in terms offorces among their constituents All the forces can be interpreted in terms of waves that influencethe sources All the waves are reducible to the fundamental process of wave generation by theelementary entities but no structural breakdown is possible below the elementary level Discreteaction such as a pluck of a string cannot be meaningfully separated into functional constituentsMoreover the exact nature of the medium is irrelevant as long as it has well-defined propertiesand the same applies to the entities that must pluck it to create waves It does not matter if theelementary entities are simple or complex or if the medium has one micro-structure or anotherIt is sufficient just to identify the basic parameters of their dynamics in order to explain anyrelevant consequence in the observable Universe

In a self-consistent model the properties of a fundamental level cannot produce themselves orcome out of nowhere Yet no kind of knowledge about them could influence the understanding


2

of observable physical processes For example it is relevant to know that atoms havesmaller constituents because lower-level dynamics is a significant source of variation for atomicproperties On the other hand it is not relevant to know what kinds of entities produce forcesat the fundamental level as long as they are being produced at constant rates because suchdetails are inconsequential Still the existence of a fundamental level is an observable fact asmentioned above because it is revealed by the gap between the properties of macroscopic andmicroscopic phenomena This gap forces us to presume the existence of a Law of Nature whichguarantees the constancy of the fundamental properties of the Universe Accordingly we mustassume that elementary constituents will always move at constant rates at the fundamental leveldisplaying a constant linear speed (as observed for the speed of light) We must also assume thattheir action on the hypothesized medium will always be invariant as well resulting in a constantgeneration of wave energy in equal increments (as manifested by the observed principle of energyconservation and by the role of Planckrsquos constant) The interactions between elementary entitieshave to be mediated because direct collisions cannot be expected to be constant in all contexts

The foregoing conclusion raises another question can the known properties of quantumphenomena be explained with a model based on well-defined identical elementary units Thisquestion has been already answered affirmatively by Kaniadakis who derived the formalismof orthodox quantum mechanics from a subquantum model involving classical kinetics [1-3]The idea that quantum states could correspond to some sort of classical statistical ensembleis not new and has always been in the background of quantum theory development Themost well-known models involve either quantum fluid dynamics or quantum Brownian motionStill the idea that every quantum could represent a complex structure of interacting classicalparticles has not been treated rigorously in the past and Kaniadakis has shown that it canbe done without the need for additional assumptions This simple picture involves well-definedquantities of identical classical particles which are allowed to interact in any way that conservestheir number momentum and energy The dynamics of these systems is described in thephase space by the standard kinetic equation with the final implication that it is governed bySchrodingerrsquos equation in the physical space For clarity the main elements of this classicalkinetics are reproduced below The important idea to be retained is that quantum mechanicscan be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to inconsistencies (ie without the hypothesisof mysterious collapse via observation) if the arguments in favor of a fundamental level of matterare validated

2 Subquantum kineticsIn his paper on the statistical origins of quantum mechanics [1] Kaniadakis discussed asubquantum classical model which could provide ontological support for the orthodox quantumtheory He showed that one-particle quantum mechanics can be developed in the context of N-body classical kinetics in phase-space For simplicity he used identical interacting particles withmass micro and chose to call them monads A set of N monads was analyzed in a n-dimensionalphysical space (n = 1 2 3) with the assumption that the same set constitutes a statisticalensemble with a distribution function f(tx v) with

intf dnvdnx = N (1)

in the 2n-dimensional phase space and obeys the kinetic equation

partf

partt+ v

partf

partx+

F

micro

partf

partv= C(f) (2)

F is described as an external force that acts on each monad The interactions among monadsare allowed to take any form as long as their number momentum and energy are conserved


3

Accordingly the three functions g1(v) = 1 g2(v) = v and g3(v) = v2 become the collisionalinvariants of the system and the collisional integral C(f) satisfies the conditions

intC(f)dnv =

intvC(f)dnv =

intv2C(f)dnv = 0 (3)

After several intermediate steps Kaniadakis multiplied Eq (2) by the three collisionalinvariants and integrated with respect to v This produced three hydrodynamic equations

partρ

partt+

part

partx(ρu) = 0 (4)

part

partt(microρui) +

part

partxj(ρϕij) + ρ

partVpartxi

= 0 (5)

part

partt(ρE) +

part

partx(ρs)minus ρ

partVpartt

= 0 (6)

where ϕij = microuiuj + σij is the momentum flux density tensor and si = Eui + σijuj + hi is theenergy flux density vector

Eq (4) is the continuity equation for the system which behaves in the physical space as afluid This equation implies the conservation of the particle number

N =int

ρ dnx (7)

Eq (5) is the Euler equation for the fluid and in absence of external forces partVpartx = 0 impliesthe conservation of the system total momentum

P =int

microρ u dnx (8)

Finally Eq(6) governs the evolution of energy and in the case of time independent forcespartVpartt = 0 implies the conservation of the system total energy

H =int

E ρ dnx (9)

Starting from this foundation Kaniadakis went on to derive the quantum potential forspin-less systems as well as the Schrodinger equation He also showed that the values ofphysical observables can be calculated as mean values of the associated quantum operatorsand even obtained the Heisenberg uncertainty principle In a subsequent paper [2] Kaniadakisextended this picture to non-relativistic quantum mechanics with spin and to nonlinear quantummechanics Yet another paper developed the model further producing formal tools for n-particlenon-relativistic quantum mechanics [3] Kaniadakis is currently working on relativistic quantummechanics in a similar analytical framework

As a corollary of the above the orthodox formalism of quantum mechanics is compatible witha lower-level interpretation involving identical elementary entitiesYet we have shown in theintroduction that only a subclass of this mechanics is plausible for fundamental processes Theconstraint to have constant and irreducible properties is favorable only for mediated interactionHence the monads must be described as moving through a medium at constant rates producingdiscrete excitations (plucks) at every step The unit of action corresponding to these constantenergy inputs can only be equal to Planckrsquos constant These excitations are the only allowedsource of energy in the Universe and the only way for the particles to have effects on each otherIn the absence of external influences from other sources the trajectory of any elementary particle


4

must be rectilinear The speed of displacement in this case would have to correspond to thespeed of light However note that the medium is elastic and cannot have a fundamental rigidunit of distance The primary constant is the number of steps in fixed units of absolute time Inother words energy is the fundamental constant in the model as it is being constantly producedin identical increments by all the monads For interpretive purposes it is more convenient todescribe the medium as a string-based 3-brane This way discrete wave generation can emerge asa necessary effect of monadic displacement from one string to another Though any descriptionthat works is acceptable because the process is supposed to be theory-independent The factorsthat determine the exact values of the fundamental parameters are not allowed to have anyeffect on subsequent physical interactions

The model described above might be easier understood as a literal representation of theHuygens Principle As a reminder Huygens showed that every point on the front of a wavecan be described as a source of waves This approach had its difficulties when applied toelectromagnetic phenomena because it could not explain the directionality of waves or theirquantized nature In contrast here we assume the operation of elementary entities which havewell-defined directions of motion and produce the waves in discrete identical steps Accordingto this description all fields can be interpreted as wave-patterns in the medium produced bythe longitudinal and transverse waves of the sources The pure form of these waves would bedetectable as the zero-point field They could further assume the shape of electromagnetic fieldswhen emitted by longitudinal particle associations Static fields (electric or magnetic) would beproduced by transverse associations of elementary particles Finally the gravitational forcewould have to be a complex manifestation of electric properties In plain terms the photonsare supposed to look like trains of elementary particles where frequency is determined by theaverage interval between elementary units Subatomic particles would resemble micro-galaxiesof elementary constituents It is of note that two symmetric associations which orbit each othermay cancel each otherrsquos field in their own frame of reference but not in all other frames that arein relative motion This residue of electric force would have to manifest as gravity via dynamiceffects according to our interpretation

3 Overcoming possible objectionsThe hypothetical existence of a fundamental level with theory-independent properties is notguaranteed to have scientific value It is worthy of attention only if it uncovers new phenomenain the Universe without contradicting existing knowledge These qualities are not immediatelyobvious considering that energy conservation does not seem to be obeyed in the precedingdescription Moreover the postulation of a real medium appears to be in conflict with well-known tests of invariance in particular with the Michelson-Morley experiments Therefore itis important to address these concerns before discussing other aspects of this model

The principle of energy conservation is not above scientific explanation Ideally its operationshould be reducible to some sort of causal relationship The question is should the causalmechanism itself unfold in a manner that displays energy conservation If it did would it reallybe the determining cause In our opinion the cause should determine the effects without beingdetermined in turn by them Circularity is highly undesirable in any good theory This positionappears to be shared by other approaches as well Hence the Big Bang is supposed to haveproduced all the matter in the Universe from a theory-independent state All of the known lawsare supposed to break down in the proximity of that original point There can no verifiablecause for the Big Bang and none is being promoted by scientists In short the source of energyin the Universe is not explained in any relevant way Similarly the hypothesis of a fundamentallevel of matter cannot propose a theory for the source of energy Instead of suggesting that itcame at once from a single point this approach merely requires a process of constant generationThus the problem is not to prove that such a mechanism is possible The relevant part is to


5

show that it can lead to the manifestation of energy conservation as it is observed on all otherlevels of material organization

As it turns out energy conservation follows naturally from the described model The specifiedmedium is supposed to be fundamental in the sense that all matter is embedded in it Thereforeit cannot have any kind of rigid barriers to serve as wave breakers All the waves must propagateaway from their floating sources without ever being reflected or refracted Assuming thatthe waves are produced at constant rates by the sources and that they spread outwards atconstant rates in a homogenous medium it follows that any finite volume around a sourcemust contain a constant amount of wave energy Note that wave energy is supposed to bethe only kind of energy in the Universe Therefore constant generation of waves can onlyproduce the appearance of energy conservation In any finite volume of space which contains afinite number of sources the total energy will have minor fluctuations around a constant finitevalue in direct proportion to the number of sources Energy conservation is thus interpretedas the conservation of sources All transformation of energy must be reducible in one way oranother to a change in the pattern of interaction among sources This description makes itimmediately obvious why the energy of a very long photon is proportionate to its frequencymultiplied by Planckrsquos constant Frequency is determined by the number of elementary sourcesin any segment which produce waves in constant discrete excitations as they pass by a target ordetector Similarly subatomic particles have energies that are also proportional to the number ofelementary constituents which explains their De Broglie wavelength Though in these cases theexcitations are produced via circular patterns of motion around a common center Elementarysources must always make a constant number of plucks on the medium In complex associationstheir mutual effects induce zitterbewegung which results in subluminal speeds of displacementrelative to the medium This description can also explain the emergence of other phenomenasuch as inertia and variable kinetic energy

Now what about the Michelson-Morley experiments Didnrsquot they put to rest all the modelsthat involve classical mediation at the fundamental level Despite the widespread support forsuch a position it is not exactly accurate Michelson and Morley tested the assumption thatlight is a wave propagating inside a physical medium [4] It is only by virtue of such anassumption that the frequency of light should be Doppler shifted when the source of light is inmotion relative to the medium Yet this assumption does not apply to the model introducedabove If light consists of longitudinal associations of elementary particulate sources which emitwaves at every step then the speed of light is the speed of particles The latter depends on theenergy density of the medium which explains why gravity could act as a refraction coefficientfor light inducing local invariance According to this interpretation Michelson and Morleytested the speed of sources The speed of waves has yet to be determined because it reflects anindependent process What is the phenomenon that corresponds to these fundamental wavesIt has to be the fields that surround each source Therefore in order to determine the speedof these waves and test them for invariance the experiment should be aimed at detecting thespeed of propagation of changes within static fields (electric magnetic or gravitational) Ourapproach survives the objection of invariance by making a very interesting novel predictionwhich is also easily verifiable

After considering several alternatives we came to the conclusion that the elementarysources must make two types of waves longitudinal and transverse Longitudinal (electric)waves must propagate in the direction of motion the sources in opposite directions whereastransverse (magnetic) waves would have to be orthogonal to them In contrast to the traditionalinterpretation which describes electromagnetic waves in terms of mutually generating fields wejust assume that sources are always generating their waves as described Relative to a stationarydetector the passage of a train of sources must produce the observation of an oscillating fieldIf so the waves that constitute the electrostatic and magnetic fields should not be Lorenz


6

invariant An important problem is to identify their speed It has to be finite but there isno reason to expect it to be equal to the speed of light In fact we believe that it should besuperluminal or else it is very difficult to explain quantum interference Very short pulses oflight co-propagating simultaneously would be unable to interfere with each other if their waveshad the speed of light because the waves would never be able to catch up with the adjacentpulses Moreover in inertial systems moving at high speeds relative to the medium interferencewould have to be highly anisotropic contrary to known observations A similar argument can beinvoked to show that gravitational redshift would be impossible within the terms of this modelunless the speed of gravitational waves (which is the speed of electrostatic waves) was higherthan the speed of light Again the waves would never be able to catch up with the photons inorder to affect their frequency (In this context the field is supposed to consist of many wavesconstantly propagating away from the source)

An obvious objection to the previous conclusion is that superluminal waves would have beendetected by now had they been so common However the usual interpretation of static fieldswas not conducive to such discoveries in our assessment Many scientists believe that there isnothing happening inside a static field How can anything propagate if it is static Others believethat static effects are instantaneous all over the universe Yet another group of physicists appearto believe that such effects must obey the speed of light The most common interpretation is thata changing electric or magnetic field must instantly generate an electromagnetic wave whichmeans that changes would propagate at the speed of light However even if the radiation doespropagate at the speed of light (which we do not dispute) the question that we must answeris the speed of changes inside the field while it generates the electromagnetic effect It may berelevant to note here that electromagnetic radiation is always due to the release of elementarysources in our model which explains why it has the speed of light The sudden change of afield due to a discharge or due to a magnetic spike is an independent effect which must beinvestigated exhaustively If such a phenomenon were to be verified the mentioned hypothesesconcerning fundamental mechanics would be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt

It seems that magnetic fields are the best candidates for initial tests because they are easier tomanipulate A very strong magnetic pulse could be produced simply by discharging a capacitorthrough an electromagnet In order to test the speed of the pulse an experimenter would haveto place two detectors in the same direction at different distances from the source Knowing thetime of detection and the distance between detectors it should be easy to calculate the speedof the pulse The problem of course is to achieve the high accuracy that would be required forthis task Rather than using clocks to register the time of detection directly it may be moreconvenient to have some electric switch connected to the detector This way the effect of thedischarge on the detector could be accompanied by the release of a pulse of light The pulsesof light from both detectors should be aimed towards a photodetector placed in the directionof propagation of the magnetic pulse Hence the magnetic pulse would reach the first detectortriggering a co-propagating pulse of light Then it should reach the second detector triggeringthe second pulse of light If the speed of light is equal to the speed of the magnetic pulse thenthe two pulses of light should get to their detector simultaneously If the speed of the magneticpulse is superluminal the second pulse of light should be the first to arrive at the detectorThe distance between magnetic detectors should be large enough to overcome any uncertaintyin the time of emission of the pulses of light The interval between photonic detections can bemeasured with a multi-channel analyzer or with interferometric methods Once the speed ofthe magnetic pulses is verified conclusively different experiments can be devised to test it forinvariance

In addition to this chief prediction about the speed of waves the model presented above hasseveral other implications concerning gravitational electromagnetic and quantum effects Inmany cases experimental evidence is already available Where this is the case it seems that


7

the model is compatible with the data The most interesting findings known to us are outlinedin the following sections of this presentation

4 Relevant electromagnetic effectsIf basic forces are really produced by outwardly propagating waves as suggested above thenmoving charged andor magnetized bodies should experience deformations of their fields due toDoppler effects Moreover these deformations should be detectable internally from their ownsystems of reference They should manifest as field asymmetries It is not an excessive task topropose relevant experimental settings in order to test this conclusion However it is instructiveto note that the magnetosphere of the Earth has a well-studied dawn-dusk asymmetry Thisphenomenon is detectable in the form of diurnal variations in the geomagnetic declination as wellas via measurements of azimuthal distributions of the cosmic showers It is just as interestingthat Jupiter also has a strong dawn-dusk magnetospheric asymmetry similar to other planetsand moons from the Solar system that have been studied According to our interpretation allcosmic bodies that have magnetic fields should manifest asymmetries along their axis of motionIn the case of planets that follow counterclockwise orbital and axial rotation the magnetic fieldshould be stronger on the dawn side It is important to keep in mind that magnetospheresare very complex fields subjected to multiple causes for variation Our preliminary surveys ofthe relevant literature have not yielded enough information for solid conclusions For a properconfirmation all of those magnetic fields should be asymmetric in the predicted direction andthey should also be stable enough to be attributed to constant Doppler effects Neverthelessit is already significant that these asymmetries exist and we want to draw more attention tothem

The interpretation of forces in terms of fundamental waves leads to a new way ofunderstanding electrodynamic phenomena According to currently accepted theories magnetismis not really an independent force It is a relativistic effect of moving charged bodies Withincreasing velocity charge weakens and transforms into magnetism This relationship is hardto dispute phenomenologically However it does not seem to work in all cases For example itis a known fact that parallel currents attract while antiparallel currents repel If the electronsfrom parallel currents move with the same velocity they are practically at rest relative toeach other Instead of magnetic attraction electric repulsion should be the dominant effectbut this is not the case Another important feature of modern models is the assumption thatcharge has fundamental monopoles and that magnetic monopoles could exist as well Theseimplications are in direct contrast with the model presented above Under the assumption offundamental generation magnetic and electric waves co-exist at all times despite the differentmacroscopic manifestations Moreover those waves can only be produced in pairs of oppositepolarity propagating in opposite directions There can be no magnetic monopoles or chargemonopoles The structure of charged subatomic particles is supposed to be such that electricwaves propagate along the direction of motion Due to the Doppler effect the electric field mustbe denser in the direction of motion producing an overall surplus of charge in most frames ofreference At the same time the magnetic waves are orthogonal do the direction of motion andare not distorted like that Their bi-polarity is always obvious This description entails thatstatic electrons with similar orientation cancel each otherrsquos magnetic effects (in the rest system ofreference) whereas their charge is cumulative On the other hand electrons lined sequentially incurrents should cancel most of each otherrsquos electric force exposing their magnetic force relative tomoving targets In conclusion the assumption of fundamental generation implies that electricityand magnetism do not transform into each other It is only their manifestation that dependson relativistic considerations In terms of observations this means that static configurationsof charged particles should have detectable magnetic effects (as in the example with attractingcurrents) Another implication is that currents of charged particles should have detectable static


8

fields as well Such effects have been observed in the past and they have yet to be conclusivelyinterpreted

A set of experiments with high voltage discharges reported by Podkletnov and Modanese [5]is particularly relevant for this presentation On the one hand the authors showed that largenumbers of electrons released by a superconducting emitter through a rarefied gaseous mediumdid not produce lightning sparks They rather propagated in the form of flat disks correspondingto the surface shape of the cathode all the way towards the anode The electric force shouldhave caused the electrons to fly away from each other even as they were attracted by the anodebecause they were not in relative motion at emission On the other hand the discharges havealso produced some kind of force beams which propagated through material obstacles withoutabsorption far beyond the boundaries of the anode The beams had measurable effects onsuspended targets regardless of their electrical properties (charged and neutral alike) In ouropinion this experiment confirms the existence of static fields along the direction of propagationof electrons in currents It also appears to support the hypothesis of underlying unity betweencharge and gravity Since the publication of the quoted report Podkletnov has improved hisexperiment detecting the effects of these static pulses up to a mile from the site of dischargeHe has made public and private claims to the effect that he was able to measure their speed ofpropagation but that his findings were too odd to be accepted for publication The surprise wasthat the measured speeds were consistently superluminal exceeding the speed limit for Einsteincausality by almost two orders of magnitude It is highly desirable to have such claims confirmedwith independent experiments Validation may not require costly developments as suggestedby the proposal with magnetic pulses described in the preceding section of this presentationUntil then we are encouraged by the remarkable consistency between Podkletnovrsquos findings andthe predictions of our qualitative model

Another important phenomenon that must be mentioned here is the Biefeld-Brown effect Itconcerns the fact that asymmetric capacitors display a measurable net force in the direction ofthe smaller surface This tendency can be used to extract useful motion from static devicesSeveral years ago a French enthusiast posted detailed instructions for several gadgets of this sortsparking an internet phenomenon called ldquothe Lifter Projectrdquo [6] The term refers to a simplecapacitor built with a large (yet narrow) tinfoil cathode and a thin wire anode stretchedaround a light wooden structure Discharges are prevented by the air gap between the twocomponents and the whole device lifts into the air when high differences in potential areapplied (usually between 10-30 kV) The cause of levitation as shown in several experimentsposted on the same site appears to be the tendency of the charged tinfoil surface to movetowards the wire with opposite polarity (which is fixed above it on the same frame) The tinfoillifts the whole structure up and even has enough potential left for a small payload There aremore than 350 registered replications of the lifter built by amateurs from various countriesAccording to some interpreters this phenomenon should not be possible because it appears toviolate the principle of momentum conservation However this appearance is deceiving in ouropinion The fundamental particles can never stop their constant motion while the state of themedium determines the pattern and direction of motion In the absence of physical constraintssubatomic particles will react to each otherrsquos presence until all forces cancel out Symmetrymust be a final outcome for macroscopic observables not an inviolable state Hence it cannotapply to capacitors with finite capacitance Asymmetric capacitors will necessarily have unequalamounts of charged entities on each side With charge being strongest in the direction of motionaccording to our model all particles should end up being oriented towards the side with oppositepolarity The capacitor as a whole is pushed in opposite directions by its two constituent partsand the side with more charged particles wins Our conclusion is that thrusters and liftersdisplaying the Biefeld-Brown effect are similar to boats with two propellers on opposite sidesThe net motion of the boat will be in the direction of action of the strongest propeller The


9

principle of energy conservation is not violated any more than in any other experiment involvingstatic electricity If the momentum of subatomic particles was stored from an external sourceas commonly suggested by many theories this phenomenon would have been very difficult toexplain As a corollary the Biefeld-Brown effect is a strong argument in favor of the hypothesisof constant and indestructible fundamental motion

5 Relevant quantum effectsPuzzles and paradoxes enjoy a central role in quantum mechanics This is probably whythere are so many published reports on various experiments that study the same phenomenonfrom different angles Accordingly we had more opportunities to test the implications of ourhypotheses in this area Our main conclusions on quantum phenomena have been alreadypresented elsewhere [7] and there is no time to describe them here in detail Two importantfeatures need to be mentioned though Quantum mechanics is primarily quantitative and thismay blur important distinctions between different types of phenomena For example many typesof correlations are often treated as related examples of quantum interference or entanglementWe find it important to differentiate between Bell-type polarization correlations and momentumcorrelations that produce actual fringes Bellrsquos inequality is a formal instrument which hasvery specific implications about the type of statistics that can violate its predictions Themost common interpretation is that a violation of Bellrsquos inequality rules out realism Stillif we assume the existence of a fundamental level of matter with special rules of interactionthen realist models which violate classical statistics are still possible It is sufficient to allowthat entangled quanta violate the Malus law in order to predict violations of Bellrsquos inequalitywithout non-local interactions As mentioned above our model of fundamental mechanics doesviolate Einstein causality by allowing that waves can propagate faster than light Howeverthis does not seem to be relevant for polarization entanglement The initial state of some pairsof photons can be such as to produce stronger correlations than any classically polarized andpurified beam In contrast interference fringes can only emerge via physical interactions thatoccur well after emission Because of the assumption that waves must overlap for this typeof phenomena sources of waves must be close enough for visible effects Another differencefrom alternative interpretations is our insistence on the fact that coherence is not sufficient forinterference This consideration enabled us to predict the limits of Young interference andto extend our conclusions to the interpretation of various non-classical phenomena such asghost interference quantum imaging and quantum erasure The main advantage of this modelis that classical analogies for quantum interactions are always possible and this enables thedevelopment of conclusive new tests for its predictions

It is always helpful to have experiments that test the indirect implications of one mechanismor another However the holy grail of experimental physics is to obtain direct verification ofany kind of process In contrast to earlier assumptions that quantum properties can not beobserved we would like to propose a simple experiment to reveal the main attributes of opticalinterference As mentioned repeatedly in this presentation the photons can be described astrains of elementary entities which generate waves It is the waves that guide the photonsinto fringes Still it is the sources (particles) which generate the clicks at the detectors Inother words it should be possible to develop an experiment with overlapping wave-packets butnon-overlapping sources of waves In suitable arrangements classical pulses of light could bedetected with time-resolved quantum detectors in order to obtain interference distributions forindependent sets of detection events What do we mean by that A coherent laser beam canbe chopped into a pulse with well-defined boundaries The pulse can then be separated in twowith a 50-50 non-polarizing beam-splitter The two smaller pulses can then be suitably guidedtowards a Young interferometer along unequal paths The beginning of the delayed pulse mustfall very close to the tail of the preceding pulse without overlapping such as to make it possible


10

to distinguish one pulse from another in a time resolved record of detection events Accordingto our interpretations the waves from each pulse could have effects on the other This effectshould diminish with the square of the distance and should be highest within two wave-lengthsfrom any two sources Consequently the photons from the front of the first pulse or the tailof the second pulse should not contain any artifacts However the photons that are closest tothe boundary between the two pulses should group into fringes and the effect should obviouslydiminish with distance Thus it is possible to test the reality of these waves and their effectsdirectly More sophisticated experiments could even produce a dynamic picture of the processof interference It is also important to note that the waves from the second pulse could onlyinfluence the first one if their speed was superluminal If these waves are real but their speedis equal to the speed of light only the second pulse should contain fringes Therefore theexperiment can test for the reality of waves and also yield a general indication about theirspeed

6 ConclusionIn this presentation we have argued that the Universe must have a fundamental level whoseproperties are determined by theory-independent processes The reality of such a level issupported by several known facts such as the gap between classical and quantum phenomenathe quantized nature of energy and the constant speed of light Furthermore the fundamentallevel must contain discrete elementary entities producing energy in discrete steps or else itleads to philosophical inconsistencies at higher levels of organization It was argued that allthe energy in the Unverse must be in the form of waves propagating away from the points ofexcitation where elementary entities interact with a continuous medium The most importantprediction concerns the speed of those waves According to our interpretation this is the speedof propagation of changes in magnetic electric and gravitational fields It probably has to besuperluminal in order to be consistent with known observations but the exact value has yetto be determined The model was also shown to be consistent with the principle of energyconservation It does not contradict the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments

The formal details of this interpretive model have yet to be fully worked out in detail thoughit was shown to be a subclass of a more general model (developed by Kaniadakis) whichfits well with mainstream theories It was shown that the model is very well supported byinterferometric data as argued in other presentations as well It is particularly consistent withseveral unexplained electromagnetic phenomena such as the Biefeld-Brown effect Podkletnovrsquosexperiments with high voltage discharges and possibly with the dawn-dusk asymmetries inthe magnetic fields of several planets To sum up we have found a way to describe thefundamental processes in the Universe without running into interpretive contradictions Thismodel is compatible with existing data and even appears to explain some discoveries that couldnot be fully interpreted before

References[1] Kaniadakis G 2002 Physica A 307 172[2] Kaniadakis G 2003 Found Phys Lett 16 99[3] Kaniadakis g 2003 Phys Lett A 310 377[4] Michelson A A and Morley E W 1887 Amer J Sci 34 333[5] Podkletnov E and Modanese G 2003 J Low Temp Phys 132 239[6] httpjnaudinfreefrliftersmainhtm[7] Mardari G N 2006 AIP Conf Proc 810 360


11

Qualitative insights on fundamental mechanics

Ghenadie N MardariRutgers University Piscataway NJ 08854 USA

E-mail gmardarirutgersedu

Abstract The gap between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics has an importantinterpretive implication the Universe must have an irreducible fundamental level whichdetermines the properties of matter at higher levels of organization We show that the mainparameters of any fundamental model must be theory-independent Moreover such models mustalso contain discrete identical entities with constant properties These conclusions appear tosupport the work of Kaniadakis on subquantum mechanics A qualitative analysis is offered tosuggest compatibility with relevant phenomena as well as to propose new means for verification

1 IntroductionIn most interpretations of quantum mechanics the act of observation can determine the natureof real physical properties Probabilistic wave-functions are described as collapsing on singlewell-defined values during this process The problem is that observation is an operation thatpresupposes the existence of an observer (whether it is actually engaged in observation or not)Moreover the being that is qualified as an observer must also be aware of the fact that it can beobserving In other words it has to be self-conscious By default observation cannot happenwithout the existence of a self-conscious observer Yet human beings are known to exist for ashort time in the history of the Universe Physical properties had to be well-defined for billionsof years prior to the emergence of humanity Hence we must assume that some sort of self-conscious entity observed the Universe prior to the development of human beings or else thatthe principles of logical analysis which entail this conundrum must be superseded None ofthese options are scientifically valuable or even informative for the development of physics Thisanalytical dead-end is a well-known aspect of the measurement problem in quantum mechanicsHowever it is remarkable that some physical processes appear to be so closely connected tophilosophical concepts

This link raises an interesting question when we cannot get satisfactory philosophicalimplications from physical hypotheses would it be more useful to do the opposite Perhapsit is possible to describe the emergence of self-conscious beings in material contexts that donot already involve their operation If so it could be useful to identify the class of physicalsystems that are compatible with such a process In a separate paper currently prepared for aphilosophical forum we have shown indeed that self-consciousness can only emerge in few typesof material contexts A structure of a matter based on discrete and well-defined elementaryentities is required Moreover a self-conscious being which is also endowed with freedom ofthe will can only come into existence in a world in which fundamental constituents of matterproduce energy in discrete steps This description leads to a verifiable model in which energyquanta and the speed of their sources must be constant and indestructible It is highly consistent


ccopy 2007 IOP Publishing Ltd 1






2




intf dnvdnx = N (1)


partf

partt+ v

partf

partx+

F

micro

partf

partv= C(f) (2)



3


intC(f)dnv =

intvC(f)dnv =



partρ

partt+

part

partx(ρu) = 0 (4)

part

partt(microρui) +

part

partxj(ρϕij) + ρ

partVpartxi

= 0 (5)

part

partt(ρE) +

part

partx(ρs)minus ρ

partVpartt

= 0 (6)



N =int

ρ dnx (7)


P =int

microρ u dnx (8)


H =int

E ρ dnx (9)




4






5






6






7





8





9





10






11






2




intf dnvdnx = N (1)


partf

partt+ v

partf

partx+

F

micro

partf

partv= C(f) (2)



3


intC(f)dnv =

intvC(f)dnv =



partρ

partt+

part

partx(ρu) = 0 (4)

part

partt(microρui) +

part

partxj(ρϕij) + ρ

partVpartxi

= 0 (5)

part

partt(ρE) +

part

partx(ρs)minus ρ

partVpartt

= 0 (6)



N =int

ρ dnx (7)


P =int

microρ u dnx (8)


H =int

E ρ dnx (9)




4






5






6






7





8





9





10






11




intf dnvdnx = N (1)


partf

partt+ v

partf

partx+

F

micro

partf

partv= C(f) (2)



3


intC(f)dnv =

intvC(f)dnv =



partρ

partt+

part

partx(ρu) = 0 (4)

part

partt(microρui) +

part

partxj(ρϕij) + ρ

partVpartxi

= 0 (5)

part

partt(ρE) +

part

partx(ρs)minus ρ

partVpartt

= 0 (6)



N =int

ρ dnx (7)


P =int

microρ u dnx (8)


H =int

E ρ dnx (9)




4






5






6






7





8





9





10






11


intC(f)dnv =

intvC(f)dnv =



partρ

partt+

part

partx(ρu) = 0 (4)

part

partt(microρui) +

part

partxj(ρϕij) + ρ

partVpartxi

= 0 (5)

part

partt(ρE) +

part

partx(ρs)minus ρ

partVpartt

= 0 (6)



N =int

ρ dnx (7)


P =int

microρ u dnx (8)


H =int

E ρ dnx (9)




4






5






6






7





8





9





10






11






5






6






7





8





9





10






11






6






7





8





9





10






11






7





8





9





10






11





8





9





10






11





9





10






11





10






11






11

Date post:	10-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

Full text PDF (233 KB) - IOPscience

Documents