-
Discussion
Started 16 November 2024
Can the great incompatibility between GR and QM be overcome?
Can the great incompatibility between GR and QM be overcome?
This is question I asked myself a long time ago, and In fact, with the use of complex numbers, based on most beautiful equation of mathematics, in 1991, I found a way to deduce all fundamental equations of physics, based in a concept I called a Basic Systemic Unit, based on Euler's relation, that has the most remarkable property to remain the same with those operation that represent change, I mean derivation and integration. One of most important aspect of this treatment, is that due to that metric based on the BSU, in which both totalities of time and space are differentiated by that symbol that Descartes called imaginary, I mean
i=sqr(-1)
which in fact is a symbol to differentiate two different orders of reality or totalities, in this case Time and Space. In that metric of the BSU, the part affected by the symbol "i" has to do with Space and is affected by the Sine that has two solutions
Sine(Theta) = Sine(Theta)
Sine(-Theta) = -Sine(Theta)
while that part not affected by "i", or else Time, is affected by the Cosine function that has just one solution
Cos(Theta) = Cos(Theta)
Cos(-Theta) = Cos(Theta)
This fact is the reason of that great incompatibility between GR and QM, as in GR based on Tensor Analysis, Time is reduced to a Space dimension, so it is symmetric just as Space, and can take both signs, so it is possible to conceive travel to the past or to the future, just as space, in which if we have a point of reference, it is possible to travel in any direction.
The BSU is a system in the complex plane, not a trajectory, whose state must be determined in such a way that we must have relations between both totalities, of Time and Space, or the contrary we will have the Uncertainty Principle.
For those interested in how this great incompatibility between GR and QM that has produced the so called the Crisis of Physics, in my paper
QUANTUM PHYSICS
you can find how to overcome that Crisis as is shown with:
- the pendulum formula
- the Special Relativity with another approach based on the BSU
- that of GR, that has to do with the perihelion of Mercury
- and that Schrödinger's wave equation
Thanks for your attention
Edgar Paternina
retired electrical engineer
Most recent answer
Dear Mikhail N Dulin ,
I am not a believer in the current standard theory. My vision does not require it.
your second paragraph is excellent, in my case it is presented in a slightly different way.
In relation to the third paragraph. There is no need for mass or charge. Simply the elementary electromagnetic material particle is needed, this vision similarly imagines the Solar System and its main components, the planets. This is not about Bohr's atomic model. Bohr did not have a sound understanding of the solar system when he created his model. I am not a physicist, please accept my following modification with strong criticism! :
' It is with these masses that the "gravity quanta" will be connected, which for massive bodies which give in total that microscopic 'curvature of space' that we can call graviton' In contrast to the zero in the sum of the electrostatic contribution for neutral bodies with zero charge. [with this, we have seen a possible contradiction in the case of gold. based on the opinions of others, I didn't have the opportunity to check this personally!]
I don't have the opportunity or time to conduct experiments and look for a resolution of an existing seeming problem. If this problem cannot be eliminated, then the concept is flawed. In this case, Einstein's concept of gravity will also seem to be impossible to save!
Regards, Laszlo
4 Recommendations
Popular replies (1)
Dear Mikhail N Dulin ,
I am not a believer in the current standard theory. My vision does not require it.
your second paragraph is excellent, in my case it is presented in a slightly different way.
In relation to the third paragraph. There is no need for mass or charge. Simply the elementary electromagnetic material particle is needed, this vision similarly imagines the Solar System and its main components, the planets. This is not about Bohr's atomic model. Bohr did not have a sound understanding of the solar system when he created his model. I am not a physicist, please accept my following modification with strong criticism! :
' It is with these masses that the "gravity quanta" will be connected, which for massive bodies which give in total that microscopic 'curvature of space' that we can call graviton' In contrast to the zero in the sum of the electrostatic contribution for neutral bodies with zero charge. [with this, we have seen a possible contradiction in the case of gold. based on the opinions of others, I didn't have the opportunity to check this personally!]
I don't have the opportunity or time to conduct experiments and look for a resolution of an existing seeming problem. If this problem cannot be eliminated, then the concept is flawed. In this case, Einstein's concept of gravity will also seem to be impossible to save!
Regards, Laszlo
4 Recommendations
All replies (12)
Dear Edgar Edgar Paternina ,
I am not a mathematician or a theoretical physicist. My ideas are born from an empiricist approach, from the observation of nature. The answer to your question is yes, but not based on a mathematical approach. My method is metaphysical, as it was necessary to create an image of a substance that forms the basis of all perceptible and non-perceptible expressions of existence found in nature. It is about the a priori entity, which could be connected to traditional Chinese philosophy (Taoism), which represents a dualistic perspective. bound to atomic, subatomic particles:
If I have free time I'll make a video about it on my Geo-Intuition channel
I managed to conduct some simple, banal experiments in China that confirmed my prediction. Subscribe to my channel and recommend it to others, because I will only show these if there is a sufficient number of subscribers (for example, at least 500). If you happen to do something like that, let me know, because I'll subscribe.
I have a Russian friend (
Marina Klykova
) who is a mathematician, and I'm going to send him this question because this is his field.Regards,
Laszlo
4 Recommendations
Dear László,
Thanks for you reply!
As electrical engineer, I learned mathematics, and specially complex numbers, based on the most beautiful equation of mathematics, as it contains all numbers, and was found by Euler when working with infinite series in 1745. My concept of Basic Systemic Unit, based on that relation permitted me to define a minimum system, that included two totalities(not dimensions) such as Time and Space, that cannot be reduced the one to the other, the great drawback of Einstein's GR, in which he used, Tensor Analysis, based just on real numbers, that had the great inconvenience , that there is no way to differentiate one "dimension" from the other, reducing in this way Time to Space dimension, creating in this way a concept of time, totally symmetric as space, and so the possibility of time travel, and a universe of ten dimension, something that cannot be proven, and as so physics entered in his great Crisis.
My Best Regards
Edgar
2 Recommendations
Naresuan University
This article presents an intriguing and creative idea regarding the use of complex numbers and Euler's relation to deduce the fundamental equations of physics. The concept of the Basic Systemic Unit (BSU) appears to offer a new framework for integrating the dimensions of time and space, with the imaginary unit i=−1i = \sqrt{-1}i=−1
Brief Comments:
- Creativity: The utilization of iii to separate time and space is innovative, and linking the BSU to physical equations such as General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) provides a fresh perspective that could address the longstanding challenge of unifying these two theories.
- Observations: The article would benefit from clearer mathematical and physical explanations, especially regarding how the BSU resolves the incompatibilities between GR and QM. Additionally, more details are needed to explain how the BSU connects with Schrödinger's equation, Mercury's perihelion, and other key phenomena.
- Suggestions: To enhance credibility, the author should consider publishing this work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and provide numerical examples or experimental validations to support the proposed ideas.
Overall, this concept has the potential to spark discussions among physicists and warrants further investigation in an appropriate academic context.
1 Recommendation
Institute of Thermophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia
Dear Edgar Paternina ,
No, it won't work. Until we know the following things:
1. Why the motion of a small (quantum) particle is periodic precisely by the quantum of action h and always constitutes an integer number of them;
2. What causes gravity at the microscopic level, what is the "quantum of gravity";
As well as:
3. Why is it necessary to consider the momentum in GTR and quantum mechanics, but not the velocity of a particle?
Dulin Mikhail.
1 Recommendation
Dear Mikhail N Dulin ,
'2. What causes gravity at the microscopic level, what is the "quantum of gravity";'?
Why didn't you read my article:
?
Gravity can be attributed to similar causes as macroscopically.
The "quantum of gravity" is graviton but only at an elementary level only related to atomic subatomic particles:
Chapter 230902-En-H-Gr-t
(Translated part of previous mentioned article)
Regards, Laszlo
3 Recommendations
Dear Mikhail N Dulin,
Well my main point is to obtain those fundamental equations of physics with a concept of unit which is a minimum system, constituted by two totalities, such as Time and Space, that must not be reduced the one to the other, as was done in GR... the state of that minimum system can be determined when we have relation laws between its two state variables such as:
- the pendulum case, in which we have that equality of the inertial mass and weighting mass
- SR, where the constancy of the velocity of light is the main issue that permits to obtain its state, defined by the Lorentz transformation group that permit the invariance of the Maxwell equations
- in case of gravitational field the laws of Kepler are the ones that permit to determine the state of the system, with those equation of Newton for normal planets, but also that of the perihelion of Mercury
- and the case of the Schrödinger's wave equation in which we don't have those relation laws between time and space, and as so the Uncertainty Principle
I hope this make more clear the way in which the BSU, is used to deduce those fundamental equations, of those four physical systems.
The concept of particle is not the main issue anymore, but the concept of System, whose state can be determined, as I said if we have relation laws that permit to determine its state.
Best regards
Edgar Paternina
Institute of Thermophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia
Dear László Attila Horváth ,
The hypothetical particle, which is now called a graviton, has the properties of a boson, with which I cannot agree categorically.
In my opinion, the curvature of space caused by the particle with mass has the same character as the static curvature of space caused by an elementary electric charge. After all, the formula is known that the quantum of action h = e·μ, where e is the electron charge (in absolute value), and μ is the quantum of magnetic flux. That is, the charge and magnetic flux are an inseparable whole, when one cannot exist without the other. In this regard, we can recall the school physics program, where a direct electric current causes a ring magnetic field around a conductor with an interesting spatial dependence 1/R.
If the elementary charge (in absolute value) is only one, then there are several elementary masses. The main ones among them are the mass of an electron, proton and neutron. It is with these masses that the "gravity quanta" will be connected, which for massive bodies give in total that macroscopic curvature of space that we call gravity. In contrast to the zero in the sum of the electrostatic contribution for neutral bodies with zero charge.
However, I do not insist on my opinion as the only correct one. It takes time for people to get used to the discrete representation of space and particles in it through the quantum of action h. And first, try to find your way in solving existing problems.
Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.
2 Recommendations
Institute of Thermophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia
Dear Edgar Paternina ,
The quantum of action h can also be considered as a unit in a certain sense. It is through it I consider the space and the particles in it as discrete. Through this quantum of action h, it is possible to independently express (obtain) both the discrete scales of space λ=h/p and the discrete time intervals τ=h/ε, if we consider the motion of single particle with momentum p and energy ε.
At this stage, you and I have no contradictions, and there is a hope that with a deeper consideration of the problem, consensus can also be reached.
Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhael.
Dear Dulin Mikhail,
Certainly h is fundamental unit as without the plank constant, see figure, the Schrödinger's wave equation could not be deduced
My Best Regards
Edgar
1 Recommendation
Dear Laszló,
Certainly there two independent fields of physics at this moment as Schrödinger put it in
"JULY 1952 COLLOQUIUM
I • Introduction
Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, l am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. It has been worked out in great detail to form a scheme of admirable logical consistency that has been inculcated ever since to every young student of theoretical physics."
- the one of Quantum Mechanic that has to do basically with the behavior of the electron, and
- and that one of the Standard Model, that has to do with fundamental particles called Quarks, that as a matter of fact, cannot be seen, and this field has nothing to do with QM, as Schrödinger put it. This is a field not accessible for normal human beings, as they need THE LARGEST MACHINE EVER BUILT: the Large Hadron Collider, as SEAN CARROLL put it in his book THE PARTICLE AND THE END OF THE UNIVERSE.
So particle physics is a new field, that is working with a quite different framework as that one initiated by Schrödinger in 1926, when presented his equation that solved the duality of wave-particle.
My best regards
Edgar
1 Recommendation
Dear Mikhail N Dulin ,
I am not a believer in the current standard theory. My vision does not require it.
your second paragraph is excellent, in my case it is presented in a slightly different way.
In relation to the third paragraph. There is no need for mass or charge. Simply the elementary electromagnetic material particle is needed, this vision similarly imagines the Solar System and its main components, the planets. This is not about Bohr's atomic model. Bohr did not have a sound understanding of the solar system when he created his model. I am not a physicist, please accept my following modification with strong criticism! :
' It is with these masses that the "gravity quanta" will be connected, which for massive bodies which give in total that microscopic 'curvature of space' that we can call graviton' In contrast to the zero in the sum of the electrostatic contribution for neutral bodies with zero charge. [with this, we have seen a possible contradiction in the case of gold. based on the opinions of others, I didn't have the opportunity to check this personally!]
I don't have the opportunity or time to conduct experiments and look for a resolution of an existing seeming problem. If this problem cannot be eliminated, then the concept is flawed. In this case, Einstein's concept of gravity will also seem to be impossible to save!
Regards, Laszlo
4 Recommendations
Similar questions and discussions
Can the physical reality be represented mathematically?
Can the physical reality be represented mathematically?
Well actual physics, can be represented mathematically with the Basic Systemic Unit, based on Euler’s relation with its most remarkable property of remaining the same in spite of change, that permits to deduce the fundamental equations of physics such as :
* that of the pendulum a real harmonic oscillator
* that of the gravitational field including that of the planet mercury obtained by Einstein, but in this case obtained with a mathematical tool no so much complicated as was done with Tensor Analysis
* those of SR in another approach, in which linear moving is just a special case of the more general solution obtained with the BSU concept in which covariance is included as it is a consequence of the isomorphic property of Euler’s relation mentioned above and finally the
* Schrödinger’s wave equation
For those interested in the way all this is obtained you can see my papers:
QUANTUM PHYSICS
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384190006_Quantum_Physics (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384190006_Quantum_Physics)
A QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITATION
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385592651_A_Quantum_Theory_of_GravitationNewpdf (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385592651_A_Quantum_Theory_of_GravitationNewpdf)
SPECIAL RELATIVITY WITH ANOTHER APPROACH
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382357270_Special_Relativity_Another_Approach (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382357270_Special_Relativity_Another_Approach)
that I really hope will contribute to overcome the great crisis of physics, because the great incompatibility between QM and GR.
So yes, actual physics, can be represented mathematically in a real coherent way, but for it is necessary to make a real paradigm shift.
Edgar Paternina
retired electrical engineer
【NO.53】Unification Issues (2) - Why can't gravity be considered the spacetime part of the electromagnetic force?
In electromagnetism the Coulomb force F=q1q2/r^2, the Lorentz force F=q(E+νxB), are computed treating spacetime as flat, and we are measuring what is actually a macroscopic phenomenon, not at the microscopic level. But this does not mean that the principle fails completely at the microscopic level.
Consider particles with mass such as electrons, which should have both electromagnetic and gravitational forces (we cannot rule out the validity of GR at tiny masses). Looking at an electron from the outside, it expresses electric field, magnetic moment, and mass. The Stern-Gerlach experiment fully expressed these covariates [1]. The electron involves only 4 factors, time t, space x, electric field E, and magnetic field H. We express the electron in the set e={Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, where the elements are all variables. This then implies that the external electromagnetic force, gravitational force, and mass, should all be able to be described by these components, since we can only act on the electron through these components.
Mass then could be exclusively electromagnetic mass [2][3], me={Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, regardless of the mechanism by which it is produced [4]. The electric field force can likewise be expressed only in terms of Fe=α{Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, and the gravitational force in terms of the set Fg=G{Δt, Δx}. Obviously, this is their simplest expression.
We need not consider what the electron is. It can be inferred from the set that its electric and gravitational forces overlap, since they share the same part of spacetime expression. This can also be seen by comparing Coulomb's law with Newton's law of gravity. As for neutral massive particles, they can be regarded as cancelling out the electromagnetic field [5] leaving only the Fg = G{Δt, Δx} part. In this way, the gravitational force is naturally unified to the electromagnetic force, and they are coupled together by the spacetime {Δt, Δx}, and automatically incorporated into the gauge field theory; the 'graviton' can be regarded as the spacetime product of the 'photon'. As for gravitational waves, they can be regarded as a part of space-time detached from accelerated motion, like electromagnetic waves radiated by accelerated electrons. This is exactly what Poincaré envisaged [6].
"After Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, in which a dynamical role was given to geometry, Herman Weyl conjectured that perhaps the scale of length would also be dynamical. He imagined a theory in which the scale of length, indeed the scale of all dimensional quantities, would vary from point to point in space and in time. His motivation was to unify gravity and electromagnetism, to find a geometrical origin for electrodynamics. [7, 8]" Wouldn't Weyl have been right if, instead of searching for a geometrical origin of electromagnetism, he had searched for an electromagnetic origin of gravity? Wouldn't electromagnetism be equally geometrical if one considered that the electromagnetic force Fe = α{Δt, Δx, E, H} is essentially the same as that resulting from variations of {Δt, Δx} therein?
-------------------------------
References
[1] Schmidt-Böcking, H., Schmidt, L., Lüdde, H. J., Trageser, W., Templeton, A., & Sauer, T. (2016). The Stern-Gerlach experiment revisited. The European Physical Journal H, 41(4), 327-364. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/e2016-70053-2
[2] Thomson, J. J. (1881). XXXIII. On the electric and magnetic effects produced by the motion of electrified bodies. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 11(68), 229-249.
[3] What is Mass? Must the Hierarchy of Mass be Determined Simultaneously by the Origin of Mass? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO45_What_is_Mass_Must_the_Hierarchy_of_Mass_be_Determined_Simultaneously_by_the_Origin_of_Mass
[4] Higgs, P. W. (2014). Nobel lecture: evading the Goldstone theorem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(3), 851.
[5] The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics (2) - Is the Meaning of Zero Unified in Different Situations in Physics? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO26The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_2-Is_the_Meaning_of_Zero_Unified_in_Different_Situations_in_Physics
[6] H. Poincaré
[7] Straub, W. O. (2009). Weyl's 1918 Theory Revisited. Pasadena, California. Disponível em: http://www. weylmann. com/revisited. pdf.
[8] Gross, D. J. (1992). Gauge theory-past, present, and future? Chinese Journal of Physics, 30(7), 955-972.
【NO.46】Phenomena Related to Electric Charge，and Remembering Nobel Laureate T. D. Lee
1) Charge and Electron Transitions - Discovery of blackbody radiation (Planck) in 1900, discovery of the photoelectric effect (Einstein) in 1905, and Bohr's publication of the atomic orbital model in 1913 [1]. When Bohr visited the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, T. D. Lee asked him [2]: Why did it take so long to discover the Bohr model that explains the spectrum of the hydrogen atom? Bohr said: You don't understand, at that time no one would have thought that the spectrum was emitted from an atom.
The spectrum of hydrogen atoms contains visible light at wavelengths much larger than the scale of atoms. It is generally believed that this should be a population effect. Bohr argued that the hydrogen spectrum is not produced by vibrations of electrons, i.e. not due to charge acceleration, but that it should be a new mechanism, so that the light source would not have to be larger than the wavelength. According to Bohr's hypothesis electrons operate in discrete orbits . When the electron is in a constant state [2], it does not radiate photons †. When an electron transitions from one state to another, it radiates photons ‡, ΔE=hν . Then we ask, ‘How do Electrons in Atoms Know the Transition Level difference in Advance? †† ; If photons are described by one wave function and electron by another, how do these two wave functions interface? ‡ Should their wave functions describe the same thing?
2) Charge and Stability of Atomic Structure - Inside the atom, electrons do not go into 'death-spiral' due to radiated energy and thus fall rapidly into the nucleus [3], but are stably 'supported' on the outside of the nucleus. This phenomenon reflects two possible facts: firstly, the interaction measured in terms of charge is not working. This means that in this state the charge must have failed, the charge no longer exists, or 'charge' no longer has the meaning of charge. Does the wave function of an electron still contain a charge? Secondly, the motion of an electron, be it a field, a wave or a particle, is no longer the same as in free space, and “accelerated” motion no longer radiates photons. The electron's lack of qualitative change outside and inside the atom would mean that its motion is a constant steady state, like that in inertial space. So is space-time within the atom equivalently flat for electron trajectories? Is the superposition of electron and proton electric fields still linear?
3) Charge and Uncertainty (Causality) - Quantum mechanics suggests that electrons appear probabilistically in different regions of an atom. The inverse relationship between the time domain scale and the frequency domain scale, originating from the Fourier Transform, deviates from its true mathematical meaning here, giving rise to the interpretation of the ‘Uncertainty Principle’ [4], Δx-Δpx>h, and hence Planck physics [6]. The question here is, what is the motion relationship between the charge at this time and the charge at that time, when the electrons with positional probability distribution are the charges with positional probability distribution? Why is it that Bohr's deterministic orbital, which contradicts the uncertainty principle, correctly describes the spectrum, while we have to discard it and interpret the orbital wave function probabilistically? [7]
4) Charge and its Discrete and Conservation - The energy-momentum of a single photon is quantised, E=hν, p=h/λ, but the photon energy-momentum is expressed continuously in its entirety 0 ≤ ν, λ < ∞. However, charge differs from it in that it has only two quantities, q=0, or q=4.8x10-10. Conservation of charge guarantees gauge symmetry, and conservation of energy-momentum guarantees space-time displacement symmetry. Pauli argued that charge conservation and energy-momentum conservation hold equal status [5]. Does this mean that both photons and electrons are fundamental beings? Can't discrete charge be generated in the γγ → e+e- reaction if vacuum excitation is not taken into account?
--------------------------------------------
Notes
* This is a supplement to question "What is an electric charge? Can it exist apart from electrons? Would it be an effect?" .
** Nobel Laureate Tsung-Dao (T.D.) Lee(1926-2024), died Aug. 4. There is a comprehensive description of his contributions at the link below. He shared the award with Chen Ning Yang for their work on broken symmetry in particle physics. In 1956, they published the paper "Question of parity conservation in weak interactions” [8].
† “The main weakness of the theory, as Bohr himself was the first to admit, is that it could offer no good explanation of why these special orbits immunized the electron from radiating its energy away.”
†† “How do Electrons in Atoms Know the Transition Level difference in Advance?”
‡ "Should all light-emitting processes be described by the same equations?"
--------------------------------------------
References
[1] Bohr, N. (1913). On the constitution of atoms and molecules. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 26(151), 1-25.
[2] 蓝志成（Chi-Sing Lam，Emeritus Rutherford Professor of Physics, McGill University ；RG @Harry Lam ），2024.8；“The Story of T. D. Lee and Bohr” (李政道与波尔的故事），微信号“科学思维的价值”。
[3] Mason, F. P., & Richardson, R. W. (1983). Why doesn't the electron fall into the nucleus? Journal of Chemical Education, 60(1), 40.
[4] Elias M. Stern, Fourei Analysis: An introduction. 机械工业出版社
[5] Pauli, W. (1936). Space, time and causality in modern physics. In Writings on Physics and Philosophy (pp. 95-105). Springer.
[6] Ng, Y. J. (2003). Selected topics in Planck-scale physics. Modern Physics Letters A, 18(16), 1073-1097.
[7] Born, M. (1955). Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Science, 122(3172), 675-679. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.122.3172.675
[8] Lee, T.-D., & Yang, C.-N. (1956). Question of parity conservation in weak interactions. Physical Review, 104(1), 254.
【NO.45】 What is Mass? Must the Hierarchy of Mass be Determined Simultaneously by the Origin of Mass?
The concept of mass explained by the Higgs mechanism is able to include all concepts of mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass, mechanical mass, electromagnetic mass [1], kinematic mass, static mass, longitudinal mass, transverse mass [2], bare mass ...... ? Is it the Higgs field that leads to the mass-energy equation? How are coupling relationships established? Do the Couplings Transfer Energy-Momentum?
Although there are many different sub-concepts of mass, a distinguishing feature is that the mass of an object is not reflected, recognisable, or measurable when it is not interacting. We can think of all mass as a property of resistance that only presents itself when an object's state of motion changes§. The so-called "rest mass" can only be regarded as a representation of the amount of static energy, and not vice versa.
Thus, it is clear that masses are essentially the same, differing only in size and form*. This also implies that no matter how many differences there are in the occasions of interaction, as long as the required dimension is the same, they are the same mass. In this way, the Equivalence Principle in GR need not be regarded as a specific condition.
However, mass is not constant, and the magnitude of an object's mass in SR changes according to the Lorentz transformation. This predicts that the mass of an object is related to the increase or decrease in the energy of the object and is bounded by the speed of light.
Higgs physics suggests [3] that the mass of bosons is given by the Higgs mechanism [4]; that the mass of fermions is also given by the Higgs field [10], although this is still an open question [5]; and that Higgs particles themselves give their own mass [3], although this is not a clear-cut conclusion either [6].The Higgs field is a scalar field that pervades space, and is the same as the other elementary particle fields, electron fields, quark fields, etc., co-existing in the vacuum**. They all appear to have the same status, except for the Higgs mechanism.
However, the current Higgs mechanism has some obvious explanation missing.
1) Why does the Higgs field selectively couple to bosons? I.e., how does the Higgs field recognise the bosons W±, Z and γ, g, all of which have energy and perform the same function, and to which the Higgs field selectively assigns mass, or not.
2) The magnitude of the coupling coefficient of the Higgs field determines the mass size of the fermions [10]. Then, the mass hierarchy of the three generations of fermions is determined by the Higgs field¶.Why should the particles all have different couplings coefficients gj to the Higgs field? and where do these values come from[7][8]? Before there is mass, fermions have exactly the same quantum number and they are indistinguishable [9]†. How does the Higgs field recognise these particles? The obvious requirement is that they must have additional parameters, or other physical quantities that do not present . At the same time, The action of the Higgs field on the positive and negative particles (e+,e-; q+,q-; ) is identical. And how does it ignore this difference?
3) If the Higgs field is not coupled to fermions, can fermions really travel at the speed of light like photons without stopping? According to the mass-energy equation E=mc2, are all particles energy before there is mass（or none）? So the coupling of the Higgs field is to energy, do they have to exchange energy between them? What is the energy transfer relation here, E=mc2? If m=0 now, is E fully converted to the raw energy of the particle?
4) If the significance of the existence of inertial mass for fermions, W± can be explained, what is the significance of the Higgs Boson possessing inertial mass itself?Does it really implies the existence of a 'fifth force', mediated by the exchange of Higgs bosons [8]?
5) The shape of the Higgs potential V(Ø) expresses the relationship between the potential and the field strength , V(Ø) ~ Ø [10] ‡ . Ø is hidden in the vacuum ††. How do different Ø present themselves at a given spatial location? Do they interact with other particles in one way?
6) How does the mathematical explanation of the Higgs mechanism map reasonably to physical reality? Must the Higgs potential be an external field? ‡‡ Wouldn't it be better if it were the field of the particle itself? [12] Is the Higgs mechanism for mass completely excludes the relation between mass and spin ?[15]
7) Not all mass is caused by Higgs [10], and potential energy (binding energy) gives mass as well. In this case, is mass still consistent? Doesn't mass become a variable?
------------------------------------------
Supplement: Can mass have multiple origins? （2024.9.26）
“The Higgs does seem to be the source of the mass of elementary particles, e.g., the electron; but it is responsible for < 2% of the mass of more complex things, like the proton. The mass of the vast bulk of visible material in the Universe has a different source.”[1] “the Higgs boson is almost irrelevant to the origin of the proton mass. ”[2]
Mass is an important particle property. If mass has surprisingly multiple origins, how do we explain their relationship? Do they produce the same results by similar mechanisms, or completely different ones? Do they all rely on external fields? Is the mass-energy equation, m=E/c^2, a clue to determining the uniform origin of mass? Can a mechanism that does not provide energy provide mass?
Does mass obey the superposition principle? Is it a scalar superposition or a vector superposition? Is it a linear or nonlinear superposition? Let us consider a process in which u, d quarks combine to form a proton p. In the early stages of the evolution of the universe, nothing else in particular existed. u and d automatically combine to form p in such a scenario, like a pair of lovers meeting to form a family. The family is a more stable structure, and the ‘quality’ of life of the family (In Chinese, quality and mass are one word, 质量) has increased. The increased ‘quality’ does not come from outside, but from the union itself.
------------------------------------------
Notes
§ Mass is usually thought of as resisting a change in the "state" of matter, but what is the "state"? Why does it resist change? Why can it resist change? My personal reference answer is here [12]: Mass originates from damping the superluminal intent of a spinning light ring and as a result is the fundamental property that distinguishes fermions from bosons.
* Mass is somewhat similar to energy in that it exists in various forms, but the two are fundamentally different.
** Physics doesn't know what parameters to use to describe these fields and doesn't seem to be interested.
‡ “One of the most important open questions in Higgs physics is whether the potential written in that equation is the one chosen by nature. ”[8]
‡‡ "Central to all of Higgs physics is the Higgs potential."[8] C. N. Yang[13]: "Symmetry breaking with the introduction of a field will not be the last theory, although for the time being it is a good theory, like Fermi's theory of beta decay." Expresses his scepticism about the Higgs mechanism.
† With no Higgs field, the electron and electron neutrino would be identical particles, and the W and Z particles, and in fact all standard model fermions, would be massless. [9]
†† The vacuum seems to be the all-powerful vacuum, and physics assigns many functions to the vacuum [14].
¶ The hierarchies among fermion masses and mixing angles, however, remain unexplained.[11]
------------------------------------------
References
[1] Thomson, J. J. (1881). XXXIII. On the electric and magnetic effects produced by the motion of electrified bodies. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 11(68), 229-249.
[2] Abraham, M. (1902). Principles of the Dynamics of the Electron (Translated by D. H. Delphenich). Physikalische Zeitschrift 4(1b), 57-62.
[3] Ellis, J. (2013). Higgs physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5672.
[4] Higgs, P. W. (1964). Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons. Physical Review Letters, 13(16), 508-509. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508
[5] Ghosh, D., Gupta, R. S., & Perez, G. (2016). Is the Higgs mechanism of fermion mass generation a fact? A Yukawa-less first-two-generation model. Physics Letters B, 755, 504-508.
[6] Consoli, M., & Cosmai, L. (2020). The mass scales of the Higgs field. International Journal of Modern Physics A, 35(20), 2050103.
[7] Melia, F. (2021). The origin of rest-mass energy. The European Physical Journal C, 81(8), 707. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09506-w
[8] Salam, G. P., Wang, L.-T., & Zanderighi, G. (2022). The Higgs boson turns ten. Nature, 607(7917), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04899-4
[9] Lancaster, T., & Blundell, S. J. (2014). Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur. OUP Oxford.
[10] Schmitz, W. (2019). Particles, Fields and Forces. Springer.
[11] Bauer, M., Carena, M., & Gemmler, K. (2016). Creating the fermion mass hierarchies with multiple Higgs bosons. Physical Review D, 94(11), 115030.
[12]
Preprint Supersymmetric Standard Model (SSM)
[13] C.N.Yang. (2014). 六十八年心路（1945-2012）. 三联书店.
[15] C. N. Yang emphasised: in the context of gauge theory, the conjecture of why we need a theory of gravity with spin electrons. Today I remain believing that this is a key to the future conquest of quantum general relativity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
【NO.31】The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics (7) - Why do Electromagnetic Waves Consist of Two Fields, Electric Field E and Magnetic Field H?
How did Photons Construct Light?
Our entire description of photons is based on energy Eo=hν [1], momentum Po=h/λ [2], and Helicity and Massless. we are not sure of the wave function Ψo(t,x) of photons, although there have been many different ideas and attempts to do so [3][4][5][6]. Experiments have shown that photons have wave-particle duality; two-photon interference can occur between them [7], and single-photon interference can occur by itself [8]; low energy photons can make electrons jump, photoelectric effect occurs [9], and the energy is converted to free "photoelectrons" in the matter; mid-level energy photons can collide with electrons and produce Compton scattering [10], so that the photon energy is reduced; High-energy photons can generate "pair-production" [11][12] with the help of atomic nuclei, e.g. γ+γ→e+e-.
Classical field theory is based entirely on the Maxwell's Equations, which consists of Faraday‘s Law, Ampere's Law, Gauss's Law, and Coulomb's Law, where both Faraday's equations and Ampere's equations in free space describe electromagnetic waves. We believe that electromagnetic waves consist of two orthogonal, synchronized, time-varying fields, the electric field E and the magnetic field H. Maxwell's equations is a synthesis of experimental results, not a result of mathematical derivation.
We believe that "All beams of electromagnetic radiation are made of photons" [4], including Laser beams, but "A key question is, can we view light as being comprised of particles called photons, or must one view light as a field, and the 'number of photons' only as the name we give to quantum states of the electromagnetic field [5]? electromagnetic field [5]? We know that cosmic microwave background (CMB) is electromagnetic, and that it needs to be detected with a radar antenna because the wavelength is too long; we know that blackbody radiation is electromagnetic, and that it needs to be detected with a photodetector because the wavelength is too short. We know that X-rays, gamma rays, millimeter waves, meter-wave radio waves, and radio astronomy telescopes detect photons.
However, "What is a photon" [4], should a photon have a scale? Is a bridge needed between the classical Maxwell equations and the photon? We have described them both correctly yet cannot connect them directly. The barrier between photons and electromagnetic waves may never be broken if we remain entangled in the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function [17], photon localizability [18], and Negative-energy solution [19], and such quantum mechanical problems.
Nature does not exist without a reason, and there must be a profound reason why an electromagnetic wave consists of two orthogonal, synchronized, time-varying fields, an electric field E and a magnetic field, rather than one field [23]. This reason either is the cause of its existence, something else causing the phenomenon, or it is the result of its existence, the phenomenon having to constrain the form of existence of something else. In any case, there must be a consistent "ecological chain" between the various forms of existence. This is precisely why the E of an electromagnetic wave is identical to the E of electron charge, the E of W±, the E of quarks, and why the H of an electromagnetic wave is identical to the H of a magnet, the H of a spin magnetic moment. If the electric field, E, and the magnetic field, H, of the electromagnetic wave, surprisingly do not exist in its constituent unit, the photon, then how was it created?
Questions:
1) The wave equation does not require two physical quantities, but why are there two quantities, E and H, in the electromagnetic wave equation? And they are not independent*, they must be orthogonal and synchronized [20]**.
2) What kind of photon equation (wave function) is possible to construct a deterministic Maxwell electromagnetic wave equation? It is reasonable to assume that a photon should never be a point particle and must itself have an electric field E and a magnetic field H. The Maxwell equation formed should not be its Probability density‡.
3) Where is the energy of an electromagnetic wave stored? Is it merely a superposition of photon energies? This question has been asked again and again, from Maxwell to Feynman [15] [16], with no answer so far. Is it possible to localize the energy-momentum of a gravitational field if it is not possible to localize the energy-momentum of an electromagnetic wave?
3) How does the Space-Time Curvature act on the electric field E and the magnetic field H of an electromagnetic wave when light is bent in a gravitational field?
4) Why does the physical world follow the invariance principle? How many invariants should there be in physics? What is the relationship between them? Do Maxwell's equations have all invariants? Lorentz invariance, gauge invariance [21], and general covariance [22], etc.?
-----------------------------------------
Notes
* Are E and H fixed relationships, or are they independent? "The electric field for one inertial observer is a particular combination of the electric and magnetic fields of the other observer. and similarly for the magnetic field. It follows that the electric and magnetic fields do not, in this sense, have a separate existence but rather are observer-dependent manifestations of a single electromagnetic field" [13][14]. This phenomenon is very significant in that it actually implies the inseparability of E and H.
** On the question of the synchronization of the electric field E and the magnetic field H, @André Michaud initiated a discussion a long time ago and received a wide range of responses.
“To summarize the issue, Ludvig Lorenz interpreted both E and B fields of free moving electromagnetic energy as peaking to maximum synchronously at the same time, which is an interpretation that Maxwell disagreed with; while Maxwell's was that both fields have to mutually induce each other while being 180 degrees out of phase for the electromagnetic energy to even exist and propagate, in permanent oscillation on a plane transverse with respect to the direction of motion of the energy in vacuum.”
‡ It is usually described as such, e.g. "energy-density photon wave function", "position probability density amplitude", "probability density of the photon"[4][6][19]。
-----------------------------------------
References
[1] Planck, M. (1900). The theory of heat radiation (1914 (Translation) ed., Vol. 144).
[2] Einstein, A. (1917). Physikalisehe Zeitschrift, xviii, p.121
[3] Sipe, J. (1995). Photon wave functions. Physical Review A, 52(3), 1875. //
[4] Bialynicki-Birula, I., & Bialynicka-Birula, Z. (2006). Beams of electromagnetic radiation carrying angular momentum: the Riemann–Silberstein vector and the classical–quantum correspondence. Optics communications, 264(2), 342-351. //
[5] Smith, B. J., & Raymer, M. (2007). Photon wave functions, wave-packet quantization of light, and coherence theory. New Journal of Physics, 9(11), 414.
[6] Cugnon, J. (2011). The photon wave function. Open Journal of Microphysics, 1.
[7] Pfleegor, R. L., & Mandel, L. (1967). Interference of Independent Photon Beams. Physical Review, 159(5), 1084-1088. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.159.1084
[8] De Broglie, L., & Silva, J. A. E. (1968). Interpretation of a Recent Experiment on Interference of Photon Beams. Physical Review, 172(5), 1284-1285. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.172.1284
[9] Einstein, A. (1905). 关于光的产生和转换的一个启发性观点 (Chinese ed., Vol. 4).
[10] Compton, A. H. (1923). The Spectrum of Scattered X-Rays. Physical Review, 22(5), 409-413. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.22.409
[11] Breit, G., & Wheeler, J. A. (1934). Collision of two light quanta. Physical Review, 46(12), 1087.
[12] Burke, D. L., Field, R. C., Horton-Smith, G., Spencer, J. E., Walz, D., Berridge, S. C., Bugg, W. M., Shmakov, K., Weidemann, A. W., Bula, C., McDonald, K. T., Prebys, E. J., Bamber, C., Boege, S. J., Koffas, T., Kotseroglou, T., Melissinos, A. C., Meyerhofer, D. D., Reis, D. A., & Ragg, W. (1997). Positron Production in Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering. Physical Review Letters, 79(9), 1626-1629. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626
[13] Hall, G. (2008). Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and special relativity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1871), 1849-1860.
[14] Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(III) [费恩曼物理学讲义] (Chinese ed., Vol. III).
[15] Maxwell, J. C. (1865). VIII. A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London(155), 459-512.
[16] Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(II) [费恩曼物理学讲义] (Chinese ed., Vol. II).
[17] Born, M. (1926). Quantum mechanics of collision processes. Uspekhi Fizich.
[18] Zhi-Yong, W., Cai-Dong, X., & Ole, K. (2007). The first-quantized theory of photons. Chinese Physics Letters, 24(2), 418.
[19] Kobe, D. H. (1999). A Relativistic Schrödinger-like Equation for a Photon and Its Second Quantization. Foundations of Physics, 29(8), 1203-1231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018855630724
[20] Michaud, A. (2021). Mise en évidence de l'interprétation initiale de Maxwell de l'électromagnétisme (Republication augmentée PI).
[21] Yang, C. N. (2014). The conceptual origins of Maxwell's equations and gauge theory. Physics Today, 67(11), 45.
[22] Petruzziello, L. (2020). A dissertation on General Covariance and its application in particle physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
Related Publications
The desire to be beautiful among Indonesian women today is influenced by the construction of beauty from outside of the culture. The popular culture of parts of East Asia has entered Indonesia and the Eastern concept of beauty has brought in a different paradigm compared to the local beauty of the Indonesian people. This study is a descriptive qual...
We must warn the reader that the aspect of the relativistic conceptions we shall consider is somewhat different from the one that generally seems to have caught the attention of philosophers. They have, above all, set out to examine the modifications of our concept of time required by Einstein’s theory. This can perhaps be explained in part by the...
Further analysis of various concepts that apply to SR and which shows that SR does not verify our reality