A scholarly inquiry...
Suppose we take a method
Einstein used extensively and apply it to
current problems in QM and relativity?
Email the author, or
post comments. Include your email address
(which won't be posted) if you would like a
Read comments; add your own...
Comments may be edited for clarity and will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
Nonlocality is really puzzling. Why did you think
you could solve it?
Reply: I started my inquiry well before nonlocality became widely known. My focus was on ontology (what exists, what occurs in terms of mass and energy) and I was quite unaware of nonlocality and its implications. Eventually I came to see that there was a parallel between potential energy binding entities and potential mass binding entities. Whether I solved it is for others to decide, but I really don't see other solutions out there. It could be the greatest mystery of our time.
Comment [Anonymous]: Is your whole book
written as a Socratic dialogue? Why did
you choose to do so?
Reply: Most of the book
is in dialog form. Exceptions are the Foreword, which doubles
as an introduction, and a short essay on
Einstein and his method. When you must explain and defend
many new ideas a question and answer
format works well as Galileo showed in
his famous dialog that advanced the
Comment [from the Amazon review]:
"...Klevgard has written the
seminal snapshot of a core analysis of
quantum and relative physics, from an
intuitive ontological point of view.
[It]...explain[s] what's been missing
in quantum uncertainty..."
Comment [from A.D., The Netherlands]: How do the Higgs field
and the Higgs boson, which are thought to "cause" mass, fit
into your (very interesting) vision? Is the mass created in
this way then an "occurrence" and not an "existence?"
Reply: Thank you for posing a very interesting question.
My (limited) understanding is that the Higgs field is assumed
(in the Standard Model) to give mass to bosons
(W+, W-, and Z) which otherwise would be
massless. But those three "particles" are incredibly short-lived:
a half-life of about 3 × 10-25 seconds. They are
usually considered virtual particles which means that their mass
derives from "borrowed energy" within the constraints of the
uncertainty principle. As you suggest, one can argue that "particles"
such as these occur rather than exist.
However, I would argue that traditional ontological terms (exist, occur)
don’t even apply at the level of those elementary particles that
populate the Standard Model. At that level of physical reality, energy
and mass, existence and non-existence can convert back and forth, one to
the other. This does not invalidate ontological categories for more
stable entities of mass and energy, but it does remind us that mass and
energy are so deeply related that at some level their separate identities are blurred together.
There is the additional problem of name pollution. Conceptual terms from
classical physics such as "particle" have been taken over by Standard Model
physicists and applied to entities that are manifestly not particles in the
original sense of that word. Even the name "particle physics" refers now
to a field of inquiry that includes entities that are pure energy but
somehow become "particles." I have argued in these pages that photons are
not particles in the usual meaning of that word, but electromagnetic energy
quanta (photons) are bosons and particle physicists will forever lump all
bosons together as "particles."
Comment [Anonymous]: Is the uncertainty principle
the basis for all of quantum mechanics?
Reply: Heisenberg certainly thought so,
whereas Bohr thought the wave-particle duality
was more fundamental. Both were original
thinkers, but as I point out in my book, both
are open to criticism from the point of view of
ontology (what exists and what occurs).
Bohr and countless others treat the particle as
the conjugal opposite of a wave whereas a
particle is an existing material entity/object
and a wave is a form and not an entity. The
opposite of the waveform (i.e., the form
radiation possesses) is the field form (i.e.,
the form matter possesses); instances of one
occur and progress in space; instances of the
other exist and progress in time. Equating a particle
(an entity that exists) with a wave (which is a
form characterizing entities and not an entity itself)
is a serious ontological mistake.
One can take Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle as asserting that particles at the quantum level are a
mix of wave and field forms so their position and their momentum
are blurred (uncertain). This is certainly true for
projectile motion such as a moving electron which is a mix of
mass entity (position) plus energy entity (momentum). But the
uncertainty relation does not apply to non-projectiles:
inertial matter within its own reference system. Such
matter has zero momentum for a local observer so it is foolish to
quantify an uncertainty-of-momentum for a particle
that has no momentum in the first place. But in
practical terms if you could find a force-free (inertial) electron
there is no way to measure it except by disturbing it and thereby
making it a projectile again.
The uncertainty principle and wave-field
duality can both be traced back to ontology:
mass and energy entities, field and wave forms,
and existence and occurrence categories.