Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.
Date	2025-06-01 09:22 +0200
Message-ID	<ma2d9mFaqamU3@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <f7d7c8d83a051fa5d9e1c62a35f8033e@www.novabbs.com> <m9te5jFgfttU6@mid.individual.net> <ec6212a04ed745da00b0b98f9206a9c4@www.novabbs.com> <m9vo4tFs3i3U4@mid.individual.net> <5467c1ecc25733a80b8464dba416487d@www.novabbs.com>

Am Samstag000031, 31.05.2025 um 22:50 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
..
>>>> I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
>>>> spacetime', which works quite well.
>>>>
>>>> The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
>>>> mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
>>>> necessities.
>>>>
>>>> Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
>>>> 'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
>>>> only a certain subset.
>>>>
>>>> The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
>>>> dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>>>>
>>>> This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
>>>> see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>>>>
>>>> But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
>>>> would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by 
>>>> simply
>>>> observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>> There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
>>> fallacy or merely a diagram.
>>
>> Apaprently you want to decide what is and what is not.
>>
>> But what gives you authority to decide about the existence of something?
>>
>>
>> I used the 'real-spacetime-hypothesis' to connect GR and QM.
>>
>> The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this:
>>
>> If you want to connect two distinct but established theories, you need
>> to find a 'path' between them, since if both are valid, there should be
>> a connection.
>>
>> Now you could take either side as starting position and cut your way
>> through the jungle, until you arrive at the other side.
>>
>> I had chosen to use 'GR-side' as start and had to assume, that spacetime
>> of GR is real.
>>
>> Now my aim was to build the entities of QM out of spacetime.
>>
>> Once that is done, that connection would be established.
>>
>> Therefore, my aim was to build particles out of spacetime and possibly
>> fields.
>>
>> That was in fact possible, though not that easy.
>>
>> But I have written a 'book' about this idea, which you can find here:
>>
>>
>> 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> TH
> GR and QM are horrible theories that ought to be thrown out altogether.
> Spacetime of GR is a diagram because time is not a spatial dimension.

I had use a simple trick to 'draw spacetime'.

I reduced the four-dimensional space by one dimension and told the 
reader, to 'multiply the picture by three'.

It is actually difficult to draw imaginary numbers.

But we know, that imaginary numbers are useful.

So we need to make drawings, which contain abstract dimensions.

But an Argand-diagram, for instance, is way too flat, to be a good 
description of the world, we could actually 'pump it up' by multiplying 
it by three.

This would bring us to a construct called 'bi-quaternions' (aka 'complex 
four-vectors').

Theese 'beasts' are actually, what I think, that 'spacetime of GR' is 
made of.

It is a quite unusual concept, because it is a 'continuum concept' which 
works without particles.

It also requires very few fundamental assumtions (mainly that spacetime 
of GR is real).


TH

Thread