Part 3: QUANTUM WAVE SOURCES page 1

 

3.1. Introduction to Part 3

Traditionally the Copenhagen interpretation has been used to understand the double-slit experiment for quantum theory. Here, however, I apply Huygens’ principle to quantum theory and create what I call the wave source interpretation of the double-slit experiment for quantum theory. Huygens’ principle essentially states that a wave front is made up of an indefinite number of point-wave sources, and any part of this wave front when isolated to a small enough area will act like a wave source. In quantum theory, a wave front for an electron represents all possible locations of that electron particle. When I measure the location of an electron in its wave front, I essentially dissect a small part of its wave front from its other possible locations. According to Huygens’ principle, this small section of the electron wave front is best understood as a wave source—not simply a particle. Using this method, I can predict all verified results of the Copenhagen interpretation, plus more.

In this section, I treat a wave source as the originating wave of other waves. I also develop Huygens’ principle so that all the added up point-wave sources of a wave front equal the original point-wave source of that wave front. Furthermore, I briefly discuss the concept of a compound wave source which starts to exist when two wave sources overlap. I discuss how this corresponds to hadrons’ behavior (i.e., the nuclear strong force). Finally, I create a new abstract structure that I call a three-dimensional transversal wave source. I show that the behavior of a three-dimensional transversal wave source parallels fermions’ behavior. To be more specific, this new structure has a quantified odd number integer spin and obeys the Pauli exclusion principle. These results are predicted strictly out of this new structure I create without reliance on known particle physics. I only use the traditional particle physics as a reference. (In this article, an even integer spin is a boson spin and an odd number integer spin is a fermion spin. Of course, I could divide them both by 2 and get an integer spin for bosons and ½ odd number spin for fermions [7, 8].)

 

3.2. The Wave Source Interpretation

Traditionally, quantum theory has interpreted the double-slit experiment as being a result of the wave particle duality behavior of a quantum. This is generally referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation of the double-slit experiment. However, here I use the wave source interpretation to get very similar results when applied to the double-slit experiment. This new wave source interpretation comes from applying Huygens’ principle to quantum theory. When this new interpretation is developed, a deeper quantum theory is created because a structure for elementary particles emerges. For now, I need to delineate the double-slit experiment. Using this experiment, I can then compare the wave source interpretation with the Copenhagen interpretation. Although the wave source interpretation is not the same as the Copenhagen interpretation, it is still very similar.

Huygens’ principle is central to understanding this new interpretation for the double-slit experiment. This principle essentially treats all wave fronts in a medium as if they were made out of an innumerable amount of pointlike wave sources [6]. Consequently, any narrow section of a wave front behaves like a wave source. This must be considered to have a proper interpretation of the double-slit experiment.

I use a single electron going through two slits in a barrier as an example. In a quantum mechanics test, an electron is shot towards a barrier with two slits. (For simplicity, I treat the electron as a small series of wave fronts hitting the barrier.) Then this electron, acting like a wave, passes simultaneously through two slits in the barrier. One slit I will call 1, the other 2. On the other side of the barrier, the electron wave exits these slits as two new wave sources. From these wave sources, two new small series of wave fronts emerge. These expand and interfere with each other. Hence, a wave-interference pattern results. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, however, the electron wave will collapse to that of a particle if its location is determined. Hence, it would momentarily be a single particle that has a specific location. As a consequence, this electron detected exiting slit 1 could not exit slit 2 as well. The type of detection device does not matter as long as it detects particles adequately. Therefore, the interference pattern on the other side of the barrier would collapse.

The wave source interpretation produces a similar result with a different interpretation. The difference is that the electron never collapses—even momentarily—to being a particle. Instead it collapses to a new wave source. In other words, if an electron’s location is determined to be within a narrow region, then the wave acts as if it has encountered a single-slit barrier. Thus, the electron wave can only pass through this single narrow region and exit the other side as a single new wave source. Consider the following example. An electron wave passes through two narrow slits (called 1 and 2) in a barrier. Shortly after the electron wave emerges, it gives off a photon. This photon is detected by observers, and it is determined by these observers that the electron wave is located in a narrow region near the exit of slit 2. Thus, the electron wave collapses to a new wave source a small moment after exiting slit 2. To be more explicit, the electron is now only located in this narrow region where it was detected. It will emerge from this narrow region, like a wave emerging from a slit in a barrier, as a new wave source. The closeness of the electron wave to slit 2 and the narrowness of the region where the electron is detected determine that the wave could not have come from slit 1 and that the wave could only have passed through slit 2. Therefore, all possible paths that would have gone through slit 1 collapse.

The wave source interpretation of quantum theory essentially states that every time a quantum wave location is detected in a narrow region, this wave collapses to exist only in that region—not as a particle but as a wave source. All other possible paths (that would not allow the quantum being detected in that specific narrow region) collapse and no longer exist.

What about Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light? Einstein stated that when a photon contacts a wall, it behaves like a particle. This is true only because a particle is defined as having a specific location in a small region. When a light wave hits the wall, all the waves of a photon would be confined to the specific location where contact with the wall was made. As a result, a light wave hitting a wall would collapse to that specific region where the wall detects the location of the wave. In other words, the wall is made up of countless surface electrons, and whichever electron in the wall that detects the location of the light wave will cause this wave to collapse to a small region that this electron encompasses. Hence, the wave’s energy is now located to that small region like a particle. However, within that small region, the light quantum is still a wave. Also, according to Huygens’ principle, any wave propagating in a medium and constricted to a small enough area should act like a wave source [6]. The wave source interpretation agrees with the results of Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light. In summary, when a quantum wave is detected at a small region, all of its energy collapses to exist in that specific location. Hence, a photon strikes a wall at a spot like a particle, but within this spot it is still a wave. If this spot is small enough, the wave will behave like a wave source [6].

My reasoning leads to vital questions. How should a quantum of energy be treated when it is confined to a very small region? Should it be treated like a particle? Should it be treated like a one-dimensional standing wave? Should it be treated like a wave packet? Should it be treated like a three-dimensional wave source? Elementary quantum theory books at different instances treat a quantum like a particle, a wave packet, or a standing wave in one dimension. For three dimensions, the standing wave version is treated with three waves that are one-dimensional standing waves that do not interfere with each other. If Huygens’ principle needs to be applied to quantum theory, it should be treated like a three-dimensional wave source. It is possible that it may be a combination of a wave source and wave packet. (However, in this article, I limit the discussion to the wave source option.) In adapting Huygens’ principle to quantum theory, a construct for elementary particles is created. I further discuss wave sources and Huygens’ principle in the next section.

I take an approach to the Copenhagen interpretation that is rather literal. When a wave collapses to a particle, I treat that particle in the traditional meaning of a particle. When quanta are waves, I treat them with the characteristics of traditional waves. I need to treat the Copenhagen interpretation concisely and with a clear definition to work with it. Also, in traditional physics, it is notable that a wave that passes through a slit or emerges from a region that is narrower than the wave’s wavelength causes the wave to act like a wave source when it emerges from the slit [6]. Indeed, the more narrow the slit is than the wavelength of the wave the more that the wave spreads out in different directions after it emerges out the back end of the slit [6]. This characteristic of a wave does not happen for the traditional particle. Also, detecting a particle’s location is treated similarly to passing it through a slit. For the tests or examples that follow, all slits or regions that a wave passes through are equal to or smaller than the wavelength of the wave.

I propose a simple test for the wave source interpretation of quantum theory. In Figures 2A and 2B, I have set up a scenario where an electron wave is propagating towards a wall. In Figure 2B, the electron’s locations is detected by a photon with a wider wavelength than the photon has in Figure 2A. As a result, the detected electron will collapse to a narrower region in Figure 2A than it will in Figure 2B. Therefore, the new wave source’s spread in Figure 2B is narrower than the new wave source’s spread found in Figure 2A. When its location was detected, the electron would not have behaved in this manner if it collapsed temporarily to only a particle. If the electron is only a particle when detected, it should move straight through without spreading, and at some later time it should start behaving like a wave again. In contrast, the wave source interpretation predicts that the electron would immediately spread after collapsing, because it never ceases being a wave. Therefore, there is no temporary existence when the electron is not a wave. Consequently, the Copenhagen interpretation is not accurate enough to predict this test. I will explain further. Using the classical idea for particles, I shoot a beam of these particles towards a target. I now force this beam through a narrow region. In this example, what matters the most is how the particles come out of the small region. It is important because this is what should occur if a wave collapses to a particle when detected in a small region, and out of this small region a particle emerges. From a narrow region, a narrower beam of these classical particles should be emitted. In other words, what emerge from this narrow region are the particles that essentially pass straight through that narrow region. Furthermore, the narrower the region gets, the narrower the beam should get. The narrower that region gets, the fewer possible different directions for the velocity. The particular direction for a particle is the direction of the wave when it was detected and turned into a particle. Hence, when a particle emerges from a small region with a velocity in a particular direction, it should not spread out like a wave.

Next, I force a wave front through a narrow region. What emerges is a wide spread, as shown in Figures 2A and 2B. Indeed, the narrower the region the wave passes through, the wider the spread becomes. (See figures 2A and 2b.) This should be the case when a particle’s location is detected. It should not act like a particle. This is what the wave source interpretation predicts, and it is very unlike what the Copenhagen interpretation predicts, which is the opposite result. Figure 2 is only supposed to show the difference between the Copenhagen interpretation and the wave source interpretation. Figure 2 was not created to give an accurate representation of the conservation of momentum for the interactions between electrons and photons.

I propose another experiment to determine whether an electron (once it is detected) turns into a particle only or a new wave source. (See Figures 3A and 3B.) In Figures 3A and 3B, an electron wave passes through a double slit and is detected with a photon. It is detected close enough to one of the slits that the wave collapses so that it could only have passed through one slit—not both. In Figure 3A, the detected electron becomes a new wave source, and it is able to pass through both slits in the second barrier. Hence, on the other side of this second barrier, an interference pattern is created, as shown in Figure 3A. On the other hand, in Figure 3B, no new wave source is created. Instead the electron collapses to a particle only, and it can only pass through one hole located in the second barrier. As a result, no interference pattern exists behind the second barrier. Figure 3A is the only possibility for the wave source interpretation of quantum mechanics, whereas Figure 3B is a real possible outcome for the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics unless the particle becomes a wave again fast enough to be able to pass through both slits. In Figure 3B, what would cause the wave to turn back to a particle that quickly? There is no reason in the Copenhagen interpretation for it to do that, unlike the wave source interpretation presented in Figure 3A. The whole idea of this scenario is to accept the impression that the Copenhagen interpretation leaves in the human mind. If I accept the idea of a wave collapsing to a particle, then I will give a test to see if it is really a particle when it is supposed to be a particle. Indeed, a quantum wave is supposed to be a particle when it collapses to a particle because its location is now detected. Furthermore, there was no reason for it to change back to a wave in that test that I propose. Although there is no interference pattern in Figure 3B, different particles still pass through either of the two slits, creating two areas of high intensity on the final screen. Figure 3A has an interference pattern on its final screen. Like Figure 2, Figure 3 is only supposed to show the difference between the Copenhagen interpretation and the wave source interpretation. Figure 3 was not created to give an accurate representation of the conservation of momentum for the interactions between electrons and photons.

(I tend to use the term “particle” interchangeably with my “quantum wave source” idea. In this article, particle only means that something is located in a very small region, which includes quantum wave sources. Traditionally, the term “particle” did not mean a quantum wave source was present within the small region encompassed by the particle. It is only when I delineate the traditional particle concept, in contrast to the quantum wave source idea, that the term “particle” takes on its traditional meaning in this work. Other than that particular situation, I use particle to mean the small region where a quantum wave source exists.)