Part 6: DISCUSSION

 

6.1. Conclusion

Figure 1 does not represent any substance or actual medium.  It is a two-dimensional hypothetical medium. Its only purpose is to represent to readers the characteristics of waves or, what are more important, wave sources. I put in Figure 1, two different wave sources, which are the central wave source and a wave source located on a wave front. There is no spin in such a figure. I use this figure so that people can relate to it, and from it, readers can understand the two kinds of wave sources that I am discussing. The hope is that readers will then leap beyond this traditional perspective of wave sources and grasp the three-dimensional transversal wave source. Of course, in Figure 1, its medium propagated transversal waves. I discussed certain characteristics of waves in this medium. The waves added up constructively, so they interfered in a smooth and continuous fashion. Moreover, all waves were made up of point-wave sources. These point-wave sources come in two types. There are point-wave sources moving in one direction and another type that moves in all directions. These point-wave sources tend to spread out in the two-dimensional medium to form waves. Furthermore, waves vibrate so that there are troughs and crests that are in opposite up-and-down positions. Essentially, I was examining waves in this two-dimensional hypothetical medium that propagated transversal waves. Combining the information gained from examining these waves with my understanding of elementary quantum behavior, I hypothesized rules that govern waves in a three-dimensional quantum medium. Since I have concluded that the quantum medium is not a physical or a tangible substance, it is necessary to use abstract rules to work with waves in this medium. (These rules are outlined in Table 1.) Considering these rules, I discussed the wave source interpretation of the double-slit experiment in quantum theory as a more correct explanation than the Copenhagen interpretation. I gave tests that could determine the differences between these two interpretations. Also, considering the rules in Table 1, I derived a three-dimensional transversal wave source that had properties that paralleled fermion properties. Indeed, they had an odd number spin; they obeyed the Pauli exclusion principle; and their spins increased with their energy (frequency). Furthermore, I derived that a photon necessarily should have a boson spin, and the axis of the spin is parallel to the direction of photon's velocity. I also predicted that identical photons should attract each other. I discussed how the interference forces ought to exist and explained their similarities to the nuclear strong and weak forces. These results tell me that the foundational construct for elementary particles is a three-dimensional transversal wave source. Lastly, I discussed how the quantum wave represents the probabilistic location of a point-wave source, which agrees with quantum theory.

The three-dimensional transversal wave source is not a complete structure for fermions. Obviously, there is no charge structure in the construct that I presented in this article. Since this structure for elementary particles is not complete, it makes it difficult to make too many predictions, such as predicting the generations of matter. Nonetheless, there are the predictions that I brought up in the previous paragraph. What separates these predictions from those made in the standard model is that, in the standard model, the predictions are essentially given empirically. On the other hand, predictions in this article are derived—not through experiments—but from principles giving quantum rules for motion, as laid out in Table 1.

The rules governing my hypothetical medium seem to be analogous to Newton’s laws of motion. Following this line of reasoning, the behaviors of particles that result from Table 1 are essentially the result of following quantum laws of motion. This means that with complete structures for particles, a complete understanding of interference forces could be derived from these laws of motion. Moreover, their relationship to the nuclear strong and weak forces would be clearer.

What stands out in this novel approach to understanding the quantum is that it tends to demystify certain concepts of quantum theory. For instance, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory has always left me questioning how exactly a particle turns back into a wave and how long it takes. The wave source interpretation clearly answers that question because the wave always exists. A quantum never stops being a wave. It only collapses to a new wave source when its location is detected. Another matter I found puzzling was that there was more than one description of the inner structure of the fermion [1, 2, 4]. When an elementary quantum theory book treats the electron like a wave packet, that book is essentially telling me that the inner structure of the electron is a type of wave packet [1–5]. On other occasions, such books treat the fermion as if it were a single wave pulse in one dimension or three wave pulses in three dimensions. Moreover, these three pulses act supposedly independently of each other [1, 2, 4]. In contrast, the three-dimensional transversal wave source gives a far more cohesive and predictive description of the inner structure of a fermion than that found in contemporary physics books. The wave packet is essentially the inner structure for fermions that is found in physics books. However, this inner construct does not predict spin, or the Pauli exclusion principle. Furthermore, the wave packet does not change in spin with an increase of frequency or energy [1, 2, 4]. This structure is in many ways not as accurate as the constructs for elementary particles found in this article.

Since I have replaced the Copenhagen interpretation and the very inner construct of particles with deeper ideas, I have presented in this article a new foundational, elementary, but deeper quantum theory. Nonetheless, I did not replace Schrodinger’s equation found in most elementary quantum theory books [1, 2, 4]. In other words, only the most elementary precepts have been replaced. Most of basic quantum theory remains the same. Can my three-dimensional transversal wave source construct predict all particles with mass or a rest momentum? What about mesons, which have a boson spin, unlike the fermions I predict in this article? As stated previously, my structure has not been completed and is therefore limited. Nevertheless, if my quantum wave source structure is a foundational structure to all elementary particles, it should come as no surprise that my theory suggests that some particles would be more stable than others. A fermion structure should be more stable than a boson structure for a particle of matter.

How should I best depict the universe presented in this article? I use another three-dimensional medium found in classical physics to help me with this question. Sound is propagated in the three-dimensional medium of air. A main difference is that sound is a longitudinal wave—not a transversal one. In air, there are three-dimensional longitudinal wave sources and wave fronts that are emitted from this central wave source. The three-dimensional longitudinal wave sources can move (ex., a horn on a passing car) or be at rest (ex., a horn on a stopped car). However, the wave fronts (one-directional waves) that are emitted from the horn on the car propagate and are never at rest in a medium. What I propose is that the quantum cosmic medium is similar. There are three-dimensional transversal wave sources that are matter. Matter can move or be at rest in the cosmic medium analogous to the horn on the car in the medium of air. Furthermore, one-directional wave sources make up wave fronts that are light and never at rest in the medium, which is similar to wave fronts in air. Since matter can be at rest, it has a rest momentum, or mass. Since light can never be at rest in the medium, it will never have a rest momentum, or mass. (See my theory of distance-time [9].) Taking this analogy further, in traditional mediums, I could construct the central wave source out of the wave front it emitted. (See Figure 1 in this article.) In the cosmic quantum medium, when matter is destroyed, light is emitted. In other words, very similar to traditional mediums, a central wave source (matter) emits wave fronts (light) in quantum wave source theory. Furthermore, the reverse is true: matter (a central wave source) can also be constructed out of light (a wave front). The universe presented in this article is that of a nonphysical medium that behaves similarly to traditional physical mediums in classical physics. One important difference is that matter is essentially a three-dimensional wave source which has trapped its waves of energy in a small region. (See Rule 3 in Table 1 for the reason that energy becomes trapped.) Matter has to be destroyed before light is emitted. In traditional quantum literature, this picture has not been presented, as matter and light have not been represented as any type of point-wave sources. I have entitled this article the “Theory of Quantum Wave Sources” because both light and matter are presented as point-wave sources.

Often scientists learn all that a particular field of science has to offer, and then they rush to the cutting edge to make their discoveries and add to the various fields of science. There are strong reasons for following that exact approach. After all, there have been many great minds that have preceded them. Hence, such scientists go to the frontiers where no one has been to venture out into undiscovered landscapes. However, the ivory tower of physics can only climb so high based on old foundations. For this tower to achieve new and greater heights, it must have deeper and broader foundations to hold a new and larger tower. Therefore, someone has to build such a foundation, which can only be done by challenging physics at its most simple and fundamental level. This is not easy, since many minds for decades have perused the simple, fundamental topics. To see principles that many before have never seen is quite challenging. Indeed, to challenge the simplest and most elementary ideas of physics and replace them with even deeper ideas that unify previous concepts with a simple idea is very time-consuming, exciting, and mentally challenging. However, if such a challenge were achieved, the ivory tower of physics could climb higher on this new foundation. Another part is that leaping off of the most fundamental physics theories successfully into the unknown would produce results less speculative than some may think. After all, when someone leaps off of the cutting edge of physics, the foundation from where he leaps is usually not well established, and the unknown territory into where he is leaping is even less certain, whereas when someone leaps off of the inner core of physics, he is leaping off of a foundation that has been tested from many different angles by some of the best minds over the years. These scientific minds have concluded that the foundational theories agree accurately with experiment. The key, however, is to successfully leap off of such an inner core theory of physics. With this approach, there is a problem of trying to predict something new because usually the fundamentals are well tested. The theory I discuss in this article has no inner contradictions and predicts several concepts of elementary quantum theory and properties of elementary particles better than traditional theories can. Indeed, in traditional theories, there was no explanation for some of these properties of particles; instead, these theories were only empirically given. In this article, the most elementary concepts are unified in my quantum wave source theory. The exclusion principle and the quantified spin of particles are different concepts, with no theoretical reason connecting them in the standard model. In my theory, they are both derived from my construct for fermions. The same can be said for any other characteristics that I have derived from my quantum wave sources. This is another reason my work is a successful leap off of the most basic principles of quantum theory. I must note that all predictions were made independent of the standard model. (I used the standard model only as a reference.)

To get to a more accurate and complete theory about the construct of elementary particles, I would have to create a more advanced distance-time theory. In other words, I need a better space and time model. Also, the characteristic of a charge is not even in any quantum wave source model as of yet. To be able to put a charge in there, I need to create an electromagnetic field that is associate with a particle. After all, the main purpose of a charge is that it causes the electromagnetic field. At the minimum, I would have to do the things previously brought up before I were to predict more advanced behavior of particles like the annihilation of a particle and its antiparticle when they collide. I have thought about these things before, and I have possible ways to achieve these things but no complete theory.