This rant is about two common fallacies about quantum physics propagated by the orthodox community: wave/particle duality is all about position/momentum; quantum mechanics cannot be hemmed in with classical concepts.

That first does not describe wave-particle duality, rather, it describes the Uncertainty Principle as encapsulated in the mathematics of standard Quantum Theory (QT) and standard Quantum Field Theory (QFT), both of which have proven inadequate in many ways. Of course, the orthodox community will try to convince you that Bohr was right — quantum theory is a complete description of individual quanta, and Einstein was wrong — quantum theory is a descriptively incomplete ensemble (statistical) theory. They tend to convolute things even more by calling the Copenhagen Interpretation the “statistical” interpretation, where individual quanta exist in some “smeared-out” state prior to “measurement.” But statistical theories deal with ensembles, not individual entities, as Einstein well knew.

Now, Richard Feynman stated more than once that the entire mystery of Quantum Mechanics is contained in the double-slit experiment, and this is where both QT and QFT are inadequate: neither can reproduce the statistical pattern we see in the double-slit, nor can they account for the quantized momentum transfer between quanta and slit apparatus that yields said pattern.

Okay, now, the proof of wave-particle duality must be empirical, correct? I don’t believe we ever deal with 100% certainty in physics, being a Constructive Empiricist, but models and their explanatory force can be pretty convincing. With regards to wave-particle duality, contrary to the orthodox position, this was introduced by de Broglie to explain Bohr orbitals: constructive interference of the wave aspect is what prevents electrons from spiraling into the nucleus of atoms, hence, orbitals are quantized. This conjecture of de Broglie, that massive particles also have a wave aspect, was empirically supported by electron scattering experiments and the Compton effect shortly thereafter. From the Wikipedia page:

“The Davisson–Germer experiment confirmed the de Broglie hypothesis that matter has wave-like behavior. This, in combination with the Compton effect discovered by Arthur Compton (who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1927),[8] established the wave–particle duality hypothesis which was a fundamental step in quantum theory.”

Okay, that’s pretty convincing proof that quantum entities have both wave and particle aspects, and this is what is so aggravating about the orthodox community. Because where are we today, in mainstream physics? The Spanish physicist Oliver Consa covers this quite well in a few papers, but especially in the conclusion to his Helical Solenoid Model of the Electron:

“Despite his initial objections, Pauli formalized the theory of spin in 1927 using the modern theory of QM as set out by Schrödinger and Heisenberg. Pauli proposed that spin, angular moment, and magnetic moment are intrinsic properties of the electron and that these properties are not related to any actual spinning motion. The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that two electrons in an atom or a molecule cannot have the same four quantum numbers. Pauli’s ideas brought about a radical change in QM. The Bohr-Sommerfeld Model’s explicit electron orbitals were abandoned and with them any physical model of the electron or the atom.”

The helical solenoid model models the electron as a superconducting LC circuit with a quantum of electric charge, e, and a quantum of magnetic flux, ϕ, with eϕ = h, h being Planck’s constant. The helical motion describes Schroedinger’s Zitterbewegung (trembling motion) and the geometry/topology explains the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment. Consa briefly summarizes the history of toroidal moments in physics and “in 1997, toroidal moment was experimentally measured in the nuclei of Cesium-133 and Ytterbium174 [26].” In his reference [26] (not the exact paper, but probably even better), they measure the toroidal moment using state changes, and in the paper, Magnetic Monopole Field Exposed by Electrons, the authors simulate a monopole field using a nano-needle with its tip poised over an aperture; they find that electrons interacting with the field actually change state, which should enable a measurement of Consa’s toroidal moment. Additionally, if you happen to be familiar with David Hestenes’ Zitter Model, Zitterbewegung as helical motion of a point charge, e, can explain a lot of the so-called quantum weirdness and provide a mechanism for quantized momentum exchange in diffraction (resonance). Consa has recently extended his Helical Solenoid model to a preon model in The Helicon: A New Preon Model, and has also described many problems with QED in Something is Wrong in the State of QED, while so-called anomalous heat exchange indicates something is wrong in the state of QCD, both of these situations being more than just a bit scandalous. But I find much of his preon work to be a bit conservative; Consa seems to have the same aversion to the superluminal phase velocities in the de Broglie construct as many in the orthodox community. Waves are generally constructed from groups of phase waves. The waves in these groups vary in amplitude, generating an envelope wave. It can be shown mathematically (see also the Feynman Lecture) that this envelope wave moves at the same velocity as the particle while the velocity of the group is superluminal.

Let v_w be the phase velocity and v_g the group velocity, then

v_wv_g = c62

which makes sense given that all waves have frequency and wavelength with λν = c, i. e. the product of “space” and “time” is c. But now v_w = c^2/v_g >> c and

1/v_w(v_w − v_g) = 1 − (v_g)^2/c^2

The square of the inverse Lorentz factor is right there in the de Broglie construct. This is related, in turn, to the relativistic entropy of the construct.

Kevin Knuth is a highly regarded physicist who specializes in Bayesian Model Selection and MaxEnt methods. He has played a central role in creating what might be called Inference Theory, formally initiated by Edwin Jaynes, with his formulation of MaxEnt as a variational principle, and Richard Cox, with his derivation of Probability Theory as a calculus generalizing an algebra of implication. Knuth and his co-conspirators have extended these methods of Jaynes and Cox to general algebras, in many cases relevant to the foundations of physics. A good introduction to Knuth’s work in this vein is his paper, Information-Based Physics: An Observor-Centric Foundation. Knuth is who introduced me to Hestenes’ Zitter model of fermions and in The Problem of Motion: The Statistical Mechanics of Zitterbewegung ( see a more involved treatment here) he explores the consequences of Schoedinger’s Zitterbewegung, which came about due to the velocity eigenvalues of the Dirac equation being ±c±�, the velocity of light. Knuth derives the relativistic velocity addition rule in 1 + 1 dimensions, developing a statistical mechanics of motion in the process. This leads to an entropy measure based on Helicity and Shannon Entropy:

S = − Pr(R)logPr(R) − Pr(L)logPr(L)

where Pr(X) denotes the probability of coming from direction X (Helicity). This can be represented with relativistic terms

S = log(2γ) − β log(1 + z)

where γ is the relativistic Lorentz factor γ = (1 − β^2)^{−1/2} and 1 + z is related to the redshift z given by 1 + z = (√1 + β)/(√1 − β) for motion in the radial direction. As Knuth points out, with this relativistic entropy measure, a particle at rest is MaxEnt, since Pr(L) = 1/2 = Pr(R), while a particle moving at the velocity of light minimizes entropy, with S = 0, because either Pr(L) = 1 or Pr(R) = 1 (see his short paper). In other words, Helicity disappears at the velocity of light. This is consistent with these helical models of Hestenes and Consa, where the electron is a point charge orbiting a center of mass at the speed of light with radius r = ℏ/mc. With translational velocity it traces out a helix in spacetime, with the radius of the helix going to zero as the translational velocity goes to c, obviously, i. e. per the Pythagorean Theorem, c^2 = (v_t)^2 + (v_r)^2, where v_t is translational velocity and v_r rotational. This is a great candidate for explaining Ulf Klein’s result showing that the so-called Bohr Correspondence Principle does not hold in general; it doesn’t hold because ℏ → 0 as v_t → c, a rather elegant explanation.

But then, given the above, we have these relativistic entropies going to zero — becoming minimum, precisely when v_w = c = v_g! And this is the key point! It is precisely these superluminal phase waves which motivates William Tiller’s deltron moiety, his dual-space reference frame, which separates a distance/time dependent domain (spacetime) from a frequency domain (wave domain), and his PsychoEnergetics. As Tiller points out, these phase waves contain all of the information about these de Broglie particle/pilot wave constructs and, via the relation between information and entropy, made explicit by Claude Shannon in the 1950’s, there is a thermodynamic free energy exchange going on here in apparent conflict with Einstein’s Special theory. Tiller resolves this with his deltron moiety, a coupling field with variable coupling strength and which couples the spacetime domain to the wave domain, and it would seem a natural conjecture that this relativistic entropy is related to Tiller’s coupling field, i. e. the information resolution, hence, entropy, is a function of the velocity difference between the pilot wave and its phase waves! This is a true form of holography and I think it has the potential to explain quantized momentum exchange in diffraction more completely than Hestenes’ resonance.

Hopefully this is clear. It’s probably not without reading the papers linked to. And both Consa and Hestenes are dealing with semi-classical models, i. e. “classical” concepts, whatever that even means. But this is especially not clear when you have the orthodox community — and they all do it, spewing forth the biggest bunch of nonsense.