Einstein claimed that a “particle” was a lump of energy, even while in translation. He had no proof of this assertion, and it underlays all modern fundamental physics, and I believe it’s false. As I see it, this error, duplicated by 99.99% of 20 C theoretical physicists, led the search for the foundations of physics astray in the Twentieth Century. How could one prove my idea, and disprove Einstein?

What Einstein wrote is this, in what is perhaps his most famous work (1905 CE): “Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta LOCALIZED AT POINTS IN SPACE, MOVING WITHOUT DIVIDING…” [What’s in capital letters, I view as extremely probably false. Einstein then added nine words, four of which explaining the photoelectric effect, and for which he got the Nobel Prize. Those nine words were entirely correct, but physically independent of the preceding quote!]

If those “energy quanta” are “localized at points in space“, they concentrate onto themselves all the mass-energy.

It’s simple. According to me, the particle disperses while it is in translation (roughly following, and becoming a nonlinear variant of its De Broglie/Matter Wave dispersion, the bedrock of Quantum Physics as everybody knows it). That means its mass-energy disperses. According to Einstein, it doesn’t.

However, a gravitational field can be measured. In my theory, SQPR, the matter waves are real. What can “real” mean, in its simplest imaginable form? Something is real if that something has mass-energy-momentum. So one can then do a thought experiment. Take the traditional Double Slit experiment, and install a gravitational needle (two masses linked by a rigid rod, like a hydrogen molecule at absolute zero) in the middle of the usual interference screen.

Sub Quantum Patrice Reality Is Experimentally Discernible From Einstein’s Version of Quantum Physics! Notice in passing that none of the physics super minds of the Twentieth Century seem to have noticed Einstein’s Axiom, which is ubiquitously used all over Quantum Physics and QFT!

According to Einstein, the gravitational needle will move before the process of interference is finished, and the self-interfering particle hit the screen (some may object that, because photons travel at c, and so do gravitons, one can’t really gravitationally point at the photon; however, that’s not correct, there should be a delayed field moving the needle).

According to me, the particle is dispersed during the self-interfering process: it’s nowhere in particular. Thus the mass-energy is dispersed before the collapse/singularization. Thus a gravitational field from the self-interfering particle can’t be measured from inside the self-interfering geometry.

Could the experiment be done?

Yes. But it won’t be easy.

Molecules constituted  of 5000 protons, 5000 neutrons and 5000 electrons have exhibited double slit behavior.  That’s plenty enough mass to turn a gravitational needle made of two hydrogen atoms. However, with such a large object, my theory may well fail to be experimentally checked (the molecule probably re-localizes continually, thus the needle will move before impact). Ideally, one should best check this Sub Quantum Reality with a simple unique particle, such as a photon, or an electron.

Why did I long believe Einstein was wrong on this point, what I called “Einstein’s Axiom” above?

First, he had no proof of what he said. Allure can’t replace reason

Second, localization into a point is contrary to the philosophical spirit, so to speak, of Quantum Physics. The basic idea of Quantum Physics is that one can’t localize physics into points in space… or into points in energy (this was Planck’s gist). Both space and energy come in LUMPS. For example, an electron delocalizes around a proton, creating an atom of hydrogen.

The lump thing for emissions of energy is Planck’s great discovery (a blackbody sends energy packets hf, where f is the frequency and h, Planck’s constant). The non-relevance of points is De Broglie’s great intuition: De Broglie’s introduced the axiom that one can compute everything about the translation behavior of an object from the waves associated to the energy-momentum of said object.

So Einstein was wrong on the philosophy, as he himself concluded thirty years of thinking hard about Quantum Physics, as one of its two founders, with his discovery of what he called “Spooky Interaction At A Distance” (the “EPR”, which has turned from thought experiment to real experiment, checked now in hundreds of different experiments). If “elements of reality” (to use the Einstein EPR language), are spooky action at a distance” why not so when the particle is in flight, which is precisely the gist of the EPR… (After I thought of this, I found a paper by Zurek and Al. who seem to draw a similar conclusion.)

The philosophy of Quantum Physics in one sentence: small is big, or even, everywhere.

Third, Einstein’s hypothesis of points particles being always localized has led to lots of problems, including the so-called “Multiverse” or the “Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” (at least, according to yours truly…).

Fourth, the development of Twentieth Century physics according to Einstein’s roadmap, has led to theories on 5% or so of known mass-energy, at most: an epic failure. Whereas my own Sub Quantum Reality readily predicts the apparition of Dark Matter and the joint apparition of Dark Energy, as observed.

Fifth: If Einstein were right, the which-path information in the 2-slit experiment would be readily available, at least as a thought experiment, and that can’t work. The entire subject is still highly controversial: contemplate the massive paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Finally making sense of the double-slit experiment”, March 20, 2017, whose lead author is Yakir Aharonov, from the extremely famous and important Aharonov-Bohm effect. The Aharonov-Bohm effect pointed out that the potentials, not the fields themselves, were the crucial inputs of Quantum Physics. That should have been obvious to all and any who studied Quantum Physics. Yet it was overlooked by all the super minds for nearly 40 years!

Sixth: This is technical, so I won’t give the details (which are not deep). One can modify Einstein’s original EPR experiment (Which had to do with pairs of particles in general, not just photon polarization a la Bohm-Bell). One can introduce in the EPR 1935 set-up, an ideal gravity detector. If Einstein was right about the particle being always localized, determinism would be always true on particle A of an {A,B} interaction pair. Thus particle A could be tracked, gravitationally, always. But that would grossly violated the free arbiter of a lab experimenter deciding to tinker with B’s path, through an experiment of her choosing. (How do large particles do it, then? Well they tend to partly localize continually thanks to their own size, and random singularizations.)

The naked truth can be in full view, yet, precisely because it’s naked, nobody dares to see it!

Richard Feynman famously said that the double slit experiment was central to physics, and that no one understood it. He considered it carefully. Gravitation should stand under it, though! The preceding proposed experiment is one which it was obvious to propose. Yet, no one proposed it, because they just couldn’t seriously envision Quantum Collapse, and thus its impact on gravitation. Yet, I do! And therein the connection between Quantum Physics and Gravitation, the quest for the Graal of modern physicists… 

So let’s have an experiment, Mr. Einstein!

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , ,

21 Responses to “SUB-QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE 2 SLIT Thought Experiment”

  1. colettebytes Says:

    I don’t really know how to comment as I am not able to decode physics or maths equations (being more of a right brained thinker), but I do know that Gravitational Physics (Sir Isaac Newtons ‘Apple’) and Quantum Physics, (Stephen Hawking Brief ‘History of Time’), and string theory effects have not been complimentary theories up to now. Each has sorted of negated the principle theories of the other.

    Am I correct in thinking that your call to test your theory might well explain quantum physics within the realm of gravitational physics and astrophysics and bring the whole nature of how the universe behaves into a clearer understanding within our limited viewpoint?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Colette! Yes, my viewpoint installs gravitation at the heart of Quantum Physics, right from the start. It’s so incredibly obvious, that the public will find baffling that the great super minds of physics (as I call them ironically) didn’t think about it.

      But I know why they didn’t think that: in conventional Quantum Physics, the Quantum processes are viewed as purely mathematical, NOT material. Thinking there is something physical going on during Quantum processes themselves is anathema. Great super minds of physics have learned to avoid the subject like the plague, or cattle an electric fence. Although formally classically and even Quantum trained, I am not (not anymore) employed by prestigious top universities, so I can say whatever I want now without endangering my career…

      Einstein, founder of Quantum Mechanics with Max Planck (although Planck was clearly the senior figure), couldn’t separate himself from the concept of classical particle… Until the EPR (NON-LOCALIZATION of Quantum processes) of 1935, a paper he himself wrote, 30 years after his founding paper on Quantum Physics. The EPR, Einstein 1935, clearly showed that Einstein 1905 was wrong. However, Einstein could say, in 1935, that the EPR was just a theory, and it was going to be proven false, and thus bring down the “Copenhagen” interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, etc… HOWEVER, we NOW know that the EPR NON-LOCALIZATION is a FACT of nature… If Einstein was around I am ready to bet he would espouse my viewpoint now (he may even have found it first…)

  2. colettebytes Says:

    Brilliant. I knew somewhere deep inside that quantum physics had to have real substance beyond a mathematical theory.

    Maybe its unrelated and a silly question, but is the so-called Mandela effect a real phenomenon or just a figment of a fertile imagination?

    • Gmax Says:

      Mandela effect is just a collective hallucination of false memory. . Freud and his friends called that collective hysteria. Nothing to do with physics

      • colettebytes Says:

        Thanks. I thought it might be…there just didn’t seem to be any science. Weird phenomenon though… Out of all the effects (so-called), I would swear that Bernstain bears is incorrect. I have always known the children’s books as the Bernstein Bears.

        I have one memory (my husband laughs at this one because it is totally untrue) that will not resolve itself.

        I would say (because I don’t remember the date), it was about 2003 that I remember a news report on Canadian CBS saying that Kiefer Sutherland had been in a bad car crash and had died on the way to hospital. The vehicle shown was a dark coloured four-wheel drive …something like a landrover. Of course I cannot verify this because it doesn’t exist! I never thought about it much until my new husband mentioned he was in a film we were about to watch in 2004, and I said, ‘Oh he died last year in a car crash.’ My husband said ‘don’t think so!’ And he looked at me as though I was crazy.

        That is not mass hysteria, but it is the only weird vivid memory I have of something that never happened! (Apologies to Kiefer Sutherland). 😂😂😂

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Indeed! ;-)!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, one can’t suspend reality, as 20C physicists had it. As Gmax said, collective hysteria was well-known already in the 19C! “Action at a distance” in Quantum Physics is nothing like telepathy, or other new age fantasmagoria. The reasons for it are actually simple, clear. The mechanism is something deep about space which nobody understands.

  3. Kathleen Hawes Watkins Says:

    “Quantum Physics in one sentence: small is big, or even, everywhere”

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks, Kathleen! It’s not just cool, it’s also very hot: the spreading around of “small” enables the fusion reactions in the Sun which makes it bright and very hot!

  4. Gmax Says:

    How come Feynman, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Von Neumann, Pauli didn’t think of it? With all due respect, your little thought experiment sounds obvious. I mean those guys that’s all they did, think about that stuff, and you try to make me believe they didn’t think of something that obvious?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      See my remark to Ian Miller. They just viewed QM as a computational device, not reality.
      According to the most extreme of these well learned idiots, reality was suspended during Quantum Processes.

      They would reply that reality is only what one can talk of. I reply that’s not because one can’t describe what’s going that one should say it doesn’t exist.

  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to ian Miller blog.]

    Beyond false scientific results, there is the larger problem of lack of imagination (something neither you nor me are deprived of…).
    Turns out that I came across a so-far-prior unsuggested way to tangle with the famous 2-slit experiment:

    A top paleontologist friend of mine told me yesterday that the fact nobody thought of it before was zero surprising, as people think as if they were on rails. For a correct scientific career, it’s much safer to repeat and visit well-known alleys of thought…

    • Ian Miller Says:

      on September 24, 2017 at 10:46 pm said:
      Intriguing proposition, and in my opinion, valid. My gut feel is, though, the experiment would be too difficult to actually work.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        dear Ian:
        Smallest transistors are at 5 nanometers… So we have to wait perhaps a few more years…

        Logically a hydrogen molecule at absolute zero should point towards the self-interfering mass passing through the 2 slit. A STM microscope should be able to detect the motion of the H2 molecule when it feels the gravitational pull. Don’t forget bodies as large as 5000 hydrogen atoms have interfered successfully through the 2 slit.already….

        My point, anyway, is that this observation (“WHAT HAPPENS TO MASS DURING 2 SLIT?”) stands the whole theory of the relationship between Quantum and Relativity and REALITY on its head. It makes the Quantum waves real!

  6. benign Says:

    So, so slippery… (paraphrasing) “the important thing is the potentials of the fields rather than the fields themselves,” almost as if there were a Guide-reality behind it all dreaming it all up….


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      POTENTIALS are fundamental to physics. GAUGE = POTENTIAL. You may have heard of “Gauge” theories (QED, QCD, QFT, etc.). One can call them just as well, “Potential Theories”.

      It was indeed slippery, not clear at all what was the most significant, the field, generating the forces, and the potentials, generating the fields. Well, forces and fields are more relative than potentials…

      From Wikipedia:
      In the 18th and 19th centuries, physics was dominated by Newtonian dynamics, with its emphasis on forces. Electromagnetic phenomena were elucidated by a series of experiments involving the measurement of forces between charges, currents and magnets in various configurations. Eventually, a description arose according to which charges, currents and magnets acted as local sources of propagating force fields, which then acted on other charges and currents locally through the Lorentz force law. In this framework, because one of the observed properties of the electric field was that it was irrotational, and one of the observed properties of the magnetic field was that it was divergenceless, it was possible to express an electrostatic field as the gradient of a scalar potential (e.g. Coulomb’s electrostatic potential, which is mathematically analogous to the classical gravitational potential) and a stationary magnetic field as the curl of a vector potential (then a new concept – the idea of a scalar potential was already well accepted by analogy with gravitational potential). The language of potentials generalised seamlessly to the fully dynamic case but, since all physical effects were describable in terms of the fields which were the derivatives of the potentials, potentials (unlike fields) were not uniquely determined by physical effects: potentials were only defined up to an arbitrary additive constant electrostatic potential and an irrotational stationary magnetic vector potential.

      The Aharonov–Bohm effect is important conceptually because it bears on three issues apparent in the recasting of (Maxwell’s) classical electromagnetic theory as a gauge theory, which before the advent of quantum mechanics could be argued to be a mathematical reformulation with no physical consequences. The Aharonov–Bohm thought experiments and their experimental realization imply that the issues were not just philosophical.

      The three issues are:

      whether potentials are “physical” or just a convenient tool for calculating force fields;
      whether action principles are fundamental;
      the principle of locality.
      Because of reasons like these, the Aharonov–Bohm effect was chosen by the New Scientist magazine as one of the “seven wonders of the quantum world”.[8]

      Potentials vs fields
      It is generally argued that Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates the physicality of electromagnetic potentials, Φ and A, in quantum mechanics. Classically it was possible to argue that only the electromagnetic fields are physical, while the electromagnetic potentials are purely mathematical constructs, that due to gauge freedom aren’t even unique for a given electromagnetic field.

  7. Ian Miller Says:

    Patrice, I have always argued the article goes through one slit and there is a physical wave. The problem is, my suggestion requires the wave to have a defined energy (as opposed to Bohm’s quantum potential that is unchanged by multiplying it by a factor) and you cannot detect it.

    That energy, as an aside, is a consequence of my requirement that the wave reaches the slit at the same time (more or less) as the particle; the phase velocity = E/p, which requires E = mv^2.

    Unfortunately, the kinetic energy of the particle is mv^2/2. That has some weird consequences, and there is reason why it is undetectable by ordinary means (conservation laws, because interacting with the wave cannot be done independently of the particle). However, i doubt too many will like that.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well then Ian you then agree with Yarik Aharonov and Al. (in recent 2017 work quoted in my essay), and all those who believe in particles. There are plenty of them. Including Einstein, who got it it all started.

      Also those who believe in so-called “WEAK Quantum Measurement” are in that camp. Let’s call it the classical camp.

      However, I don’t. I believe a much greater scientific revolution is at hand. I believe the particle delocalizes, becoming a spreading-out wave (before the collapse, when it does the exact opposite). At least the particles I would call “elementary” delocalize (that extends to some pretty hefty molecules, as long as they can self-interfere in an observable way).

      My point is that this can now be found experimentally. Whether there is delocalization (as in the EPR), or not!

      It would seem strange to me that there can be delocalization as in the EPR, on sometimes fantastic distances, but then none in the rather compact world of the 2-slit.

      • Ian Miller Says:

        Patrice, your reference by Aharanov is certainly interesting – I have to think a bit more about this. However, as for the weak measurement camp, yes, I guess I am in that thanks to [Kocsis, S. and 6 others. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173.] It happens to fit in nicely with my guidance wave interpretation, so please forgive me for agreeing with something that support say predictions. As it happens, I also disagree with the logic of the analysis of the rotating polariser experiments – in my opinion, simply rotating the apparatus does not generate two new variables.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          dear Ian: I do lots of things here, and sometimes I have to use authority of past-me onto present-me, because I have no time to go back and re-analyze things. At some point I got excited by weak measurements, and “photon trajectories”, but, when I looked into it more carefully, I found the thing empty. So I will leave at that.

          My meta-reason is this: we need a guiding mechanism, if we believe in the real wave. And, or, believe there is something there, a mass (-energy). I don’t see how a particle can be guided. De Broglie had his double solution mechanism (whatever that is). My position is a single, unstable nonlinear wave (nonlinear waves are intrinsically unstable). Sometimes it spreads, sometimes it contracts.

          OK, some folks in Paris ran experiments where an oil drop is guided by wave-interference field. But it’s basically what I am talking about. The wave-interference field is generated somehow, but its energy dwarves that of the oil drop. In the Quantum case, the wave-interference field is generated by the “particle” itself (most but not all the time, as in two laser interference). That means much, if not most, of the wave-interference field (corresponding to Bohm Quantum potential) came out of the particle (by my suggested nonlinear mechanism, I reckon…).

  8. Watch This Ocean Of Galaxies, And Tremble! | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […]… […]

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: