Quantum spin is so strange that when Pauli first proposed it, he wasn’t believed:

“… the spin of a fundamental particle has the curious feature that its magnitude always has the same value, although the direction of its spin axis can vary…” (Penrose, 1994), p270.

A physical particle spins in a rotation plane around an axis of rotation (Figure 3.17), so its axis must be known to measure its spin. Measuring spin on an axis that isn’t its rotation axis gives less than the total spin. If the spin axis is unknown, one must measure spin on three orthogonal axes to get the total spin. In contrast, the spin of a quantum entity measured on any axis is always the same, so quantum spin doesn’t work like physical spin.

In this model, detecting a photon’s spin on any axis gives all its spin for the same reason that detecting it always gives all its energy. In both cases, a physical event, is an all or nothing restart of the photon, including all its energy or spin, so this property is expected.

Physics measures quantum spin in units of Planck’s constant in radians (Note 1). If Planck’s constant represents the linear transfer of one Planck process, as proposed earlier, Planck’s constant in radians will then represent its units of angular transfer, or spin, so this is also expected.

Finally, according to quantum theory, quantum spin occurs in both directions at once, so measuring it gives either spin direction randomly. Just as a photon goes through two slits at the same time but is randomly in one or the other, so it also spins both ways and is randomly either. It follows that the quantum law of all action applies to rotational movement as well as linear movement, so a photon that can travel through two slits at once can also rotate in two directions at once. The measured spin result is then random because it depends on which instance accesses the server first, so this property of quantum spin is also expected.

Spin is then a fundamental property of every quantum entity because processing spreads in angular as well as linear directions, and its properties are as expected.

Note 1. Quantum spin is defined as Plank’s reduced constant ħ = h/2p (in angular radians).

Next

In physics, quantum spin is a mathematical construct applied to quantum particles. Like quantum waves, it is said to be imaginary, so when electrons spin, nothing is assumed to actually spin. After all, if an electron is a point particle with no size, how can it spin? And even if it had a size, its edges would have to move faster than light to explain the observed effects. Physics calls quantum spin and quantum waves imaginary because both are physically impossible, but what if they aren’t?

In this model, quantum waves aren’t imaginary and the process behind them is a circle that can spin. Quantum spin then really happens, and by the law of all action, it occurs in every possible direction. 

QR3.7.1. The Curious Case of Quantum Spin

QR3.7.2. Quantum Directions

QR3.7.3. Polarization

Next

Super-computers running a million-million cycles a second take millions of seconds (months) to emulate not just what a photon does in a million-millionth of a second, but what it does in a million-millionth of that (Wilczek, 2008), (p113). Why do these tiniest bits of the universe, with no known internal structure, need so much computing to emulate? The answer proposed is that a photon isn’t a tiny particle taking a single path but a processing wave spreading over many paths.

How then do photons travel? Feynman’s sum over histories method predicts how light goes from A to B by calculating all possible paths, then choosing the one with the least action integral (Feynman et al., 1977) p26-7. It is based on quantum theory, so it predicts perfectly, but like its source, became a method that works not a theory that happens because physical particles can’t do what it describes.

However, if a photon is a processing wave, then Feynman’s method works because its instances really do take all possible paths, and the first to trigger a physical event is where we see it arrive. A photon doesn’t need to know the fastest path in advance if it takes every path, as the instance that happens to arrive first reincarnates it in a physical event. This makes its path the one the photon took, and the restart makes all other instances disappear, like a clever magician removing the evidence of how a trick is done after it happens.

The physical law of least action that has puzzled science for centuries is then explained by a quantum of all action. After all, a particle can’t know the fastest path to an unknown destination in advance, so the photon just takes every path and lets the first physical result choose its path.

To recap, knowing nothing in advance, the photon spreads down every path, and when it reaches a detector, restarts, as only a processing wave can. What reaches a detector by the fastest route isn’t a solitary particle that magically knows the best path in advance, but a quantum ensemble that explores every path and disbands when the job is done.

It follows that every physical event arises from a myriad of quantum events. The quantum world tries every option and the physical world takes the best and ignores the rest, so if this isn’t the best of all possible worlds, as Leibniz said, it isn’t for lack of trying. The world we live in isn’t the only possible world but of all possibilities, it is the best it can be. Just as a photon tries every path before picking the best, if our universe did the same, it couldn’t be any better.

The physical law of least action then derives from the quantum law of all action that:

Everything that can happen as a physical event, does happen as a quantum event.

This is equivalent to Feynman’s everything that can happen does happen (Cox & Forshaw, 2011), as well as Gellman’s quantum totalitarian principle that everything not forbidden is compulsory. Both imply that quantum events explore every possibility before a physical event is chosen. This law of all action is universal, so it applies not only to how light travels but also to quantum spin.

Next

In 1662 Fermat amended Hero’s law to be the path of least time because when light enters water, where it travels slower, it refracts to take the fastest path not the shortest path. In Figure 3.15, light takes the path that bends as it enters water, not the dotted shortest path, because it is faster.

To understand this, suppose the photon is a lifeguard trying to save a drowning swimmer as quickly as possible. The fastest path to the swimmer isn’t the dotted straight line but the solid bent line because the lifeguard can run faster than he swims, so it is faster to run further down the beach then swim a shorter distance. The dotted line is the shortest path but the solid line is the fastest, and that is the path light takes in Figure 3.15. But while a lifeguard might know in advance which path is fastest, how does refracting light know this?

In 1752, Maupertuis generalized further that:

“The quantity of action necessary to cause any change in Nature always is the smallest possible”.

Euler, Leibnitz, Lagrange, Hamilton, and others then developed the mathematics of the law of least action, that nature always does the least work, sparking a furious theological debate on whether we live in the best of all possible worlds. Despite Voltaire’s ridicule, how light always finds the path of least action, for any destination, remained a mystery.

For example, light bouncing off the mirror in Figure 3.16 could take any of the dotted paths shown, but according to optics, always takes the solid line fastest path. But as a photon moves forward in time to trace out its path, how does it at each stage know the fastest route? As Feynman says:

“Does it ‘smell’ the neighboring paths to find out if they have more action?” (Feynman et al., 1977), p19-9.

To say that a photon chooses in advance the path of least action is to get causality backwards. That a photon, the simplest of all things, with no known internal mechanism, always finds the fastest path to any destination, for any media combination, any path complexity, any number of alternate paths, and inclusive of relativity, is simply miraculous. The law of least action is a physical law that is no less a mystery today than it was centuries ago, but like all physical laws, it has its basis in a quantum law.

Next

He was correct that if light moves as a wave, it should bend round corners as sound waves do, but actually it does. In 1660 Grimaldi found that light does bend but less than sound because its wavelength is shorter. The question is then, how can a spreading wave travel in a straight line?

Detecting photons by screens at different distances confirms this, as the results aren’t a perfect straight line but randomly spread about (Figure 3.14). A physical particle would have to travel in a zigzag path to explain this! When a photon moves, it is most likely to exist in a straight line, but the wave itself spreads in all directions.

Next

That light always finds the best path to any destination has puzzled thinkers for centuries. Hero of Alexandria observed that light always takes the shortest path but how does it know what that is? It might seem obvious that it is a straight line but how, at each step, does light know what straight is? (Note 1) How light always finds the best path to any destination is still a mystery today.

QR3.6.1. A Wave Moves

QR3.6.2. The Law of Least Action

QR3.6.3. The Law of All Action

Note 1. By relativity, light doesn’t always travel in a straight line, so “straightness” is not self-evident.

Next

What decides where a photon hits a screen? The photon wave spreads to many screen points, but only hits one point. That point is random, like a lottery where everyone has a chance, but quantum theory says the hit chance is higher where the wave is stronger. More precisely, the photon’s probability to hit at each point depends on the square of its net amplitude there. These probabilities add up to one, so it always hits somewhere, but exactly where doesn’t depend on any physical history. Quantum theory then explains the two-slit experiment by this mechanism:

1. The photon wave spreads through both slits.

2. It then interferes with itself to give a net amplitude at many screen points.

3. This amplitude squared is the photon’s probability to hit each point.

4. Where it actually hits is then randomly chosen from these probabilities.

5. The result is the interference pattern seen.

After the photon wave spreads through both slits, its positive or negative amplitudes combine at the screen to give a net strength, whose square predicts its probability to hit there. A random value between zero and one then decides where it actually hits, which no physical history can predict.

This mechanism predicts the interference pattern seen but how can imaginary waves do this? If quantum waves are imaginary, physicists are like shamans, who see the future in their imagination! Physics isn’t real if quantum waves aren’t real, so let them be processing waves that can restart in physical events. Quantum waves then predict physical events because they cause them, but what then decides where the wave restarts?

A processing wave reaching a screen of matter will overload it at many points. When they reboot, to request a server restart, the server response will be either:

1. Access. The server accepts the request to restart at that point, so it no longer supports the rest of the wave, which collapses. This then is a physical event at that point. OR,

2. No access. The server doesn’t respond that cycle because it is busy elsewhere, so the point just carries on. This then was a potential physical event that didn’t happen.

Quantum collapse is then random to us because it is a winner takes all lottery run by a server outside our domain. When many points reboot, the first one to get a server restart wins the prize of being the photon, leaving the rest of the wave to wither on the grid. What decides which point wins this lottery? Just as in our lotteries, more tickets means more chance of success, so points that access the server more are more likely to restart it.

According to quantum theory, a photon’s probability to hit depends on its wave amplitude squared at each point. Light is a sine wave so its amplitude squared is its power, which for a processing wave means more server access. If positive and negative amplitudes cancel at the server, the net power at each point decides the number of instructions needed, and hence server access. It follows that points where the wave has more power will access the server more, and so be more likely to restart it. The probabilities to hit of quantum theory are then based on the net amplitude squared because for a processing wave, that decides access to the server that restarts it in a physical event. The strange mechanics of quantum theory then make sense if a photon is a processing wave.

To recap, photon instances overload many screen points but which one actually restarts the wave is to us unknown, i.e. random. Even so, the net wave power at each point defines access to the server, so it predicts the probability to restart there. We can now describe the two-slit experiment as follows:

a. Photon wave instances spread through both slits.

b. Those that reach the same screen point by different paths interfere.

c. The first instance to restart the wave server is where the photon hits.

d. The wave power at each point predicts that because it decides server access.

The mysteries of Young’s experiment (3.1.3) are now resolved. How can a photon go through two slits but still arrive at one screen point? A particle can’t do this, but a processing wave spreading on a network can restart at a point. How can sending one photon at a time through two slits still produce an interference pattern? Again, a particle can’t go through two slits or interfere with itself, but a processing wave can. Why then does light come in little photon packets, as Einstein showed? Physical waves don’t come in packets but processing needs a fundamental process, and that is a photon. Why doesn’t the photon wave smear over a screen as a wave would? A physical wave doesn’t hit at a point, but one process with one server has to restart at one point.

A detector put in one of the two slits only fires half the time, but it isn’t because half the photons go through each slit. Photon instances always go through both slits, but the detector only wins the quantum lottery half the time, as the server is attending to other slit instances the rest of the time. Likewise, detectors in both slits fire equally often, but it isn’t because photon particles choose between the slits equally. Again, each photon always takes both slits but it can only restart in one, as decided by a server that attends equally to all its instances. This mechanism now answers questions like:

a. Does one photon go through both slits at once? Yes, photon instances go through both slits.

b. Does it hit the screen at one point? Yes, the photon process restarts at one screen point.

c. Did it take a particular path? Yes, the instance that restarted the photon took a specific path.

d. Did it also take all other possible paths? Yes, other instances, now disbanded, took every path.

Table 3.1 below compares Feynman’s summary of quantum mechanics (Feynman et al., 1977), p37-10 with a processing wave approach. Both approaches predict the same results, but the first is a recipe with no rationale, while the second is based on processing reasons. What made no sense fifty years ago now makes sense based on network processing.  

We now consider another mystery of light that has baffled scientists for centuries.

Next

Table 3.1. Quantum mechanics in processing wave terms
Quantum Mechanics	Processing Wave
1. Existence. The probability a quantum entity exists is the absolute square of its complex quantum amplitude value at a point in space	1. Existence. The probability that a processing wave restarts in a physical event depends on server access that varies as the square of its amplitude at a point in space
2. Interference. If a quantum event can occur in two alternate ways, the positive and negative amplitudes combine, i.e. they interfere	2. Interference. If a processing wave reaches a point by alternate paths, the positive and negative amplitudes combine, i.e. they interfere
3. Observation. Observing one path lets the other occur without interference, so the outcome probability is the simple sum of the alternatives, i.e. the interference is lost	3. Observation. Observing a processing wave on one path lets the other occur without interference, so the outcome probability is the simple sum of the alternatives, i.e. the interference is lost

 

If a photon is a spread-out wave, as quantum theory says, how can it arrive at a point? A wave should hit a barrier as a smear, but a photon hits a screen as a dot instead. Radio waves are many meters long, so they should take time to arrive, even at light speed, but they don’t. If they did, in the delay between a wave front’s first hit and the rest arriving, the tail could hit something else. One photon could hit twice, but it never does! Physical waves deliver their energy over time and space, but a quantum wave delivers all its energy at a point? As Walker says:

“How can electromagnetic energy spread out like a wave … still be deposited all in one neat package when the light is absorbed?” (Walker, 2000), p43.

Current physics can’t explain how any wave could collapse instantly to a point:

“After more than seven decades, no one understands how or even whether the collapse of a probability wave really happens.” (Greene, 2004), p119.

Einstein rejected quantum collapse because it implied faster than light travel, as if the photon wave spreads as quantum theory says, then:

Before the photon hits a screen, its wave function exists at points A or B with some probability but after, it is entirely at point A say not at B. The moment A knows it is the photon, then B knows it isn’t. Now suppose the screen is moved further away, eventually A and B could be in different galaxies, so how can the collapse happen instantly? That two events anywhere in the universe are instantly correlated faster than light contradicts special relativity.

Physical waves can’t collapse instantly so how can quantum waves? They can if they are processing waves that restart when a network point reboots, as in computing a reboot:

1. Is irreversible. A reboot can’t be undone because all prior processing is lost.

2. Conserves processing. The processing before and after a reboot is the same.

3. Allows change. A reboot can allocate the processing involved in new ways.

When a phone, laptop, or printer reboots, it restarts its processing from scratch. A network point is the same, except it gets its processing from a server and so will try to restart its server processing. 

The trigger for a network point reboot is expected to be an overload, that it receives more processing than it can handle, as our devices do the same. A photon wave arriving at a screen will then overload its points, as they are already fully occupied generating its matter. If many points reboot at once, they will all request a server restart, but one photon has only one server, so only one request can succeed. The photon then restarts at that point, so it always hits a screen at one point, not many.

Quantum collapse is then a processing wave restart. The photon arrives at a screen as many instances spread over many points, but only one of them can restart it. When this happens, the instances with no server support just disappear, as quantum theory says. Quantum collapse is then the inevitable disbanding of child instances when their parent server starts a new child. The wave collapses instantly, as if it never was, because instances have no substance.

Why then doesn’t the reboot point overload again when its processing restarts? The pass-it-on protocol (2.4.4) avoids this, because the point passes on its processing before doing anything else, so the photon that caused the overload just starts to spread again.

To recap, a photon arriving at a screen isn’t a lonely particle heading for a single hit point but a wave of many instances, any of which can restart the photon. When a screen blocks this wave, the restart point depends on which reboot request the server recognizes, which to us is random. Many points may request a restart, but only one can succeed, so the first to do so is where the photon hits the screen.

Why then does quantum collapse occur faster even than light? The speed of light depends on how fast the screen of our space refreshes, but programs change screen pixels without any such movement. It just occurs directly, anywhere on the screen. Likewise, a photon server can directly alter its clients anywhere on the screen of our space. The point-to-point screen speed that defines the speed of light is thus irrelevant to the server-client effect of quantum collapse. Einstein’s objection that quantum collapse occurs faster than light doesn’t apply because it is a server effect, not a client effect.

Materialism sees quantum collapse as things disappearing but in computing terms, it is just client events that didn’t happen. When electrons collide and bounce apart, materialism sees the same particles entering and leaving, but quantum theory tells another story. It says that the electrons that left the collision are actually brand-new creations, fresh off the quantum press. And if physical events annihilate and recreate entities, no matter substance is needed because we live in a world of events not things.

Next

Einstein, like Newton, expected light particles to follow a fixed path from source to screen, so when quantum theory said that each photon hits the screen at a random point chosen from what was possible, there were two options: either quantum theory was wrong or there were hidden physical causes:

“This is the fundamental problem: either quantum mechanics is incomplete and needs to be completed by a theory of hidden quantities, or it is complete and then the collapse of the wave function must be made physically plausible. This dilemma has not been solved until today, but on the contrary has become more and more critical.” (Audretsch, 2004), p73.

This problem, which Einstein raised and Bohr ignored, still haunts physics today. On the one hand, all attempts to find hidden variables that make quantum randomness physically plausible have failed. On the other hand, all attempts to show that quantum theory is incomplete have also failed, so the rules of the quantum world predict perfectly but have no physical explanation.

What then is the resolution? Both theories, that quantum theory is incomplete or that it is physical, have led nowhere, so the answer must lie elsewhere. If matter explains everything, then quantum theory is either wrong or physical, but if materialism is wrong, quantum theory could be true yet not physical. We know it is true because it always works, and we know it isn’t physical because nothing physical can explain quantum theory, so perhaps both are true. Physics then can’t find hidden variables to explain randomness because there are none, just as it can’t find a fault in quantum theory because there is none. If quantum events create physical events, as quantum theory says, quantum laws are outside the domain of physical laws. 

For example, the laws of Minecraft don’t explain how its blocks exist, nor do the laws of chess say how its pieces exist, because that is outside their domain. A created scenario can never fully explain itself based on its local laws, so perhaps physical laws can’t explain randomness for the same reason. If I turn off a game, or tip over a chess board, it is a random event, outside the laws of these domains. I still follow rules but they aren’t those of the game. Likewise, randomness in our world can come from quantum events that occur outside it but if so, what laws does the quantum domain follow?

Next

According to quantum theory, quantum waves spread until they collapse in a physical event, but how can a wave that can become bigger than a galaxy instantly collapse to start again at a point? We know that nothing physical can do this, but what can?

QR3.5.1. Hidden Variables?

QR3.5.2. Quantum Waves Restart

QR3.5.3. The Quantum Lottery

Next