The assumption that time works the same way for everything doesn’t apply to anti-matter (Amjor,Jurkiewicz, & Loll, 2008) as when an anti-electron hits an electron, the Feynman diagram shows it enters the collision going backwards in time (Figure 4.8), though the logic is symmetric so to the anti-electron, the electron is going backwards in time. Yet despite time going backwards, both the electron and anti-electron are entering the interaction not leaving it, so reversing time doesn’t mean reversing causality.

Minkowski interpreted Einstein’s theory to mean that objects move faster or slower along a time dimension in a block theory of time, where every event that ever was or will be can be paged like a book (Barour,1999). Minkowski’s model has one time dimension so a particle going backwards in time reverses causality but the anti-matter particle in Figure 4.8 isn’t doing that. The anti-electron is entering the collision just as the electron does with no causal reversal, so Minkowski’s interpretation can’t explain how anti-matter time runs backwards. If time is an absolute dimension, to reverse time is to travel back in time and deny the causality behind all physics.

In quantum realism, time passes as quantum cycles complete and there is no space-time “canvas” upon which matter particles exist. Einstein’s conclusion, every object in the universe has its own “clock”, arises because every node on the quantum network runs at its own rate, which may vary.

If time passes as quantum cycles finish, a tick of matter time passes for every forward cycle but a tick of anti-matter time passes for every reverse cycle. Anti-matter then exists in anti-time as matter exists in time, except that for matter a forward cycle is a tick of its time and for anti-matter a reverse cycle is a tick of its time. To a matter being, anti-matter runs time in reverse but to an anti-matter being our matter is running time in reverse. Matter exists by processing while anti-matter exists by anti-processing, but in both cases their quantum cycles define their time.

That anti-matter runs time in reverse is only possible if time is virtual. It doesn’t mean that anti-matter reverses causality but that Feynman diagrams need dual time axes, one for matter time and one for anti-matter time. Anti-time is an alternate virtual time that exists because anti-matter processing is the reverse of matter processing. If processing creates time, not only does every entity in the universe have its own clock, it also decides its own clock direction.

If reality is virtual, can time rewind like an Internet browser has a Back button? But a browser back button can only undo your last act, it can’t undo interactions like online registrations as this must reverse both parties and with six degrees of separation, rolling back six events for one person could affect the entire web! To undo interactions one must roll-back the entire network and this is also true for the quantum network.

Anti-time doesn’t imply time reversal because a physical event is a reboot that can’t be undone. Anti-matter exists in anti-time between physical events but it can no more undo its physical interactions than matter can. A series of reboots can’t be reversed, rewound or fast-forwarded, whether by matter or anti-matter, so there is no time travel.

Next

In physics, matter and anti-matter are equivalent opposites, so while atoms in our universe have negative electrons, an anti-matter universe would have positive electrons but everything in that world would seem the same to its inhabitants because the laws of physics would be exactly the same. Why then do we only see matter all around us? Did the big bang produce:

1) No anti-matter, for some unknown reason?

2) Matter and anti-matter equally but the anti-matter in the universe is hidden?

3) Matter and anti-matter equally but matter somehow “overcame” the anti-matter?

Physics dismisses the first option by its equations and the second because no anti-meteors, anti-planets or anti-stars have ever been seen. The current view is that the big bang made equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but then matter somehow overcame the anti-matter to give our universe. That no evidence supports this belief is called a “mystery” of physics:

“The lack of anti-matter is a deep mystery that cannot be explained using the Standard Model.” (Oerter,2006) p101

A clockwise rotation in a space is anti-clockwise from the other side (Figure 4.7a) but a first-up rotation on a surface will stay that way however it is viewed (Figure 4.7b). If our universe began with one photon, then it had to choose whether to first vibrate up or down with respect to the surface of space. As it had to choose, let us say that it chose first–up processing and all its offspring followed suit.

It follows that when the first photon chose processing over anti-processing, our universe became matter not anti-matter. If the first light evolved into matter only, not matter and anti-matter equally as the standard model assumes, then the anti-matter the standard model is trying to explain away never was. The first photon chose to oscillate one way and from then on anti-matter was a path not taken. Physical realism can’t explain why our universe is matter not anti-matter because that choice occurred before the physical universe began.

Next

Dirac’s equations predicted anti-matter before it was found but didn’t say why every matter particle had an “evil twin” of the same mass but opposite charge. The standard model added an anti-matter column to fit the facts but that matter has an inverse is one of the most baffling findings of physics. If matter is a substance, what is an “anti-substance”? Why does nature even allow anti-electrons that can instantly annihilate electrons?

In contrast, if matter arises from quantum processing, it is possible to run the same processing in reverse, as a process setting a circle of values one-way can set the same values in reverse. In a reverse cycle, instead of a photon first going up on the surface of space and then down, it will first go down and then up. This implies two photon processing possibilities, namely “first-up” or “first-down”.

If an anti-electron is the same photons as an electron processing a reverse cycle, the resulting overload gives same net processing mass but an opposite remainder charge, so an anti-electron has the same mass as an electron but a positive charge, as observed. Processing implies anti-processing so the same logic applies to every matter particle. A quantum processing model predicts the existence of anti-matter and also that anti-electrons will annihilate electrons by turning both back into photons. It follows that anti- matter is to matter as neutrinos are to electrons – necessary byproduct.

Figure 4.6 summarizes the basic leptons of the standard model by their photon constituents as follows:

1. Matter. First-up extreme photons collide to give either an:

i. Electron (4.6a). First-up heads collide to give mass and a negative remainder gives a negative charge.

ii. Neutrino (4.6b). First-up heads that are not entirely synchronous mostly cancel first-down tails to give a tiny mass but the remainders cancel fully to give zero charge.

2. Anti-matter. First-down extreme photons collide to give either an:

i. Anti-electron (4.6c). First-down heads collide to give mass and a positive remainder gives a positive charge.

ii. Anti-neutrino (4.6d). First-down heads mostly cancel first-down tails to give a tiny mass but the remainders cancel entirely to give zero charge.

In sum, quantum realism derives all the fundamental leptons of the standard model from extreme photons.

Next

The processing that explains matter also explains charge but what about the electron’s brother neutrino? Electrons are critical to our world, as without them there is no chemistry and no life, but our universe also contains a “little nothing” that until recently we didn’t even know existed – the neutrino. The sun floods the earth with vast numbers of them each day but they mostly pass through us like ghosts. Neutrinos seem quite pointless, so why did nature make so many of them?

The standard model expects neutrinos to have no mass at all because they have no charge but their tiny mass was how we detected them in the first place. When asked why neutrinos have a non-zero mass but exactly zero charge, the current physics answer is that it just does. That isn’t good enough here.

If extreme photons colliding in-phase give an electron (Figure 4.3), they can also collide out-of-phase (Figure 4.5), where two nodes overload but only one successfully reboots. Both cases overload all the channels of an axis but while a head-head collision gives an electron “bump”, the heads and tails cancel in a head-tail collision to give the “little nothing” we call a neutrino. It follows that rather than a useless “building block”, the neutrino is a necessary byproduct of an electron-type collision.

But if a neutrino is an electron-type collision in a different phase, why isn’t its mass zero? If the quantum network was perfectly synchronized, photons entering a node would arrive at exactly the same time to cancel entirely but it isn’t, as the universal flow of light doesn’t synchronize it perfectly (2.4.4). Perfectly synchronized heads and tails would cancel but in our mostly synchronized quantum network, the neutrino heads and tails don’t exactly cancel. Over many channels, small asynchronies give the small processing excess we call mass but the processing left over still cancels exactly. While an electron is a bump on space, a neutrino is a smudge whose tiny mass reflects the quantum network’s imperfect synchrony.

If a point of space is a network node that offers many quantum channels for any axis through it, the channel set for that axis has a finite bandwidth just as a channel does. Let the axis bandwidth be the amount of processing an axis can accept before it overloads. Table 4.2 below then describes electrons and neutrinos in terms of axis bandwidth, where:

1. Total processing. The processing sum regardless of sign that an axis handles. If it repeatedly “fills” an axis bandwidth, the result is stable.

2. Net processing. The net processing after opposite displacements cancel defines the mass.

3. Remainder. The net processing remaining after opposite displacements cancel defines the charge.

Note that a tail-tail meet isn’t possible because it implies a prior head-head meet. Extreme light at the highest frequency can overload a node axis to give a quantum standing wave. In the initial chaos, it was bound to give electrons and neutrinos as one-axis collision options. Electrons and neutrinos are then brother leptons because they both overload one-axis, though one is something and the other almost nothing. Quantum processing repeatedly overloading all the channels of a node axis gave electrons and neutrinos as the first matter.

Next

 

Current physics defines charge as what causes electrical effects and electrical effects as caused by charge. This circular definition, that charge is what charged particles have, indicates that we don’t really understand it. In the standard model, charge is a self-evident property like mass, and the two are considered unrelated.

Quantum realism aims to derive physics from processing not just describe it so if mass is a processing overload that repeats, what is charge? In Figure 4.3, mass as positive processing that repeats endlessly leaves negative processing that never runs as the dotted lines show. The quantum network must keep its processing books in order, so let an electron’s charge be its constant processing deficit. If a processing overload that repeats is mass and the processing that repeatedly doesn’t run is charge, then charge is a necessary byproduct of matter.

This definition of charge fits its properties as processing remainder can:

1. Be positive or negative, as charge is.

2. Cancel its opposite, as opposite charges do.

3. Have a constant value as the electron repeatedly restarts, as an electron’s charge is.

If mass is the net processing run and charge the net processing not run, per node per cycle, then matter as a repeating quantum processing overload inevitably has mass and charge by the operation that creates it.

Next

In current physics, the small mass and negative charge of an electron exists as a point particle with zero dimensions. But a particle has mass by means of a matter substance, how can a particle with no extent have substance and hence mass? The standard model doesn’t do a good job of explaining what an electron actually is.

In quantum realism, matter isn’t an inherent substance but a quantum processing output and after the first event, only high energy photons existed as processing passed on by the quantum network. A computer network node passes data to another via a channel so let us assume that a quantum node passes on processing by channels. If the neighbors of a node exist as a sphere around it, they represent all the rays of light that can arrive at the node. As a ray of light on one axis can have many different photons, each with a different polarization plane, let a quantum channel be a quantum node’s ability to pass on one photon, so the number of quantum channels per quantum network node is very large. Computer channels are mostly duplex, as they transfer in both directions, so we assume that quantum channels are the same. Finally, as one photon is the smallest possible transfer, the quantum channel bandwidth is expected to be the quantum process defined earlier. This logic suggests that one quantum node channel:

1. Receives processing from one axis line

2. For one photon polarization plane

3. Up to a bandwidth of one quantum process per quantum cycle

4. Where photon streams are in lockstep order so they can’t overtake

5. And being duplex, can accept photons from either axis direction.

One quantum channel is then represented by a point with a line through it plus a plane that cuts the line at the photon’s polarization and it can accept and pass on photons going in opposite directions. It follows that if two photons with the same polarization going in opposite directions meet head-on in a channel, it will accept both and pass both on, unless the total processing of the photons exceeds the bandwidth of one quantum process. If it did, the photons would overload the channel and restart the processing in a physical event. As normal photons are one quantum process spread over many nodes, this doesn’t happen for the light we see, so current physics generally assumes that light rays never collide.

Photons meeting head-on don’t overload a channel if their processing sum is below its bandwidth but what if it isn’t? This model allows light at the highest possible frequency, of a wavelength of two nodes. Let an extreme photon be one quantum process shared over two quantum nodes, with half a quantum process in each node. If two such photons meet head-on, each requesting a half quantum process, the total processing will be one quantum process, so channel will overload and they will “collide”.

As photons spin on their axis of movement, photons that overload can restart in another axis channel, but this can’t occur if every channel overloads. Now let an extreme light ray be extreme photons filling every channel of a transfer axis. If two such rays meet head-on, every channel on one axis overloads at once (Figure 4.2), with no free channels for the photons to restart in. That extreme light rays meet head-on is obviously unlikely but it must have occurred in the early plasma by the quantum law of all action, that everything possible eventually happens (3.6.3).

Figure 4.3 shows the result for one channel, with every channel the same. In this picture, “head” refers to the photon leading half and “tail” to the following half. Two heads, of half a quantum process each, overload the quantum channel bandwidth so both photons restart next cycle. Two new photons then set off in opposite directions but now the tails collide in another overload that restarts the photons again. This overload/restart repeats every quantum cycle because every channel on the axis is the same. The network that once hosted only waves now has the permanent processing bump that we call an electron.

It is stable because any processing arriving on that axis finds all the channels taken while anything at right angles passes right through using different channels. An electron in network terms is a repeating overload, like a stuck record that endlessly repeats

Experiments show that electromagnetic waves can repeatedly interact to form static states (Audretch,2004, p23) as repeated observations can maintain a quantum state if the time delay is short (Itao,Heizen, Bollinger, & Wineand, 1990). Feynman’s PhD partitioned the electron wave equation into opposing advanced and retarded waves but he didn’t pursue it, perhaps because electrons are particles. The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory later proposed that retarded and advanced waves underlie charge (Wheeler & Feynman, 1945). Cramer’s transactional theory also uses retarded and advanced waves (Cramer, 1986) and er,1986). Wolff has suggested that electrons are in and out spherical waves (Wolff,M.,2001). If electromagnetic waves can collide to form standing waves as other waves do (Figure 4.4), an electron could be a quantum standing wave created when extreme photons collide.

This contradicts the standard model in several ways. Instead of a particle of matter substance with no size, which makes no sense, an electron that occupies one “point” node of the quantum network has a size, just as a screen pixel does. Instead of having no structure, an electron is made of photons that fill all the channels of one axis. If matter is light trapped in a never-ending loop, it isn’t inert at all. It is “frozen” in place but still pulses at the speed of light, like a standing wave that is both static and moving. And as this only applies to the channels of one axis, an electron is only one-dimensional matter.

When a computer “hangs” in an infinite loop and doesn’t respond to input, we restart it, but sometimes this doesn’t work. If a node of our network “locks” in an infinite loop that a restart can’t fix, it is called a glitch but for the quantum network, the matter glitch was an evolution not an error.

Next

If the universe began as a cauldron of massless high energy photons, how did matter arise? Electrons and neutrinos are the smallest matter entities, so they are the most likely candidates for the first matter.

QR4.3.1. Electrons

QR4.3.2. The Charge Byproduct

QR4.3.3. The Neutrino Byproduct

QR4.3.4. The Anti-matter Byproduct

QR4.3.5. Where did the Anti-matter Go?

QR4.3.6. Anti-time

Next

The standard model of physics took over a century to build and summarizes:

“… in a remarkably compact form, almost everything we know about the fundamental laws of physics.”(Wilczek, 2008) (p164)

It is currently considered by physicists to be:

“…truly the crowning scientific accomplishment of the twentieth century.” (Oerter, 2006) p75.

The standard model considers all reality to consist of particles, which it divides into matter particles called fermions and force particles called bosons (Table 4.1). Physics currently attributes all matter to fermion particles and all forces to boson particles, where fermions collide with each other and bosons don’t.

Matter particles divide into leptons like the electron and neutrino, and quarks that can be up or down. Both have unstable higher generations for some unknown reason. Up and down quarks combine into the protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei that with electrons form the atoms of ordinary matter. Apart from neutrinos that whizz around for no reason and anti-matter that was expected but is nowhere to be found, it all seems fairly tidy, but as Woit notes:

“By 1973, physicists had in place what was to become a fantastically successful theory … that was soon to acquire the name of the ‘standard model’. Since that time, the overwhelming triumph of the standard model has been matched by a similarly overwhelming failure to find any way to make further progress on fundamental questions.” (Woit, 2007) p1

Some fundamental questions the standard model doesn’t answer include:

• Why don’t protons decay as neutrons do?
• Why is our universe made of matter not anti-matter?
• Why do neutrinos have a tiny but variable mass?
• Why do leptons and quarks have three particle “generations” then no more?
• Why do electrons “half spin”?
• Why do particle masses vary enormously but charges don’t?
• Why do neutrinos always have left-handed spin?
• Why do quarks have one-third charges?
• Why does the force binding quarks increase as they move apart?
• What is the dark matter and dark energy that constitute most of the universe?

It isn’t just that these questions are unanswered but that over fifty years has seen no progress at all in answering them. The great hopes of string theory and super-symmetry led nowhere so the next fifty years look like being the same. Can a quantum processing model make progress where the standard model can’t?

Next

Quantum realism explains space, time and light as follows:

·      Space. Space is a null quantum process running at a node point, so it is something that outputs “nothing”.

·      Time. Time is processing cycles completed, so if the network slows down, time can “dilate” as Einstein says.

·      Light. Light is one quantum process distributed over two or more nodes to give the electromagnetic spectrum.

If space is null processing, time is processing cycles completed and light is space distributed, can the same model explain matter? (Figure 4.1) If it can’t, the results so far are mere curiosities. Current physics explains matter by the standard model so a quantum model must explain all that it does and more.

Next

Quantum Realism Part I. The Observed Reality

……Chapter 4. The Matter Glitch:…

An Alternative to the Standard Model

Brian Whitworth, New Zealand

 

“Scientists who don’t question their theories are priests”  Brian Whitworth

Download Whole Chapter

A world view is a way of looking at the world that includes a statement of what is real:

1. Physical realism is the common view that there is only one reality and the physical world is it, so it is all there is. Its claim to truth is generally based on evidence from the physical world.

2. Dualism is the equally common view that a spiritual reality beyond the physical world created it and we return to it after death, implying a higher purpose to life. Its claim to truth is generally based on divine revelation.

3. Quantum realism is the view that only the quantum world is real and the physical world is a virtual reality. Its claim to truth is based on evidence from modern physics.

Physical realism is common in science and dualism is common in religion but quantum realism isn’t common at all. If only one view is correct, science must choose between them based on evidence. Physical realism seemed the favorite until physics started observing things that are physically impossible, but dualism couldn’t capitalize on this as experiments on paranormal effects like extra-sensory perception (ESP) couldn’t verify non-physical causes either. Most scientists back one of the traditional options but the outsider, quantum realism, combines the monism of physical realism and the non-physicality of dualism.

Quantum realism, the world view that everything arises from a non-physical quantum world, sits between the dominant views of physical realism and dualism. It agrees with physical realism that there is one reality out there apart from us but disagrees that the physical world is it. It agrees with orthodox religion that there is a reality beyond the physical world but disagrees that there are two realities. As a statement about the physical world, it is subject to science. Its main scientific contrast is physical realism, so this chapter addresses the question “What is Matter?” to make a testable prediction that contradicts physical realism.

QR4.1.   What is Matter?

QR4.2.   The Standard Model

QR4.3.   Electrons and Neutrinos

QR4.4.   Quarks

QR4.5.   Fields Upon Fields

QR4.6.   The Evolution of Matter

QR4.7.   Matter Revisited

QR4.8.   The Living Universe

Summary Table

Discussion Questions

References

Next