The problem being that these equations do not describe waves, and you know this. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Well you got me there Dfpolis, I really don't know what you know so I clearly do not know what I'm talking about. But that's because you're not very forthcoming with your principles. Can you explain how you conceive of a "matter wave"?

I mean don't give me a mathematical formula, give me the principles. How do you make the kinetic energy of a single moving body which necessarily has mass to have kinetic energy, and therefore a center of gravity at a point, consistent with the energy of a wave which is necessarily spread out over an area? The momentum of the body could be provided by an energy equivalence with the energy of the wave, but the uncertainty principle would render the position of such a body, with a determined momentum, as having no determinable location.

I suggest that what is the case, is that data from many similar circumstances is collected to together, and from statistical analysis probabilities are produced. Hence the "matter" wave is better known as a "probability" wave. And, there is no real consistency produced between the energy associated with the mass of a body, and the energy associated with the wave, because the particular wave in the particular set of circumstances is not ever actually represented. All that is represented is the energy of the wave derived from application of theory, and the probability of location, which is a conclusion drawn from the statistical analysis.

So for example, if we make a statistical analysis of the rising of the sun over many years, we can make a very accurate projection of where and when the sun will rise tomorrow. However, this statistical analysis does not represent the movement of the sun relative to the earth, it represents the sun's appearance at a multitude of specified times. The likelihood of where it will appear tomorrow is deduced. Likewise, the statistical analysis used to produce the probability wave (matter wave) does not represent the movement of the supposed underlying wave, it represents the locations of a multitude of instances of the detection of a body with mass.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the uncertainty relation between momentum and location is overcome in that way. The momentum is derived from wave observations and theories of energy equivalence. And the position is determined by probabilities derived from statistical analysis. But what is represented by the statistical analysis, as the "probability" or "matter" wave, is not a wave at all. It is not a representation of the wave, because it represents possible locations of the body with mass. The wave is actually represented by what is on the other side of the uncertainty relation, the momentum of the body.

Can you explain how you conceive of a "matter wave"? — Metaphysician Undercover

In the late 19th century, electrons were discovered. We came to understand that they are part of every atom of matter. At first, for historical reasons, it was thought that they were particles. Because of that assumption, it was decided that there must be light particles (photons) as well. In 1923, it was shown that electrons interfere with each other and with themselves -- something only waves can do. So, electrons, an essential constituent of every atom, are waves. Every property previously explained using the particle assumption can be explained by their wave nature. On the other hand, no wave property is explained by the particle assumption. That means the particle hypothesis is falsified.

We have since found that wave mechanics also applies to protons and neutrons, the constituents of atomic nuclei. Every part of atoms, which constitute both ordinary and ionized matter, behaves like a wave. None is a point particle, or a hard object with a well-defined edge. That physics has nothing more to say about what is vibrating does not mean that the constituents of matter do not oscillate in both space and time in well-defined ways. So, ordinary matter is made of waves. That is what I mean by "matter waves."

We have known that there is electromagnetic field energy and momentum, permeating all space, since the late 19th century. As a result, Newton's third law is violated when electromagnetic forces are involved.

The momentum of the body could be provided by an energy equivalence with the energy of the wave, but the uncertainty principle would render the position of such a body, with a determined momentum, as having no determinable location. — Metaphysician Undercover

But, if there is no body, why would we expect it to have a well-defined (point) location or arrival time? Wave packets are spread out in space and time. Because of Fourier's theorem, which applies to all waves, to have a single wave length, a wave must be infinitely long, and to be at a single point, it must have all wave lengths. When you insist that we are not dealing with waves, but particles, this translates into indeterminacy. Since a quantum's energy is proportional to its frequency and its momentum is inversely proportional to its wave length, finite wave packets have neither well-defined energy nor momentum.

Hence the "matter" wave is better known as a "probability" wave. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no objective randomness. Randomness is a measure of our ignorance. The more we know, the less random processes are. In the quantum case, we know neither the exact initial state of the wave we are trying to measure, nor the exact initial state of the detector that will interact with it. So, all we can predict is a probability -- just as with a dice roll.

the particular wave in the particular set of circumstances is not ever actually represented — Metaphysician Undercover

That is exactly what the wave equations do represent. The problem is that you cannot pick the one actual solution out of an infinity of possible solutions without knowing the initial conditions.

it represents possible locations of the body with mass — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, there is no "body."

Also, free will is not indeterminate will. It is will determined by the agent willing. — Dfpolis

I agree. But Determinism/Fatalism denies that a willing agent can find a causal gap to fill with her own intentions. Whatever will be will be, regardless of human desires.

The situation is similar to the Materialistic assumption that intangible Consciousness has no causal role in the real world. Yet, I have come to a different understanding of Causal Consciousness, based on Quantum randomness and unpredictability, which implies that Nature has inherent openings (or soft spots) in the chain of events that allow for radical departures from Destiny : such as the advent of Life from dead Matter, and of Mind from dumb Matter.

If otherwise random Evolution did not have innate selection criteria allowing for departures from causal inertia and inexorable entropy, no significant change of direction would ever happen. And the Big Bang would become a Big Cataclysm : instant Entropy. Instead, what actually happened was inexorable advancement in complexity and organization, sufficient to produce Intelligent Matter and Willful Agents. :smile:

That physics has nothing more to say about what is vibrating does not mean that the constituents of matter do not oscillate in both space and time in well-defined ways. So, ordinary matter is made of waves. That is what I mean by "matter waves." — Dfpolis

So, you fill the gap in physical understanding with a label : out there in the darkness of ignorance are "matter waves". Like medieval maps, in uncharted territory, you add a cautionary note : "here be dragons waves. But you leave the key term undefined. Is that an accurate assessment? :smile:

↪Gnomon
I put the question about the nature of the wave function to ChatGPT. I don't regard it as authoritative, but it's a useful summary of the issues. But I don't think the question ought to be pursued further as it's tangential to the OP. — Wayfarer

I agree. :cool:

But you leave the key term undefined. Is that an accurate assessment? — Gnomon

The medium is not a key term. Physics is not philosophy. It does not aim to tell us what is, but what we can expect to observe in the physical world. Then, philosophers try to place those observations in a larger context -- one that provides a consistent framework of all human experience.

The medium is not a key term. Physics is not philosophy. It does not aim to tell us what is, but what we can expect to observe in the physical world. Then, philosophers try to place those observations in a larger context -- one that provides a consistent framework of all human experience. — Dfpolis

OK. So, why are we discussing "matter waves" on a philosophy forum. Does the distinction between Particles and Waves have a philosophical significance regarding Dualism & Interactionism?

So, why are we discussing "matter waves" on a philosophy forum. Does the distinction between Particles and Waves have a philosophical significance regarding Dualism & Interactionism? — Gnomon

No. It does not. I am responding to questions about it as a courtesy.

Poor Neils Bohr, then. He was so convinced that the discovery of the wave/particle nature of matter was of paramount importance that he reproduced the Taoist ‘Ying/yang’ symbol in the family Coat of Arms he commissioned when he received imperial honours for his achievement.


Endorsed with the Latin “contraria sunt complementa”, "opposites are complementary"

The quip by Oscar Wilde comes to mind, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

Thanks for the explanation DF. I'll expound a bit on my own perspective, to clarify why I think your idea of "matter waves" is insufficient. Like I explained earlier, the Michelson-Morley type experiments indicate that the medium of electromagnetic waves, and what composes the "matter" of massive bodies is likely one and the same substance. However, I think it is a mistake to characterize an object with mass as a wave activity in this substance.

I know it is true that electrons may simply be represented as waves, and electrons are also designated as having mass, but the quantity of mass of an electron is so tiny relative to the overall mass of a an atom, this need to assign mass to a wave feature (electron) may readily be attributed to possible faults in the mass/energy equivalence theory. It may be the case that it is a mistake to say that an electron has mass. A slight fault in the theory, along with the customary procedure of assigning quantities of mass according to what the theory predicts, would produce the need to assign mass to that wave phenomenon which is called "an electron", when electrons really ought to be represented as pure wave features without any mass.

From this perspective, I'll point to a few spots where I have criticism of your explanation.

So, electrons, an essential constituent of every atom, are waves. Every property previously explained using the particle assumption can be explained by their wave nature. On the other hand, no wave property is explained by the particle assumption. That means the particle hypothesis is falsified. — Dfpolis

This is a conclusion made about electrons only, not the other parts of an atom, being the massive nucleus. So what has been falsified, by your argument, from my perspective, is the theory that electrons are particles with mass. This supports what I have said above, that electrons ought not be represented as having mass, and should be represented entirely as waves. This would imply that the interaction between radiant energy and electric energy is completely an interaction of waves. And it would force the need to further analyze the relationship between the atom's nucleus being expressed with a positive charge, and it's electrons having a negative charge.

The current need to assign mass to the electron appears to be the result of a lack of understanding of the relationship between the massive nucleus and the wave features. I propose that the waves of electromagnetic radiation are affected, altered, by interaction with the nucleus (rather than to conventional representation of an interaction with electrons), making electrons and electromagnetic radiation one wave structure instead of interacting waves, and the characteristics of this wave phenomena is the result of, effect of, the activity/inactivity of the nucleus.

The nucleus causes changes to the electromagnetic field, and vise versa, and we understand these changes as electrons. Accordingly, all electron phenomenon would need to be understood in terms of relations between massive nuclei and electromagnetic field. Radiation would be an extension of this, eliminating the need for complex and unnecessary electron/photon relationships.

We have since found that wave mechanics also applies to protons and neutrons, the constituents of atomic nuclei. Every part of atoms, which constitute both ordinary and ionized matter, behaves like a wave. None is a point particle, or a hard object with a well-defined edge. That physics has nothing more to say about what is vibrating does not mean that the constituents of matter do not oscillate in both space and time in well-defined ways. So, ordinary matter is made of waves. That is what I mean by "matter waves." — Dfpolis

This is where I find the most significant fault with your proposed theory. I believe it is simply not the case that wave mechanics can explain the massive nucleus of an atom. And "mass" is what is most properly related to "matter". Mass is what provides the stability for the temporal continuity of sameness manifesting as "inertia" in common physics. The fact that wave mechanics cannot explain the existence of mass ,may be understood through a glimpse into the mechanics of the strong interactive force. This force accounts for the vast majority of "known" mass, and the rest of "known" mass may be dismissed in the way described above as applicable to the mass of an electron, simplifying calculations. Here's a passage from the Wikipedia article on the strong force. After considering the reality of this force, please reconsider whether you truly believe that the nucleus of an atom can be represented with wave mechanics. If you still do, maybe you can explain it to me.

The strong force acts between quarks. Unlike all other forces (electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational), the strong force does not diminish in strength with increasing distance between pairs of quarks. After a limiting distance (about the size of a hadron) has been reached, it remains at a strength of about 10,000 newtons (N), no matter how much farther the distance between the quarks.[7] As the separation between the quarks grows, the energy added to the pair creates new pairs of matching quarks between the original two; hence it is impossible to isolate quarks. The explanation is that the amount of work done against a force of 10,000 newtons is enough to create particle–antiparticle pairs within a very short distance of that interaction. The very energy added to the system required to pull two quarks apart would create a pair of new quarks that will pair up with the original ones. In QCD, this phenomenon is called color confinement; as a result only hadrons, not individual free quarks, can be observed. The failure of all experiments that have searched for free quarks is considered to be evidence of this phenomenon. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

But, if there is no body, why would we expect it to have a well-defined (point) location or arrival time? — Dfpolis

The particle is understood to behave under the principles of Newtonian mechanics. Therefore it has momentum, and mass is a requirement for momentum. And the reality of mass is observed through the effects of gravity which constitutes empirical evidence for the concept of a centre of gravity, therefore a point of location which marks the centre of the mass. When the electron is represented as having mass, then the Newtonian conceptual space applies, including momentum etc.. It has a rest mass, a point of location, an inertial frame applies, and all that follows for a body of mass.

If we rob the electron of its mass, take it away, and deny that it has any mass, then that discrepancy in total mass, and violation to conservation laws needs to be accounted for. But we know from experimental data, and the need for "entropy", that the conservation laws are ideals which are not completely applicable as the true physical reality. And the supposed mass of an electron is so tiny that the only real reason why it is assumed is the need to maintain the conservation laws. Therefore there is no good reason to maintain the principle that an electron has any mass, consequently no reason to represent it as having momentum, or any well-defined point of location. That need is simply the desire to maintain an untrue ideal, the conservation law, and follow traditional conventions of calculation. But it's a misleading path, and like a vector, the further away you get from the starting point, the further you get from the true path.

Since a quantum's energy is proportional to its frequency and its momentum is inversely proportional to its wave length, finite wave packets have neither well-defined energy nor momentum. — Dfpolis

See, the fault here is to assign momentum to a wave. This implies that the electron has mass and a stable, inertial centre required by Newton's first law. But if mass truly converts to wave energy, then the centre point of an electron which is radiating or absorbing wave energy would actually be an unstable, decaying or increasing mass, and this is not consistent with the first law. The atom's mass would decrease as it emits radiation, or increase as it absorbs. Therefore the electron really cannot be represented by the Newtonian mass/inertia/momentum conceptual space.

So, we can transfer this mass to the nucleus, and the instability which exists as the radiation and absorption (interaction) of energy represented as electrons, is in most cases a very minimal instability, as a proportion of the total mass of the atom. However, there are features of the nucleus, which result in the various electron shells for example, which represent critical thresholds in the stability. The key point is that the Newtonian stability assumed by the first law of motion (which is itself an ideal symmetry) must be forfeited in order to adequately account for these minute change to physical bodies, by allowing that changes inherent within and originating within the nucleus, may alter the wave field.

That is exactly what the wave equations do represent. The problem is that you cannot pick the one actual solution out of an infinity of possible solutions without knowing the initial conditions. — Dfpolis

I think that this is incorrect. "Probability" is produced from a comparison of what is known about many instances of particular circumstances, with a statistical analysis of a set of similar particular circumstances. The crucial point is the judgement of "similar". That is why the probabilities of the wave equations do not actually represent the particular circumstances, these probabilities represent a conclusion drawn from numerous particular circumstances, which are categorized as "the same" by a judgement of similar.

Again, there is no "body." — Dfpolis

There is mass, and mass is what constitutes the matter of a body. I strongly believe that wave structures cannot account for the mass of a body, and I will continue to believe that, unless you or someone else, can answer my question above, and show how waves can explain the strong interactive force.

I believe it is simply not the case that wave mechanics can explain the massive nucleus of an atom — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you need to study nuclear physics and the behavior of the quarks in high energy physics.

And "mass" is what is most properly related to "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

It was not before the advent of Newtonian physics and has not been since the advent of modern quantum physics. Mass is proportional to the frequency of a quantum in its rest frame. This applies to all known quanta and is consistent with special relativity.

The fact that wave mechanics cannot explain the existence of mass — Metaphysician Undercover

No physical theory has explained the existence of mass. We can explain our observations of the quantity of mass, but existence is a metaphysical problem. It was solved by Aquinas, who concluded that it is contingent on the continuing creative act of God.

I am well aware of the strong force. It is described using wave mechanics. Its range is related to the time an intermediating boson can exist (which is inversely proportional to its mass). That time is calculated using Heisenberg's indeterminacy relation. The same is true of all the forces known to physics.

The particle is understood to behave under the principles of Newtonian mechanics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which has been falsified. Why would anyone want to do that?

If we rob the electron of its mass, take it away, and deny that it has any mass, then that discrepancy in total mass, and violation to conservation laws needs to be accounted for. — Metaphysician Undercover

And, why would we want to discard this, or any other, fact? The mass of the electron is known with great precision. It is not zero.

See, the fault here is to assign momentum to a wave. — Metaphysician Undercover

All known waves, even ocean waves, have momentum. The momentum of sound waves moves your ear drum. It can be and has been measured in quanta.

I think that this is incorrect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then, you need to study differential equations.

I strongly believe that wave structures cannot account for the mass of a body, — Metaphysician Undercover

You may believe what you wish. I constrain my beliefs by what has been observed. We can and do have energy, which is equivalent to mass, in space free of all "particles." This is known as a field's "energy density" and is proportional to the field strength (e.g. the electromagnetic field) squared.

The wave analogy in quantum mechanics is a very unfortunate and misleading coincidence. Schrodinger equation is more closely related to a diffusion equation than wave equation. Interference and superposition can also be described in the framework of stochastic processes. Importantly, diffusion equations and stochastic processes can describe behavior and probability distributions for the random movement of single particles. "Wave functions" are not physical objects.

Once one sees that quantum mechanics is actually just describing the random behavior of particles (without the need for collapse), almost all of the quantum strangeness dissipates.

Then you need to study nuclear physics and the behavior of the quarks in high energy physics. — Dfpolis

Wave mechanics does not explain the behaviour of quarks. I believe the proper terminology is "field theory". And, there are many aspects within quantum field theory which break the laws of wave-type representations, such as those very important aspects known as spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Mass is proportional to the frequency of a quantum in its rest frame. — Dfpolis

This is what I've identified as a self-contradicting concept, 'a quantum of energy in its rest frame'. Ideas like this are what distort and render the concept of mass as completely unrealistic, regardless of whether it's consistent with special relativity. As I explained, "mass", as "relativistic mass", or variable mass, or whatever you want to call it, has become the tool which physicists use to coverup flaws in the theories they apply.

No physical theory has explained the existence of mass. We can explain our observations of the quantity of mass, but existence is a metaphysical problem. It was solved by Aquinas, who concluded that it is contingent on the continuing creative act of God.

I am well aware of the strong force. It is described using wave mechanics. Its range is related to the time an intermediating boson can exist (which is inversely proportional to its mass). That time is calculated using Heisenberg's indeterminacy relation. The same is true of all the forces known to physics. — Dfpolis

So the boson does not explain the existence of the quantity of mass then. Therefore it does not explain the strong force, nor the existence of matter either. Why do you think mass is explained, or described by wave mechanics then?

As I understand it, the colour charge of a gluon cannot represent a wave, because it is solely time-like and non-spatial. It appears like you have stretched your imaginary conception of "wave" far beyond reasonable limits, to include non-spatial conceptions as "waves". Since you say "the same is true of all the forces known to physics", I conclude that none of the forces can actually be described as waves. "Force" is the term used for how things, including waves, interact, but the interaction occurs in a medium between.

The mass of the electron is known with great precision. It is not zero. — Dfpolis

Nor is the mass of a photon zero, "in its rest frame", by your statement above.

Other than displaying the inconsistency in the physicist's use of "mass", you appear to be mainly just circling back now. Unless you want to try and describe to me how you think the concept of the boson, represented as a wave feature, can provide an adequate description for the strong force and the reality of mass, we might be best off to just leave the discussion at this point.

Since you refuse to study what you insist on discussing, and will not allow me to teach you, there is no point in continuing.

You claim you have been trying to teach me, but you really don't seem to be making much effort. I know that I am of the very skeptical sort, and as such I am a very difficult and trying student, but you often don't seem to be trying very hard yourself. You simply make random statements, assertions which to me often seem either inconsistent with other assertions you've mase, or are simply mistaken.

For example, you said:
"All known waves, even ocean waves, have momentum. The momentum of sound waves moves your ear drum."
Now, that in itself is a satisfactory statement, because the momentum of waves is attributable to the movement of the mass of the medium. The particles of the medium have mass, and the movement of these particles is constitutive of the momentum of the wave.

However, if I couple this with your statement that electromagnetic radiation is known to exist as waves, and these waves are known to have momentum, then I see inconsistency. How can the momentum of these electromagnetic waves be known, if the momentum of waves is attributed to the movement of the mass of the particles of the medium and there is no known medium for these waves?

Therefore I assume that the momentum, which you "associate" with a light wave must be derived from some completely different principles. And, since you accept that the light wave has no medium composed of particles with mass, the "mass" which is an essential aspect of momentum must also be derived from some other principles.

What I've suggested is that there is inconsistency, ambiguity, perhaps even equivocation in your use of "mass". And I've supported this proposition with an explanation as to why "Mass is proportional to the frequency of a quantum in its rest frame." appears to be a self-contradicting statement. "A quantum in its rest frame" appears to contradict itself.

So if you are at all willing to teach me, maybe you could demonstrate how the conception of "mass" in that statement, as "proportional to the frequency of a quantum in its rest frame", is consistent with the conception of "mass" as a property of a particle of water, in an ocean wave. I suggest that you start with the proposed concept of "a quantum in its rest frame", because that is what causes a roadblock for me from the very outset.

From what I understand, you might have a rest frame for a collection of photons, quanta, as a "system", so the momentum and therefore mass of the whole system might be determined by giving the system a rest frame, as a sort of ideal, a contrived and unrealistic equilibrium. However, it is impossible that a single quantum could have a rest frame. Since the mass of a collection of water particles is divisible amongst its members, and this cannot be the case in a photonic system, this indicates to me, that the "mass" assigned to a system composed of photons is fundamentally inconsistent with the "mass" assigned to a system of water particles.

The former is derived from a contrived, artificial, and unrealistic ideal, while the latter is derived from observations of naturally existing bodies. Because these two dissimilar conceptions of "mass" are inconsistent with each other, and fundamentally incommensurable, I apprehend an interaction problem. I would be very pleased if you could try to dispel this apprehension through the effects of teaching.

You claim you have been trying to teach me, but you really don't seem to be making much effort. I know that I am of the very skeptical sort, and as such I am a very difficult and trying student, but you often don't seem to be trying very hard yourself. — Metaphysician Undercover

It took 10 years of college and post graduate education to lay the foundation for my understanding, and many years of reflection after that to integrate the pieces into a consistent whole. I do not have that kind of time to spend here. You can look at my (dfpolis) youtube physics videos if you wish. There I have corrected a number of common misunderstandings. You might also look up my paper "Does God Gamble with Creation?"

Most contemporary philosophers of mind employ a Cartesian conceptual space in which reality is (at least potentially) divided into res extensa and res cogitans. Then, they ask: how res cogitans could possibly interact with res extensa? I am suggesting that this approach is nonsensical because reality cannot be divided into res extensa and res cogitans. — Dfpolis

Your OP seems to be challenging conventional dualistic philosophical and scientific categories, such as Mind vs Body, or Wave vs Particle. But your (radical?) alternative perspective is difficult for conventional thinkers to follow --- in part, because it doesn't seem to fit into traditional compartmental worldviews, such as Realism vs Idealism. Nevertheless, I am beginning to see that you may have a good point, but I don't know exactly what it is. Perhaps because it is wishy-washy wavelike instead of hard-point particular. Is that a fair assessment?

I get the impression that you might be one of those geniuses who doesn't "suffer fools gladly". For example, calling your fellow genius Descartes' categories of being : "nonsensical". I view his separation of Magisteria as a political compromise, to avoid conflicts between Religion & Science, not as an absolute philosophical principle. Nevetheless, his notion has been interpreted to imply an impassible barrier between res extensa and res cogitans. Which makes sense from a Dualistic perspective, but non-sense from a Monistic stance. Is your view ultimately monistic?

One clue to where you are coming from is the statement : "I am a moderate realist. That means I think universals do not have a separate existence, but do have a foundation in reality." But, does that mean your position is midway between the exclusive extremes of Realism & Idealism ; hence, allowing some common pathway for Interaction? If so, it may be close to my own philosophical worldview of Both/And. Yet, you seem to have come to your Neither/Nor position via a different path from mine.

I think, unlike our perceived mundane reality, ultimate Reality has the Potential for both Mental & Physical expressions. And evolution was like a computer program processing Causation (energy) over time into both Matter and Mind. Does any of that make sense from your cosmic perspective? :smile:

So, ordinary matter is made of waves. That is what I mean by "matter waves."
We have known that there is electromagnetic field energy and momentum, permeating all space, since the late 19th century. As a result, Newton's third law is violated when electromagnetic forces are involved. — Dfpolis

You didn't deign to answer my request for a dumbed-down definition of "matter waves". So, I'm still not sure if you are referring to physical waves in a compressible substance, or metaphysical waves in an ethereal medium. I have a notion that light waves propagating in empty space are actually on-off alternations that are interpreted by the mind in terms of sinuous waves in a material substance. With no inertial mass to push off of, light has nothing reactive to act upon. But oscillations between something & nothing or potential & actual might be a clue to some of light's mysterious properties. This is not a developed theory, just a hunch for further investigation. :nerd:

The debate as to whether QM randomness is aleatoric or epistemic is presumably rendered moot by modern understanding of Quantum Contextuality; for in the case of entangled systems it isn't possible in principle to assign a complete probability distribution over the joint values of every quantum observable, as per the Kochen-Specker theorem.

that's how I take bells theorem as well. Epistemic interpretations remain popular in spite of it - I think it's because the epistemic take allows people to keep their intuitive understanding of the world. They're more comfortable with that.

You can look at my (dfpolis) youtube physics videos if you wish. There I have corrected a number of common misunderstandings. You might also look up my paper "Does God Gamble with Creation?" — Dfpolis

Ok, thanks for the references Dfpolis. You know my principal interest, as I've developed it in this thread, the concept of mass in physics. Can you direct me toward anything specifically related to the ideas I've expressed here.

Ok, thanks for the references Dfpolis. You know my principal interest, as I've developed it in this thread, the concept of mass in physics. Can you direct me toward anything specifically related to the ideas I've expressed here. — Metaphysician Undercover

Probably the easiest thing to grasp is the concept of fields' energy density. Since mass and energy are interchangeable, fields increase the mass of systems. Imagine positively and negatively charged parallel plates. Because they are attracted to each other, pulling them apart takes energy. That energy is stored in the electric field between the plates -- in space. When the plates are released, that energy becomes kinetic energy. The same is true of magnetic fields.

The separation of electromagnetism into distinct electric and magnetic fields is something I've never really been able to understand. But I know it's essential to the concepts of polarization, and the supposed spin of particles.

Since most natural light is unpolarized, I think that this is not a real representation of the associated wave phenomena. I think it is just an artificially created part of the mapping system, in the same way that a coordinate system is. This produces an unnecessarily complex representation, which instead of having a proper 3D representation of waves emitting from a source in all possible directions, requires a moving, generally rotating coordinate system. Needless to say, the moving coordinate system is very problematic, because motion is understood as relative, and the motion of the coordinate system is therefore arbitrary, related to nothing other than the intention of the mapmaker.

So I believe that this practise of representing an electric field as distinct from the magnetic field is nothing but a coordinate system used for mapping the waves. In natural occurrences, waves are going every which way, as they propagate out from a mass consisting of a variety of parts. This would require a vast multitude of distinct fields to represent the natural waves coming from what would appear to be one united source. This requirement of a multitude of distinct fields, to map the most simple natural waves, I think is very strong evidence that "fields" are completely unreal, and just a coordinate system.

Why though, did you ask me to imagine "parallel plates", when the convention for producing the coordinate system of distinct electric and magnetic fields is to make them perpendicular? Are the positive and negative fields you propose supposed to represent the positive and negative aspects of the atom? If so, how does the neutron get represented, which is mass without electric charge? And how would you make both the electric field, and the magnetic field, which are perpendicular to each other by convention, parallel to the proposed positive field?

The separation of electromagnetism into distinct electric and magnetic fields is something I've never really been able to understand. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is fine. They are the components of a tensor of rank 2 in special relativity. That means that they can transform into each when we change reference frames.

No matter what I tell you, you disagree. I don't have time to tell you why you are wrong. You asked for something you could understand, and I gave it to you. But, instead of researching it, you want to argue about it. I do not.

You asked for something you could understand, and I gave it to you. But, instead of researching it, you want to argue about it. I do not. — Dfpolis

You gave me something which I could not understand though. The problem is that I've already researched, and what you say often seems inconsistent with what I've already found out. So to me it appears like you alter basics principles of physics, in an attempt to hide faults in your metaphysics, and attempt to disguise this by refusing to elaborate. So you prove to be unwillingly to explain, and I have to flatter you with reference to your superior education in order to encourage you to divulge all that knowledge of the discipline of physics, which you conceal within. You pretend that you haven't got the time, but we have no deadlines or time constraints here.

For instance, I said that I have never been able to understand the separation of electromagnetism into distinct electric and magnetic fields, and you replied that the two are transformable in special relativity. But that does not explain why they were separated in the first place, which is what I said that I did not understand.

Our understanding of electromagnetic waves consist of both aspects, the electric and the magnetic aspects. The division into separate fields, I assume is based on the observations of distinct effects, electric effects and magnetic effects.

You asked me to "Imagine positively and negatively charged parallel plates" as a method toward understanding the relation between mass and energy. I assume that the positive represents the mass, and the negative represents the energy, but "parallel plates" implies an image of two dimensional planes, instead of a three dimensional body, which an atom with electrons and protons is. So I really do not understand how this image which you are proposing is applicable, or how it is in any way a representation which I can understand.

Here's an example of why this "parallel plates" representation seems unreasonable to me. Suppose an electron orbits a nucleus, and we have an observational perspective which sees the electron approaching us on the right side of the nucleus, and moving away from us on the left side of the nucleus. The electric and magnetic fields are represented as perpendicular. However, every time that electron moves 180 degrees around the nucleus, the relation between the negative electron, and the positive nucleus has to flip 180 degrees, to represent the change between coming toward us in relation to the nucleus, and going away from us in relation to the nucleus.

Further to that, the turning of the electron, in the interim, must be represented. Then the electron appears to have a spin, when there is really no spin at all, the apparent spin is just a product of applying a 2 dimensional coordinate system to an assumed 3 dimensional activity. The assumed 3 dimensional activity is the orbiting of the electron. But if it's just a wave, there is no orbiting electron, there is no need for flipping, nor spinning, just the opposing crests and troughs in a 3 dimensional representation. The need to separate electric from magnetic fields was produced from the assumption of an orbiting electron, and is completely unnecessary if electrons are properly represented as wave phenomenon.

That is a problem with your proposed "parallel plates" image, along with the 2 dimensional coordinate system of distinct electric and magnetic fields. The further problem, which cannot even be approached because these spinning coordinate systems obscure it, is your claim "that they can transform into each when we change reference frames." The problem being that we cannot actually change reference frames without creating falsities in relation to a wider environment. Therefore the claim to be able to change reference frames is a falsity.

The apparent spin of the electron is a product of the coordinate system which maps the electron as an object moving relative to the proton. If we try to transform, and attempt to map the proton as moving relative to the electron (change the frame of reference), then the positive field which is mapped as parallel to the negative (parallel plates) must flip to account for that spin of the coordinate system. But this flipping would produce problems of contradiction in the wider context of multiple electrons and multiple protons. Therefore the change of reference frames which you propose would actually be impossible.

The issue of course, as I indicated earlier, is that the reference frame of a single quantum of energy, an electron, or a photon, cannot be a true inertial reference frame. So any attempt to produce a rest frame for such an object, whether it's by separating the electric field from the magnetic, or some other means, will always be fraught with difficulty, compromised, and ultimately producing a false representation. The electron is simply not an orbiting body, as you know, it is a wave phenomenon, so assigning it an inertial frame is a falsity which creates problems. Therefore the only way to get a true representation is to produce a rest frame around the nucleus, and map the quanta of energy accordingly, accepting that there is no possibility of reference frame exchange, therefore no truly transformable properties. This requires disregarding the false ideal of an inertial frame for an electron, which is exchangeable with the inertial frame of the proton, because this implies that the electron is a body with a location relative to the proton, determinable by spatial coordinates.

I think there are ways around this. Lack of a single joint probability distribution doesn't mean that same information cannot be represented in multiple separate ones. In a Bell experiment, there may be no single joint probability distribution, but you can construct ones for each underlying context of compatible pairs of observables. There is no joint probability for incompatible pairs but perhaps we can do the same with these - represent them in terms of multiple underlying contexts. Work by Andrei Khrennikov has suggested that, starting from classical descriptions of different underlying contexts, when assuming different contexts cannot be combined / co-occur (like heisenberg uncertainty) then various features occurring in quantum mechanics seem to be consequences e.g. interference, violation total probability, complex amplitude, non-commutativity: e.g.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=9998752293294842918&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

Importantly everything is still coming from normal classical probability spaces in principal. So this is partly what gives me the motivation for believing that quantum mechanics just essentially describing the random behaviour of particles (which common sensically would always have definite properties) through probability distributions. From the kind of view I just cited, quantum contextuality in effect is about classical context dependent joint probability distributions which cannot be integrated into a single joint distribution. The strange extended wigner "quantum mechanics cannot describe itself" thing also would also come down to this, not strange subjective epistemic differences in agent perspectives. Bell violations are also just a necessary formal consequence of the context dependence, as stipulated by Fine's theorem - not requiring some spooky force.