Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

Am Samstag000031, 31.05.2025 um 22:50 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
..

I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
spacetime', which works quite well.
>
The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
necessities.
>
Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
only a certain subset.
>
The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>
This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>
But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply
observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>
Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>
TH

There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
fallacy or merely a diagram.

>
Apaprently you want to decide what is and what is not.
>
But what gives you authority to decide about the existence of something?
>
>
I used the 'real-spacetime-hypothesis' to connect GR and QM.
>
The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this:
>
If you want to connect two distinct but established theories, you need
to find a 'path' between them, since if both are valid, there should be
a connection.
>
Now you could take either side as starting position and cut your way
through the jungle, until you arrive at the other side.
>
I had chosen to use 'GR-side' as start and had to assume, that spacetime
of GR is real.
>
Now my aim was to build the entities of QM out of spacetime.
>
Once that is done, that connection would be established.
>
Therefore, my aim was to build particles out of spacetime and possibly
fields.
>
That was in fact possible, though not that easy.
>
But I have written a 'book' about this idea, which you can find here:
>
>
 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

>
>
TH

GR and QM are horrible theories that ought to be thrown out altogether.
Spacetime of GR is a diagram because time is not a spatial dimension.

I had use a simple trick to 'draw spacetime'.
I reduced the four-dimensional space by one dimension and told the reader, to 'multiply the picture by three'.
It is actually difficult to draw imaginary numbers.
But we know, that imaginary numbers are useful.
So we need to make drawings, which contain abstract dimensions.
But an Argand-diagram, for instance, is way too flat, to be a good description of the world, we could actually 'pump it up' by multiplying it by three.
This would bring us to a construct called 'bi-quaternions' (aka 'complex four-vectors').
Theese 'beasts' are actually, what I think, that 'spacetime of GR' is made of.
It is a quite unusual concept, because it is a 'continuum concept' which works without particles.
It also requires very few fundamental assumtions (mainly that spacetime of GR is real).
TH