Gravitation and wave-particle duality revisited


The principal subject of this paper is related to the formulation of an updated theory of particle-wave duality (or particle-wave unity), but indirectly this paper also creates (or opens the window to) the new platform regarding understanding fields’ unification theory.

Pdf document: Revision of the particle-wave dualism
Download now! (3.2MB)

Presently (meaning from the beginning of the 21 century) official science is still considering the biggest achievements of Physics belonging to: 1° Mechanics including Gravitation Theory (GT) and Einstein Relativity Theories (RT), 2° Maxwell Electromagnetic Theory (EM), and 3° Quantum Theory (QT), including all surrounding theories and mathematical tools in connection to them. Any new theory regarding particle-wave duality (including the one from this paper) should also be placed in the same space of EM, GT, RT and QT (and, of course, all new formulations and updates of such theory should start from already known works and results related to L. de Broglie wave hypothesis and Max Planck quantized energy concepts). In this paper the Renewed Particle-Wave Duality concept (PWD) is presented as the most important link (or necessary background) for creating Universal and Unified Field Theory. It is also shown that there couldn’t be any PWD manifestation without presence of a certain two-body (or many-bodies) field interaction, meaning that PWD is a product and a consequence of field couplings and interactions (and space-time evolving forces) between moving objects, when certain state of motion is changing. If we could imagine a moving particle in an “absolutely empty space” there wouldn’t be any PWD manifestation. Also without intrinsic rotation (and torsional field/s components) associated with all kinds of movements there wouldn’t be any particle. In fact, here, the use of the term particle-wave duality, presents only the verbal link to the traditional way of describing the same phenomenology, and it is shown in this paper that the much more convenient formulation would be the particle-wave unity (it will be explained how and why particle’s and wave properties are united).

It is already known that Einstein (and many others) tried to make the unification of EM and GT in the frames of RT, without having significant success, most probably because there were at least two components missing that created the biggest and unsolvable problems to Einstein’s efforts, as for instance:

  1. SRT (Spec. Relativity Theory), beside having many challenging and problematic critical aspects criticized from different sources is also not addressing rotational and other accelerated movements, even though such motional elements inseparably exist in different forms, associated with any linear motion, and as intrinsic (structural) properties of all elementary particles and atoms (such as spin and orbital moment characteristics). In fact modern (renewed) RT should mostly be a kind of theoretical consequence and mathematical product of a well-established EM, which still has space to be better (or more coherently and more generally) formulated. It could also happen that new SRT would be so radically modified and upgraded (compared to the original one), that it would really present very new and much more generally applicable theory.
  2. EM mathematical foundations (present forms of Maxwell equations), besides having few of challenging critical aspects criticized recently from different authors, should also have “rotational or torsion field” components (as well as electromagnetic waves and fields in certain circumstances should have axial electric and magnetic field vector components). As we know, EM fields and electric charges are omnipresent “inside and around” almost all constituents of our macro and micro universe, and it is a fact (maybe still not sufficiently recognized) that Maxwell equations are originally developed having in mind number of conceptual similarities and symmetries between electromagnetic and fluid-mechanics phenomenology. Unfortunately, in the contemporary physics it is no more fashionable, acceptable or defendable to deal with a space texture, matter matrix or some other carrier-fluid (formerly named ether) where electromagnetic waves and fields are propagating, regardless of the fact that form of Maxwell equations analogically corresponds to certain fluid-mechanics equations (where we know what the carrier-fluid is). Consequently, Maxwell equations should probably have some other (maybe still unknown) similarities to the phenomenology known in fluid mechanics, and should evolve towards formulating more united and more mutually dependant electric and magnetic field entities, and solutions of such (renewed and updated) generalized Maxwell equations should eventually generate most of the important building blocks of a renewed SRT. In fact, an innovated (updated and renewed) EM should take the higher practical and theoretical leading position compared to SRT, which would then remain only as the simple consequence of such EM.

Briefly saying, both SRT and EM should be (firstly) upgraded or modified (or replaced by new theories) up to the level (conceptual, mathematical, theoretical and factual) when they would become much more mutually compatible for unification (otherwise, all efforts to unite them at present premature state will be too difficult, meaningful or artificial). Similar comments can be given regarding merging of QT, RT and EM. Anyway, we cannot easily unite the theories which are mutually still not compatible and comparable for unification, because they probably have (apart from all the good sides) some of artificial, unnatural, very particularly valid, missing, or wrong building elements, assumptions and/or concepts, regardless how successful each of these theories is in its own domain. Such theories in the present state of art are often useful mostly for explaining already known experimental facts, and have some improvable or unverifiable, but mathematically well-functioning complexity (which from the point of significance for Physics could be irrelevant or wrong). In reality, after reading recent publications from Mr. Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. regarding contemporary Relativity theory (published after the year 2000) it should become clear to everybody (from many fundamental points of view) that days of dominancy of contemporary Relativity Theory in Physics are counted (also applicable until certain level to present Electromagnetic theory). Of course, there are modern field theories that are additionally addressing such problems, as Superstrings or M-theory, but this paper would deal mostly with common grounds and establishments of PWD concepts, for if grounds are well made, further theoretical advances based on such grounds should have much bigger significance and applicability.

The new particle-wave duality concept (PWD) in this paper is presented highlighting the following step-stones:

  1. First (as a relatively low level of new ideas initiation), a multilevel system of electromechanical and other physics-related analogies is established (in the first chapter) indicating and generating elements, expressions and hypothetical predictions regarding new PWD and fields’ unification framework. The author presents and defends the philosophical platform that well-established, mutually equivalent, symmetrical or similar, physics-relevant mathematical models (or mathematical structures) should describe the same reality (only seen from different theoretical perspective/s, from different space projection/s, or dimensionally presented using different set/s of coordinates, or different cross-sections). In fact, everything in nature or universe we are part of is united and cross-linked in number of ways, but we are still not able to formulate a good unifying theory. Starting deductively from the fact that unity exist (with or without our theoretical approach to it), we could ask ourselves what is the best and easiest strategy to make our sporadic and mutually separated knowledge bases and our particular physics theories mutually more united; -and the answer here is to use analogies, this way establishing important “filtering process” for testing new theories. Consequently, if we can show that today’s “probability framework” of QT, or important concepts, assumptions and models regarding SRT and RT are just one among other (mutually equivalent or isomorphic, or better) mathematical structures, equally or sufficiently well describing the QT and RT world, we could materialize some other (non-probabilistic, or non-relativistic) picture/s of QT world, as well as some other Space-Time and Relativity concepts, without applying the same set/s of initial assumptions as presently done. Let us formulate the same opinion differently: If we know that contemporary way of applying QT, SRT and RT, on the practical and mathematical level is producing correct results and correct predictions in cases of certain experimental situations (or well explaining already known facts), this is a kind of confirmation that mathematical frames of mentioned theories are maybe not mutually united and not the best, but particularly valid and sufficiently correct (in their own, limited domains of definition), regardless how many initial assumptions and weak starting points such theories could have in their fundaments. Of course, this would stay valid and correct unless one day we find new experimental situation/s and facts that couldn’t be explained using tools from QT, SRT and RT. It is also safe to say that mathematically we could have sufficiently correct final concepts (theories, results or formulas) in modeling certain Physics-related events, even if we started from partially wrong assumptions, and on the way of developing our mathematical models we start introducing some other, maybe again partially wrong, but interactively and iteratively correcting assumptions, canceling errors linked to previous assumptions, eventually creating sufficiently correct models and correct data fitting (after applying a few of such iterative, self-correcting steps), what is probably the case of here mentioned contemporary Physics theories. The biggest mistake in such situations is that eventually, when we see that our (final) theory is producing good results and correct predictions, we start glorifying (some or all of) our initial and in-process-made steps and mistake correcting assumptions as absolutely correct (what could be the situation with certain aspects of contemporary QT and RT). In order to test existence of such “structural and logical defects” of our fundamental theories, here is favored a method of using the multilevel analogy platform (including most generic, basic, continuous Symmetries), as the most general and most neutral comparison frame between different results, models and theories independently developed in Physics, by creating a mosaic of known and hypothetical mathematical expressions and equations that should be applicable in making mutual and non-contradictory cross-theoretical and interdisciplinary penetrations and predictions. If certain initial or crucial assumption exists only in QT and/or RT (or in another theory, but not in all of them), eventually making them well-operational, and we wouldn’t be able to apply it in other theories and domains of Physics (where we already have some other well-operating theories), this would indicate that such an assumption is maybe wrong (or only locally valid, serving the purpose of correcting some other mistake/s, or filling missing conceptualization with whatever fits and works the best). Consequently, the message of this paper is that the power of multilevel analogical screening and cross-correlating of mutually compatible and coherent results of different theories, assumptions and results in Physics should be exploited much more than we presently use such strategies (combined, of course, with satisfying all conservation laws and/or basic continuous symmetries). Not doing something like that would mean that we are still not ready to face the possibility that some of our contemporary theories (regarding Physics) could be much more locally valid, artificial and short-living, contrary to how their founders and followers would like to present them (as eternally stable).
  2. It is also shown (in the third chapter of this paper) that EM could be slightly upgraded (generating Lorentz-like EM field transformations, without use of any SRT methodology and assumptions), where the possibility of the existence of EM rotational field components becomes an explicit prediction. By formulating generalized and fully mutually symmetrical definitions and equations of electric and magnetic fields, charges, currents and voltages, we can additionally upgrade present Maxwell-Faraday EM theory, and extend the system of electromechanical analogies. It is sufficiently well shown that such updated EM theory (analogically and symmetrically extended to mechanics) would start generating or reinventing the foundations of SRT, without a big need to have any significant support in Einstein RT (what is easy to say now, but in the time when Einstein established RT, such options were not obvious).
  3. Later on, it is made obvious that every linear (or rectilinear) particle/s motion is coupled with some kind of (complementary and conjugated) associated rotational motion (indicating that SRT should also be upgraded to cover different aspects of rotation…), and that such associated rotational component/s are linked to de Broglie matter-wave phenomenology and to reaction and/or inertial forces (being an extension of Newton action-reaction and inertia concept to EM, SRT, Torsion and other fields). Even in a purely linear motion of an ordinary particle (which has a rest mass) there is a unity and coupling of linear and rotational motions, and we usually do not see the rotational aspects of such unity because different aspects of rotation are internally hidden or captured by the particle rest mass.
  4. The appearance of PWD phenomenology is related to dynamic and transitory (waving and spinning) effects in all situations when interacting objects (particles, quasi-particles, waves…) are approaching each other, and separating from each other, and/or when the state of motional (or total) energy of certain system is changing. It is also precisely shown that only states of motional (and time variable) energies are creating de Broglie matter waves (or that states of relatively stable rest mass and rest energy do not belong to matter-wave phenomenology). Without considering elements of rotation (on different qualitative levels of particles and wave motions and inside their internal structures) as a complement to linear motion, it is not possible to explain formation of real (space-time stable) particles, atoms and their constituents. We already know that all elementary particles, subatomic particles, photons and other quasi-particles have certain intrinsic spin and/or orbital moment/s characteristics, and something similar appears to be also typical for planets, planetary systems and galaxies, since all of them rotate in some way/s relative to something. Quantum nature of the atom world should be a kind of energy exchanges, couplings and natural-gearing between resonance-alike interference and fitting manifestations (between de Broglie matter-waves), when different PWD objects (atom constituents, for instance) are mutually fitting (or packing) into certain unified, more complex and relatively stable object (which would eventually, after formation, have a stable rest mass). Even if we sometimes do not know what really rotates, oscillates or makes matter-waving, it should be clear that certain still unknown or hidden PWD entity should exist in the still unexplained background of relevant phenomena (because, categorically saying that everything in our universe, especially in a micro-world, follows the “channels and rivers” of mysterious and quantified probability waves, or probability distributions presented as waving forms, is a common-sense absurd, or fogy and metaphysical statement). It will be shown that de Broglie matter waves already exist (creating intrinsic, internal particles structure, in their states of relative rest) even before we can detect anything regarding PWD phenomenology, becoming externally, directly or indirectly, measurable in all situations when particles are changing previous states of motions. In fact, every presently known form of wave motion (such as electromagnetic waves, light, sound etc.) presents a particular form of de Broglie matter waves (but usually we do not treat them as de Broglie waves). Also, not all motions, matter waves and field manifestations in our universe are quantum type phenomena, opposite to the position overwhelmingly supported by QT.
  5. In this paper, all complex theoretical (or mathematical) analyses regarding Fields Unification Theory and modern Topology are avoided. After formulating generalized forms of energy expressions and universal wave equations (almost without using any of methods practiced in Quantum Theory), and applying them deductively and backwards, towards all domains of physics, it will become obvious what solutions or directions for (topological, and other theoretical) upgrading of EM, RT, GT and QT will be (in order to create the same wave equations, but now going step-by-step from the opposite end). In this way, possible hidden conceptual mistakes of mentioned theories would become easily detectable and easy to correct.
  6. Foundations of Orthodox Quantum Theory (QT) are conceptually, mathematically and intuitively demystified in this paper, showing why, how and when QT works well (regarding PWD), and showing that the same results (or even more rich analyses and conclusions) could be obtained using a bit different, more general and more deterministic mathematical modeling (placing stochastic philosophy and probabilistic modeling on their proper and much less ontological place than the case in the current QT is). In this paper, all references regarding QT are related only to Schrödinger’s wave mechanics, since updated PWD concept presented here is also developed around (mathematically) similar wave mechanics. The three remaining quantum theories (Heisenberg Matrix Mechanics, Dirac’s Transformation Theory and Feynman’s Sum-over histories formulation of QT) are not analyzed (or mentioned) in this paper (and the author of this paper does not have any competence for such an analyzes). Obviously, since contemporary QT is experimentally and theoretically sufficiently well supported (mathematically producing correct predictions in number of situations), this paper is only explaining that its modeling and predictions are correct because the probabilistic QT is also compatible (in average) with all conservation laws of Physics (being particularly well generalized and formulated in dimensionless, normalized form, on the way similar or equivalent to the framework of Probability Theory). Since intrinsic rotational (and space-time phase) components of particles and waves motion aren’t still universally recognized and established as (mathematically) operative elements for modeling universal natural forces and fields, the only solution applied in QT, in order to compensate this virtually missing (but very important) aspect of motion was found in “parameters-randomizing” analysis of micro-world interactions (omitting the immediate and continuous time-dependant aspects of motion), by searching for correct probability distributions, indicating where we could expect that certain event will “materialize in-average”. Of course, QT didn’t formulate its foundations using such statements (as mentioned here), especially not by saying that probability-related strategy is compensating missing elements of certain physics-related conceptuality, and also compensating some unknown rotation and phase elements of particles and waves’ motions. The proper key or code for creating physics-relevant and productive probability distributions (in the wave QT) was found (and in this paper maximally underlined, exploited and extended) in respecting and incorporating set of basic PWD concepts (originally established by L. De Broglie, M. Planck, Schrödinger, Heisenberg…) into already existing macro-mechanics (the meaning of the basic set of PWD concepts will be explained in the chapter, 4.1). The rest of the results QT just creatively borrowed or copied from mathematics (mostly from Statistics, Probability Theory and Signal Analysis), as well as from necessity to comply with obvious Symmetries valid in Physics, this way also improving, adjusting and correcting its own weak areas. In this paper an attempt is made to go beyond probabilistic QT, producing conceptually clearer and richer picture about PWD nature of our universe (than Orthodox Quantum Theory is currently presenting), by showing that an isomorphic, equivalent and more deterministic modeling of QT world is possible (and also universally applicable, not only to a micro world). We cannot neglect that existing QT mathematically works almost perfectly (in its predefined framework), and in this paper is strongly underlined that this should be considered mostly as a convenient modeling, merging and fitting of different, healthy and useful theoretical (generally valid) platforms and known facts, mixed with certain, sometimes non-proven, or not provable assumptions for filling some of still inexplicable spots. Anyway, the attempt of this paperwork is to show that QT should one day pass the transitory state of high complexity towards elegant and monumental simplicity (See early signs of eroding QT modeling regarding alternative modeling of elementary particles in publications from Bergman, David L., and Lucas, Jr., Charles W; literature [16] to [20]; –

Certain Physics theories, most of them in a vicinity of QT, established in 20-th century of modern human history on the planet Earth are in fact more of “Patch-In and Fit-In” theories than theories really and strongly integrated into the solid and stable body of the rest of Natural Sciences. In some cases applicable to modern Physics we are simply being saturated, fascinated or blinded by overwhelming and voluminous advances of powerful data processing, which are in reality generally applicable mathematical tools and computing techniques. Since such mathematical processing is being used in Physics, there is a danger of attributing the power of it to particular theories (like QT, RT…), resulting in unconsciously claiming that particular theories in question are also, or even more powerful than associated mathematical processing. For instance, well known “Uncertainty Relations” formulated and applied in Physics by W. Heisenberg, are just simple, universally valid mathematical relations between relevant signal durations of mutually conjugated domains of any function (known independently from W. Heisenberg and QT). There are numbers of such examples that are simply products of generally applicable mathematics, but wrongly attributed as the unique achievements and cornerstones of certain Physics’ theories.

It is also the author’s opinion that the most of today’s activities on the Field Unification Theory are presenting various geometry-related mathematical modeling possibilities, by creating or inventing different topological structures, symmetries, groups etc., while dogmatically and religiously staying inside of the old framework of the Orthodox Quantum Theory. It looks that majority of contemporary science people (in Physics) are almost copying, repeating and following each other’s works, competing in publishing or presenting “looks like new ideas” (probably in some cases for the main purpose of maintaining their academic positions and chairs), which, in reality, dominantly and effectively belong to the same old-idea family, and which will be in most cases forgotten very short after publishing (for instance: modeling different geometry structures, and then making “mathematical experiments”, starting from certain field vectors and their combinations, and testing what could be the consequences after satisfying certain equations or mathematical structures… and if they could fit such results into some aspects of real physics). In fact, what today’s physics needs are new conceptual breakthroughs, refinements and unifications of all theories produced until the end of 20-th century (of the organized creative and technological history on the planet Earth).

Our (human) advantage is that we are in the position “to see” (intellectually detect, measure, test, model, conceptualize…) many of the facts regarding secrets and laws of Nature: we see (or measure) elements that are entering into certain reaction and we see (or measure) results after interaction happens. We can analyze an event (experiment) inductively, knowing its important starting points and facts, or deductively, knowing only results, and going backwards to discover elements that should create such results. If we apply valuable methodology and intuition, based on multilevel and well-established analogies and basic continuous symmetries, while respecting Conservation Laws and universal principles, using language of mathematics, and if we are able to perform fruitful and multilevel “intellectual cross-correlation process”, creatively combining well-known experimental and other theoretical facts, we do not need to create countless number of artificial and arbitrary “mathematical experiments” in order to search for explanation of certain phenomenology, without seeing the global picture. And the most global picture regarding our existence and our Universe is that all presently known and maybe unknown fields and forces of Nature are intrinsically and naturally united, regardless the fact that in some cases we still do not know how they are united. Of course, whatever we create in process of our Physics-unifying efforts should be well integrated in the background of the present Physics knowledge, mathematically generalized, and experimentally confirmed as the final step of the creation of every new theory. The big weakness of modern official natural science interpretation is the tendency to show that it is already constructed and optimized as very convincing, well-established, very stable, very powerful and almost final knowledge (regarding EM, RT, GT and QT), and that only small improvements and insignificant upgrades could be in front of us. Here, one of objectives is to show that a lot of very significant, unifying and fundamental reconstruction work is in front of us regarding contemporary science interpretation.

In this paper, most of the new ideas, proposals and hypotheses are established until the level of presenting conceptually, mathematically and intuitively clear (common sense) physics-related picture, or easy understandable and sufficiently complete, preliminary project definition (often over-simplified), in order to serve as the starting (or challenging) platform/s for some future, more systematic and more professional work (since the author of this paper is only a passionate and curious amateur regarding all subjects discussed here). In fact, the author’s position is that one day, sooner or later, somebody should propose a set of new ideas (regarding Physics reconstruction business), formulated more or less professionally, but at least showing clearly new directions, opening new horizons, and going out of the well-established old circles.

The multilevel analogy platform as here favored strategy is chosen (by the author) because of a very simple and obvious reason that could be explained as follows: Our contemporary Physics is composed of several complex and voluminous theories or chapters; -each of them formulated as almost self-sufficient and self-consistent theory, working well in its backyard, and each of them has been developed and mathematically modeled (often independently from other physics chapters), during relatively long time, involving contributions of almost countless number of research workers and scientists. In modern days it is really impossible to be a universal expert in all chapters (or fields) of Physics. In order to contribute something to modern Physics (or to criticize something), we should devote our life and career only to a certain very specific subject, often not seeing the global picture and knowing where that subject belongs. Otherwise, it would be very easy to make mistakes, and it could happen that some parts of scientific establishment of leading professors, scientists and some of their non-critical and well-obeying (basically existentially dependent) followers and students (behind each Physics chapter) would suppress, accuse or eliminate any of non-professionally or too originally formulated contributions or critics (since a minority of conservative science establishment in power could say that their scientific property already functions well, that they published a lot of books and papers to support their teachings that are in full agreements with earlier publications of their teachers and founders, that they have stable and respectful professional positions to practice such teaching/s, recognized officially by society in power etc.). We also know that any bigger waving against any kind of stationary mainstream has never been easily accepted in human history, life, ideology, politics and science (even this is the natural law of inertia regarding stationary and uniform motions). In order to open new scientific perspectives and new ways of thinking, without creating big intellectual energy dissipating séances, the easy, common and painless way (proposed here) is to apply “analogical screening, cleaning and rearrangements” in physics. Later we will be able to apply more efficiently other heavy weapons of modern physics, such as conclusions, predictions and generalizations based on Symmetries.

Observing the same problematic (Physics) from another (philosophical) platform, we already know that we are an integral part of a naturally united universe, and consequently all Physics chapters (if correctly formulated) should intrinsically present well-united, synchronized and complementary descriptions of the same reality, and we also know that this is still not the case with some (or many) “departments” in our contemporary Physics.

What could be the most common and binding skeleton to search for Physics unification? Author of this paper is proposing (only as a starting point) systematical formulation and utilization of mutually compatible and coincidently applicable multilevel analogies and basic, continuous symmetries found in/and between different chapters or domains of Physics. Taking such analogies, as an argument to introduce or propose new ideas, hypothetical statements and unification platforms, is largely neutral, simple and painless strategy to capture large and interdisciplinary set of phenomena (which will be analyzed) and to avoid possible resistance and sanctions of some minor parts of officially recognized establishment and masters of particular Physics departments, since everybody knows in advance that analogical predictions are impersonal, sometimes being initially suspicious, and only good as indicative starting-points (but also in too many cases being shown as correct or very useful if properly established and applied). This way, we could always say that by following certain analogy platform (and understanding that the Nature is always better and more united than we presently know) we would get certain interdisciplinary predictions, possibly (or probably) applicable to several chapters of Physics previously not well integrated (and of course, we are not personally “culpable” if later would be shown that our predictions are for some other reason/s not fully correct). Applying and developing systems of multilevel analogies, iteratively, step-by-step, and testing them experimentally and theoretically, we shall be in every new step closer to more-correctly unified Physics. This is exactly the greater part of the strategy applied in this paper (to make the Physics More Clear, Logical and Analogical). We also know that theories based on establishing different Symmetries could bring even more general unification and research platform in Physics (since all conservation laws are “married” to a certain kind of continuous symmetries), but before we apply any strategy based on Symmetries, we should have a “healthy and sufficiently large” set of elements and good mathematical modeling frame for playing with Symmetries (or saying the same differently, combining Multilevel Analogies and continuous Symmetries with properly established mathematical framework should be the best mutually complementary research tool). The theory of Symmetries is already well developed in mathematics and applied a lot in contemporary physics, often covering very abstract spaces where it is sometimes too difficult to make simple and clear conceptualizations and correlations between certain mathematically described symmetries and real-world events. We should also ask ourselves if there is a certain hierarchy among the number of different symmetries we are able to construct mathematically, because only certain symmetries are stable, always applicable and universally valid, like continuous symmetries (regarding the world of Physics), and others have only certain level of applicability, probability, durability and/or stability. Since we are most probably living in a multidimensional universe, where we are still not able to conceptualize well the other, non-perceptible or still non-detectable dimensions, we are obviously making mistakes or experiencing problems in constructing symmetries (even without knowing that such problems could exist). This is also one of the reasons why in this paper multilevel analogies are taken as the “guiding and bottom-line channels and platforms” for filtering and building every other higher level conceptualization. Of course, creating analogies and making predictions and conclusions based on analogies is also nothing new regarding any aspect of humans’ activity (maybe also valid for many other species). There are already numbers of analogies we have been using in different scientific and other disciplines. Here, we will analyze only analogies relevant for physics and among number of them it will be selected the most relevant and the most coherent set of multilevel analogies that are universally applicable from different points of view (including basic continuous symmetries that are compatible and coincidently applicable to such multilevel analogies), serving to increase the power of conceptualization, unification and predictions in Physics. If we do not have such simple “guiding channels” in formatting and addressing our knowledge about the Nature, we could be (intellectually and creatively) lost among countless number of abstract options that have been generated by contemporary concepts of Symmetries (basically over-dissipating our intellectual energy and being not focused in our fundamental scientific activities).

Present-days’ scientific (and quasi-scientific) theater is also crowded with a lot of new concepts, proposals, theories, and critical opinions about existing official science, coming from a number of official mainstream science dissidents (most of them still non-recognized or fully ignored and marginalized, but some of them having officially acceptable background and good scientific references). Most probably the author of this paper also belongs to a part of such crowded population. What looks like a kind of a common characteristic of mentioned science dissidents is that many of them are promoting their theories and concepts based on criticizing certain illogical, internally contradictory, ad-hock, postulates, explaining rather well and step-by-step how certain big scientific personality made (a) mistake/s, and how such mistake/s could be corrected. In fact, such an approach is in many cases dominantly or partially wrong, regardless of its base in proper thinking. The reason for this is that we know that present physics was formulated through connecting piece by piece of mosaic-like knowledge elements during relatively long time, and in some cases people did not have good, better or any answer regarding explanation of certain confusing phenomena. Some of more curious, more ambitious and faster going (maybe even crazier) scientific personalities simply hybridized certain of their exotic ideas and concepts with remaining scientific body of relevance, sometimes without having enough arguments and without fully respecting the scientific logic and existing positive backgrounds, because implementing such new concepts was simply replacing the missing factual links making theory in question operational and from certain point of view explicable. Later such original scientific personalities (at lest few of them), got rewarded and recognized, since nobody else proposed better solution, and instead of being science dissidents they marked the history of physics engraving their names in officially accepted books. The fact is that some of them introduced good, correct and long lasting concepts, and some of them introduced ad-hock postulates and whatever works sufficiently good in given circumstances, and almost nobody (in the frames of the relevant historical period) was able to separate who is who and how much they are on good or bad side. Later, science has been advancing, introducing new of similar fitting and correcting ideas and concepts (often without correcting or erasing old or erroneous creations), and after applying and combining many of such self-correcting and iteratively improving steps, and by completing certain symmetries that showed obvious, we got present-day physics that is operating sufficiently well (regarding how we are using it and what we are presently expecting from it). This way we also got the situation that some early and maybe suspicious science step-stones have been implicitly accepted as fully correct (because the final creation has been working well), and therefore almost nobody (except certain science dissidents) is asking if the early foundations were really and fully correct. Now, the mainstream (or official science people) is quietly stating that since we already have something what is relatively well-operational, it looks unnecessary and time-wasting (even implicitly forbidden) to start revising early foundations which are almost no more of big use (what is not quite correct). This could easily pass as a diplomatic refusal for opening new channels of research. The author of this paper abandoned the way of systematic searching for mistakes, defects and flaws in modern theories-foundations, because the much more effective and rational way is to start from what is already working well and what is generally, analogically and symmetrically applicable, found by comparing different contemporary physics-related theories. Later we would be better armed to readdress (deductively) some old physics chapters and their foundations, if it shows appropriate. Knowing that Nature or Universe is anyway united (even without our clear and complete knowledge about such a unity), is giving much weight and power to predictions and conclusions made using analogies and symmetries. Of course, the very important condition is to establish the best possible and physics-realistic framework of analogies and symmetries, and the objective in writing this paper has been to find and formulate such framework.

Pdf document: Revision of the particle-wave dualism
Download now! (3.2MB)

Sky Sponsored by Web Hosting