In the article Quantum, what it consists of I assumed, what many knew and know that a quantum of energy, namely energy, but not water, atom, money or anything else, consists of fields of two polarities: electric and magnetic. I presented a schematic representation of it, which found on the Internet, and which seemed to me the most suitable for a real phenomenon (quantum). But this is not enough.
If an alien (and we are such in relation to a quantum) is told that the bolt consists of iron and has an oblong shape, then the alien will not be able to use this bolt in business. We also need to tell him about the head of the bolt, and about the thread, and about its exact dimensions, and about its connections with the outside world and the like.
In this article I will try to tell you how a quantum is arranged closer to reality than its previous schematic representation. Using the laws of physics, i explain how he can move, what are the parameters of this movement, and so on. Whether this model is correct or not, time will tell.
In general, the classical science of representing a quantum in some kind of spatial form does not say anything, at least I have not seen such reasoning anywhere. Usually there are arguments about a photon, not a quantum, as if they were the same thing. Science does not offer any precise delineation of these objects, nor what unites them. This is the same for science. This is taught at school, university and also all academicians and all scientists of the world think so.
Nobody pays the slightest attention either to the amplitude of the oscillations of this wave, or to the number of oscillations of this wave in a quantum or photon. Everyone believes that only the vibration frequency is important for the quantum. The photon (quantum) energy supposedly depends on it. But no energy can depend on frequency at all. Any frequency converter will tell you this. Some craftsmen deal with the amplitude as follows, as in this picture 1.
Most, however, represent a wave, as in Fig. 2.
This is how a wave is represented in the picture, but in nature, so to speak, in real life, how to present this wave? For example, Richard Feynman cannot imagine a live wave. On the website of Ilya Yuryevich Akimov, I read about Feynman's thoughts on this matter. “… at the request of a student to give at least an approximate description of electromagnetic waves. He (Feynman) replied:
“When I begin to describe a magnetic field moving through space, I am talking about the fields E and B (vector quantities characterizing electric and magnetic fields, respectively), I make wavy movements with my hands, and you might think that I can see them. What do I really see? I see some vague, hazy, wavy lines, here and there are written E and B, and other lines are like arrows ... which disappear as soon as you look at them. When I talk about fields sweeping through space, the symbols needed to describe objects and the objects themselves are catastrophically confused in my head. I am not able to give a picture that even approximately resembles real waves. ”
You see, even a genius who describes this phenomenon in huge formulas, hypnotizing gullible readers, does not really understand what he is describing.
Only those who do not yet understand anything “can” represent the wave.
Tensions E and H are physical quantities that objectively exist in nature.But can they really exist as a wave? If such waves existed, then we could make such measurements. Fig. 3.
For this, a traveling wave must be turned into a standing wave by reflecting the wave, for example, from the wall of a box. If the distance between the walls of the box is a multiple of several wavelengths, then the standing wave will be as in the picture. By placing the probes from the galvanometer at points 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 and so on, it would be possible to obtain a sinusoidal representation of the strength of the electrical component of the wave E . By placing a magnetic arrow between points 4-4, 5-5 or at other points of the magnetic component of the wave and measuring the strength of its orientation in the direction of the vector Н , you can get an idea of the shape of the magnetic component waves. But in reality, such field pictures cannot be obtained. And what will the galvanometer show if the probes are located outside the plane of propagation of plane waves? Nothing. And if something shows, then it is no longer a plane wave, but with some volume Maybe then there is no plane wave? Then we can get out of the plane, but the device should be triggered only when a vector passes this point, that is, the device will show impulses.
The scientist believes that the photon is just such an electromagnetic wave and depicts it in the above way. He believes that an electrical intensity of a certain polarity is poured into a corresponding polarity of a magnetic intensity. And the magnetic tension is poured into electrical tension of a different polarity, and so on. Thanks to this, the wave travels through space at the speed of light.
We will try to understand how such a wave can move. Consider one classical wave Fig. 4.
Arrows are drawn in it under the sinusoid. How can you imagine their forward movement if they are not represented by any material carrier, but simply by the signs Е and Н ? But in fact, these are just some numbers.
I will not philosophize slyly, but simply replace the abstract arrows in the wave with living, that is, existing in nature, fields: magnetic and electric.
In this case, the wave will look like in Figure 5. But even in this case, there are excesses. This envelope of the sinusoid does not exist in nature. There is no material for her, she is just a symbol of the shape of the field.
If a wave existed in the nature of reality, then it should be like this, without a separate envelope. In fact, there are only arrays of fields. Fig. 6.
And how can this wave move? For a wave to move, it is necessary that its material carrier somehow move forward. Since nothing pushes the wave, we will assume, like all science, that each element of the field induces a certain type of another field. It can inevitably be considered that the emergence of the material carrier of the induced field occurs due to the loss of the material carrier of the inducing field. That is, one field, disappearing, turns into another. Let's build several models of such transformations.
Let's cut out a small piece of the field in an arbitrary place on the wave and see how it can move. Fig. 7. Here is the green strip of the electric field, decreasing in size, overflows (induces) into the blue strip of the positive magnetic field 1. Could the green bar induce a magnetic field at positions 2 or 3? Not. The wavelength can be different, which the green bar cannot know about, so it induces a field around itself.
Further, the blue strip of the magnetic field, decreasing, induces a negative electric field in the form of a yellow strip (just like the green one shimmered into blue), which (yellow) induces a red strip, a negative magnetic field, and so on. In this model, the inducing stripe decreased and the induced stripe increased.
In the second model (no picture), the dimensions of the strip do not change, and the induction is performed by changing the concentration of fields in the strips. Both of these models are bad for many reasons. And one of them is that these movements do not fit into the original sinusoid. In the next model, we will try to spill whole waves.
Here in this picture (Fig. 9) the waves completely overflow into each other due to the change in the density of the material carrier and, as a result, move forward. In cycle 1, the electric field substrate decreases its density, inducing an increasing magnetic field density. In cycle 2, the magnetic field (blue) also induces an electric field of reverse polarity (yellow), and so on.
A more descriptive picture of the movement of a wave is when the wave moves with a change in shape. (Fig. 10) It looks like a wave here.
Of course, these are unsightly pictures and reasoning, but they are still much closer to the true state of affairs than the movement of symbols Е and N or arrows that Feynman sees. What can be measured, observed, and generally somehow investigated at the physical level, an electromagnetic wave represented by mathematical symbols? Nothing. Ulyanov spoke about this at the beginning of the 20th century. I suspect that Feynman had no idea about this. If you think in terms of fields, you can work on them. You can work and work on the symbols Е and Н too, but it's like looking for a needle in a haystack, which is not there.
In the material category of thinking, the search for truth is also similar to the search for a needle in a haystack, but in this case it is there. We observe electromagnetic waves in the form of fields, and only those who believe in these symbols represent them in the form of symbols. There is no doubt that the search for truth is not an easy way. What's the disadvantage of the above examples? There is no volume in them. There are no dimensionless objects in nature. They only exist in the mathematical world. In mathematics, a point with no dimensions, a line and a plane with no thickness. As soon as you enter volume in mathematics, all equations go somewhere to infinity, into a negative or complex world that does not exist in reality. In the category of physical fields, on the contrary, volume allows for a better understanding of the essence of processes. We will also try to introduce volume into our reasoning.
Replace the plane wave with an ellipsoid. Fig. 11. In this case, the propagation of an electromagnetic wave will look like this. Unfortunately, in this case, too, the wave is still far from the true wave and bears little resemblance to the classical wave. It cannot be described even by Poiting's vector. Each section has only one component of this wave. But on the other hand, there are knots in which there is nothing at all, as in the classical wave. And besides the induction process, no other physical processes are observed in these waves. And the process of induction can be organized only when the fields are moving. The movement of the fields in the direction of propagation of the fields induces a different field around the vectors of propagation, rather than forward movement. And we don't need this. It remains one thing to rotate the fields in the form of rings around the propagation axis. Let's see what happens.
Now the photon looks like this. Fig. 12. But this picture does not show what forces make the photon move. The fact is that for independent movement, the action of certain forces is necessary. Movement by inertia, in essence, cannot be called an independent movement. In this case, the object simply maintains this movement, but does not produce it. Only external forces change this movement. And with independent movement, this movement is reproduced by internal forces. The man runs and jumps. While a person is running, he reproduces his movement at the expense of internal forces. Even if some external forces hinder this movement, the internal forces will overcome external forces to some extent, and the movement will occur. But in a jump, a person moves by inertia, and external forces can slow down this movement. If it were in space, then a person in a jump could stay for a long time, and on earth gravity and air resistance will take away his stored momentum.
In general, for an object to move independently, it is necessary that some forces work in it. This is inherent in all self-propelled phenomena: be it a person, any living creature, a car, an airplane, a rocket and everything, everything that moves without external forces. But where there are forces, there are accelerations, if the forces are not balanced. And therefore, in a self-propelled object there are always some elements that move faster than the entire object. The lower part of the leg of a person, or, for example, a horse, at some time moves about 2 times faster than the body of a person or a horse. In a car, the top of the wheel moves faster than its axle, that is, the car as an object. In a rocket, the combustion product of the fuel moves faster than the rocket itself in order to catch up with the front wall of the combustion chamber and push it forward, and with it the entire rocket. And so on.
The same situation is with the quantum. But there is also a fundamental difference in the motion of a quantum from everything else. All self-propelled objects known to us require replenishment of the energy expended on movement. A quantum does not spend energy on its movement. He pours parts of energy from one type to another in one direction, without encountering resistance. Naturally, the choice of direction and the amount of energy in the photon is rigidly selected by nature. This is, approximately, because from non-perceiving atoms nature has created (she did it) a brain, which suddenly, as scientists say - emergently, began to feel. The same dialectical event happened with energy, that is, a self-propelled quantum (photon). There is a great variety of immovable matter or inertial matter in the universe, but nature also has a quantum, which has the property of self-propulsion. And like any other self-propelled object, it has elements that move faster than the quantum itself.
I will consider a single quantum schema. I will try to explain what is reliable in this scheme, what is indirectly confirmed, and where is my invention.
Here is a vortex of a negative electric field (green). Fig. 13. The question is: 1. Could there be such a whirlwind? This can only be confirmed indirectly. There are many vortices in nature. These are tornadoes, and whirlwinds, and eddies in rivers and even in ordinary shells, and jets in the universe, and Foucault currents in various electrical devices or wandering currents in the earth. For us, the following experiment is more interesting: “... an electric current was induced in a closed superconductor, which flowed in it without damping for 2.5 years (the experiment was interrupted by a strike of workers bringing cryogenic liquids)” . Taken from Wikipedia. From all this, it can be assumed that such vortices are possible for electric and magnetic fields.
2. Since in nature there are only 4 fields that are reliably known to us, there can be only 4 types of vortices. Fig. 14.
We also know for sure about the polarization of light. This means that an electrical negative vortex can rotate in opposite directions. These are left and right polarizations. If we see polarization on positrons, then this will mean that there will also be two types of electric positive vortices. A more detailed study of torsion fields can show the presence of two types of polarization in magnetic negative and positive fields. Thus, we can assume that in the world we observe, we can find 8 types of quanta.
3. What does the concept of a vortex give us? A vortex is the movement of a field. And Faraday's experiments show that the movement of a certain field gives rise to the emergence of another field. And 4 vortices of the same type of polarization create such objectively existing structures. Figure 15.
I have depicted 2 vortices that rotate in a plane perpendicular to the picture and generate electric and magnetic fields, respectively. These are hard facts thanks to Faraday's experience. One can only guess how long these structures can exist. How quickly a vortex of one field turns into another field. It is possible that if such a vortex arises in a random way, it will dissolve, so to speak, in space, like any other vortex. For example, like an air vortex in the air, or a water vortex in water.
4. To many, the vortex seems to be some kind of indefinite amorphous formation that cannot be described mathematically and somehow represent it as workable object. Well, imagine it as an electric current.
Bend the conductor into a ring (Fig. 16), insert the battery into this ring. Electrons will run around the ring, creating a current. And since electrons have a negative electric charge, moving electrons will create a moving negative electric field, that is, a vortex. Due to this vortex around the conductor, a magnetic field of two types is formed: we will conventionally consider positive magnetic (S) and negative magnetic (N). If you place a magnetic arrow at the point S, then it will unfold to the ring with the end N, and at the point N the arrow will unfold to the ring with the end S . It can be assumed that the substrate of the line of force does not change its quality, but simply moves, like, for example, water or air. Then the arrow, as a weather vane, will always be oriented in the direction of movement of this substrate, or as a boat will float along the line of force, without turning around relative to its direction. Because of this, we can say that the lines of force are the movement of the vortex.
5. This green ring-conductor, Figure 16, is an ordinary solenoid, it, or rather its magnetic field, will attract any body with a magnetic field to itself. The same will happen with any vortex ring.
If we introduce into the magnetic field generated by a negative electric vortex, a positive magnetic vortex, as shown in Figure 18.
Then this vortex will move to a negative electric vortex under the influence of the force F2 , like the red end of the arrow. Forces F1 , F2 and F3 are generated by zones 1, 2 and 3. If the fields that generate the forces F1, F2 and F3 were static, then when the forces were equal F1 + F3 = F2 the vortex S (red) stopped at the point A like a solenoid core and nothing interesting would happen.
When trying to bring a negative magnetic vortex closer to a negative electric vortex, we will encounter resistance created by zones 1 and 2 (Fig. 19).
When overcoming this resistance by force F , it is possible to reach the point of balance, when the forces are also equal F1 + F3 = F2 , at the point Б . With static fields, this is an unstable point. And experience shows that a negative magnetic vortex will simply be pushed away from a negative electric vortex. I just cited all these examples to show what forces are involved in this process.
6. To understand how vortices interact in nature, let us consider this phenomenon in a little more detail. From the experiments of Faraday it is known that the fields rotate and transform themselves into other fields. How can this happen? Before us is an electrical conductor. Fig. 20.
It contains electrons that create a static negative electric field. When the current is turned on, the electrons will move in the conductor and, together with them, their field. Let the speed of this negative electric field be V . The question is: at what speed will the magnetic field propagate? Otherwise: the speed of a fragment of the electric field is V , but what is the speed of V1 of the fragment of the magnetic field? This is a super important question that has not yet been answered.
Next. In all textbooks, when considering this experience, they place arrows or iron filings and pay attention to the fact that the magnetic lines of force are located in concentric circles around the conductor. It's right. And what will be the shape of the lines of force if the conductor starts moving with the speed V3 perpendicular to the movement of the electric field?
7. Let's consider this phenomenon in more detail. According to the theory of relativity, the speed of a conductor or anything else cannot be greater than the speed of light. Therefore, if our vortex (Fig. 21).
Will move at a speed close to the speed of light, then the field will shift backward and in the limit there will be nothing ahead of the vortex. In this case, the vortex will not be able to accelerate and will move simply by inertia.
If, for example, the speed of the vortex is less than the speed of light, and the field induced by it propagates faster than the speed of the vortex, then we will be able to observe the usual picture. An induced field appears in front of the vortex.
You can see a fragment of the induced field (Fig. 22). For this fragment to move away from the vortex inducing it, the speed of which is V1 , it must have a higher speed V2 than the speed V1 . In this case, one kind of field will overflow into another kind of field, and the vortex will move forward.
If there is no advancement forwards, then there will be no independent movement. The system will move by inertia. These considerations apply not only to the quantum model proposed by me, but also to the generally accepted form of a photon in the form of a classical wave. Without elements in the wave that move faster than the wave itself, the wave will move by inertia rather than propagate on its own.
Well, let the quantum (photon) move by inertia at the speed of light, you say. But this way he will be able to move only until the first meeting with something. Any proton, neutron or electron, whatever, it will stop him and that's all - the photon no longer exists. And a photon from a distant star will meet many things on its way. Yes, he will not be able to overcome our atmosphere by inertia. And when it moves independently, then it moves, for example, from electron to electron, like a bird from tree to tree. It can be stopped only by an electron resonant for this particular photon. Such a photon will be absorbed by the electron and the electron will change its energy state. With inertial motion, it will be dark on our earth, and only the earth will warm us, if we are. This is a ballistic view of this theory. Modern science rejects it and does the right thing.
Then the following question arises: why do all the photons move with the same fixed speed? Why is this the ultimate speed - according to the theory of relativity? To answer this question, one should take a closer look at the theory of relativity. Does the appearance of a field in front of a vortex moving with light speed contradict? Like, for example, a fragment of the induced field shown in Figure 22? According to a not entirely reasonable assumption, the same TO, a photon moves at the speed of light only because it has no mass. Well, then we can assume that he can move at a speed greater than the speed of light. And its parts, moreover, can move at a speed greater than the speed of light. At least, there is no prohibition on such a speed in the TO. Is it possible to confirm this with something? There is no direct proof of this, but I have come across descriptions of some experiments on particle connectivity and something like teleportation (in vain I did not record this), in which scientists discovered that the speed of light turned out to be greater than its nominal value. I dare to suggest that they did not record the speed of light, that is, a photon, but only a fragment of a photon, that is, a magnetic or electric field. And that means they fixed the speed of the fragment much higher than the speed of light.
Where does the position come from that a photon moves with the speed of light and therefore does not have mass? This follows from the famous article "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" by Einstein. Mathematically, I emphasize mathematically, he showed that the mass of a body changes with a change in its speed according to such and such mathematical laws. But is it really so? The same mathematics shows that Einstein's conclusions from his mathematics are not entirely correct. You can read about this in the article "About maximum speed of bodies"
Everyone knows perfectly well that the electron has mass. And everyone knows that energy and mass are related by the ratio E=mc2 , but no one wants to believe that a photon (quantum) can have mass. In order to understand how a quantum moves, it should be recognized that it has mass, and, accordingly, parts of a quantum have corresponding masses. And these masses do not increase with an increase in their speed and therefore can have a speed greater than the speed of the quantum itself. Naturally, in this case, each particle of the quantum will have a certain momentum. Recognizing this, we can easily build a model of the quantum motion.
In picture 22 you can see that a negative electric vortex (green) induces a magnetic field around itself.
There is a positive magnetic field (red) in front, a negative magnetic field behind. Its highlighted fragment moves at a speed V2 greater than the speed of the vortex inducing it V1 . This vortex (a fragment with mass m ) has some kind of momentum mV2 = F3t , that is, it is attracted to negative magnetic vortex (blue) with the force F3 and pulls on itself . The force F1 acts in the same direction. At a certain distance between the vortices, the force F1+F3 may be greater than the force F2 , and the blue vortex will move to green whirlwind. But the green vortex also moves forward with the speed V1 , and all the time it loses its body, overflowing into the magnetic field. In the limit, a green vortex (negative electric field) could turn into a magnetic field. And in which we now find out. If you change the places of the induced fragments, then the negative magnetic vortex will merge with the positive magnetic vortex and the induction process will stop. Therefore, we can assume that an electric negative vortex induces a positive magnetic vortex (red).
The loss of a body by a green vortex is constantly replenished by a negative magnetic vortex (blue) in the form of a negative electrical fragment (green).
But how are these very fragments of new fields, which are shown in Figure 23, formed? Indeed, in fact, a negative electric vortex, in the classical sense, is a wave, represented in the form of such a ring, as shown in Figure 24.
Around this ring, magnetic field lines are formed, which are also rings, that is, vortices moving perpendicular to the rings of a green vortex, or in the classics, this is the same magnetic field wave. The magnetic field ring (wave) should induce a positive electric wave.
And as many people imagine, the wave will spread, approximately as it is depicted in Figures 25 or 26.
The question is: which of the rings shown in Figure 24 should induce the required wave? Why should the wave travel in this direction? Maybe a wave should spread from each ring? How many are these rings? Infinitely many. In this case, the content of the wave will spread out in space and that's it.
But a photon or a quantum is a very specific object with a corresponding volume and composition.
How the fragments of the new fields are organized is better seen in this Figure 27.
The green vortex (flat ring) generates magnetic rings (lines of force) that rotate in planes perpendicular to the plane of the green vortex. In the picture I have selected the elements of the lines of force. These are material pieces of the field that propagate along the line of force at a speed greater than the speed of light.
In addition to this movement, the lines of force also perform a movement perpendicular to the line of force. The tourniquet rotates around its axis and creates the same magnetic field ring as the electric field ring. These vortices move in exactly the same way as other vortices in nature. The whirlpool on the water also revolves and pulls a person into the depths, since he himself, or rather his imaginary rings, move there. Around the axis and along the axis. A tornado or any other tornado rotates and lifts all up. In general, there are many observed eddies and vortex fields should not be denied.
A negative electrical fragment (green) that is induced by a negative magnetic vortex (blue) attracts a positive electrical vortex (yellow) in the same way that a positive magnetic field fragment (red) attracted a negative magnetic vortex (blue). Fig. 28.
The force F3 (Fig. 23), with which a fragment of the field and the vortex are attracted to each other, depends on their velocities. Unfortunately, we do not know anything about fields, and I can only assume that the fragment velocities are very high. We are at a distance of about 20 orders of magnitude from the electron, the electron is at a distance of about 20 orders of from quantum, then it is possible that the field components are at a distance of 20 orders of from quantum. For this reason, the momentum of the fragment should be quite large. And although the induced fragment can be small, its momentum can be large, and it can pull the vortex towards itself very strongly.
The magnetic positive vortex (red) works in the same way, it induces a positive electrical fragment (yellow). And so, we have 4 vortices shown in the figure. They are unstable by themselves (do not confuse the motion of photons in a superconductor, which was described above) and cannot move independently.
A slightly different picture will be if you combine 2 vortices. This can only happen with the help of some external forces. Don't let this surprise you. In nature, almost everything is carried out under the influence of the external environment. Although we have protons, neutrons, and electrons, we cannot synthesize atoms in any way. To synthesize a simple helium atom, a hydrogen bomb explosion must be carried out. Static vortex unions may not be stable, but in dynamics these structures may be stable and self-reproducible. The green vortex, wasting itself, turns into a magnetic field (red small vortex). This wasting is replenished by the spending of the blue vortex, and the blue vortex is replenished by the electric field that generates the blue vortex. There was a cycle transformations of fields and at the same time the blue vortex, attracted by the positive magnetic field (red), moved forward.
The same processes will occur with three or four vortices. Alones the vortex fields spill over into other fields, and the induced fields again condense in the original fields of the corresponding vortices. Science also recognizes this, but it does not provide any mechanism for such transformations.
How the synthesis of quanta took place, we do not know and, most likely, we will not know, even if we will have millions of equations of Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli and the like. One can only assume that a quantum is a dialectical formation : just such portions of magnetic and electric fields, neither large nor smaller, under the influence of certain forces united into this quantum construction. And precisely because of such an amount of substrate in the fields and the corresponding speed of the fields, it happened that the speed of the quantum turned out to be exactly the same, equal to the speed of light, and very stable. It is possible that if the dimensions of the vortices were different, then perhaps there would be a different speed of light. And perhaps this would not have happened due to the fact that a different speed of propagation of fields would be required, and this is already a violation of the properties of matter.
One way or another, but we have a quantum with exactly this amount of energy. If there are formations with a smaller amount of substrate in the form of single, double or triple vortices, then they will not be able to do work (transfer electrons from one state to another) and, therefore, they do not have energy in our understanding. And most importantly, these formations cannot be blocked in large portions of energy - photons. And quanta, consisting of 4 vortices, can to form any portion of energy in the form of photons. As shown in picture 29.
Only 2 quanta are drawn here, but there may be more. In principle, an entire electron, consisting of about 10 41 of quanta, can be turned into one photon. Is occurs when annihilation.
I've found in the video Photon education people who think about the device photon in the same direction as me. How this thought came to them, I do not know. But, as you can see, their photon is blocked from some vortices, which is true. Unfortunately, that's all. It is not clear what these vortices are and it is not true that the synthesis occurs independently in space.
If you are reading this article now, then you probably know that there is an infinite number of photons around you, from single quanta in the form of neutrinos and relic radiation up to the long-wave radio spectrum and nothing is blocked with anything. There is no distortion in the computer, radio, telephone, or anything. Electromagnetic photons are summed up only on electrons and nowhere else. The model of the photon I propose fits well into the model of the electron, the model of the atom, into all kinds of experiments (Galvani, Jung, Fizeau, Oersted and all others), into biology and everything that we observe. If you, for example, try to understand Galvani's experiment on the basis of the Schrodinger or Dirac equation, then you will fail. And even talking about biology is ridiculous, but this is no matter how science.