Randomness in Subquantum
Behavior
Heisenberg vs. Hait, a
simple laser experiment.
The
universe is NOT random! Three
millenniums of applying mathematics to the study of physics has revealed a
universe that is extremely regular, precise to a level beyond our ability to
measure, reliable over billions of years, and across billions of light-years of
outer space. The very definition of "random" runs counter to the
demonstrated facts evident in the macro universe above the quantum limit. So
what about ‘below the quantum limit' where Heisenberg claimed we cannot peer,
and therefore can never understand… because its activities (being random) must
always remain ‘uncertain'? Could there actually be a simple test that would
determine if he were right? Could it be that the very definition of that
“randomness” that supposedly makes our measurements uncertain could be employed
to actually produce a definitive test?
A random number, times anything, always produces a random
number. No accumulation of random events will produce regularity... without some kind of extremely regular mechanism to average all such
randomness into a consistent pattern. Call it ‘chaos.’ Call it what ever you
like, but if it follows or generates a consistent pattern, it is not truly random.
We
have a good example in encryption technology.
If a pattern exists, the cryptanalyst can discover it and unscramble its
secret message. But if it is truly random, then there exists no mathematical
relationship between one event (byte in an encrypted message) and the next. And
that is why the “One Time Pad” is mathematically unbreakable. It is the
definition of randomness.
Hence,
if something is truly random, then it must behave in a random fashion. If it is
not truly random then let’s find out what it truly is, and start calling it
that! It’s how we make progress.
Heisenberg
claimed that wave functions are merely statistical averages, summations, or
accumulations of random events that take place below the quantum limit where we
are not supposed to be able to observe. If that is true, then he couldn’t see
below the quantum limit either, making his guess about what happens there as
“uncertain” as anybody’s. So let’s
dissect his method and compare it piece by piece to the empirical, laboratory
evidence.
All
the things we examine are made of various kinds of moving fields. Consider
light, with a quantum limit one wavelength long that occurs during the period
of one oscillation. It is a process that repeats itself through every
wavelength of distance as it propagates its way through space. Light is not
random. It is extremely regular, reliable, and predictable with mathematics.
Under the same conditions, it always does the same things. It always gets it
right, and it never forgets how to do it.
In
contrast, any randomness introduced into the process would make light
unreliable, inconsistent and intermittent. A truly random process would all but
never produce the same thing twice in a row, and it would have no machinery for
duplicating a function. It would very seldom get it right, and it would always
forget how to do it. It is the
definition of ‘random.’
First. These fields must interact in some way, otherwise
there could be no measurements, and there would be no result any different than
the input conditions… for the fields would simply pass through each other
without effect. So, in order to produce an orderly statistical result from any
series of events, random or not, there must exist a field-interaction mechanism
for accumulating that information. It must contain a repeating, repeatable
process that is, some how, built-in-to the fields themselves. It must sequence
through these events in order to generate the serial patterns we observe as the
wave functions.
What’s
more, it must have been built into the field configuration at the time of its
initial production. If you blink a laser on and off, you get pulses that all
act alike. Logically, there must be some mechanism, built into the laser that
causes it to generate identical streams of light that behave like all the other
pulses it produces. It always gets it right, and it never forgets how to do it.
So how can we find out what light does, and how it does it?
Any
event that takes place below the quantum limit is, logically, subquantum. So,
Heisenberg’s claim that we cannot observe below that limit is based on his
assumption of subquantum randomness, and the demonstrated fact that the thing
doing the measuring changes the thing being measured… again, with the (often
unstated) assumption of randomness, which he claimed produced random or
“uncertain” results.
The
problem is that the results of real laboratory measurements on light, (using
modern equipment) are not random. They are regular… in deed, precisely-regular,
highly-accurate, producing reliable wave functions… hardly the result of random
activities. Rather, when the same measurements are done in the same way using
the same tools… consistently and continuously again and again, the results are
reliable and predictable. Yes, the thing doing the measuring does change the
thing being measured. But it always does it according to a precision built-in
pattern… following a predictable sequence. Thus, whatever it is that occurs
during the moment of each individual interaction (measurement,) it always does
it the same way. It always gets it right, and it never forgets how to do it.
So
rather than behaving as a random process, the evidence is that it behaves like
a machine… a mechanism that generates the results of each interaction according
to some built-in pattern. Thus it behaves as a machine that manufactures wave
functions. However, even if you have a mechanism for producing precise,
regular, and reliable wave-functions from subquantum events, that would be no
indication that events under its control were truly ‘random.' After all,
orderly, (but complex,) events could also produce orderly wave-functions.
Heisenberg’s
left a gaping hole in his method. For he didn't give us the needed mechanism
for producing regular wave functions from random events, he just ‘said' things
worked that way... and people believed him. Might there be a way to test to see
if he was right?
It
is claimed that the sine-wave-function characteristic of light, (so useful in
predicting what it will do,) is a mere ‘probability' of finding the
billiard-ball-like ‘particle' at a given location under the sine curve at any
given instant. So, logically, there must also exist a complementary probability of NOT finding
the particle at that location... at that instant. For that is the
definition of “probability.”
A
very simple, but effective experiment was conducted by the author and his
colleagues in the CyberDyne labs in
Blocking
either of the beams, eliminates the interference
fringe, leaving only a single spot on the screen. This single-beam image
contains nearly equal amounts of energy at those locations where the maxima and
minima appear during the two-beam condition. It is the same as many classical
interference experiments.
This
free-space experiment was chosen so as to remove any chance that the experiment
might be skewed by aberrations in the optics within the volume of superposition.
So, how can we use this simple experiment to test Uncertainty?
Heisenberg’s Hypothesis Under Test:
If
light consists of tiny particles, much
smaller than their wavelengths, as Heisenberg said, then all of its energy within each
wavelength would be concentrated in a sub-wavelength
spike that would only show up at a given location within that wavelength
distance, at a given instant, with a probability related to the sine function.
Consequently,
these spikes of energy would have to show up at precisely the same sub-wavelength
place at exactly the same sub-cycle instant, in that volume of
superposition, in order to produce a strong, well-defined interference fringe.
But if they missed each other even by a fraction of a wavelength, then no fringe
would be produced… rather, a sequenced pair
of single-beam images would be produced, by the spike from one beam
followed by the spike from the other beam.
Why
is that? Because the definition of a probability is that, sometimes it works
and some times it doesn’t, according to the probability curve. If they always hit or always miss, then the
probability would be 100% or 0% rather than following the wave-function. That
is the nature of probabilities.
Since
Heisenberg provided no free-space mechanism for storing energy from one moment
in time to the next (even within a part of a cycle,) or even from one spike to
the next, then the spikes must act as
independent pulses. If they do not act as independent pulses, then the
spikes are dependent and not truly random. Randomness requires that they
be truly independent… for it is the nature of “randomness.” So the beams in the
experiment must be at least one wavelength different in length.
These
very definitions allow us to peer below the quantum limit, that is, into time
periods shorter than one cycle, within distances shorter than one wavelength.
This process is more easily done with long radio waves, but can be done with
light also.
What’s
more, whatever mechanism exists for generating the wave function, it must
extend itself over the entire wavelength and through the entire cycle period in
order to catch that spike when it occurs. Otherwise the wave functions would be
intermittent. If a spike of energy exists having all of the particle’s energy, that leaves zero energy left over to cover the rest
of the cycle time. Which generates the question, “If there isn’t any energy
left over, then what is this mechanism for producing statistical averaging made
of?” So if the spike exists according to Heisenberg’s hypothesis, then the
blank spaces must also exist, which is another way of describing that second
probability above.
But
how can we possibly peer below the quantum limit if that is impossible to do as
Heisenberg said? We don’t actually have to. Whatever it is that occurs below
the quantum limit, out of our sight, produces a macro result. If any theory is
correct, then what happens out of sight will manifest itself in the result. If
any theory is lacking, then the macro results will make that manifest also. In
fact, the experiments he claims prove his hypothesis not only rely on his assumptions,
but on the examination of outputs from processes that occur in that forbidden
zone. So if he can use an experiment in behalf of his hypothesis, so can we.
The
purpose of science, in deed the value of the scientific method, is to provide
logical, clearly-stated explanations that allow researchers to repeat
experiments, and to understand the processes under study. In contrast, a theory that is lacking is
often buried in linguistic complexity.
It’s thought process will be obscure and ill-defined. If carried
through, it will produce “logical absurdities.” That is, it looks logical, but
the results are absurd and don’t exist in the laboratory. Typically, the line
of reasoning will contain unstated holes, or misleading assumptions that lead
to faulty conclusions... sometimes being obscured by twisting the meanings of
words to make the illogical sound plausible.
Heisenberg
simply claimed that it was impossible to see what happens below the quantum limit.
(As if he could.) It was a successful ploy because very few people will try to
do what is believed to be impossible, and even fewer will fund research to do
so. Still others will bring up his ‘impossibility’ argument in an attempt to
preserve the status quo, regardless of its logic.
If
we are to truly understand a process, then our explanations must be clearly
defined, and easily understood. And if
there are any unknown steps, or steps with uncertain or multiple possibilities,
these should be clearly stated so that research can continue until one arrives
at a complete and logical explanation that matches the empirical laboratory
evidence. That is… it needs to work. It
must always get it right, and never forget how to do it.
So
what should we observe? When the spikes do coincide, the fringe image produced
would be strong, and clean form any residual light in the center of the dark
areas produced by destructive interference. All of its energy would be spread
across the remainder of the fringe as determined by the optics, while
exhibiting a strong maxima. When the spikes miss each
other, then single-beam images appear having no maxima or minima, but only the
common energy distribution of a single beam.
So
what would we expect to see if Heisenberg were right? Given the slow response
of the human eye, we should view an interference fringe that is faded. Part of the time Heisenberg’s spikes would
hit, producing a fringe, and part of the time they would miss, producing two
single-beam images in quick succession.
Being
random, Heisenberg's light would only get it right now and then, and it would
have no mechanism for remembering how to repeat what it did, even one
wavelength later. It is the nature of randomness.
The
maxima due to constructive interference should appear reduced, and the minima
location, produced by destructive interference during those times that the
spikes coincide, should contain considerable light from the single beam images.
To the human observer, it would look like a fringe made having one of the beams
stronger than the other. Consequently, Heisenberg's fringe should never be clean, having a completely dark minima no mater how the apparatus is adjusted.
Hait’s Hypothesis:
The
universe supports subquantum force
field strengths, and field strength differences form one place to another. Adjacent sub-wavelength locations attempt to
equalize at (or approximately at) the speed of light, continually hunting for
equilibrium as does a servo-mechanism. They resonate!
Everything
in the universe is made of moving volumes of field strength forcefully
self-maintaining precise internal energy-flow patterns and physical geometries,
trapping quantized amounts of
accumulated field strength in dynamic
resonant force field structures.
In
the case of light, photons have their quantized field strengths spread over the entire volume of each wavelength
and throughout the entire cycle time, oscillating in a pattern that can be
described using the sine-function.
This
energy is NOT concentrated in a
sub-wavelength spike. Nor is it a billiard-ball-like particle smaller than its wavelength. It always interacts with other field
structures in full quantized wavelength-long units through its entire wavelength volume. It always
interacts as determined by the strength, timed-sequence, and geometry of its
energy-flow pattern. It is a dynamic mechanism
that always gets it right, and never forgets how to do it.
Superpositioning
field structures interact with each other at their common locations following the
precise and deterministic rules of
interacting fields. These patterns of moving field strength (energy)
interact in the sequence determined by the geometry of their energy flow
patterns. Since they are ‘force fields,’ their geometry and sequencing patterns
are maintained as dynamic energy structures by force. When two or more
encounter each other, they do so according to their sequences of energy flow at
their common locations. Thus, each one is a mechanism that presents a sequence
of energy-flow geometries and strengths to the other. The results of each
encounter are then determined by the sequence of results from each part of each
energy sequence as they merge in sequence. It’s similar to the coding patterns
in DNA. That is why they always do the same things under the same
circumstances. That is why they always get it right, and that is why they never
forget how to do it.
The
quality of phase manifests subquantum repeating precision, which shows that the
front half of a wavelength differs from the rear half. Otherwise delaying one
beam in the above experiment by one-half-wavelength would produce no change
from an un-delayed configuration. But that is not the case. When one beam is delayed by
one-half-wavelength, the maxima moves over to where the minima used to be.
When delayed by a full-wavelength, the maxima shows up where
it did without the delay. It always gets it right, and it never forgets
how to do it.
In
fact, if we introduce a small variable delay in one of the beams, the maxima
and minima can be adjusted to a variety of positions between these two
extremes. This demonstrates that photonic energy fills the entire
sub-wavelength volume, and that the results of superpositioning can be tuned by
adjusting the relative timing of their arrival within the volume of superposition.
If
all the energy were concentrated into sub-wavelength spikes, then adjusting the
delay would cause the spikes to hit or miss each other. Either the fringe would
be there or it would not. But because of our slow eye response, adjusting the phase
would produce no visible change, for sub-wavelength spikes would be unable to
exhibit the quality of phase. They would just be located in the front half of
the wavelength space, or the back half. And if one were in the front and the
other in the rear, they would just miss each other producing sequenced
single-beam images.
The
quality of polarization manifests light’s precision structural geometry that
can be used to change the outcome of an interaction by merely rotating the
geometric orientation of the interacting photons.
Each
moving resonant structure, is more like Maxwell
described, but confined by relativity to the vicinity of its line of
propagation. Thus, photons are
wavelength-sized wave packets, just as Einstein described them. Their pseudorandom
interactions produce effects similar to, but not exactly the same as ocean
waves when many of them interact with each other to form wave fronts, and do
other wave-like things. Yet, they are
quantized units that sequence through interactions with other force field
structures (matter and gravity) to produce the kind of effects we associate
with particles. Thus, duality is no longer a mystery. Matter and gravity simply
contain different energy sequence patterns than light. Therefore, the combined interaction
sequences generate deterministic results different form when light interacts
with light.
There is nothing
random about it. The repeating energy flow pattern in
light can maintain its configuration even after traveling billions of
light-years across the universe, and arriving at our telescopes to form
precise, recognizable images. That is not the kind of quality which would
result from random activity, but it is the kind of activity indicative of a pseudorandom precisely-sequenced,
and forcefully-maintained structure. After all, electromagnetic fields are “force fields.”
Light
is a resonant force field mechanism
that sequences through its subquantum energy in precise, repeating, dynamic
patterns accumulated into wavelength-long quantum units. When it interacts with
other force field structures, be it light or some other, it generates precise
and repeatable results. This pseudorandom,
internal energy flow sequence is maintained by force in its resonant geometry.
This serial pattern of energy flow is what determines exactly what the result
of an interaction will be. It is this reliable, reproducible feature that
enables light to maintain consistent wave fronts, and to form images. Like a
pre-programmed machine, it always gets it right, and it never forgets how to do
it. Call it the ‘Certainty Principle.'
So what was the result of the experiment?
A
strong fringe was always produced
having completely dark minima. Unless the apparatus was
adjusted so as to make one beam stronger than the other, the fringe was always
strong, never faded. When one
beam was delayed by a fraction of a wavelength, the maxima and minima would
move across the viewing screen just as it does in so many classic interference
experiments.
When
the delay exceeded a wavelength, the pattern would respond in the classic
manner going through the series of image configurations corresponding to the
classic phase differences. If subquantum events were random, then there would exist no
mechanism for insuring that the Heisenberg spike in one wavelength would show
up at the same time (relative to its wavelength) as the spike in the next
wavelength, in order for them to always coincide. Thus, by combining delayed beams the
experiment nullifies any claim that spike timing was merely a result of beam
splitting.
We
left the experiment run... day after day for weeks at a time. Absolutely no evidence of random activity
was observed! It's kind of like when Michelson and Morley couldn't find an ether. The experiment was consistent, continuous, regular,
easy-to-reproduce. It never did something strange. It
always did it right, and it never forgot how to do it.
Many
may respond by saying, ah, but the beams were derived from the same laser,
entangling the photons. Excellent! Entanglement has been the subject of many
experiments in recent years. Countless published experiments have demonstrated
the highly precise, regular, and repeatable process of entanglement... the fundamentals of which run directly
counter to Heisenberg's hypothesis.
Even
though many still try to explain entanglement using Heisenberg's terminology,
the empirical facts demonstrate the precision, reliability, repeatability, and
consistency indicative of a deterministic subquantum process that accumulates
into full resonant quanta over the course of each full wavelength. Entanglement
also demonstrates light to be a mechanism
that always does the same things under the same circumstances. It always gets
it right, and it never forgets how to do it!
How should this affect science:
The
problem is, that the absurd things Heisenberg claims
occur in that ‘unobservable’ zone have no more proof than the existence of the
Emperor’s New Clothes from the famous child’s story. Everything we observe can
be more logically explained by pseudorandom sequences of interacting energy
fields, than random ones. It solves the problem of the mechanism needed to
produce regular wave functions. And it explains how it is that a deterministic
macro universe results from mere flowing energy.
Also,
like the child’s story, everyone is afraid to admit that they don’t see the
clothes… until a little girl points up the obvious, and was not afraid to say
it. Heisenberg was a famous scientist, and so people are reluctant to say that
what they discover doesn’t do what he said it would. But far more progress will
be made through clear communications between researchers than ignoring the
obvious, or trying to explain logical laboratory results in illogical
hypothetical terms.
The
terminology we use in describing our work can easily induce misleading
assumptions within the reader. Since such communications are designed to
advance science through mutual understanding, a clear distinction should be
made between effects that can actually be proven to be random, and those which
display the features of a pseudorandom sequence, even if complex.
Random
thinking leads to a dead end road, because the researcher automatically stops
looking when he/she believes the examination has reached the quantum limit.
Pseudorandom thinking recognizes that one may be viewing only a portion of a
precise and deterministic sequence of events that will produce definitive
results when allowed to complete each process. Consequently, the researcher can
now express his/her discoveries in more precise, more reliable, more
understandable terms. That makes their
work more valuable, and this magazine more interesting.
Hait
1, Heisenberg 0
For
more information see the e-book, "Resonant Fields, the Fundamental Mechanism
of Physics, Made Easy to Understand" by John N. Hait, 2004, available
online at www.coolscience.info.
About the Author:
John
N. Hait, President of the