Doubts about Conventional Quantum Physics

as stimulated by "Quantum Realities", by Nick Herbert

Wouldn't a photon have to be in the form of a string of vibrations in order to have a frequency? What's the frequency of a tidal wave? Or is frequency just our inadequate way of interpreting some other characteristic of the particle?

It may not be valid to say a higher frequency has more energy. Each frequency of light affects only electrons in orbits that have the same frequency.

Is it valid to call an electron "matter"? Then why not a photon? They both have "wavicle" characteristics. I think "matter" is that which behaves as matter "should", atoms and larger, not in quantum fashion.

At least one area of "proof" of the "wavicle" concept is around what happens when a particle passes through a small hole. It shows wave characteristics. But suppose that's due to it's interaction, by weak or strong nuclear forces, with the atoms at the edge of the hole, depending on how close it happens to pass to the edge. Maybe there are other reasons why it tends to be thrown at specific angles, just as there are reasons that electrons only take discrete, "quantum" orbits. If it has more energy it will have more mass and be less influenced, just as if it was a wave and had a higher frequency.

If we measure the spin of two electrons simultaneously, we are told they will have opposite spins (though I can't find the reference). Suppose we measure three electrons simultaneously. Will they all have opposite spins?

The Quantum Ant

Ants are a lot like quantum particles. It's difficult to impossible to predict the location or movement of a single ant. When you go looking for one, it will turn up wherever you find it. You have to look at many in order to determine a probability pattern. There are two possible explanations for this:

1) An ant's brain, being small and simple, has less redundancy and checks and balances than the human brain. Therefore it's more easily influenced by the unpredictability of quantum particles, just as free-floating colloidal particles under the microscope are knocked around by relatively random collisions with molecules. In that case the ant's movements must be rather inefficient.

Quantum particles may be more like ants than we realize. It's likely their unpredictability is only to our senses. Their "reasons" for being where they are and doing what they do may simply be beyond our perceptions. Maybe their actions are the closest thing in the universe to "free will".

Send me your thoughts.
Dan Robinson,, Eugene, Oregon
My home page: