Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / August 2005

Something's been bothering me about QM... Well, many things have been
bothering me, but I've finally read enough to put some of it into terms that
are acceptable by those knowledgeable in the field.

Note: I don't particularly care for answers from Y. Porat, T. Lockyer, or
anyone else attempting to pitch their own model. I need to know how the
EXISTING QM model(s) handle the questions I'm asking. No offense to those
whom I've excluding from this conversation is intended.

Given:

According to accepted QM theories, it is more accurate to consider a
particle as an excitation in a "matter field", i.e. a wave in a field of
corresponding kind.

It's this idea that bothers me greatly. Consider a particle/anti-particle
pair. If a particle is a crest in a field and the corresponding antiparticle
is a trough in the same field, then how is it that the 2 particles (electron
& positron created together) can separate without their total energy (mass +
potential + kinetic) decreasing as the distance between them increases?

If you cannot create a particle without creating the corresponding
anti-particle, then that would suggest that the 2 excitation states are
linked. If the crest and trough are linked, then together they are 1 single
cycle of a wave. But again, separating them would be the same as increasing
the wavelength and lowering their total energy. That doesn't fit.

I looked into phonons for an explanation that would better fit experiments.
The only problem is that there is no such thing as an anti-phonon. All of
the properties of 1 phonon are equally seen in all phonons from the same
field. What's more is that its possible to create an odd number of phonons
in a field. So there's no real help there.

There's also the matter of wave mechanics to consider. As is true with both
EM and classical waves, interference isn't a permanent effect. 2 waves
moving along different vectors will only interfere if and where they cross.
The waves continue on beyond the crossing. When a particle and anti-particle
meet, the wave ceases to exist and all the energy is dumped into a different
field, regardless of the angle of encounter. That's inconsistant with the
notion of a wave.

Can anyone address these issues in the light of the standard model?

R.