Matter Particule

Again, this outline review will only attempt to add some initial details to the previously introduced electron particule model taken from two papers entitled Part 3.1 Wider Locality and Part 3.2 Matter Particuloids. Again, only the simplified model, as shown right, will be used as a basic reference. However, we will start with a paraphrasing of the abstract taken from the first paper.

The dominant paradigm in conventional physics is that of a ‘particle’, which is assumed to be a flawed premise. The Cordus model is assumed to be a more coherent concept in that it offers explanations of phenomena, which are otherwise puzzling. It also introduces the principle of complementary frequency state synchronisation (CoFS) as the deeper principle beneath the Pauli exclusion principle and coherence. It also assumes that Bell’s Theorem is only applicable to 1D point particles and is therefore not applicable to the 3D structure model of a particule. Furthermore, it is suggested that the principle of locality is not viable in its present form and a principle of wider locality is proposed.

While there are clearly a number of points in the statement above, which mainstream quantum theory might question, this review will start with a more general comment. In the context of website-3, which is broadly discussing various wave models, it appears that the Cordus model has to be described as a particle model. As has been previously noted, it is not clear that Quantum Field Theory can be considered only in terms of a 1D point-particle model. So, while the Cordus model wishes to differentiate itself from the mathematical abstraction of a point-particle model by introducing the conceptual sub-structure of the particule model, it does not appear to address the fundamental issue of ‘substance’ or the ‘causal mechanisms’ of its components, e.g. reactive ends, fibrils and hyffs.

Note: While the review of various wave models in website-3 also highlighted perceived issues with such models, they did appear to forward the logical idea that physical particles had to ultimately be replaced by energy propagating through space as a function of time. In this context, energy would be the most fundamental ‘substance’ of the universe, where frequency is correlated to time, while wavelength is analogous to a measure of spatial separation.

However, even with the limitations of the diagram above, we might realise that the electron particule model is essentially a logical extension of the previous photon model. While this might also be seen as a form of wave-particle duality, both are now essentially being described in terms of a particule with a similar sub-structure.

So, how does the Cordus model differentiate an electron from a photon?

Starting with the similarities of both models, an electron also has two reactive ends separate by a fibril, which exerts a restoring force between them, such that it has a similar functionality in both types of particules. In this context, the electron statistically exists at both locations, as defined by the reactive ends, which are assumed to oscillate with a frequency defined by the deBroglie frequency. However, we might take a brief detour at this point to outline the general description of both the Compton and deBroglie wavelengths, where the deBroglie wavelength is assumed to only apply to matter waves, e.g. electron, which unlike photons have velocity [v] in the range of [0→c]. Both the formulation of the Compton and deBroglie wavelengths is given in [1].

[1]             

So, based on [1], an electron might have a deBroglie wavelength, which varies with velocity [v], but also a Compton wavelength, which is associated with the speed of light [c]. However, we might question the idea that an electron has a Compton wavelength that is inversely proportional to the assumed electron mass.

Note: The Compton wavelength of an electron is actually defined as the wavelength of a photon whose energy is the same as the electron mass, i.e. E=hf=mc2.  As such, there is not necessarily a direct physical inference that this wavelength is an attribute of the electron, although the various wave models in website-3 do make some assumptions that all matter particles are a construct of waves propagating with velocity [c] through the media of space.

In terms of basic wave mechanics, wavelength is the product of a propagation velocity, i.e. [c] or [v], which is an attribute of the wave medium and the frequency of the source producing the wave, such that wavelength and frequency are related as follows.

[2]             

However, what remains unclear at this point is why the reactive ends within the electron particule oscillate with a deBroglie frequency, as defined in terms of the wavelength in [1] and qualified by [2]. As such, we return to the issue of the wave-particle duality of the electron, which the Cordus model only appears to quantify in terms of its oscillation rate between the two reactive ends. However, based on the conceptual description provided, it is assumed that a single electron, or least its two reactive ends, can simultaneously pass through two slits, if suitably spaced, while the fibril transparently passes through the material in the gap between the slits.

Note: Again, it might be highlighted that aspects of the quantum behaviour observed in the standard double slit experiment have also been observed when the experiment uses three slots. If this is true, it might prove problematic for the particule model that only has two reactive ends.