Are Photons and Electrons Really 'Real'?

Post Reply New Topic

I guess I just have an inability to take things at face value. I took some Physics and Astronomy classes in college, but got turned off of the academic field of it based on the seeming lack of a care for the underlying functions. Everyone is perfectly happy to do math all day. I love math, and I love its usefulness, especially in the way of engineering and problem solving. I think the final straw was when I was asking if fields were a real, physical thing, or just a mathematical abstraction. Not only did no one know, they didn’t seem to care. For the record, I hold that not only are the fields real, but that they are the fundamental ‘components’ themselves.

It is very interesting that you brought up the notions of space and time as things in of themselves. Space and time have no properties of their own, rather they describe the relationships and properties of objects. To say that space and time are things is equivalent to saying that a shadow is a thing. They have no essential properties of their own. To insist that they exist unto themselves is the fallacy of reification. Now, this is not to say that they do not exist conceptually. A shadow is merely the obstruction of light. The concept is real. Yet there are no shadows which exist independent of a light source and obstruction. But now we’re way off the rails!

I honestly got into this after playing with some magnets, and sort of wondered what was going on. To my surprise, no one knows! This lead me down a rabbit hole, and ever since I have been reading about people’s ideas as to what’s really going on. It turns out that Boyle, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Tesla, and pretty much all of the fathers of physics all believed that light and electricity were better explained as waves in a medium, which they called the aether (now a dirty word in academia, for some reason), as opposed to the interactions of discrete particles. There was an experiment called the Michelson–Morley experiment which is purported to have disproven such a medium, but the experiment makes a lot of assumptions about what the aether’s properties would have been. To me, it seems like when someone looks for something only in the one place they expect it to be, doesn’t find it, and assumes that it doesn’t exist. I think Michelson and Morley envisioned it as some sort of inert gas which fills up empty space separate from other things. As such, it should be detectable, the same way we can detect interstellar gas clouds and objects. I tend to think, though, that the ‘medium’ is actually the medium for everything, not just light. I think of it more as something akin to ‘the fabric of space and time’.

As for why I think this idea of ‘wave-functions in a medium’ makes sense, I think it explains a lot of things. It explains how matter and energy have an equivalence (if matter is just a sort of motion in of itself). It explains how we can have action at a distance in/through a vacuum (the action is ‘mediated’ through this medium). It explains the so-called wave-particle duality (in that there is no such duality, as the matter is just a wave-function propagating within a medium). It explains the decay of atoms (in that their motions are winding down). It just seems to explain everything AND offer a mechanical explanation that doesn’t reduce ad infinitum.

I’m probably wrong about a lot of things, but I find this line of thinking more interesting and coherent than the bizarre world of mediating particles.

Have you considered the problems surrounding an absolute frame of reference? Such frames cannot exist in themselves. Whether that be spacetime or fields or the aether you allude to. Actually, physics still retains a kind of aether. It's called the zero point field, a kind of background energy.

Particles may arise from fields but fields themselves arise from the interactions of particles. Nothing exists absolutely.

This is a difficult concept to comprehend but it's all touched upon in various theories...

David Bohm - hidden variables
Mach - his theory on what causes inertia (major influence for Einstein's relativity)
Kleinian geometry - the arisal of congruence with higher geometries
Etc..

The latter points to something else - that forms and entities, like particles and forces and fields, actually lose their separating characteristics. In other words, everything becomes equivalent. So you have a situation whereby all the phenomenon we observe is actually relative, arising insofar as relations/interactions with all else.

The concept of a universal field in which all forms arise from is essentially an exponent of a unified field theory, so what you suggest is far from outlandish, but if you want to go even further you need to ask how 'the field' can exist in itself.

I am familiar with Mach's principal, and I am familiar with relativistic criticisms of the idea of a preferred reference frame, but I am not sure what you mean by saying that a supposed medium for fields cannot exist in of itself. A field or wave cannot exist in of itself, as these are disturbances of something.

What makes sense to me is a sort of nested 'existence', where you have a medium (call it aether), fields (disturbances within the aether), and then matter (specific forms of disturbances within the aether). In reality, the medium is the only thing that exists. Fields and matter are posterior to it, and do not exist in of themselves.

Some questions:-

What is your aether made of?
What gives rise to it?
How is it's size and properties measured?
How is it different across time, from big bang to present?
How do particles and fields interact with it?

If it's all the same (i.e made up of nothing, with equivalent properties everywhere) it would literally be a point. If it's not all the same, it would need to be made up of things.

Relativity solves these problems; there is no absolute reference frame, which your aether description counts as. This doesn't mean it cannot exist, but rather that it arises in a relatively-relationally way.

Thank you for your response. I think this is a potentially dangerous way of thinking, as we leave too much to speculation. It is possible to make 100% accurate predictions while having a completely ridiculous explanation as to why those predictions are valid.

For example, I can say that tiny fairies are responsible for electrons. The fairies spin the electron, which causes its angular momentum. The fairies use their magic to fill electrons with charge. I know these fairies exist, because we can calculate how fast they are spinning the electron using the appropriate equation. I also know that the fairies are magically imbuing the electron with electromagnetic energy because we can measure the electron's charge experimentally.

Of course, this is complete nonsense!


The dangerous way of thinking is to think Science's main purpose is to give explanations. This is incorrect, science's main purpose is to make predictions. Your fairy example fails because it stays in theory with no interface to experiment.

Try to redo your example with the requirement that your postulated fairies must lead to a prediction. You will find it a lot harder to extemporaneously armchair theorize as you did.


The problem is that mathematics can only provide descriptions, and descriptions are not explanations. I am not anti mathematics by any stretch, though I find it sad that too often in modern physics we say, 'The equations work, who cares what the explanation is?'. My real question here is this: Assuming all of the things that we can calculate and experimentally validate are true about the phenomena by which we refer to electrons, why should we posit that they are individual particles?

One might argue that it is the simplest explanation. I think all of quantum mechanics can put the idea that electrons as particles is s simple explanation to rest! To make the particle model work, we now need to evoke 'virtual particles' (what does that even mean, aside from 'something that balances out an equation'?).


QM is not the same as QFT. It is QFT that postulates virtual particles as model elements. We allow you to have any model elements you want, so long as they give unambiguous answers to what we predict to occur. That is the rule. Both QM and QFT obey this rule very well, so no problems.


It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that electrons do not exist as particles. Rather what we measure as electrons are merely points within a field under certain circumstances. Of course, this lends to other deep questions, such as, what are the mechanisms by which fields operate? What defines a field in of itself?


Then how do you explain Geiger Counters, scintillation chambers, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment and much of modern physics? The real question is, why am I wasting my time on this?

@tensordyne you are contradicting yourself somewhat.

Electrons, like photons, can also be regarded as waves. That they might be wave phenomenon that display particle like properties is far from controversial and indeed postulated in multiple respected theories.

@TheOther seems to simply be suggesting they are waves in a medium, from which all other particles arise. That may be simplistic but it does not necessarily contradict observed instances of particle like phenomenon. Any wavefunction can be quantised when interacting. The very act of observation necessitates this.

That's bull. Science arose from and exists to explain the natural world. I've yet to meet another practicing scientist, in any field, who would argue otherwise. This is not to undermine the pivotal importance of experimentation, but predictions are the methodology of science, not the purpose.

I know there is an arrogant caucus who holds that present models are infallible, that their expert knowledge, highly inaccessibility to anyone else not in their specialism, effectively gives them some kind of higher status. It's an ego thing, and it's sad.

If you're not willing to ask questions and be open to the questions of others then, yeah, not much point in "wasting time" on anything.

Electrons, like photons, can also be regarded as waves. That they might be wave phenomenon that display particle like properties is far from controversial and indeed postulated in multiple respected theories.

I am in a state of supperposition about what you are saying above Justin101. Are you saying I don't know what I am talking about, or that I do...?

Reread what I previously wrote. Wave phenomena require multiple particles similarly prepared to determine the wave property -- fact. Particle effects require cascading the quantum state of single particles that get cascaded up in order to find the specific particle original property -- fact. The "mystery" is not about wave-particle duality, the math and experimental end are pretty clearly defined, the mystery is how the system as a whole can have waves of particle probability that particles in that system obey in a non-local manner (Bell's Inequality), even when it is one particle at a time.

That's bull. Science arose from and exists to explain the natural world. I've yet to meet another practicing scientist, in any field, who would argue otherwise. This is not to undermine the pivotal importance of experimentation, but predictions are the methodology of science, not the purpose.

Science arose from the Royal Society of London and the social movements in France and on the European continent. They specifically banned people from offering "explanations" over experiment and prediction. The methodology of science is what science is, that is why it is called "The Scientific Method" and not "The Scientific Explanation".

Explanation as a concept has a long intellectual history, and it is not as solid of a requirement as it may seem. At best, explanations in science are an apology for using one model over another, theoretically speaking. There is no reason why a theory has to have an intelligible to human reason for existing, also known as an explanation. Classical physics almost always has an explanation, but why must it be that way for Modern physics? For instance, complex numbers come up in QM. Matches experiment, explanation??? Should I care in a way? What is your explanation for complex numbers in QM? Does it make a prediction, if so, it might be science, if not, then it is not even wrong.

I would suggest the scientists you know did not fully consider how strange QM and related theories are. You can come up with many "explanations" for them (called interpretations in QM, of which there are many, kinda arguing against explanations being so great because the predictions are all the same for the previous), when they match experiment maybe then somebody will accept your putative explanation, but until then, it is just theory, after all.

I don't hold the present models infallible. I find Cosmology to be a form of scientific religion. Interested in extracting out of Electric Universe ideas the good stuff and leaving the rest of the pseudo-science ideas behind. A normal scientist would run away from those people in horror. I am open minded; but I am not open to BS.

I am willing to ask questions, postulate them and consider theory of any kind.
I am just not willing to think that explanations are the centerpiece of science,
because they are not. Models are, and they make predictions.

Hi @tensordyne

You are correct when describing the particle manifestations. But to say wave phenomenon 'requires' particles is somewhat misleading. Until a photon or electron is observed, until it interacts, the state is a wave. As soon as interactions occur, those phenomenon you describe come into play. By definition wavefunctions are unlocalised so your apparent suggestion that they 'require multiple particles' makes no sense.

Where we strongly depart is describing science as serving no purpose to explain things. I'm still baffled how you can think that way. Referring to the policies of archaic European institutes doesn't back up your case. These were the same institutes, I recall, that regarded forced lobotomy as a reasonable scientific method. Along with a host of other bizarre and warped things. You need to look at the history of science better. But this is a separate subject, save to the extent that nobody should be deterred from seeking explanations to phenomenon (under the false dictum that such a worthy endeavour has nothing to do with science).

As for the point about complex numbers, there are a host of other things arising within the mathematical details of QM that would, if taken 'literally', see every defined quantity you observe as infinite(!) If you take the maths as real then everywhere you look there is a paradox. I would say maths is the most accurate methodology, or language, we use to *approximate* reality. The language is not the nature. And all models are approximations of 'it' too. If thinking otherwise then you might as well dismiss the universe and everything in it as some kind of Mandelbrot Set which arises from, and generated by, equations.

Then again....

Hi @Justin101,

some responses to your responses...

You are correct when describing the particle manifestations. But to say wave phenomenon 'requires' particles is somewhat misleading. Until a photon or electron is observed, until it interacts, the state is a wave. As soon as interactions occur, those phenomenon you describe come into play. By definition wavefunctions are unlocalised so your apparent suggestion that they 'require multiple particles' makes no sense.

Here is a question for you, how do you test your wave-function for how good it is, if you are not allowed to measure particles over and over again? The phrase you don't like is 'require multiple particles'? It requires multiple similarly prepared particles to test if a wave-function matches experiment. I mean, sorry, it does.The purpose of Wave-functions is to tell how similarly prepared particles will statistically act.

The fact that you would give me a hard time about inferrentially pointing that out, shows how badly scientists have explained QM to the populace at large. To measure wave properties, such as amplitude, phase-speed, and so on, requires multiple particles. The more particles, the better, in fact.

The problem with how popularizers of science present QM is that they don't explain the wave-function very well. The collapse language of CI has more to do with the fact that wave-functions act like they have a single-step memory, rather than that there is some other kind of inexplicable magic occuring.

Wave-functions are mathematical abstractions, first and foremost. We do not directly experience, or can manipulate in any way, a nascent wave-function. The form a specific wave-function takes is only verifiable after many similarly prepared particles have been observed using statistics. I have done homework problems on wave-functions related to the concepts I am describing, this is how it really is, believe it or not.

Have I proven my point?

Where we strongly depart is describing science as serving no purpose to explain things. I'm still baffled how you can think that way. Referring to the policies of archaic European institutes doesn't back up your case. These were the same institutes, I recall, that regarded forced lobotomy as a reasonable scientific method. Along with a host of other bizarre and warped things. You need to look at the history of science better. But this is a separate subject, save to the extent that nobody should be deterred from seeking explanations to phenomenon (under the false dictum that such a worthy endeavour has nothing to do with science).

I never said science does not explain things, especially in a classic context, what I said is that it's main purpose is not to explain things, but to make predictions. I proved that statement too, so it would be great if you could own up to me on that one, but let's see...

As for the point about complex numbers, there are a host of other things arising within the mathematical details of QM that would, if taken 'literally', see every defined quantity you observe as infinite(!) If you take the maths as real then everywhere you look there is a paradox. I would say maths is the most accurate methodology, or language, we use to *approximate* reality. The language is not the nature. And all models are approximations of 'it' too. If thinking otherwise then you might as well dismiss the universe and everything in it as some kind of Mandelbrot Set which arises from, and generated by, equations.

Infinite! Are you mixing up QM and QFT again? QFT is the one with all the infinities that have to get swept under the rug using renormalization. But you did not answer my question. So here it is again:

How do you 'explain' complex numbers in QM?

Explain to me using your normal senses in a normal explanatory sense why QM has complex numbers. Do you see in Argand Planes, so that is why that model element makes so much sense to you? Are the Cauchy-Riemann equations in your DNA? I hope you can tell I am being facetious here.

Point is, you can't, and nature does not care if you can wrap an explanation around what you observe, it just does what it does. The shock of QM to the physicists of the time was that QM was not like Classical physics, e.g. it did not offer mental pictures as readily as in Classical Physics.

Welcome to the post-modern 21st century world.
Your 17th century idealisms are outdated.

I think to some extent we are moving in the same direction @tensordybe but on different lines. I have not disputed the arisal of particle phenomenon for electrons and photons, as you say. What I dispute is your inference that these particles are, intrinsically, particles; that any wave properties are, effectively, illusions- whilst the particle properties are not. You are not saying that per se, but it's the only logical inference that others would take from your arguments.

I would try to ask you how these phenomenon can be particles when, clearly, regarding that in an absolute manner is a paradox. What, for example, keeps the particles apart? What are the 'boundaries'? What distinguishes one from another? There are quasi explanations like virtual particle clouds and quantum numbers but these, too, break down on closer analysis. But to you all this is meaningless, or 'ureal'. The problem is you are casting aside any possibility of a physical explanation and castigating those who attempt to find explanations.

Whether you are a quantum mechanics expert I do not know, possibly you are. I have no problem in saying I'm not; it's a field I studied at university, years ago, but I don't work in it.

We are going round in circles on the purpose of science stuff. I hold that models and predictions are the underpinning methodology of science, and the purpose is to explain the natural world. Most dictionary definitions of science agree with that, and - as noted before - every practicing scientist I've met is no different. I do accept, however, that QM is about as 'abstract' as things can get. But to confine attempts to explain 'the world' solely to 'classical [science]' is the path to sitting in a box and tweaking equations for daydreams.

Nor is it helpful erecting arbitrary boundaries from one niche to the other. QM and QFT are intricately connected... But of course, you can find plenty of reasons to set them apart, if you wanted.

The 17th Century? Hahaha!
I'd say closing your eyes to any possibility of explaining phenomenon, whilst branding any others who try this as heretics/regressives, would put you a few centuries behind

If you want explanations, like I said, look at theory. Also, look at experiments that make critical tests of theories. The chemical experiments of Lavoisier, come to mind. In modern times there are many of these as well (Aspect for Bell's Theorem, etc.).

The field nature of particles is real, and quantum fields are an odd kind of field, for certain, but that section of the text where you tried to explain away the oddity of QM having complex numbers is still just pure gibberish. It involves measuring things and them being infinite or ... I don't know, sorry, honestly, it seemed like insanity, so I tried my best.

You still have not honestly tried to answer the question yet; but you have tried to shew it away.

Looking over previous post questions, I think I know what you want to know, but it would involve some quantum theory of gravity level of stuff to pull off. The hard part in discussing that with you is that I am pretty sure you do not understand the dividing lines between experiment and theory in a quantum setting, which becomes problematic.

I have no Ph.D. in any field, and claiming expertise in any field should be avoided, if at all possible, but here are your questions with some quick answers.

What is your aether made of? I know what you mean, but mentioning aether is still bad form.
What gives rise to it? Philisophical and pointless.
How is it's size and properties measured? More interesting...
How is it different across time, from big bang to present? Why do you need to bring cosmology in?
How do particles and fields interact with it? Bingo!

Here is my answer. It comes from a theory I have been developing called Quilibrium, short for Quantum Equilibrium. If you steal my ideas, well, just don't... By all means though, decide for yourself.

Black Holes have no hair (structure outside of mass, charge, spin and other quanta). It is also the case that particles have no hair. In a recentish paper on BH's known as the AMPS paper, it was found that the event horizon is problematic. It is not a region that is just a mathematical artifice, as you get close to it calculations show ever increasing energies. This is a wall of fire dubbed the quantum firewall.

So here is what particles are, they are bubbles of nothingness surrounded by a quantum firewall. Blackholes are just oversized subatomic particles. Outside of the particles (in your eponymous aether) it is also the case that space-time has structure.

This 'aether' field I call "The Subspace Continuum" in honor of Star Trek. The math allows one to derive space-time metrics and wave-functions from another set of fields. Trust me, it's next level stuff. The subspace field has an energy cost, but so does the firewall. The equilibrium between firewall and subspace energies determines the kinematics of a particular system.

Welcome to the 23rd century now.
And yes, your mind is still stuck in 17th

Interesting theory @tensordyne

Practical applications are the one firm outcome of experimentation, so I'm looking forward to the day your theory enables warp speed if it does, or if any other experimental prediction of even the mildest form emerges from it, I will acquire a 17th century wig.

The subspace you describe seems vaguely similar to the zero point field, unless I'm missing something?
Emptiness/nothing cannot exist, or at least not to define spatial extent or any other defined properties/quantities either, so what do you mean by 'bubbles of nothing'?
Same problem arises for what lies 'between' a singularity and black hole.
Further, if you separate the 'firewall' from the 'subspace' then how do both interact? Equilibrium differentials entail exchange of quanta. And that entails the existence of another medium.
Absolute mediums and frames of reference cannot exist. The structure of space time changes according to the observer. It seems your theory is invoking an absolute medium / frame of reference though?
How does it account for dark matter and energy (although you'd presumably dismiss such things as cosmology, which you don't regard as science?) Or putting it another way, how does it distinguish one type of field and particle from another? Where do the properties arise?

These are not criticisms but open ended questions; the concept behind your theory is intriguing. A black hole/singularity and particle connection has been postulated by some.

"Same problem arises for what lies 'between' a singularity and black hole."

I meant event horizon, not black hole.
If you can shed light (!) on this it would be interesting.

Just to be clear, this problem does not arise from the theory you outline; it's just an example of how mathematical concepts with no physical reality ('nothing', or 'infinity' for that matter) are used as gap fillers for our understanding of the world. Whenever present models reach their limits or break down or when we're just too arrogant to admit our ignorance, we throw in these terms. Same applies to quantum numbers: they may help to derive observed results, but it's like having an alphabet consisting of just A and Z. Everything in-between is just symbols - labels to what we don't understand.

Interesting theory @tensordyne

Practical applications are the one firm outcome of experimentation, so I'm looking forward to the day your theory enables warp speed if it does, or if any other experimental prediction of even the mildest form emerges from it, I will acquire a 17th century wig.

The subspace you describe seems vaguely similar to the zero point field, unless I'm missing something?


Thanks Justin101! I think this is a better conversation. I hate to dis on good people, but I will hold you to the wig! I will get all dressed up like Data so we can chill out at a party specially designed for the occasion. It will be freaaking Awesome Plus, we should talk about experiment.

I want to tell you about Warp so bad now. Maybe I will publish first on Wrong Planet using attachments. Let me answer your questions first though. The Subspace Continuum is not the same as the Zero Point Field. I am not a big fan of the Zero Point Field concept for technical reasons. The Zero Point Field is a definite problem with modern QFT, one of many, in fact. I am not into infinities and normal ordering tricks to get around Relativity...

The Subspace Field is two fields, one a complex scalar (a function returning a single complex valued number, which I call phi ɸ) and the other a SR/GR mixed tensor known as the Cartan connection, which I give as uppercase lambda Λ. I promote the Cartan field to being a physical observable, so that might allay some of your concerns about the empty space problem. Even "empty" space can be tested for how far off geometrically it acts as compared to SR!

Using the two fields ɸ and Λ, I found a way to geometrically derive both a wave-function, Ψ, and a metric, g. This is quite amazing, and also why I call it Subspace; it is the flooring giving rise to space-time itself. The reason I think I can be so boastful is that a metric determines distances, which in GR are fundamental givens, but in Quilibrium this same metric is now derived. Plus, you get a Wavefunction of space-time ta-boot. What a deal!

There is no problem with Absolute Frames of referrence because I solved another very technical problem, and for other very technical math reasons. I figured out a form of Generalized Hamiltonian Dynamics that treats GR and SR natively, instead of the semiclassical approach, as is exclusively done now that treats clockmaker time as special. This is a very technical topic.

Diffeomorphic Invariance (either GR or SR form, as appropriate) is obeyed throughout by my models, so don't worry about no absolute or special frames of referrence of any kind. It's handled.

The particle Firewall is modeled as a 2-brane from String Theory. Honestly, on that part I need more work and help from a competant theorist, but, now you know. The Lagrangian Density (which is the function of the space-time and tells how much kinetic minus potential energy density is at a space-time event) for 2-branes are interesting. This is because they are superconformal, which theoretical physicists love to think about.

All Quanta are trapped on the Firewall surface in Quilibrium.

A particle is the least quantum of shockwave in the Subspace Continuum. Geometrically speaking, Ψ = 0 means nothing is there, so I take that as a shock to space-time in situ. This would be really hard to explain on a forum, but Ψ as a function is the square-root of the Jacobian of Λ times exp(i ɸ). By supperposing two out of phase ɸ's, or by having |Λ| = 0 {which says this place adds zero to anything observable}, you get a patch of zero-valued wave-function.

Part of Quilibrium is the definition of it's Lagrangian, which breaks up into two other Lagrangians; one for the Subspace; and another for the Firewall. So wherever Ψ = 0, I take that as a patch of space-time that needs covering by the Firewall.

I have not even gotten to warp, or how I figured out how to quantize the Lorentz group, SO(1,3). The quantization of SO(1,3) led to the discovery of Warp as a new Quantum Number. Maybe I will post more about that after more of your open-ended questions I so love.

Yes, you are certainly correct in the experimental requirement. I need to come up with the equivalent version of The Stern-Gerlach Experiment, but for Warp. Some kind of setup of particles and fields such that certain Warp quanta get preferrentially selected. I have a feeling that would be the start.

These are not criticisms but open ended questions; the concept behind your theory is intriguing. A black hole/singularity and particle connection has been postulated by some.

Thanks again. I only found one referrence. People have postulated micro blak holes. If you or anyone else have other referrences, I definitely would want to know about it for research reasons, so thanks ahead of time if you do.

Hawking radiation is also explained as not a problem in Quilibrium. There is no Quantum Information Paradox in Quilibrium. Black holes are just a phase-change away from turning into a bunch of mundane particles, without any catastrophic insult to QM, or GR.

I hope that all sounded interesting Justin101 and everyone else.
Thanks for reading.

Well as a fellow Star Trek fan I wouldn't ever turn down seeing a live Data!

Honestly you should publish this; it's hard to give further sensible comment without seeing the math. Have you thought about getting it published in a journal? Without academic affiliation to a research institute or university this is difficult but not impossible. There are also online places, Arxiv I think is one. It's been years since I've looked at these platforms and resources though.

The alternative is just doing a kind of blog but as you know the internet is literally overflowing with everyone's theories. You actually refer to working terms and processes, unlike those who claim such stuff as relativity being 'wrong' or other crap, so that's a relief.

It's an interesting theory and I'd be open to seeing more, so when you do publish please send me the link.

Yes, micro black holes was what I referred to. I can't remember where I read the most recent reference to this concept; some extract from 'Nature' journal probably. Arxiv (?) has tons of peer reviewed papers where you can search for key words so I recommend using that, though there might be a fee if you're not part of a university. Mine paid for it so I don't know if there is or how much it costs.

I think one issue though is the sheer quantity of theories and research, which makes experimentation all the more important. Sadly the most far reaching theories actually do make experimental predictions, but it requires extreme conditions (i.e huge particle accelerators we don't have currently). If you have a theory that can make firm predictions without these things then of course you are onto a winner. Assuming the experimental predictions are meaningful, repeatable and turn out correct of course.

I always heard about publishing on arXiv, I guess I should get an account. I am afraid that parts of my paper and presentation will seem amatuerish (citations, how negative I am about QFT, other?), but it would probably be the best I can do, at least for now. It is a purpose in life, that is good, thanx for that

I want the party to recreate the scene where Data is playing Poker with Hawking, Einstein and Newton. Can you dress up as Newton! That would fit this all. I guess I will have to learn how to be a croupier. Btw, I like a lot some of the 17th century thinkers.

I don't know if I will ever be able to give a simple and practical thought-experiment, but Warp Quanta seems like the best bet for one. These Quanta may need to be found after open-ended experimental searches of the type that a Faraday would engage in. Something to do with assymetry, time and rotation. Idk. It would have been hard to predict when first looking into EM that Capacitor/Inductor geometry and rotating magnetic fields would be such a thing.

It just seems like these quanta must exist because of Noether's theorem and the fact that any system obeying SR will have Hyper-Spherical Harmonics as a quantized charge, at least according to the math I worked out. A math that is pretty conservative in approach btw.

Let me just end with Warp though, because you are a Star Trek fan. In ST, Warp is a speed. In Quilibrium, it is more like how Hydrogenic Atoms have the different orbitals. I have no idea what setting up an imballance of Warp Quanta would do, but that is also the best bet for some kind of Warp based travel. I make no surmises in this regard.

Thanks for the free advice Justin101, and let me get back to you...