Iurii Kudriavtcev, Ph.D.

We have studied the possibility of simultaneous use of two seemingly incompatible conceptions of the microparticle interaction: the field one – describing the transmission of interparticle interaction by the physical fields, and the con- ception of the direct interparticle interaction («action at a distance»).

We have shown that the joint use of the conceptions leads to the review of the interaction act in two equally valuable reference systems. It allows to overcome the contradiction between the conceptions and leads to two important conse- quences: allows to confirm the validity of two fundamental principles: the Mach principle and the principle of constan- cy of light speed that lies in the basis of the Special relativity theory.

1. Introduction

The results of a whole range of experiments with photons appear astonishing and even paradoxical from the point of view of orthodox quantum mechanics.

In the experiments with “deferred choice” [1],[2] fast changes were incorporated into the optical scheme during different moments of photon’s movement from the source to the receiver. The obtained results appeared to be not depend- ent on the moment when the changes were made – before or after the light impulse passes through the beam splitter in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, which, according to the authors’ opinion [2] shows evidence the insufficiency of the common wave-particle interpretation and the necessity to create the new conception.

In the experiments [3],[4] the changes were introduced into the optical scheme to control the validity of the available in- formation about the path of the photon (by changing the transparency of the filter [3] or the position of the detector [4]). To explain the relation between these changes and presence or absence of the interference, the authors have to suppose that the results depend not on the physical conditions of the experiments but on the available information of the photon’s path. And not even on information itself but on possibility to obtain it. Which leads to the conclusion [2]: “So, the collapse of the wave function can happen only because of the possibility to obtain the knowledge about particle’s path. It is, of course, hard to believe and accept that the quantum mechanics de- scribes only our knowledge, and it is not exactly clear what this knowledge is about. But in many cases it is the least paradoxical interpretation of the very paradoxical experi- mental results”.

In work [5] it was shown that the results cease being par- adoxical if we review them from the point of view of Ein- stein’s Special relativity [6], according to which the photon’s own lifespan on its way from the source to the receiver is always equal to zero. No physical event can happen to the photon during the time equal to zero, including change of state. The seemingly paradoxical results of the mentioned above and some other experiments [2] with the photons are explained by the fact that the photon leaves the source and arrives to the receiver at the same moment of its own time, so its flight is defined by the conditions on both ends of the path. The described interpretation of the experiments with pho- tons, based on the conclusion of the relativity theory about zero own time of photon’s life, corresponds to the conclusions of the theory of direct interparticle interaction, developed in the works of Schwarzshild [7], Tetrode [8], Fokker [9], Wheeler, Feynman [10],[11], Narlikar [12], Frenkel [13], Vladimirov [14],[15], and other physicists of the XX century [16],[17].

This theory can be viewed as a contradictory to the one, common at the moment, which uses the notion of interaction mediators (physical fields), moving in the space from particle to particle at light speed, to describe the interaction between particles. However, it is not difficult to show [18], that these seemingly contradictory conceptions describe the same situa- tion: the interaction at zero value of the space-time interval, which allows talking about appropriateness of their review not as competing but as complementary.

The goal of this work is to check the possibility and prac- tical appropriateness of realization of their joint appliance for a more complete description of the physical reality and over- coming the psychological barrier between these conceptions that – at first sight – look incompatible and competing.

2. An attempt of joint application of the conceptions

In the direct interparticle interaction model, the moments of interactions (energy transmission by the particle-source and its getting by the particle-receiver) can be by definition only simultaneous because the interaction happens directly, without any mediators.

In the field model of interaction these moments are not simultaneous and can be divided by big intervals of time down to many billions of years.

One of the fundamental conclusion of the Special relativi- ty theory – the notion of relativity of simultaneity, depending on movement speed of the coordinates system. In his original work on relativity theory [6] Einstein wrote: “So, we can see that there is no sense to attach absolute importance to the notion of simultaneity. Two events, simultaneous when ob- served from one coordinates system, are not perceived as simultaneous when observed from the coordinates, moving in relation to the given coordinates”.

Simultaneity of the interaction moments (radiation and receiving the energy) corresponds to the coordinates system that we are going to call “interaction coordinates” (IC), as opposed to the particle coordinates (PC).

The comparison of the conceptions shows that the “inter- action coordinates” should move at light speed. In the field model, it corresponds to the idea of transmission of the inter- actions by physical fields spreading at light speed.

The conclusion formulated in [5], according to which an adequate view on a physical phenomenon must be based not on opposition but on combination of its descriptions from the point of view of reference systems of each participant, and introduced above notion on interaction coordinates (IC) system lead us to the idea that the analysis of the interaction act can be considered full-blown only when it includes the review both in particle coordinates and in interaction coordinates, which we must consider equally valuable.

3. The result of the joint application of the conceptions The review of the interaction act in the direct interparticle interaction model and in the field model, if we take them

separately, leads to the description of essentially different situations. In the first only the interacting material particles are reviewed. In the second the particles of essentially different nature are added – the gauge bosons carrying the interaction.

A shown above attempt of review, including the points of view of both conceptions, leads us to a different picture where the interacting material particles are seen in two equal coordinates system – in the particles coordinates system, which at low speeds corresponds to the observer’s coordinates, and in the interaction coordinates system.

It gives us the possibility not to raise a question, which of these conceptions must be considered true, but focus on the interaction act itself. It is analogous to the situation in Einstein’s cosmological theory, where we do not focus our attention if the fourth spatial dimension exists – the one introduced by Eintein as fictional [19] to be able to describe the curvature of 3-dimensional space. Because we are interested not in the fourth dimension itself but in the influence of the space curvature described via it, on behaviour of the spatial objects.

The review of the interaction act in two equal coordinates systems, in one of which the moments of interaction for the particles taking part will be always simultaneous, allows to overcome a contradiction between conceptions and eliminate the corresponding psychological tension.

And leads to two important consequences.

4. Consequences

On Mach’s principle. Out of the fact that in one of the co- ordinates systems (IC) that we named equal, the act of inter- action, including the gravitational one, for any pair of the interacting particle (masses) is always simultaneous, it di- rectly follows the validity of Mach’s assumption that the iner- tial properties of the mass are defined in its interaction with all the other masses of the Universe (in the original Mach’s definition – “the sky of immobile stars” and “the whole world” [20]), that received the name of “Mach’s principle”.

In IC the time intervals between the chosen moment of the gravitational interaction of the given body and the corre- sponding moments for every other body in the Universe, not depending on the distance till them, are always equal to zero. That creates the logical ground to admit the validity of Mach principle. Our test body is attracted to the distant galaxy at the same very moment of IC when the distant galaxy is at- tracted to our test body.

On principle of constancy of light speed. As it is known, Einstein formulated the principle of the constancy of light speed without concrete argumentation. In the original work, that laid the foundation of the relativity theory (1905) [6], this fundamental principle is introduced the following way: “We intend to turn this assumption (the content of which will be further known as “relativity principle”) into precondition and

make, besides it, an additional assumption, only seemingly contradictory to the first one, that the light in vacuum always spreads with a definite velocity V, that does not depend on movement condition of the radiating body”.

Moreover, in one of the following works (1907) [21] he writes: “Does the assumption that we make and call “the principle of the constancy of the light speed” really takes place in nature? It is absolutely not obvious; however, at least for the coordinates system in a certain condition of movement, it became possible, thanks to the confirmations that Lorenz theory has gotten experimentally”.

This situation did not change after several decades as well (1973) [22]: «At first sight the principle of constancy of light speed contradicts the “common sense”. This is why it is desirable to note the direct experimental proofs of its validity before we start to draw consequences from the relativity theo- ry”.

So, in the basis of the Special relativity theory there is a logically unsupported notion that the light speed in vacuum does not depend on the velocity of movement of the signal’s source or receiver.

However, from a review above we see that the moments of acts of interaction of the source particle and the receiver particle in IC must always be simultaneous, not depending on their speeds. And IC system moves in relation to PC sys- tem at light speed.

Therefore, the absolute nature of the light speed is equal to the absolute nature of the simultaneity of the interaction moments in IC. The acts of transfer and reception of the sig- nal in IC must always be simultaneous, whatever are the velocities of the source and the receiver – hence the independ- ency of the value, that defines the temporary characteristics in PC – the light speed.

The movement of the source and the receiver of the signal can reflect on energetical characteristics of the interaction – thanks to the Doppler Effect, but cannot reflect on simultanei- ty, i.e. light speed.

5. Conclusion

We have studied the possibility of the simultaneous use of two seemingly incompatible conceptions of the microparticle interaction: the field one, describing the transmission by the physical mediator fields, moving with light speed, and the conception of the direct interparticle interaction.

This attempt to complement two conceptions leads to the review of the interaction act in two equally valuable reference systems – the reference system of the particles (PC), which at low speeds of their movement corresponds to the observer’s coordinates and the reference system of interaction (IC), which moving at light speed, where the moments of interaction of the particles-participants are always simultaneous.

It gives us possibility not to raise a question about which of these conceptions is valid, but focus on the interaction act itself, eliminates the contradiction and leads to two important consequences: it lets us to confirm the validity of two fundamental principles, “Mach’s principle” and “principle of constancy of light speed”, which lays in the basis of the Special relativity.

References:

1. Hellmuth T., Walter H., Zajonc A. and Schleich W. Delated-choice experiments in quantum interference. Phys. Rev. A. Vol. 35. Pp. 2532-2541, 1987.

2. George Greenstein, Arthur G. Zajonc (Amherst College). The Quantum Challenge. Modern Research on the Foundations of Guantum Mechanics. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. 2006 (in Russian edition:Дж. Гринштейн, А. Зайонц. Квантовый вызов. Современные исследования оснований квантовой механики. Пер. с англ. Долгопрудный: Издательский дом «Интеллект», 2008. – 400 с.).

3. Wang L.J., Zou X.Y. and Mandel L. Induced coherence and indistinguishability in optical interference. Phys. Rev. A. Vol. 44. Pp 4614-4623, 1991.

4. Zeilinger Anton. Experiment and tne foundations of quantum physics. Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 71. Pp. 288-297, 1999.

5. Kudriavtcev Iu. The Quantum Challenge from the viewpoint of Einstein’s realism // “Eurasian Scientific Associa- tion” • № 5 (17) • May 2016. – Pp 1-4.

http://esa-conference.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/esa-may-2016-part1.pdf

6. A.Einstein. Zur Elektrodynamik der bewegter Körper. Ann. Phys.,1905, 17, 891-921. (in Russian Edition: Аль- берт Эйнштейн. К электродинамике движущихся тел. Собрание научных трудов. т.I., М., «Наука». - 1966. с. 7- 35).

7. Schwarzshild K., Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen, 128, 132 (1903) 8. Tetrode H., Zs. Phys., 10, 317 (1922)

9. Fokker A.D., Zs.Phys., 58, 386 (1929); Physica., 9, 33 (1929); Physica., 12, 145 (1932)

10. Wheeler J.A., Feynman R.P., Rev. Mod. Physics 17 p.157-181 (1945).

11. Wheeler J.A., Feynman R.P., Phys. Rev. 59 683 (1941).

12. Narlikar J., Inertia and cosmology in the relativity theory. In collection “Astrophysics, quants and the relativity theory”, Moscow, 1982.

13. Frenkel Y. The nature of the electric current. Dispute in the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute. 1930. p.22-76.

14. Vladimirov Yu., Turygin A. Theory of the direct interparticle interaction. Moscow, 1986.

15. Vladimirov Yu. Physics of action at a distance. Nature of space and time. Moscow, 2012, 224 p.

16. Kokarev S. Close-range action vs. action at a distance: is the victory final? http://www.logos- distant.ru/article/art7/art1.html

17. Vladimirov Yu. Nature of space and time: Anthology of ideas. Moscow, 2015. – 400p.

18. Kudriavtcev Iu. Paradoxes of Quantum theory in light of the theory of Relativity // “Eurasian Scientific Associa- tion” • № 7 (19) • July 2016. Pp. 1-3.

http://esa-conference.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/esa-july-2016-part1.pdf

19. A.Einstein. Kosmologishe Betrachungen zur allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie. Sutzungsher preuss. Akad. Wiss., 1917, 1, 142-152 (in Russian Edition: Альберт Эйнштейн. Вопросы космологии и общая теория относительности. Собрание научных трудов, т.1, "Наука", М., 1965, с. 601-612).

20. E.Mach. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung: historisch-kritisch dargestellt. Leipzig., F.A.Brockhaus., 1883. Russian edition.

21. A.Einstein. Über das Relativitätsprinzip und aus demselben gezogenen Folgenungen. Jabrb. d. Radioaktivität u. Elektronik, 1907, 4, 411-462 (in Russian Edition: Альберт Эйнштейн. О принципе относительности и его следст- виях. Собрание научных трудов. т.I., М., «Наука». - 1966. с. 65-114).

22. Kitaigorodskiy A. Introduction to physics. Moscow, 1973, p.378.