Authors: Vatolin Dm.
Are the observations, as if confirming the existence of elementary particles, only a certain interpretation of the observer? Does the theory, that sequentially denies particles existence, contradict with observations and internal logic? The hypothesis is that sometimes we register the "particles" only due to the way of observation, but in fact we take the energy from continuous wave field. "Objective isolation of particles" may be done without any experimenter assistance, but even in this case "particles" are just different dynamical field state. We interpret the transitions between the native states of a wave field as a "birth" or "disappearance" of particles. Sometimes we observe field energy splashing, like "sprays", as "particles tracks". According to the hypothesis, "randomness" in "particles" detection is related to the statistical nature of the "wave receivers" work. For instance, "receivers" in the form of multiple "atoms" with a probability depending on the intensity of the reference wave can pull out just such small portions of reference wave, which lead to eigenstates of "atoms", which is interpreted as "capture of particles".
Comments: 7 Pages. Russian
Unique-IP document downloads: 160 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.