Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum what do we mean by the universe

Thanks for the question dkv. What I mean is that the electron is not a point charge particle. Its charge is distributed within the critical radius of an actual time-independent wave (which can be calculated by using the Schroedinger equation) Similarly the energy of the wave is equal to the mass of the electron. This energy is also distributed within the critical radius. Thus the electron is this "blob" defined by this critical radius within which the mass and charge are both distributed. When interacting with this "blob" at a distance outside of the critical radius it acts like a point particle because the "blob" has a centre of charge and a centre of mass at the same point within it. In other words, an electron will experience another electron as a point charge; however, if the two electrons approach each other so that the distance between their centres of charge become less than the sum of their critical radii, they interact quantum mechanically; for example they could form a covalent bond. It then seems as if a short range force kicks in to bind the atoms together. It is thus not surprising that the critical radii are of the order of bond lengths.

Interestingly, when modelling the proton in the same way, its critical radius is of the order of the proton radius within the nucleus. Is this why we think that the nucleus is held together by a short range force. Maybe the nuclear forces are equivalent to covalent bonding on a smaller scale. This speculation will put the cat amongst the pigeons!!

I wanted to know about the Electron Spin.
What is the actual meaning of the Electron Spin in Qunatum Mechanics? Once an electron is declared a Wave how do we expect it to have a Spin.As we know the classical spin can we say the same for its Quantum Mechanical Spin....
If not then why?
If yes then how?
Due to Wave spread we have a blob of possibilities but not the blob of electron.
Electron if and when detected is always detected as a whole.
Let us keep them seperate.

Hi DKV,

Excellent question: When you model the free electron in the way I do as a spherically symmetric Gaussian zero-point function; and you next calculate what the solution is in spherical coordinates r, theta and phi when switching on a magnetic field along the z-direction, the resultant energy of the wave becomes a function of phi; i.e. for all values of phi the resultant energy (which is the mass of the electron) increases except for phi=0 (spin up) and phi=pi (spin down) The parameter within the frequency formula that becomes a function of phi happens to be a distance which can be interpreted as a distance along the fourth dimension between the charge centres of the electron and the positive charge reponsible for the restoring force within three-dimensional space (which can be considered as a positron separated from the electron because three-dimensional space forms a barrier within four-dimensional space-time-whow!! if this is correct even I will be amazed). It is this direction that needs to stretch back to its initial value so that the mass of the electron does not increase. It has an equal probability to do this for PHI=0 (spin up) or PHI=pi (spin down). When applying a magnetic field along another direction it has to restretch again. It is very exciting that such a mechanism is inbuilt into the solution.

Furthermore, the electron is a time-independent field within the inertial framework moving with it. This wave does not spread or change within the latter framework unless it encounters new boundary conditions; i.e. a region which requires it to change its potential energy or a photon that requires it to change its kinetic energy. Of course you will always detect a free electron as a whole even when it is in reality a time independent "wave blob". Furthermore, in a reference frame moving relative to the one in which the elecreon is a time-independent stationary blob, one will observe it as a moving wave with a De Broglie wavelength.

I hope this is of some help.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

JB, can I contact you by email through your book's websites somehow? Please let me know.

Hi Pasti,

Yes you can use the website for the book. it will be passed onto me.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

JB, I sent you an email on the address on your website. When you get it, please confirm.

Rob:"other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist."
The best explanation I was give to pretty much the same question was the following: those people (stringists in principle, but also multiversists) need also to earn a living.Go figure.

DKV:This is not true. Have you ever wondered why the 3-D is so obvious to us...?
3-D is obvious to us because we have evolved our understanding of events for a very short
period of Space and time(in GR this becomes obvious).The measured momentum was never doubted for its true consistency within 3-D Mathematics.
Imagine a Mountain sitting idle with all the usual stories of Gravity.
Suddenly it experiences a Blast from no where.A hole was dig into it.
The apparently non-existent extra 3-D like path becomes available through it.
How can this happen ?
The well known Mountain topology had well known events and laws associated with it till the day
it lost some of its mass.That lost mass created a new Dimension for travelling the same so called 3-D space in reduced time.The laws still holds but the experience of time differs.
Notice that in the newly dig tunnel the 3-D dimensions have curled up to represent the concept of 4th Dimension.

I think that was a good illustration of a Multidimensional World.

Hi DKV,

Are these remarks relevant to this discussion?

The explanation for Spin which you have given says spin ,if I am not wrong, is something which restores the Mass of Electron. But Why call it Electron Spin if there is no mention of its Angular Momentum? (We are talking about Electron only)
The spin is very much defined in the Classical Mechanics.. For obvious reasons the explanation doesnt hold for Qunatum Mechanics ..
==================================================================
JB:"It is regularly stated by cosmologists that there is "nothing outside the universe".
What is "nothing"."
The nothing in your quote means that there is nothing else besides our universe. Or in other words that there is no "outside" for our universe, only the "inside".
Dkv:I disagree here since Nothing is equally capable of being expressed.
What you discover Now was not Known Earlier ... Which means there was a Nothing of some Type at some point of time.Thus it is the Absence of Information.Or more precisely Nothing is Absence of Change of Information.Nothing is a completely Known World.Nothing is complete identification of Observer with what is getting Obseverd.
======================================================================

Hi DKV

Very valid obsevations:

DKV: The explanation for Spin which you have given says spin ,if I am not wrong, is something which restores the Mass of Electron. But Why call it Electron Spin if there is no mention of its Angular Momentum? (We are talking about Electron only)
The spin is very much defined in the Classical Mechanics.. For obvious reasons the explanation doesnt hold for Qunatum Mechanics ..

I agree fully. The postulate that an electron has spin is a misnomer. We know it does not relate to the classical spin. It should have been called something else. All it is is a directional interaction with an applied magnetic field. What I pointed out is that my model of the electron causes the Guassian wave representing the electron to have such a directional interaction with an applied magnetic field in order to maintain the same mass (lowest energy). It is known that a magnetic field does not affect the energy of a free electron as it does for an electron forming part of a chemical bond. In the latter case there are more magnetic fields involved than the applied field.
==================================================================
DKV qoutes: JB:"It is regularly stated by cosmologists that there is "nothing outside the universe".
What is "nothing"."
The nothing in your quote means that there is nothing else besides our universe. Or in other words that there is no "outside" for our universe, only the "inside".
Dkv:I disagree here since Nothing is equally capable of being expressed.
What you discover Now was not Known Earlier ... Which means there was a Nothing of some Type at some point of time.Thus it is the Absence of Information.Or more precisely Nothing is Absence of Change of Information.Nothing is a completely Known World.Nothing is complete identification of Observer with what is getting Obseverd.

Thanks DKV, this is in line with what I have been trying to convey: i.e. that we know what nothing implies. I would define nothing as zero time (no change in time) zero entropy (no change in entropy) and zero temperature. What I pointed out is that an Euclidean four-dimensional space-time can be considered as "nothing", because time is then linearly independent from the space axes. Thus there is no change. The existence of our universe required the time axis to be bent relative to the space axes. Although I am not an expert, I believe that this is inherent in both special and general relativity.
======================================================================

--------------------
Regards,
DKV

Do you mean to say that electron carries no Angular Momentum of its own with or without Magnetic field?
================================
Thanks DKV, this is in line with what I have been trying to convey: i.e. that we know what nothing implies. I would define nothing as zero time (no change in time) zero entropy (no change in entropy) and zero temperature.
Dkv:Why only zero ? Zero is just a reference point.Why not replace zero with absolute certianity of the quantity.
==========================================
What I pointed out is that an Euclidean four-dimensional space-time can be considered as "nothing", because time is then linearly independent from the space axes.
Thus there is no change. The existence of our universe required the time axis to be bent relative to the space axes. Although I am not an expert, I believe that this is inherent in both special and general relativity.
DKV: I agree partailly here. Yes indeed your understanding of Nothing is correct but Linearity doesnt go away with the "bending" of Space Time. The Mathematics involved remains linear.
Non-linearity appears somewhere else.
========================================

DKV: Do you mean to say that electron carries no Angular Momentum of its own with or without Magnetic field?

Incisive and scary question: Yes this is what my model implies. The potential energy term responsible for the formation of the Gaussian orbital is a harmonic potential which only depends on the distance from the equilibrium point (which is also the centre of charge and centre of mass). It is really a one-dimensional function because space is assumed to be isotropic. The solution does not include any degenerate angular components at al. It cannot because there is no spherical symmetry betwen the positive nad negative charges involved. They are separated over the fourth dimension. It sounds crazy but when I apply this principle to the covalent bond between two hydrogen atoms along the (two-dimensional) directions perpendicular to the bond lenth, I can derive the binding energy correctly without having to use perturbation theory a la Heitler and London. Thus, according to my model, the "spin" of the electron has to do with the fourth dimension, along which the electron is seprated from the positive charge responsible for the restoring force in three dimensions. If my model withstands the test of time, this will imply that "spin" has nothing to do with an intrinsic angular momentum of a single "free" electron within three-dimensional space.
================================
DKV quotes and answers:Thanks DKV, this is in line with what I have been trying to convey: i.e. that we know what nothing implies. I would define nothing as zero time (no change in time) zero entropy (no change in entropy) and zero temperature.
Dkv:Why only zero ? Zero is just a reference point.Why not replace zero with absolute certianity of the quantity.

You are correct I have not been clear. I should not have said zero time but absence of time. Absence of time means no relative movements and thus one cannot define entropy or temperature; however, I will not be surprised if in the latter two cases zero is more than just a reference point.

==========================================
What I pointed out is that an Euclidean four-dimensional space-time can be considered as "nothing", because time is then linearly independent from the space axes.
Thus there is no change. The existence of our universe required the time axis to be bent relative to the space axes. Although I am not an expert, I believe that this is inherent in both special and general relativity.

DKV: I agree partailly here. Yes indeed your understanding of Nothing is correct but Linearity doesnt go away with the "bending" of Space Time. The Mathematics involved remains linear.
Non-linearity appears somewhere else.

Yes in special relativity the mathematics remains linear owing to the "magic" bestowed by the imaginary number square root of minus one. But if you analyse histories in this space-time you will find that it is curved.
========================================

--------------------
Regards,
DKV

Johnny Boy:

The above is not the ravings of a materials scientist that doesn't understand the concept of peer review. Please explain the morph.

Hi DA,

Wonderful question: Schroedinger was upset by "quantum jumps". What happens when the photon "disappears" and the electron changes energy. What happens, according to my present insights, is that the photon "entangles" with the electron: they become one holistic entity and therefore the wave(which is the electron) has an increase in mass; i.e. it has to morph into a new wave to accomodate this extra energy. The original stationary time-independent wave increases its energy. The photon energy and electron energy morphs together to form a higher energy electron-wave.

This also happens when an electron+neutrino+proton morphs into a single entity called a neutron. Morphing together falls within the ambit of "entanglement".

Normal superpostion of separate waves happens when, for example, the Mott transition kicks in. A single "multi-particle" wave still forms, but its subcomponents can interact with each other. Therefore you need statistical thermodynamics to analyse these interactionsm "within" such a wave.

I hope you can follow my ideas.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

I think the Angular momentum is intrinsic to the electron with possible components in other dimensions.If you can explain the momentum using the 4th Dimension then you have good chance of getting it right.
But I wonder how can a point be exclusively defined on a higher dimension without having some footprint on other dimesnions.
Therefore any particle which exists in higher dimension must be observable in some form somewhere.
Can you please restate the positive outcome of your theroy? What extra information do we get ?
What new does it explain ?
What does it predict?

Hi DKV,

DKV: I think the Angular momentum is intrinsic to the electron with possible components in other dimensions.If you can explain the momentum using the 4th Dimension then you have good chance of getting it right.

In my model the "electron" is treated as a "harmonic vibration" through a point (which becomes the centre of mass and of charge) where the "vibration" has an equal probability to be along any direction within three-dimensional space. The reason why it "vibrates" can only be ascribed to the manifestaion of a "virtual charge" when the "electron" "moves away" from the equilbrium point. When using Coulomb's law to model such a virtual charge, you find a fourth distance manifesting so that you can consider the virtual charge as a real charge seperated from the equilibrium point over the fourth dimension. The time-independent wave solution within three-dimensional space is then a Gaussian function. You cannot derive any intrinsic angular momentum because the "electron" is forced to "vibrate" through the equilibrium point; not "rotate around it". When you solve the same equation with an applied magnetic field you find that the solution becomes dependent on angle, and that the electron energy (equated to its mass) increases when the angle is not zero (spin up) or pi (spin down). This behaviour has nothing to do with an intrinsic angular momentum of the electron. It has rather to do with a reorienation of four-dimensional space-time. In my opinion spin cannot be an intrinsic angular momentum, because it requires the electron to rotate twice around the spin axis in order to restore symmetry.

What is, however, interesting is that the solution I derived is only the wave within three-dimensional space. There must also be a component along the fourth dimension. Can this be the explanation for dark energy?


DKV: But I wonder how can a point be exclusively defined on a higher dimension without having some footprint on other dimesnions.
Therefore any particle which exists in higher dimension must be observable in some form somewhere.

In my model the positive (positron?) seperated from three-dimensional space along the fourth dimension, makes it presence felt because it is responsible for the electron's mass. This separation of matter-antimatter over the fourth dimension might also make its presence felt (as speculated above) by manifesting as dark energy.

DKV:Can you please restate the positive outcome of your theroy? What extra information do we get ?
What new does it explain ?
What does it predict?

There are many positive outcomes of my theory. The major positive outcome is that quantum mechanics becomes a causal theory; just like Einstein wanted it to be. The reason for this is is that according to my model matter does not exist of fundamental particles but of waves with critical radii within which the essence (mass and charge) is present in distributed form. Therefore it gives an interface between classical and quantum mechanics. The interface is deterined by the critical radius of the wave. When two "particle waves" are far enough apart so that their critical radii do not overlap, then the interaction between the waves is in essence classical. An observer outside both waves (outside means the observer does not overlap with their critical radii) will experience them as point charges owing to Gauss' law. Similarly when you now want to calculate the wave function of one of the entities owing to the presence of the other entity, you can model the latter entity as a point charge. When the waves, however overlaps by so much that their critical radii overlaps, then they interact differently; i.e. quantum mechanics takes over completely. Only at this point does a "multi-particle" wave have to form; for example, in the case of dopant waves in a semiconductor this situation occurs when the Mott transition kicks in. The waves then actually delocalise and superpose to form the basis waves which spans the "multiparticle" electron wave which impurity band formation.

The upshot of all this is that causality is back in quantum mechanics because the wave intensity is NOT a probability distribution of where one will find a point particle, but is itself the fundamental building block of nature. Scroedinger's equation has nothing to do with a particle, but tels one how the wave will evolve (morph) (in shape and energy) when the potential energy term changes. When the potential energy term does not chage the solutions are a time-independent spectrum of solutions with different energies EACH OF WHICH COULD BE "AN ELECTRON". Although these solutions can be superposed it such superposition can only occur when each wave represents an "electron". To form a wave packet of "empty waves" in free space and then to associate it with a single electron violates conservation of energy. A wave packet can thus only form from the conduction electron waves within a material, and this only happens when you apply an electric field. The idea that electron particles are continiously moving within a material, even at absolute zero temperature, must be wrong because there are also positive charges: when charges move relative to each other you must get electro-magnetic radiation!!

I can go on and on, but will stop here in order not to abuse this forum.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

The reason for this is is that according to my model matter does not exist of fundamental particles but of waves with critical radii within which the essence (mass and charge) is present in distributed form.
Therefore it gives an interface between classical and quantum mechanics. The interface is deterined by the critical radius of the wave.
DKV: Please do not expect a single Electron to behave like a Wave ... The wave properties appear only when we extend the discussion to multiple electrons which means that Electron itself is not a wave but something else which determines the fate of Group of Electrons and that something is well known as proability distribution.If you wish to consider the Electron as Wave with distributed Mass and Charge you must give a good reasoning behind it.
==========================================
When two "particle waves" are far enough apart so that their critical radii do not overlap, then the interaction between the waves is in essence classical. An observer outside both waves (outside means the observer does not overlap with their critical radii) will experience them as point charges owing to Gauss' law. Similarly when you now want to calculate the wave function of one of the entities owing to the presence of the other entity, you can model the latter entity as a point charge. When the waves, however overlaps by so much that their critical radii overlaps, then they interact differently; i.e. quantum mechanics takes over completely.
DKV: All this can be said in great detail using the current understanding of Physics.
===========================================
Only at this point does a "multi-particle" wave have to form; for example, in the case of dopant waves in a semiconductor this situation occurs when the Mott transition kicks in. The waves then actually delocalise and superpose to form the basis waves which spans the "multiparticle" electron wave which impurity band formation.
DKV: The multiparticle Wave is a wave of what?
==============================================
The upshot of all this is that causality is back in quantum mechanics because the wave intensity is NOT a probability distribution of where one will find a point particle, but is itself the fundamental building block of nature.
DKV: Who says that Wave is not the fundamental answer but it is not the only one.The cause has always been there.Again your ideas need more clarity with respect to the nature of Wave.
==========================================
Scroedinger's equation has nothing to do with a particle, but tels one how the wave will evolve (morph) (in shape and energy) when the potential energy term changes.
DKV : It has nothing to do with the Particle but it in the end when you measure it is the Particle which gets measured.In other words a Qunatum of Information gets easured.Discreetness comes out of measurement.Therefore the Critical Radius stuff needs to revisited in your theory becuase for far no one has predicted or discovered any such boundary. For practical purposes your model might work but it fails to give some fundamental answers.And when you give the boundary do you mean to say that anything outside the boundary is not covered by Qunatum Laws?
=======================================
When the potential energy term does not chage the solutions are a time-independent spectrum of solutions with different energies EACH OF WHICH COULD BE "AN ELECTRON". Although these solutions can be superposed it such superposition can only occur when each wave represents an "electron".
DKV: Again all these arguments are based on incorrect understanding of the Wave you are talking about .. and there is something related to Collapse of Wave Function (refer to Understanding Measurements in this forum)which depends on the Observer.
=================================
To form a wave packet of "empty waves" in free space and then to associate it with a single electron violates conservation of energy. A wave packet can thus only form from the conduction electron waves within a material, and this only happens when you apply an electric field. The idea that electron particles are continiously moving within a material, even at absolute zero temperature, must be wrong because there are also positive charges: when charges move relative to each other you must get electro-magnetic radiation!!
DKV: Didnt get any.What is empty wave?

=========================================
In my model the positive (positron?) seperated from three-dimensional space along the fourth dimension, makes it presence felt because it is responsible for the electron's mass.
DKV: Electron's Mass is felt as a whole.We do not attribute any mass to Positron. Positron and Electrons are well defined with their respective masses.
=======================================
This separation of matter-antimatter over the fourth dimension might also make its presence felt (as speculated above) by manifesting as dark energy.
DKV: You are asking me to put 80% mass in 4th Dimension that too with a huge three Dimensional Void which actually decreases the Effective Field Strength to negligible and unpredictable values.You must give me a good reason for that.

Hi DKV,
We are talking past each other. Your arguments are based on the Copenhagen interpretation which I totally reject as being surreal. But let us try and proceed:

DKV: Please do not expect a single Electron to behave like a Wave ... The wave properties appear only when we extend the discussion to multiple electrons which means that Electron itself is not a wave but something else which determines the fate of Group of Electrons and that something is well known as proability distribution.If you wish to consider the Electron as Wave with distributed Mass and Charge you must give a good reasoning behind it.

A single electron does behave like a wave; for example, when it moves with a momentum p relative to an observer it has a wavelength. There is no reason to interpret a "multi-electron" wave as a probability distribution. It is nothing else but a superposition of single-electron waves.
It is possible that an electron can be emitted from an n-type substrate. While it moves away it decelerates and moving when moving back accelerates; i.e. it loses energy owing to the attraction of an image charge. When the conditions are correct it cannot move back into the substrate. This happens when the energy to move into a donor site is more than the energy the electron has. The emitted electron can then not rejoin the "multiparticle wave" (i.e. the substrate). It has to lead a separate existence on the surface. By analysing this problem it is possible to derive the critical radius of an electron-wave. Obviously I cannot represent the whole calculation here. This analysis also fits all the experimental evidence for superconduction.
==========================================
DKV: All this can be said in great detail using the current understanding of Physics.

I have had discussions with other people who will disagree with you on this point.
===========================================
DKV: The multiparticle Wave is a wave of what?

Any wave has energy. The wave is a matter wave: i.e. its energy is equal to mcsquared. There are no particles "in it".
==============================================
DKV: Who says that Wave is not the fundamental answer but it is not the only one.The cause has always been there.Again your ideas need more clarity with respect to the nature of Wave.

I do not follow you here. Which cause has always been there. Are you claiming that the Copenhagen interpretation is causal?
==========================================
DKV : It has nothing to do with the Particle but it in the end when you measure it is the Particle which gets measured.In other words a Qunatum of Information gets easured.Discreetness comes out of measurement.Therefore the Critical Radius stuff needs to revisited in your theory becuase for far no one has predicted or discovered any such boundary. For practical purposes your model might work but it fails to give some fundamental answers.And when you give the boundary do you mean to say that anything outside the boundary is not covered by Qunatum Laws?

This is where we disagree. It is not a "particle" that gets measured. When you measure you change the boundary conditions experienced by the wave and the wave morphs into another shape (provided that the measurement did not change the energy of the wave).It can, of course change both shape and energy when interacting with the apparatus. Discreetness is only observed when the boundary conditions are such that only disreetly different waves can manifest; like the harmonics on a violin string. The existence of such boundary conditions are commensurate with chemical bonding as well as with experimental results on superconduction. All I am saying is that any other entity which is outside of the critical radius of a "free-electron" wave, will experience the charge and mass of the wave as point-entities.
=======================================
DKV: Again all these arguments are based on incorrect understanding of the Wave you are talking about .. and there is something related to Collapse of Wave Function (refer to Understanding Measurements in this forum)which depends on the Observer.

As I have said above, you are defending the Copenhagen interpretation which I reject. There is no such thing as "the collapse" of the wave function. What happens is that the wave itself morphs into another shape. It is not the observer who affects nature through his/her selfawareness, but the receptor in your eye which affects the boundary conditions of the wave so that it morphs into another form. It is just normal causal physics.
=================================
DKV: Didnt get any.What is empty wave?

When constructing a wave packet in free space and equating it to an electron, the waves being superposed is not each an actual electron. Because none of them represents an actual electron except when they are superposed, I call them "empty waves"; how can they exist on their own so that they can superpose?


DKV: Electron's Mass is felt as a whole. We do not attribute any mass to Positron. Positron and Electrons are well defined with their respective masses.

They might be well defined, butb this has nothing to do with the argument. THe question is, where does the mass comes from? PLEASE do not talk about poppycock like the Higg's boson.

=======================================
DKV: You are asking me to put 80% mass in 4th Dimension that too with a huge three Dimensional Void which actually decreases the Effective Field Strength to negligible and unpredictable values.You must give me a good reason for that.

I am not placing 80% mass in the 4th dimension. All I am saying is that the complete wave representing the electron should also have a component along the fourth dimension. How to calculate this I do not know at present.

Regards,
Johnny Boy

Johnny Boy wrote:
"I am not placing 80% mass in the 4th dimension. All I am saying is that the complete wave representing the electron should also have a component along the fourth dimension. How to calculate this I do not know at present."

It think it quite possible that some component of everything we think we understand exists in one or more additional dimensions.

But I'd stay away from using 4th, specifically, as most people understand that to mean time.

Good argument DA. My argument comes from my postulate that an electron is not a particle but a single holistic wave-entity within which (i.e. within its critical volume)charge and mass are continuously distributed entities (not point entities). Although the wave itself can change shape and even energy when the potential energy term in The Schroedinger equation changes with time, time does not exist within such a wave; i.e. it is in immediate contact with itself over the space it occupies. Within the wave the fourth dimension can then not be related to time at all; i.e. the fourth dimension only relates to time "outside" the wave; i.e. in proper space-time. Similarly for an entangled wave; for example, a single wave consisting of two electrons with opposite spins. It is for this reason why such a wave, even when it stetches over light years can be decomposed into two single electron waves whose opposite spins correlate. Time is not involved and therefore non-local (faster than light speed) correlations are possible. This is not possible after the entangled wave has been decomposed into two separate single-electron waves: communication must then be through space-time. Two electrons with parallel spins cannot become entangled, but they can still form part of a single entity like an atom. In this case interactions ("communication") between them are time related because they do not form a single timeless holistic wave; I have coined the phrase that these electron waves are then enmeshed.

To summarise: In my view, entanglement of waves is similar to the merging of two water droplets to form a larger droplet; except that for matter waves there are no molecules within them. Once they entangle they form a larger continuous distribution of charge and mass over the space the new entity occupies. Enmeshment of waves is just normal superposition as is observed for all kinds of waves in nature.

Entanglement need not just occur for waves of the same type. I propose that when a photon excites an atom it does not kick an electron from one energy level to another. It entangles with the lower energy electron-wave which then morphs into the higher energy electron wave. I also believe that another example of entanglement is the formation of a neutron when a proton, electron, and a neutrino entangles.

Whether I am correct or not, everything becomes very much simpler when one accepts my interpretation. According to Occam's Razor, this bodes well.