(F)AQ for the cellular lattice model

  1. Is there free space between the cells?
  2. How particles emerge?
  3. What's the relation of this approach to the old ether theory?

The "Frequently" in FAQ is, at the current moment, an exaggeration. Some of the questions have been asked, in a modified form, in the PhysOrg forum.

Is there free space between the cells?

You talk about cells. Concerning cells, I would imagine areas of space with borders between, and that the set of cells completely covers the space. But the cuboids in your picture do not, there is empty space between them. So, is there empty space between them or not?

There is, indeed, space between the cells: Each cell may be moved, rotated and stretched, independent of the others. If there would be no space between them, this would not be possible. (But the border regions between the cells should not be necessarily large. Their size restricts the possible deformations of the cells. But these should not be large at all. If these rotations, shifts, and deformations are only very small, then a very thin border is sufficient.)

On the other hand, the space between the cells is not necessarily empty. It may be occupied by some other material, for example, some amorphous material or a liquid. As well, the cells and the material between them may be different phases of the same material.

How particles emerge?

How emerge fermions from cells? Is a fermion a cell flying around in space?

No, the cells remain on their places. They oscillate around them, like atoms in a crystallic lattice, but they don't move freely.

This gives a lot of different types of sound waves. (Every degree of freedom of a cell defines another type of wave. And there are even more waves — almost continuous waves and oscillatory waves.)

Particles appear only as quantum effects of the sound waves.

This is similar to the electromagnetic field: It is, in the classical limit, not a collection of photons, but a single classical field, defined by four functions Aμ(x,t). The photons — the particles of light — appear only as quantum effects.

The same happens even for sound waves. If we have some crystal, we have some sound waves in it. These sound waves are created by oscillations of the atoms of the crystallic lattice. These are, as obvious as possible, waves, not particles. But even for these waves, quantum theory leads to effects that may be described in terms of particles. These quasi-particles are named phonons.

In a similar way, all particles of the SM appear as quasi-particles caused by quantum effects. In a classical world, there would be no particles at all, only waves.

(There is one objection against this approach: These quantum quasi-particles, like phonons or photons, are bosons, not fermions. It was a quite difficult task to solve this problem, but I have found a solution. So, fermions can appear as quantum quasi-particles too, but only together with a boson. Thus, there is also some type of supersymmetry in our approach: For every fermionic degree of freedom there is also a corresponding bosonic degree of freedom. Fortunately, these bosonic partners obtain large masses, and this happens without any conspiracy, almost automatically. I see no way, yet, to obtain an upper bound for their mass.)

What's the relation of this approach to the old ether theory?

This approach has very much in common with the old ether concept. The most important differences are:

On the other hands, there is a long list of concepts shared with the old ether idea: