The Entropy Field Structure and the Recursive Collapse of the Electron: A Thermodynamic Foundation for Quantum Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJohn T. Solomon proposes a new theory (entitled S-theory) of electron to explain its spin, mass, charge, and offers a thermodynamic mechanism for electron-photon interaction, wavefunction collapse, and spin generation. He proposes not to consider the electron as a point-like particle but as a combination of three distinct entropic components: the collapsed entropy core (Score), the structured electromagnetic entropy field (SEM), and the diffuse entropy component (Sthermal).
In particular, the author suggests that collapse process compresses the Sthermal cloud and the SEM field toward the Score core, and leaves behind a coherent, spinning entropy structure that gives rise to measurable properties like charge and spin.
Indeed, the origin of electron spin is questionable even today. An obsolete conception stems from the fact that, in accordance with experiments, electrons must have an intrinsic magnetic moment, therefore, they must be spinning around their principal axes. Hendrik Antoon Lorentz has disproved the assumption by arguing that electrons actually must not spin around their axis, or, otherwise, they would spin so fast that their surface (if they have any) would be moving much faster than the speed of light. Modern interpretations involve quantum field theory (QFT) that handles this phenomenon by describing particles as arising out of fields that pervade all space. In particular, in terms of QFT, electron can be thought of as an excitation in a quantum Dirac’s field, and the unresolved paradox of electron spinning faster than the speed of light vanishes.
Thus, the suggestion proposed by John T. Solomon to consider electron as components of some field (in his case this is the so-called entropy field) reflects to some extent the ideas of QFT. However, the problem of the presented theory is that it bears an axiomatic nature.
In particular, the author starts from introducing entropic quanta that are fundamental microscopic elements of his theory, treated as elements of a complex potential field. At that, the entropy at a particular position is expressed through the number of possible microscopic arrangements of entropic quanta within a finite local cell. This makes sense, but before operating entropic quanta and estimating physical properties such as entropy, temperature, energy, etc. with the aid of entropic quanta, the author should have introduced the main features of entropic field. The key properties of a field usually include the lows of its interaction with charged/neutral particles, the obedience to fundamental symmetry principles, including the Lorentz symmetry of special relativity, the interaction dynamics between its quanta (implying the presence of exchange quanta embodying the interaction between different field quanta), which are dictated by the Lagrangian, their fundamental quantum numbers, including electric charge, baryon number, lepton number, or whatever that is supposed to be characteristic for them.
The author assumes that the core entropy field of the electron (Score) represent the structured entropy arising from the electron’s rest mass. The term “structured entropy” is not clear to me. I have always thought that entropy embodies the measure of how the energy is spread out; the more spread-out energy corresponds to higher entropy. In statistics, it is a logarithmic measure of the number of possible microscopic arrangements (microstates) that correspond to a given macroscopic state. So, the “structured entropy” looks like a nonsense for me. Equation (2) defines the Score filed in the form of Gaussian distribution, which is supposed to give an electron mass after integrating over space. Why it has Gaussian distribution? If the author considers the electron as a combination of spinning fields, then how he takes into account centrifugal forces in their influence on the distribution low of electron mass?
Unfortunately, the author contradicts himself by stating that electron (spin-½ particle) has Ω = 2 microstates. In his theory, electron is no more an elementary point-like particle. This becomes a system of entropy field quanta with unknown degrees of freedom and unknown number of microstates. At that, the number of the macrostates of such system is indeed Ω = 2 (with total electron spin up or down). Therefore, all further reasoning based on his statement about 2 possible microstates is incorrect.
To resume, I do not see any coherent theory of electron in the presented manuscript. I suggest rejecting the manuscript, because it does not give any advancement in our modern understanding of quantum properties and structure of electrons. Moreover, introducing entropic quantum fields is something out of the common sense, something comparable with quantization of temperature field. I do not believe that, if published, this manuscript will be perceived as sensible work on physics.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI can't understand the manuscript even spending several weeks on it. From the manuscript itself, the author wants to construct the entropy field, referred as so-called S-Theory, to reformulate the thermodynamic foundation of electron. However, after reading this manuscript carefully, I am still confused about what's the S-Theory which lacks related references and comparisons with other theories. All the formulars lack the references, which leads they are original, while in fact NO. The simulated results are farfetched to the quantum measurement, which are certainly beyond the state-of-art technique. In summary, I can't find the evidence to recommend this manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease try to incorporate my comments into possible alternatives (for example, with your comments). Please review my papers (I sent them to the Journal), which address the problem of introducing size into the quantum mechanics framework for point particles, as well as the cosmological constant problem when calculating the average energy density of the EM vacuum. Of course, I posed the difficult problem of introducing entropy fields based on kinetic equations. At the very least, try to consider this. Best wishes!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhat can be gathered from the presented text is that entropic quanta serve as some conceptual units for quantification of local configurational freedom (L. 105-106). At the same time, electron is a structured entropy field representing localized distribution of entropy density, centered at the origin and falling off radially (L. 258). Well, logically, this means that the number of entropic quanta should subside radially when moving away from the center. I see no evidences to that in the presented theory. The author just uses the Gaussian distribution axiomatically, without the explanation why.
The author has corrected the issue with the number microscopic/macroscopic states, but the formulae were left as they were; therefore, the theory (or interpretation, as the author prefers to call it) was not conceptually rebuilt.
In general, if the author intended to provide some thermodynamic interpretation of electron, then it must have been done with due logic and self-consistency of the presented interpretation. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The paper may be published elsewhere, but not in the Quantum Reports, which is a scientific journal on quantum physics.
Author Response
See attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEven the revised manuscript has been modified with significant improvement, I am still concerned about the novelty, especially the absence of comparison with the existing theories for descriptions of electron. I would like to ask the editor to decide the conclusion.
Author Response
See attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
