If Something moves then we don't know the position/state, it becomes statistical (a wave) due to unknown acceleration/desceleration potential. The statistic's observation depends on the measurement precision. If (sub)particles were static, would the function collapse?
@ Ni Ge
Your statement "The statistic's observation depends on the measurement precision. " is slightly misleading or unclear in my opinion. Accuracy of observations is dependent on measurement precision, it is true. But there is an uncertainty embedded intrinsically in nature itself. And, so the assumption that particles have zero velocity or they are static does not holds. Also, collapse of wavefunction occurs when an observation is made, i.e., when the particle is disturbed.
if the particles were "truly" static, then there would have been no need of quantum mechanics and the notions of wave functions.
No. Such ideas belong to the category of hidden variable hypotheses, which have been experimentally proven to be invalid (unless one gives up locality --- which leads to other problems).
"If (sub)particles were static, would the function collapse?"
A free Dirac spin up electron "at rest" is described by: exp(-iµt)|1,0,0,0). Is this "static" enough?
Quantum uncertainty is informational uncertainty that can only be resolved by observation of (or creation/selection in) a specific state. The state of any particle must be either unique because it was designed to be produced in a unique state -- in which case it will be known by any observer that knows how it was produced -- or it is produced in an ambiguous state and therefore will be uncertain to any potential observer. If the state is known by ANY observer, then it is objectively certain and definite. It is still uncertain to any potential observer that lacks that knowledge yet that unknowing observer who subsequently measures the state must measure the same state as that known by any other observer.
The definiteness of an observable physical state does not imply a hidden variable. Hidden variables are ADDITIONAL to those that are observable.
Let's put it another way:
If I assume that quantum objects called particles are point-like fluctuations of .. (space, time, energy, information) and those fluctuations have indeed very short lifetimes – say ~10^-22 / 10^-25 seconds or less – with a probability distribution equal to its wave-like function, what is wrong with this interpretation ?
When the particle interacts, the measurement gives the parameters of the fluctuation at the space & time of the interaction, it is called the wavefunction collapse. Else, the fluctuation keeps its wave-like probability distribution.
It is wrong because it cannot explain the perfect (anti-)correlation when measuring two far-separated spins in a total spin-0 entangled state .
I would suggest reading
N.D.Mermin, “Bringing home the
atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody”, Am. J. Phys. 49, 940-3 (1981).
It displays the basic difficulties involved in reducing quantum uncertainty to lack of knowledge of classical degrees of freedom. Any such attempt would involve a very strange kind of instantaneous communication at arbitrary large distances.
The answer by Jurg is right ! But it should be worth to specify the motivation.
In fact this motivation can be simply resumed by the non-commutative logic of the quantum world.
@Ni Ge: Mermin shows just how such attempts as the one you illustrate fail to display some of the more peculiar features of quantum mechanics. If you do not try to understand at least that much about what can happen with quantum mechanical systems, you will not be able to contribute to the problem.
On another thread, Ni emphasizes the willingness to understand each other. By that he obviously mean that all others should understand him. Which at least to me is impossible, since his ideas are mostly too vague and cryptic to grasp, or obviously wrong.
Mr. Cornwall: It appears to me that your latest contribution to this blog does not have anything to do with the question Ni Ge has asked, but with various negative experiences you may have made with academics. If it is your experiences in academia that you would like to debate you should ask a new question and start your own blog.
The lack of focus in many of the blogs ResearchGate is publishing is a problem that should be considered. But ResearchGate will presumably make an open debate of this problem impossible.
I repeat my answer to the somewhat ill-defined question Ni Ge has posed: No!
The uncertainty in position of a moving particle is not (only) due to its movement, but to quantum mechanics. Remind De Broglie's relation. I think you stated the question whether sub- particle could be static, that is not moving. In non-relativistic QM, I should say no, because
Applying QM often gives zero-point energies
De Broglie gives an infinite wave length
Hi dear Ni Ge,
You have put a very fundamental question! We need however completely to revise accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) to answer it. It is impossible in virtue of existing hard circumstances, despite it is possible to do technically. Below text from my work, maybe it can be interesting for you.
d). Coming to the issue of Schroedinger's equation (SE) significance, we would emphasize first that QM expresses the “external behavior” of the particle and does not reflect its full essence. Why is it so? SE actually describes the secondary phenomenon (de Broglie wave) arising from particle’s movement (i.e. the behavior of “tail” only!), and the “owner” is actually not presented there.
For example, considering V=0 for freely moving particle, we get: λd = inf. By
the same we lose any data concerning to particle, i.e. our particle just
disappears! However, within realistic description we should have the
particle in rest condition. It shows that SE is a part of some realistic
description (as it expresses a part of real phenomenon only!) We shall
present a complete equation, satisfying the mentioned requirement, for
energy of the electron in first Bohr orbit in hydrogen atom, including fine
structure level (i.e. for n=1, l=m=0, ms=±1/2). We shall represent full
energy of electron as ...... ( Pg. 21) in the link:
Sincerely,
George
http://vixra.org/pdf/1208.0213v2.pdf
Dear Eugene,
you are too serious to launch such stupidities ... or you are so clever to see air ?
Agostino
Dear Agostino,
Now we are very close to the reality. What is Ni Ge proposed is completely right, The wave-Particle duality and the uncertainty principle are resulted only by the motion. That what I predicted in my paper, which leading to quantization of gravity. The phase velocity and the group velocity, and thus the uncertainty principle principle play the rule in the precession, light bending by gravity, Pioneer anomaly, and Shiparo delay as the result of the wave-particle duality. REview this RG https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Schiffs_conjecture_affected_by_serious_issues2 And then review my paper again http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059
http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Schiffs_conjecture_affected_by_serious_issues2
No Azzam !
You now return with a wrong idea by Ni Ge:
'The wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle are resulted only by the motion...'
and combine it with your wrong old idea on the quantization of gravity ... that for you should consist in the rewrite the Newton equation in your modified special relativity !
Unfortunately you did not read what I posted and neither you read/understood my work on the quantum gravity !
In fact:
1) The uncertainty principle is originated from the noncommutative geometric structure of the quantum world.
2) The wave-particle duality is completely solved in my quantum gravity theory, by means of nonlinear quantum propagators.
3) The quantum force is completely encoded by the quantum curvature.
Whether you aim to insist with your fancies, please do not address me other posts.
'Quod evidens est argumentum, liberum arbitrium esse merum mendacium ...'
Agostino
AGOSTINO,
Lorentz transformation can't describe the motion well, because it considers it is possible measuring the momentum and the Location of the moving particle at the same time, and that is impossible in micro and macro world also as a result of time dilation, where t'not equal to t. That is possible only in case of Galilean transformation where t'=t. Because of that according to my transformation, the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving train are impossible to be agreed at the location of the moving train on the ground at the same time during the motion in constant speed v because of time dilation. My transformation expresses about the wave-particle duality and it expresses about the transformation of the group, or the group velocity. Because in the case of the motion the group velocity is not equal to the phase velocity, and light beam is moving insider the moving train same as the moving inside a refractive index greater than 1 for the observer on the ground.
The phase velocity can be measured only when you determine the location of the moving train at a certain point in space on the ground, and in this case the wave-function is collapse. That is equivalent to translating from the motion in 4D to 2D. Now review the double slit experiment to understand how it is explained completely according to my theory, and then how the collapse of the wave-function.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
No Azzam !
You continue to insist with the same rigmarole, completely unrelated to my quantum gravity theory !
I am not interested to your empty criticism against Einstein's SR and GR !
WHETHER YOU LIKE SEND POSTS ADDRESSED TO ME PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND MY QUANTUM GRAVITY THEORY THAT HAS GONE BEYOND THE EINSTEIN WORK.
But now I am sure that you are unable to read what I have written in my posts.
' Quod evidens est argumentum, liberum arbitrium esse merum mendacium ...'
I am not very clever, Agostino, but I see air regulary. You can see it also, if You want.
No Eugene !
You are clever enough to understand that you are able to indirectly see air ... are you ?
The same happens for quantum particles ...
In the case of air all is simple, Agostino. Convectional flows. But quantum particle is the problem. Particle or field? Nobody knows.
P.S. I see air directly, Agostino, but I can't see nor particle neither field.
No Eugene !
I must insist. Air or quantum particle is absolutely the same ...
What you call 'convectional flows' are speed fields of air. But you cannot directly see atoms that form air. Speed fields are not free, but must satisfy some classical PDEs. Such equations are unable to encode motions of single atoms of air. So you cannot see them and neither describe their motions by convectional flows. But you can indirectly see atom of air by observing 'convectional flows'.
A similar situation happens for quantum particles, where dynamics is encoded by some quantum PDEs interesting quantum fields.
However nonlinear quantum propagators in this case are able to encode quantum particles and their interactions. In fact, by means of my quantum gravity theory you are also able to directly mathematically see quantum particles.
From experimental points of view, instead, we are forced to have an indirect observation of quantum particles, since these observations are made at our macroscopic level (exactly what happens for air ...) In fact one cannot directly see a photon or a neutrino ...
Therefore, with respect to your statement:
'But quantum particle is the problem. Particle or field? Nobody knows.'
my quantum gravity theory gives a precise answer: Quantum dynamics is built by means of quantum fields. Nonlinear quantum propagators in such quantum dynamical PDEs, encode quantum particles.
With respect to your P.S.:
'P.S. I see air directly, Agostino, but I can't see nor particle neither field.'
my conclusion is that you are wrong. In fact:
1) Air is indirectly observed.
2) We can mathematically see quantum particles and quantum fields in my quantum gravity theory.
3) We can indirectly see quantum particles by means of suitable experimental observations. (For example neutrinos can be experimentally observed by means of Cl-Ar machines.)
Regards,
Agostino
With respect to You, Agostino:
Are You mister "No" as soviet minister of international affairs Gromyko? (Joke)
Non-linearities is also my hobby (see question on my RG page).
Concerning observations in QM and as a whole it is the great philosophical problem. For example, Einstein to Heisenberg: Theory determines what is observable.
Regards,
Eugene.
P.S. Seeing air is especially simple in winter. Every morning I open window and see air.
Eugene I see that you like jokes ...
Well !
Air that you see every morning by opening window, is more beautiful now or at the soviet times ?
I hope that this my question is not 'a great philosophical problem' ...
Regards,
Agostino
Eugene whether you continue to see the same air of the soviet times this means that soviet time continues in your country ...
Does this is a joke ?
Regards,
Agostino
It is not a joke, Agostino. It is severe reality.
Humans are unchangable, as well as air.
Of course not. Maybe you should formally study a bit of physics before you put such very naive questions to the community? You seem to be only showcasing a lack of familiarity with fundamental concepts in physics. The doors of your local library are wide open, I'm sure .....
PS - Further to a question : this answer addresses the original thread question, and is directed to the person who asked the thread question
H Chris Ransford,
Ni Ge is right.....
The uncertainty principle does not appear in macro world because of objectivity. Objectivity means; if a moving train is moving in constant velocity v then for the observer on the ground and for the observer stationary on the moving train; when the moving train arrives now Paris, then during the motion it arrives Paris for both the two observers on the ground and on the moving train. Basis on that physics in macro world was built, and Einstein in his SRT adopted this principle in his interpretation of the relative simultaneity. Also, the reciprocity principle in Lorentz transformation keeps on objectivity. Basis on objectivity we try to understand everything in physics from micro to macro. Now what I found, if we refuse objectivity in macro world as a result of time dilation in SRT, then all the problems in physics will be solved, and then GR and quantum will be unified. Objectivity can be removed by reinterpretation of the Lorentz length contraction by considering space is invariant. That is if the observer on the ground sees now at time t according to his ground clock the moving train on Paris now at distance x from London, then for the observer on the moving train or the driver of the moving train according to his time t' the moving train is not arrived Paris yet, it is approaching to Paris and it is passed the distance x' from London where x'=R^-1x and t'=R^-1t and R is the Lorentz factor. Here by considering space is invariant, and by considering time dilation, both the two observers on the ground and on the moving train are impossible to be agreed at the location of the moving train in constant speed v at the same point in space on the ground at the same time because of time dilation. From that it is resulted the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle in quantum. Here during the motion in constant speed v there are two pictures of the moving train, one picture for the location of the moving train for observer on the ground according to his space and time x,y,z,t and the other picture related to the location of the moving train now for the observer on the moving train according to space and time x',y',z',t'. These two pictures are entangled with each other by the invariance of energy-momentum four vectors. And from that we can interpret the entanglement, and the double slit experiment, and the hidden variable theory, and what is the meaning of faster than light. For more information review these RGs
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_gravitational_redshift_is_a_phenomenon_based_on_gravitational_time_dilation_dont_we_want_to_exclude_definitely_any_loss_of_energy_of_photons
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_gravitational_redshift_is_a_phenomenon_based_on_gravitational_time_dilation_dont_we_want_to_exclude_definitely_any_loss_of_energy_of_photons
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_non_locality_of_the_gravitational_field_energy_a_serious_problem_for_General_Relativity_GRT
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Schiffs_conjecture_affected_by_serious_issues2
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_didnt_QM_and_gravitation_merge_yet?_tpcectx=qa_overview_following&_trid=QrvXXri1NfMavJ9DQWdYugjQ_
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_somebody_clarify_on_the_results_of_the_Hafele_and_Keating_experiment
@H Chris Ransford: above you write: "You seem to be only showcasing a lack of familiarity with fundamental concepts in physics." How about "Godhood & Mathematics", where you state, God is a kind of "only in mathematics" understood infinity? Eventually you are showcasing a lack of fundamental concepts of mathematics: God is also a POINT! In a projective line, remove an arbitrary point (= god) and you get an affine line, and this point becomes the "point of infinity", a basic, nearly trivial concept.
Another example of a blog that has gone astray completely! Why don't you try to debate the question that has been posed? I think this does not serve any useful purpose!
Dear Jürg Martin Fröhlich,
Objectivity is only exist in Galilean transformation when t'=t. But according to Lorentz transformation when t' not equal to t, objectivity does not exist. In fact we propose it implicitly when computing the proper time and proper length, and in this case we hide the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle in macro according to proposing objectivity implicitly.
Because of that according to the equivalence principle of Einstein in GR, quantum and gravity does not merge. Review the previous RGs I mentioned.
So can you inform us how objectivity exist in macro world????
Dear Eugene F Kislyakov,
The problem of time in physics resulted from SRT when Einstein tried to interpret the Lorentz by proposing objectivity implicitly. Einstein proposed objectivity implicitly and basis on that he defined the concept of relative simultaneity. Special relativity has modified the notion of time. But from a fixed Lorentz observer's viewpoint time remains a distinguished, absolute, external, global parameter. The Newtonian notion of time essentially carries over to special relativistic systems, hidden in the spacetime structure.
In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.
Now by removing objectivity, relativity and quantum theory become one theory each one will lead to the other in micro and macro. In fact time dilation in relativity means quantum theory, and if there is no time dilation in physics, then quantum theory must not exist in nature. Because of time dilation in nature quantum theory exists in nature.
Azzam,
you may see discussion of these topics in RG launched by Alexander Chepik question:"Universe is static!!!"
Regards,
Eugene.
Alexander Chepik question:"Universe is static!!!"
I cannot find him on RG anymore(?). Or the thread(?).
More precise:
Alexander Chepick "Universe is static!!! Yes or no?"
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics
- Quantum Mechanics