The behavior of macroscopic objects is dictated by the principle of least action, or, its equivalent form, the laws of Newton. In the thermodynamics, the heat equation is a law for the spreading of particles, and has as an equivalent, the solution of this equation. Why should have the Schrodinger equation and its solution a different meaning?
Sofia
You are back in the fray with provocative questions.
Wave functions are hard to characterize except for the square modulus (probability density) and their characterization as waves (capable of superposition) ; their role in describing where the particle may be.
Changes to an operator in QFT
Out of that, we are in unknown territory.
Diffusion equation, not the heat law, describes the spread of particles, but classically. There is some superficial resemblance to Schrodinger, but does not imply waves.
Juan Weisz
My Juan, in the process of detection we pass from the quantum description of a microscopic object, to the macroscopic description of the phenomenon produced in the detector. The wave-function passes from a quantum superposition, to one of the components of the superposition. The disturbing fact is that this transition occurs without a current from the wave-packets that disappear to the wave-packet that remains. This is not the behavior of a wave. As to the behavior of a particle we have the problem that it is unable to produce interference.
That lead me to the idea that maybe the wave-function is none of both.
Also, the wave-function has no weight, or electric charge, or other physical property, the type of particle has these properties. All these things make me think that the wave-function is not an object, but a law.
Of course, I am not sure, otherwise I wouldn't ask what people think.
With kind regards
Well, that upon measurent a superposition only yields one of the states is considered an interaction with macroscopic aparatus, you are right that many consider this part as strange.
The wave itself carries nothing, nor charge nor energy. So no currrent.
However from electron beam interference or diffraction you conclude wave properties.
.
Juan Weisz
Juan, if the wave were a real thing, then it should carry mass, charge, etc., otherwise it couldn't interact with fields. For instance, the wave should be bent by an electric field.
However, if an electron wave carrying one charge, consists of two wave-packets, both are bent by an electric field, as if each one carries the entire charge. I have a conference article describing an experiment, and the quantum treatment. Though, the electron charge is only one.
With kind regards
Electron paths are bent by the electric field, so the probability follows.
Its expected behaviour.
How do you manage 2 packets for one electron??
Kind regards, Juan
Juan Weisz
My Juan! You ask me things that you know. In the same way as we have beam-splitters for a photon, we have beam-splitters for an electrons. Of course, the beam-splitters for electrons are constructed differently than for photons (for instance there exist gratings of light - if you want, I can give you references).
Now, look at the attached picture. The QM says that when the two wave-packets pass through fields, each one of them is deflected as if it contains the whole charge. But we have only one electron!
You see, if we would put a detector on each wave-packets, in a given trial of the experiment only one detector would click. However, if the wave-packets intersect upon a photographic plate, after many trials we get an interference tableau. The position of the fringes shows that both wave-packets were deflected in the electric fields as if each one of the wave-packets would possess the entire electron charge.
With kind regards again!
Seeing results this way relies on statistics, one path or another at a time. Builds interference figure, I gather.
It has been done, with this geometry or similar. They can shift the figure with enclosed magnetic flux.(Aharonov Bohm effect)
You can use a single positive vertical potential in the middle also. Electrons sent out pass randomly to the left or right of this potential, lens effect.
Best regards, Juan
Juan Weisz
Yes, Juan, the experiment was done. Its name is Aharonov-Bohm effect with electric field. It is a very nice experiment.
A wave function is not a particle or a wave. It is the best description that has been found, so far, of matter. Particles and waves are poorer descriptions of the same thing. The mathematical description of a wave function is a law.
I think it is better to think of the wavefunction in terms of Feynman path integrals. The 'particle' takes all possible paths and carries all its mass, charge etc. with it. This not an usual Newtonian particle but a multiparticle (maybe it is also in impossible paths). It can be imagined as multiple copies of the Universe which are stacked and grow any moment because new possibilities arise. When we measure at a point all these Universes either vanish or become irrelevant (not assessable). When the projection of the paths at the measurement point intersect they influence the result (interference). So this looks like particle (localization) and a wave (we project all paths in our Universe). Also explains wave collapse.
My dear Sofia D. Wechsler
1- Yes the Schrodinger wave-function is a law, especially its complex number isn't a real thing in nature, only we have a meaning for the square modulus.
2- However we have a special wave that spread in space and carried the information about the particle, and as a result of this wave we have the law of Schrodinger wave that gives us the probability density of finding the particle in space and time.
3- We need this special wave because the probability density (result from Schrodinger wave function) depended on all fields in space + the type of a particle as we know from the path integral formulation.
4- As a note:
In Schrodinger formalism we start from the complex number and even in the path integral formulation we start from the complex numbers too, but in my formalism I started from the real number only and I derived the path integral formulation (that contains the complex number) as a mathematical result, see if you want (section number 5) :
Article A CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL QUANTUM JUMP
With best regards.
Mazen Khoder
My lovely Mazen,
If one postulates a wave that spreads in the space, one doesn't need to postulate the wave-function as a law. The wave is enough. Also, the wave has to obey the Schrodinger equation, not another equation.
With kind regards
My dear Sofia D. Wechsler
We can't do without a wave because the probability to find the particle in a specific position is related to all other positions so we have something spread into all space...
But I think that the Schrodinger wave is a mathematical tool (based on complex numbers) to calculate the probability density only...
With best regards.
Dear Mazen Khoder and Sofia D. Wechsler ,
The complex numbers that appear in the Schrodinguer equation have a meaning, and it is something very real in nature just like the wave function.
When I publish the formal way of deducing Schrodinguer's equation, you will understand. As you will understand why it is necessary to use probability and what are the hidden variables that would make that use unnecessary
Mazen Khoder
My Mazen, if we postulate that the wave-function is a law, this law is for all the space, in the sense that it dictates the probability for the quantum object to be detected in some place.
My dear Sofia D. Wechsler
This mathematical law describes what happens not how it happen, we need to know how this happen, how the probability for one location is related to all other locations.
In other words, we need to find the locality process behind the nonlocality that appears in quantum mechanics.
With best regards.
Dear Sergio Garcia Chimeno
I wait for your paper, but I think (and I prove that -with God's help- in my article) that the complex number is only a tool to simplify the calculation.
With best regards.
Mazen Khoder
My Mazen, I understand what you say, but the wave-function (w-f) describes how the fields through which the quantum particle passes act on it. They do not act as on a classical particle.
I understand that you feel that there is a problem here. Let me say its name: on what acts the w-f. You say, on a wave. But in your former works - so I remember - you said that it is a jumping particle.
I am telling you sincerely that I find difficult to answer the question on what acts the w-f. A particle is a problem. But also a wave is a problem.
If you wish I can exemplify both problems. So, tell me if you want.
With kind regards
My dear Sofia D. Wechsler
Yes, in my work I stated that we have a jumping particle, however, it is not enough because the position that the particle prefers to appear into it, is related to all the fields in space, so we need something that spreads into space carrying information about the particle (like mass and charge) and as result, the space allows the particle with some degree of preference (probability density) to appear into it.
However, we can work separately on these two things:
1- Wave or something spread into space carrying information about the particle.
2- The jumping particle.
I have a very important reason for point 2 that you didn't pay any attention to, it is the effect of vacuum fluctuations that is a fact in quantum field theory but the theoretical reason is very confusing and it leads to the vacuum catastrophe, but in my theory, this effect is simply related to the jumping of particle, so, for example, I deduced the Lamb shift without the need of the concept of vacuum fluctuations, therefore the fluctuations are just an illusion, in fact, this is simply the action of the particle on itself right after the quantum jump happened.
With best regards.
Mazen Khoder
My friend,
Try to explain with the concept of particle my thought-experiment in
Chapter A Non-Relativistic Argument Against Continuous Trajectories ...
This experiment is my argument against the concept of particle. A particle cannot be at once in two places. You may say that it jumps, but in that case it must jump with superluminal velocity, and there should be a non-zero probability to be detected in two places at once.
The concept of wave has also its problems. If a quantum particle is described by a superposition |ψ> = |a> + |b>, and we place detectors on both wave-packets, A, respectively B, the detection by A is accompanied by silence in B. But if the wave-packets |a> and b> are far from one another, no flux of probability is observed from B to A. Similarly, in the case of detection by B isn't accompanied by a flux from B to A. This problem casts a doubt on the idea that the quantum particle is a wave existing in the reality.
With kind regards
My dear Sofia D. Wechsler
Let me first answer you with God's help about your objection to the particle concept:
Yes in my paper the particle can do a jump with VJ (velocity of jumping) exceeding the speed of light, so is this causes an inconsistency between frames of reference, that leads to violation of the law of energy conservation?
For example, if we have one particle, according to one frame of reference the particle did one jump but for another frame of reference observe the two particles at the same time instead of seeing also the jump of the particle?
First, we need to define exactly what we mean by "according to one frame of reference ….we observe...", one frame observes something, for example by sending a photon to it, so we need some interaction between the frame and the system. Now, the important thing is what happens when we observe the particle? When we observe the particle the duration ε (duration of appearance of the particle) simply will start, that means if we observe the particle again (before it disappears) the duration ε starts again and this idea is compatible with the "Quantum Zeno effect", this effect is interpreted as "a system can't change while you are watching it". So now, the jump is always compatible with special relativity because always we see V < C (V is the appearance velocity), we can't see VJ, in other words, we can't see the exact moment of the jump, we always see the start moment of the duration of ε.
With best regards.
Mazen Khoder
"Yes in my paper the particle can do a jump with VJ (velocity of jumping) exceeding the speed of light, so is this causes an inconsistency between frames of reference, that leads to violation of the law of energy conservation?
For example, if we have one particle, according to one frame of reference the particle did one jump but for another frame of reference observe the two particles at the same time instead of seeing also the jump of the particle?"
Yes, if there exists a frame by which the particle is present in the two wave-packets |a> and |b> this is a violation of the energy conservation. And though, I have an argument in favor of the presence of the particle at once in both |a> and |b>.
My Mazen, it is very late now in my country, it's time to go to sleep. We will continue tomorrow. Just please confirm that you read the present post of mine. Then, I will tell you my argument.
With kind regards.
It is interesting to analyze Bohm-Aharonov from an energy point of view, using a semiclassical argument. (Two paths around a region of magnetic flux)
Enclose one of the paths in a narrow tube, and try to join it with the other path
at the other side of the magnetic flux. Due to the Lorenz force you have to do work against the magnetic field. The energy in the tube is (hbar k) ^2/2m.
The phase shift is produced by the difference between k1 and k2 in the two paths.
When you finish the calculation, and the 2 paths coincide on one side, you find that the energy invested will exactly predict the phase difference found.
The whole buisness can be seen as conservation of energy. No spooky things like A phase shift.
However non relativistic, no speed above light speed.
It is easier with a rectangular geometry of the two paths, with flux in the middle.
Juan Weisz
Juan, I don't see what you want to say with your Bohm-Aharonov example. Phase-shift is a physical thing, it is measurable in interference experiments, it is not a not a spooky thing.
The interesting thing from the point of view of the quantum theory is that the physical properties of the quantum particle, e.g. electric charge, is present in both wave-packets, as if the total beam has two charges. Though there is another physical property, the intensity of the wave-packets. each one of the wave-packets has an intensity of 1/2 if we normalize the total intensity to 1. If we speak of the total charge we have to multiply the charge carries by each wave-packet, by the wave-packet intensity, i.e. 1x1/2 + 1x1/2 = 1.
I don't see what you wanted to say with the speed.
With kind regards
My dear Sofia D. Wechsler
1-"Yes, if there exists a frame by which the particle is present in the two wave-packets |a> and |b> this is a violation of the energy conservation."
In fact, the particle can't exist in the two frames at the same time for any frame because as I said before:
"When we observe the particle the duration ε (duration of appearance of the particle) simply will start, that means if we observe the particle again (before it disappears) the duration ε starts again and this idea is compatible with the "Quantum Zeno effect", this effect is interpreted as "a system can't change while you are watching it"."
2- But an important thing (please pay attention to), we can detect the effect of this very quick jump VJ (velocity of jumping) that exceeds the speed of light by for example measure the final energy of the particle in lamb shift effect!
I deduced the Lamb shift without the need for the concept of vacuum fluctuations, therefore the fluctuations are just an illusion, in fact, this is simply the action of the particle on itself right after the quantum jump happened.
With best regards.
Mazen Khoder
Please read my answer to Juan in connection to the Bohm-Aharonov experiment. This experiment proves that the particle is present permanently in both wave-packets. No need for jump.
Moreover, your assumption about jumps doesn't cope with entanglements like
|a>1 |b>2 + |a'>1 |b'>2.
If in one frame of reference the particle 1 is in the wave-packet |a> and jumps to |a'>, and the particle 2 is in |b> and jumps to |b'>, in another frame the particle 1 jumps to |a'> while particle 2 is still in |b>.
For avoiding this situation you might assume that in a given trial of the experiment the two particles are during the entire trial one in |a> and the other in |b>, or, alternatively, one in |a'> and the other in |b'>. However, such an assumption would be problematic vs. Bell's inequalities.
There are no jumps. Under the detection process in which the quantum object comes into contact with many particle, a macroscopic process takes place together with collapse of the wave-function. But it is not clear what is the wave-function itself.
Sofia
Yes it is measurable. If L is the length of both paths(say wires) in this model
it is phi=L(k2-k1)
What might be spooky is not phi but the use of A, I suppose you know the formula for phase along a path e/hbar time a line path integral over A. The difference of this along both paths is again phi. You dont have such formula in Classical physics.
You have to think this model in terms of energy conservation.
Stokes theorem gives you the relation between the closed line integral of A and the enclosed magnetic flux.
If you still dont understand, you must review Bohm-Ahronov, or I can complete the model further.
The key evidence for light waves is the Young’s double-slit interference experiment. After the discovery of the double-slit interference experiment of particles (electrons, etc.), the conclusion of light waves can no longer be established. "Wave-particle duality" denies light as particles because of the wave phenomenon, but recognizes the wave nature of particles. It is better understood that light particles have wave phenomena. Of course, light particle behavior and wave mechanism need new understanding.
https://book4you.org/book/18269199/bf2351
The key evidence for light waves is the Young’s double-slit interference experiment. After the discovery of the double-slit interference experiment of particles (electrons, etc.), the conclusion of light waves can no longer be established. "Wave-particle duality" denies light as particles because of the wave phenomenon, but recognizes the wave nature of particles. It is better understood that light particles have wave phenomena. Of course, light particle behavior and wave mechanism need new understanding.
Here is a new understanding of particle diffraction and interference，
https://book4you.org/book/18269199/bf2351
Daocheng Yuan
Wave phenomena can be explained by a particle picture of the quantum object, if a suitable distribution of the particles is assumed - see Bohm's mechanics. However, what Bohm's mechanics cannot explain is multi-particle experiments - e.g. experiments with three particles - see
Chapter A Non-Relativistic Argument Against Continuous Trajectories ...
The wave picture is also problematic, by having difficulty of explaining the wave-function collapse.
Juan Weisz
"If you still dont understand, you must review Bohm-Ahronov, or I can complete the model further."
My Juan, I still don't understand who is A. It is a typical symbol for the vector potential, but if I have to make guesses of the symbols you use, re-reading of the Bohm-Aharonov experiment won't help. If you use a symbol do say what it means. Neither do I understand what has to do energy conservation with my question. Please read it again.
You see, with the wave picture for the quantum objects we have problems because we are forced to suppose the collapse for explaining the point-like impression of a photographic plate. With the particle picture we have problems in explaining my 3-particle experiment
Chapter A Non-Relativistic Argument Against Continuous Trajectories ...
By this experiment the quantum particle has to be at once in two places.
As you can see, both pictures, of particle and of wave, are problematic. It remains to say that the wave-function is none of the two. But then, what yes it is? This is my question. The wording about duality is not useful because the Nature is One, it does not suffer of double personality. For instance, if the quantum object is a wave, then all the experiments should be explainable by a wave picture.
With kind regards
Sofia
In electromagnetic theory B = curl(A), and that is why you can say div(B) =0,
sourceless magnetic field.
In Classical electromagnetics A has no physical role, except auxiliary, but changes a phase in QM
It is know as the electromagnetic vector potential. Along with the scalar potential, forms the 4 potential vector.
My understanding is a single particle deciding to take one path or another with
separate amplitudes (probabilities).(The fairly conventional view)
This way of doing things, using A, is the usual for Bohm-Aharonov.
However it does not show conservation of energy.
The idea is that the energy difference between the two paths
(hbar k1)^2/2m - (hbar k2)^2/2m is to be equated for the work you have to do to join the two paths, in crossing the region of magnetic flux.(The Lorenz force)
This gives you the explanation of phase shift.
The rest is just technical skill.
I dont think original work on this assumed Bohmian mechanics.
More like conventional QM
In this experiment the electron behaves more like a wave.
Juan Weisz
Juan, you say,
"My understanding is a single particle deciding to take one path or another with
separate amplitudes (probabilities)"
It is not possible. Let's take for example a wave-function of the form α|a> + β|b>. There is a experimentally confirmed fact that the physical properties of the quantum particle, be it photon, or be it a rest-mass possessing particle, are present on both paths a and b. I recommend you to read the experiment presented in my conference paper
Conference Paper Self-Contradictory Properties of the Quantum Nature
If you don't have the patience to read that article, then, just believe me, it was experimentally confirmed. The physical properties are simultaneously present on both paths.
With kind regards
Sofia
It is entirely possible because it is a probabilistic rather than real conception.
Real would be launching two electrons, each on a different path.
You think this way just because both parths bend?
When the electron takes one path , then it bends.
I keep supporting the usuall conception.
Best regards, Juan
Juan Weisz
Juan, I don't read minds. You say
"It is entirely possible because it is a probabilistic rather than real conception."
Which conception? Please formulate complete sentences.
"You think this way just because both paths bend?"
Yes! When passing through fields both paths bend. Of course, on a screen we record at each trial of the experiment a single electron, however after we have recorded many electrons we get on the screen - if placed in a region where the paths cross one another - an interference pattern. The pattern show that in the fields both paths bent.
Therefore, each path carries the electric charge in each trial and trial of the experiment.
With kind regards
Sofia
I think if you read QM in conventional form, you would understand what I say.
The wave function, also called ampritude, splits into two pieces, or two alternative
paths. When you get to the end, it may interfere with itself.
The product Psi Psi* is probability density.
There is only one electron at a time taking either of such paths.
I dont think I should explain what books on QM say.
That the paths bend is the only possibility for the electron, given say a positive potential in the middle.
Reiteration of many single electrons at a time give rise to interference patterns, according to the experimental details.
QM is valid at a single particle level.
Juan Weisz
"Reiteration of many single electrons at a time give rise to interference patterns, according to the experimental details."
Wrong!
A single electron path does not produce interference. It takes two path and their coherent superposition for obtaining interference.
With wishes of health
(P.S. I wonder if the Omicron reached your country too. In my country they speak of a fourth vaccination.)
My dear Sofia D. Wechsler
Apologies for the delayed response.
You said: "the particle is present permanently in both wave-packets. No need for jump."
If the particle is present permanently in both wave-packets we will see a repulsion between the two packets what do you think?
As I said before:
We can work separately on these two things:
1- Wave or something spread into space carrying information about the particle.
2- The jumping particle.
The jumping particle creates the probability density of finding it.
With best regards.
Only waves interfere, not particles.
The interference pattern for particles is just a collection of many single particle hits.(according to QM prediction)
That is all I say.
The electric field of a charged particle has no force on itself, indicating that the electrostatic effect is the effect between the charged particles, not the effect between the field and the charged particle, and the electric field is an active field. Similarly, the magnetic field is also an active field. There are no flying passive electromagnetic fields (electromagnetic waves), light is a particle.
Dear Sofia Wechsler,
A law in physics is not a singular concept. It describes a “phenomenon” – e.g. conservation of energy – we don’t understand. That means: we have no idea what kind of mechanism creates the “law”. But a law in physics is also a universal “phenomenon”. Everywhere in the universe the law of conservation of energy is true.
The wave-function is a theoretical construct. It is in line with the outcome of experiments but the wave-function cannot be a “law” (or principle) because it is just a part of the QM formalism. Thus the wave-function is not a fundamental (elementary) property of the universe.
Anyway, you don’t catch the meaning of the wave-function if you call it a “law”. Because we still have to find out the mechanism behind every law in physics (e.g. the law of conservation of energy or the law of conservation of momentum, etc.). Therefore, in a unified field theory there are no “physics laws”.
A couple of years ago Sean Carroll wrote an article in the New York Times about the lack of a “tangible” meaning of the formalism of QM. A lot of theorists have tried to solve the problem (e.g. Lee Smolin, Gerard ‘t Hooft, etc.) but without result. Sean Carroll wrote a paper too (uploaded to PhilArchive) and the result is that the conceptual problems are caused by the vectors in Hilbert space. I am afraid that his conclusion is not really helpful for everyone to understand the “tangible” reality of the formalism of QM.
If you read papers about the interpretation of QM it seems that nearly every author uses the same approach. They try to understand the physical reality of QM with... the help of QM.
So why don’t you change your approach? Why do you want to understand the formalism of QM if all the others “fail to do the trick”. You don’t have to understand the formalism of QM, you have to understand physical reality.
In a previous comment (2021-12-06) you posted an image of an experiment that you want to understand with the help of “tangible” concepts. “Tangible concepts” about the underlying field structure of the electric and corresponding magnetic field are roughly known so you can construct a sequence of hypothesis and verify the credibility of these hypothesis one by one. Because every hypotheses has consequences and these consequences must be in line with the results of the experiment in the image (Quantum+superposition+b-w.png).
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm
Dear Sydney,
I cannot say that I understand everything you said. My attention was caught by your statement that
"They try to understand the physical reality of QM with... the help of QM."
Physicists try to understand the quantum object in terms of two concepts: particle, or wave. Could it be that the quantum object is neither this, nor that?
I don't expect you to answer this question, it is just a question that arose in my mind in consequence of what you said.
With kind regards from me too,
Sofia
Dear Sofia D. Wechsler
In terms of quantum field concepts the particle is an excitation of the local quantum fields. But this is an unfruitful concept because we all know E = m c2 and the formula shows that mass (and rest mass) represents a local concentration of energy (concentration of free quanta). Because c2 represents the topological deformation required to transform the “stored” energy of the mass into free quanta.
So if we stick with your experiment – see above – the beam splitter forces the electron to split. But electrons have precise properties. There exist no electron that is composed – for example – by 50% of the properties of another electron. Nevertheless, electrons can emerge and vanish (sea of Dirac). The consequence is that the existence of the properties of the free electron is forced by a mechanism that is always active because it is the creation by the basic properties of the electromagnetic field. That means that if we can manipulate the creating mechanism we can increase e.g. the size of the electron.
Thus if we force the electron to split with the help of a beam splitter we are forcing the properties of the electron to “fill” a volume that is determined by the setup of the experiment. Of course we can change this concept and state that ψ1 and ψ2 are entangled. But that’s obvious because the energy of the electron – and the corresponding vectors of the electron too – are conserved. And the active mechanism that forces the existence of the electron doesn’t stop at the moment the electron enters the beam splitter.
So it is difficult to give a straight answer about the nature of a quantum object. The electric field is a topological field – therefore it has a spatial structure – and the corresponding magnetic field (vector field) cannot exists without a mediating quantum field. Because 1-dimensional vectors have no volume of their own, don’t transfer energy and act instantaneous (not limited by the speed of light). Vectors of the magnetic field are created by the transfer of quanta and will determine the direction of the next transfer of quanta (creating a network of vectors in vacuum space that some theorists have termed “vector space”). That is why the long range vectors of Newtonian gravity as a push force – created by the quantum fields around – are super positioned on the primary vectors of the magnetic field (short range vectors). Because gravity is an emergent force field, without matter there exist no vectors we have termed “gravitation”.
In my opinion it is easier to imagine the “landscape” of the basic quantum fields than trying to “catch” quantum reality with the help of a precise description about the proposed nature of particles and waves.
With kind regard, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm
"In my opinion it is easier to imagine the “landscape” of the basic quantum fields than trying to “catch” quantum reality with the help of a precise description about the proposed nature of particles and waves."
No, Sydney, to run away from a question is not an acceptable policy. But it may be that the quantum object is something else, not exactly a particle, and not exactly a wave. But we work with classical concepts, particles or waves (fields), we don't have other basic concepts.
May I recommend you an article of mine? It is quite short. You will see there that the wave assumption about the quantum object is necessary.
Chapter A Non-Relativistic Argument Against Continuous Trajectories ...
Unless the conclusion of this experiment, I would have voted for the particle picture of the quantum object.
With kind regards,
Sofia
My dear Sofia D. Wechsler
"Physicists try to understand the quantum object in terms of two concepts: particle, or wave. Could it be that the quantum object is neither this, nor that?"
and
"we don't have other basic concepts."
The simple solution is:
Yes, we need Both!
:)
With best regards.
Dear Sofia D. Wechsler
Sorry for the miscommunication but I answered your question in the first sentences. Particles are local concentrations of energy and the local concentrations of energy are created by the properties of the basic quantum fields. Energy is a property of the electric field, the electric field is a topological field and “waves” are topological configurations within the structure of the electric field. Of course there is more, but 1-dimensional vectors cannot create particles and gravity either.
Thus if the setup of the experiment forces the involved quantum fields to show “particle properties”, the outcome is like it is a particle. But if the setup forces the involved quantum fields to show “wave properties” the outcome is like it is a wave. Don’t forget that phenomenological physics is limited to the mutual relations between the observable/detectable phenomena. The SI system of measurement units is the standardization of the mutual relations between the phenomena. The SI system is not about absolute quantities/values/magnitudes that exist in every point in space.
Therefore in my opinion it is not relevant to hypothesize which local property is dominant (wave or particle) because it is more fruitful to understand the properties of the basic quantum fields and how these properties interact with each other.
PS. I have read your paper but it takes some time to understand the setup of the experiment.
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm
"Particles are local concentrations of energy and the local concentrations of energy are created by the properties of the basic quantum fields."
Sydney, this a naivety. The concept of particle would not explain my experiment, unless one assumes that this local concentrations, as you call it, appears in some place, and then disappears and reappears in another place - jumping particles.
Unfortunately, the jumping particles hypothesis is problematic vis-a-vis entanglements if one considers moving frames. From the point of view of one frame the concentration would be according to the correlations, but from the point of view of another frame the correlations would be violated.
With kind regards from me too,
Sofia
Dear Sofia D. Wechsler
If we split a particle – an electron – with the help of a beam splitter it isn’t a “normal” particle any more. Because particles like electrons have precise properties and under the same conditions all the electrons are the same.
At the moment the particle has passed the beam splitter it is transformed into 2 wave packets. I don’t doubt that each wave packet has a spin and shows a similarity with “normal” particles. But there are no “half electrons” to be find everywhere in nature so I have to conclude that both halves (or another ratio) of the electron must come together at a certain moment or will vanish together at the same moment.
Anyway, the concept of a particle has changed in QFT. See Art Hobson (2013): “There are no particles, there are only fields”. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf
However, don’t think that it is Art Hobson’s article that changed my mind about the concept of particles. At the moment they told me at the secondary school that a particle and its anti-particle annihilate each other and their energy is transformed into a number of high-energy electromagnetic waves I proposed that phenomenological reality must be created by an underlying field structure. Nevertheless, I was very pleased a couple of years ago to read an article that described the same concept even in its title.
Anyway, the concept of a particle as a creation of an underlying field structure is really difficult to grasp because the stability of the particle properties of an electron are linked to the stable existence of the proton. Because the proton and the electron are together a duality. In other words, without a proton there is no electron. But if I state that the proton and the electron are entangled everyone is flabbergasted. That’s not a concept we normally use.
With kind regards, Sydney
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357717105_Generalized_Wave_Functions_using_Space-time_Algebra_and_its_Interpretations
Sofia D. Wechsler I think of the wave function as the equation that describes the position and momentum evolution of a wave. There is an analogy with the equation that describes the motion of a projectile in its parabolic path. This equation of motion applies while the projectile is in flight but ceases to apply once the projectile lands. This is analogous to the arrival of the wave at a detector.
Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics
Richard
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,
Every time I see a drawing of the wave function moving through space like any wave I laugh.
Even if you don't know what the wave function is, you know that for a wave to travel through space, it must satisfy the wave equation. That should already make you suspect that there is something that does not fit in that drawing since the Schrodinguer equation is not the wave equation.
Dear Sergio Garcia Chimeno
The drawing above - my comment at 10 January - is a drawing that was posted before by Sofia Wechsler. I only used the drawing again to facilitate the other readers so they don't have to scroll back to the start of the topic. (Now you have to face the scrutiny of Sofia Wechsler... :)
My concept of a wave is a sequence of topological deformations within and by the electric field itself. Why should I bother about the Schrodinger equation and the wave function if I know the mathematical properties of the electric and magnetic field? The only trouble is the communication with other physicists who can only communicate with the help of the conceptual framework (actually the formalism) of quantum mechanics.
With kind regards, Sydney
"Why should I bother about the Schrodinger equation and the wave function if I know the mathematical properties of the electric and magnetic field?"
Because they are different concepts. Tell me just knowing the mathematical properties of the electric and magnetic field where an electron that crosses those fields will impact
The question is what effect a magnetic or electric field influences a particle in QM.
For electric fields you would add a PE term -xEq
For magnetic fields A causes a shift in the phase of a wave function. A is related to B through the choice of a gauge.
Indeed, you need both wave (propagation) or particle (detection) concepts in QM
The wave emerges like the shadow of points in detection patterns.
The Schrodinger equation is also good to carry waves, same as a wave equation.
(If not why bother using the term wave function) Except one is for electrons, the other for light.
Dear friends of quantum gravity, cosmology and elementary particles,
In fact, I derived and explained quantum physics on the basis of gravity and relativity.
Pleased see my new book:
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355889856_The_Elementary_Charge_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity)
Kind regards
Hans-Otto Carmesin
I think, the wave function is a low as well as a particle as well as a wave. This - because of the causality and space-time peculiarities in the Microworld.
Quantum theory as yet is a never ending story waiting for salvation.
The purpose of science is to find laws. Laws cannot be proven, they can only be falsified. Therefore, the scientific method is to rely on experience to constantly criticize self-knowledge till the limit, and obtain the approximate law; the approximate law is accepted after social criticism, then must be tested by practice.
The theory of relativity is frantically looking for evidence for a bold hypothesis without empirical support, thinking it can prove it, like a cocky joke of scientific methodology?
~^~
Here are some empirical discussions on the relative speed of light, looking forward to your valuable criticism.
Article Photon energy and photon behavior discussions
THANKS!
The electric field of an electron has no force on itself, and the field does not exist alone. Photons are electromagnetic particles
Article Photon energy and photon behavior discussions
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude