As basic issues I mention:
1. The uncertainty principle says that if we measure with precision an observable A corresponding to an Â, then an observable B corresponding to an operator B̂ non-commuting with Â, has no value.
Of course, there are different interpretations of the quantum mechanics (QM) saying that a measurement of A perturbs B, which in the absence of this perturbation would have a value.
Which one of these two views is more generally accepted?
2. The "collapse" hypothesis says that, if a wave-function consists in two wave-packets, and if we place detectors on the path of each wave-pachet, the wave-packet which didn't produce an answer in some trial of the experiment, disappears.
Do we accept this?
3. Entanglements show that certain correlations appear between the responses to measurements of the entangled particles. Thus, entanglements are nonlocal phenomena, typical only to the quantum domain.
Do we agree that they don't involve "superluminal signals" exchanged between the particles?
4. Is the wave-function:
a) ontic? By onticity it is meant here that in each trial of an experiment, what impinges on the detectors is not only the eigenvalues of the measured operator, but also the amplitudes, in the wave-function, of the eigenfunctions corresponding to those eigenvalues. That means, those eigenvalues impinge with a certain intensity which is proportional with the absolute square of that amplitude. In consequence, the probability that the detector answer is given by that absolute square.
b) epistemic?
c) we can't know because measurements modify the tested object - they tell us what we find after the measurement, not what was in the apparatus before the measurement.
5. Does there exist collapse-at-a-distance? In an entanglement of two particles A and B, like
Ψ = 2-½ ( |ψ>A |ψ>B + |φ>A |φ>B)
if the particle A is tested and found in the state |ψ>A, what happens with the particle B?
a) it acquires, at the same time, the state |ψ>B;
b) it acquires the state |ψ>B at the time of measurement of A, according to the time-axis of the frame in which B is at rest;
c) it acquires the state |ψ>B only when B is measured.
NOTE: I am aware that I asked many questions into one. Whoever wishes to answer may answer to whichever of these questions he/she wishes.
I guess the Copenhagen interpretation is the most accepted interpretation.
Concerning 1, if two observables are incommensurable one can not measure them exactly at the same time. So taking the famous momentum, displacements example you can measure the momentum but if you do so your displacements measurement will be wrong by an factor of h_bar.
Question two is hard to answer. In a nutshell if you measured a quantum state you destroyed the quantum system. And yes we do accept this.
I do not understand why people are so spooked about entanglement. As far as I understand you start with a quantum state of like spin 0, then you split your state into two. For sure those entangled states must have sum(spin_i) = 0.
But it could also be that I am getting it all wrong. If you want to know how to experiments with entangled states look into papers from Anton Zeilinger.
Best, hope this is not useless,
Stefan
Dear @Stefan,
I don't ask Zeilinger what's his opinion. More or less I know it.
The reason for my question is that I want a couple of hard questions to be discussed in detail.
About entanglements people are not spooked. A hard issue is the "collapse at a distance". Zeilinger did no experiment to ellucidate the issue if and when the collapse occurs.
But I don'want to give answers, I want to get answers.
First problem
If we see an object moving we never see it at a particular place.
If we see a stationary object we never see it moving
A state of motion is incompatibe with a state of rest.
These(the above) arguments go way back to Zeno the philosopher.
but nothing to do with the zeno effect whereby a process may slow down if repeated quantum measurements are made.
the mathematics of Newton and Leibniz ignores this and so, and so does Clasical physics, because
this(the newton Leibniz) seems reasonable on the macroscopic scale, which we see every day.
But nature understands this( the Zeno) argument, and with the help of waves which regulate this dicotomy and it
becomes true at the microscopic level.
I believe Fourier analisis is the best tool for this, a la Heisenberg.
No, it is not a perturbation, but is inherent property.
I would say completely indeterminate instead of having no value.
The second problem, that of collapse, is tied with the wave function not being a true physical quantity which dissapears. It dissapears because it is non physical, only carries information, and this information may change. This is admittedly hard to take in, but is the Copenhagen viewpoint.
@Juan,
Please re-edit your answer, mentioning at each sttement (or group of statements) to which question you answer. For instance you sa "These arguments go way back to Zeno". Which arguments go back to Zeno? Also, which connection you see with the Zeno effect?
Your answer is a tellegram, it is hard to understand.
"The second problem, that of collapse, is tied with the wave function not being a true physical quantity which dissapears. It dissapears because it is non physical."
If it is not physical, then what yes it is? Can you ellaborate? Also, can you indicate reference(s)?
Best regards!
Dear Juan,
Please also make it clear the following:
"If a quantum object is moving with well definite velocity it is not localized at a particular place."
The following two statements are tautology - a stationary object of course is not in movement. But the word "never" is wrong, because immediately after the localization, the object will move, and the velocity will be undefined. So, see the correction below: If we get a quantum object localized al a certain position, immediately after that it would move and the velocity would be undefined - any velocity would be possible.
To which questions of mine refer the answers below?
"I believe Fourier analisis is the best tool for this, a la Heisenberg.
No, it is not a perturbation, but is inherent property.
I would say completely indeterminate instead of having no value."
You also say
"the wave function not being a true physical quantity which dissapears. It dissapears because it is non physical, only carries information, and this information may change. This is admittedly hard to take in, but is the Copenhagen viewpoint."
The Copenhagen view does not use the word "information", rather "knowledge". But they didn't claim that the wave-function is not ontic. As far as I know, even non Neumann didn't say this explicitly - I mean, he was preoccupied by what we know about the quantum system before the measurement, and after. He didn't deal with the fate of that part of the wave-function, which, in a given trial of the experiment, does not produce a response in detectors. If you are interested, see below from "arXiv:quant-ph/1111.1088v2"
"In his ground-breaking book [1] of 1932, von Neumann investigated the quantum mechanical measurement problem and formulated a rule how to obtain the state of an ensemble of physical systems after a measurement. This rule was later substantially modified by Lüders [2]. It is the Lüders reduction or projection rule that nowadays is mostly used. The Lüders rule states that after a selective
measurement [3] of an observable  with discrete eigenvalues the subensemble of systems with the measurement result ai is in the (non-normalized, pure) state P̑i|ψ>, where P̑i is the (possibly multi-dimensional) projection operator onto the eigenspace of the eigenvalue ai and where |ψ> the state prior to the measurement. For an initial density matrix ρ̂ one obtains P̑i ρ̂ P̑i [4]."
(By the way, the rest of the article I didn't exactly understand, s.t. I can't recommend. I only recommend the part above.)
well, I dont realy adhere to the idea that it is perturbations responsible for quantum behaviour, that
was part of your question. Although it is true that quantum objects are easily perturbed.
I agree with your statement between quotes " ", similar to what I wrote.
Use the word knowledge if you like, close enough. If you like delete never also.
do not know exactly what you did not understand. Fourier analysis is a good way to express the uncertainty
principle with Psi(x) a fourier transform of Psi(p), see heisenberg book on quantum theory.
It is usually said that if one dual variable is exactly fixed, the other is indeterminate to the maximum extent.
I only claim that the ideas I express, are close to the usual ones. They dont have to be equivalent to others to the last detail, part of diversity that does exist. Yes there is a good deal of varied though about the quantum. I myself am uncertain about what the quantum entails.
regards, juan
"Uncertainty" is a mistake of translation. The original word was "Unschärfe", far less psychological, far less pathologic. However even so, the professional fault was already engraved : W. Heisenberg believed in corpuscles, and was upset that the "Shärfe" (precision) inherent to his imaginary corpuscles was not there.
The world war 1 is over by 99 years now, so we have no more excuses to still stick to the "Me ! Myself ! And I" kids and teens principle. However, SDW sticks to the egocentric "If we".... We are macroscopic animals. There is no justification to put us in the middle of the microphysical image. Sure, there are habits, but no justification to plate our macro-time and macro-space - which are mere statistical emergences, just like temperature - on microphysics. Our newtonian and macrophysical macro-time has no causal power in microphysics.
The Göttingen-København pack got the power by sheer violence against Erwin Schrödinger first (Christmas 1926), against Louis de Broglie next (Brussels, 1927). Their heirs keep the monopoly on teaching, publishing and popularizing. For ninety years, three generations, they have selected the students the most docile to absurdities and to fairy tales.
My attempt to breach this monopoly is at ISBN 978-2-9562312-0-2. Physique quantique transactionnelle, Principes et applications. I will release it to diffusion about Tuesday 24 October. You have an early version on researchgate.net at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313309517_La_microphysique_que_l%27on_vous_conte_est-elle_bien_la_bonne_La_physique_quantique_transactionnelle_expliquee_pour_tous The last free release, with simplified title, is at
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/Microphysique_contee.pdf
with filigrane, 27 September 2017. There will be no further free release.
Enjoy the reading !
Et pourquoi vous ne l'écrivez pas en Anglais pour que tout le monde puisse le lire?
(And why don't you write it in English so everybody can read it?)
Six months later, six months more work.
Six pages in about 30 hours. Yes it is a six months work.
I suspect how much my pidgin english will look as weird to natives as the very personnal french of Winston Churchill.
The historical papers from Erwin Schrödinger (1926-1933) are not yet translated, either.
Mon cher Klaus,
Arretez-vous un peu! C'est ma question ici, et c'est a moi, pas a vous, faire des envitations sur quoi ecrir ici. Je vous invite, faites des invitations sur quoi ecrir dans VOS pages!
;-D
(Avec sympathie comme toujours)
When you invoke "superluminal signals", you implicitly use the macro-time of the laboratory, which has no pertinence in microphysics. Again an anthropocentrism.
So on...
Concerning question 5, as far as I understand common sense a) has to be the answer.
As you described it you had a superposition of states, in the moment you measure A you fix B due to entanglement.
I know this is very unpleasant answer, but first of all proof me wrong.
@ Stefan Zitz : as standard, you assume that "superposition of states" means superposition of states, instead of superposition of knowledges. You assume that if you do not more know the position of the submarine, so the submarine "is" in a superposition of states.
This copenhaguist-standard description of entanglement simply denotes a five-partners transaction, instead of the simple transaction between only three parteners. Here :
One emitter,
two absorbers,
and the two spaces and/or optical devices between emitter and absorbers.
You have no way to compel any transaction to dwell in the newtonian macro-time of the laboratory.
Nor you have any way to compel the de-Broglie-Dirac ground noise to dwell in the newtonian macro-time of the laboratory. All the speech in "and then... after" is definetely meaningless.
Sofia,
#5:
after detecting particles A in state |ψ>A those particles B coinciding with A will be found in state |ψ>B with certainty. Assumed is a perpendicular basis |ψ> = |H> and |φ> = |V>. The Born rule says the probability P for a particle which is in state |ψ> to be found in state |ψ>1 is P = (|ψ>|ψ>1 )2. Thus, if P = 1 then |ψ> =|ψ>1, neglecting a not significant phase factor. This means for your example particle B is in state |ψ>B already before the measurement at B. As there is no physical action upon particle B between its creation by the common source and its measurement at B, particle B (only those coinciding with A) is in state |ψ>B already before measurement at A. How can this happen? A model for this is in my paper arXiv 1604.08105 which we discussed already. One important point is that the coincidence measurement establishes a connection between the two distant measurements.
Best regards!
My dear @Eugen,
Your article that we discusses is not something that I can rely on - our discussion on it remained in the air. I told you that if you calculate probabilities of measured observables and non-measured observables, you are bound to find negative probabilities, or greater than 1, or all sort of unpermitted things. I checked it years ago.
You see, it's not sufficient to prove some property. Yu have to test it in all the possible ways. If some test leads to unpermitted things, that means that there is some flaw in your proof. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to stay and debug your proof, if such a thing happen. It's for you to do this, to ask yourself at every statement and statement "could this statement be wrong"?
In my modest opinion, the answer to question #5, is the last option. To convince you WHY I think so, I invite you to read a very short article of mine published here on RG:
Article Hardy’s paradox made simple – what we infer from it?
It's standard material - I invented nothing. And I recommend it to every researcher in QM. You can see in this article that admitting that the particle B gets a value in consequence of the measurement of A, whereas B was NOT YET measured, is WRONG - leads to a contradiction. It is strange indeed, but it appears that B acquires a value consistent with that produced by A, ONLY when B is measured, and not before. (Did somebody promis us that QM is intuitive?!?!?!)
With kind regards! (And I advise again: find a few minutes and read that article - it's for your own benefit and knowledge, not for anybody else's.)
Sofia,
you was wrong with calculating probabilities, probably because you forgot the factor 2 in the value range of lambda as I had told you. I thought you did figure it out by yourself. My model exactly predicts the statistical results of QM.
I have commented on your article already.
Best regards!
Eugen, we were not born with antennas in the minds of other people. You didn't see my calculi, so, you can't say that they were wrong. I advise you to take the CHSH inequality and calculate all the involved probabilities
Prob(A=A'=B=B' =1), Prob(A=A'=B=1, B' = -1), Prob(A=A'=B' =1, B=-1), etc.
so as to satisfy the equality rather than the inequality.
You have to impose on the above probabilities the constraints predicted by QM, i.e.
Prob(A=B=1) = Prob(A=A'=B=B'=1) + Prob(A=-A'=B=B' =1) + Prob(A=A'=B=-B' =1) + Prob(A=-A'=B=-B' =1) =
where is the value provided by QM.
Similarly for Prob(A=-B=1), Prob(-A=B=1), Prob(A=B=-1).
You WON'T find positive values, smaller than 1. I advise you to do the calculus, I won't continue to argue on "probably you forgot", or other suggestions of "probably". You have to take into account that people are busy.
I said and I repeat, whatever proof you did, you have to put it to additional tests. But, if you are told that some test does not confirm your proof, though you take for granted that your proof is correct and the test has to be wrong, whithout doing the test by yourself, then I can't help.
Best regards
A precise measurement of an observable A with discrete eigenvalues will lead to one of its eigenvalues, say ai, and the state of the system immediately after this measurement will be |ai>, the eigenvector corresponding to ai. This itself resolves 1., since an observable B that does not commute with A cannot have simultaneous eigenvectors, and hence B is completely uncertain when A is precisely known.
Many-Worlds interpretation (MWI) naturally resolves 2. and 3. of the original questions that were posed right in the beginning, and therefore no superluminal signal is necessary to explain the correlation between two systems that are very far apart. In MWI there is no collapse, only a system-apparatus correlation whenever there is an interaction between the system and the apparatus. However, MWI has not yet figured out how to obtain the Born rule probabilities that are seen in measurements. It will be a major breakthrough for MWI if Born rule can be derived ab initio. (Please see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.4499.pdf and the references therein for a discussion on problems in deriving the Born rule).
@Patrick Das Gupta
Many-Worlds interpretation (MWI) does not explain another thing too: when the wave-function comprise two wave-packets, and we bring them to cross one another, how manage two separated worlds to meet for allowing the interference of the wave-packets?
MWI explains the which-way experiments, but seems to be unable to explain interference experiments. So, it seems that MWI has to be replaced by something which would explain both types of experiments.
@Sofia D. Wechsler
Thanks for raising the relevant issue.
I don't think MWI has any problem with an isolated state which, to begin with, is a superposition of two well separated wave-packets, and as the time evolves the wave-packets come closer and interfere, since such a state is a pure state by itself, and is in direct product with the state that describes the rest of the world. The time evolution of the two-wave-packet state is unitary i.e. interference results from Schrodinger equation just like in 2-slit interference.
If the two-wave-packet state had interacted with the world, there would occur an entanglement resulting in the full state being (wave-packet 1 correlated with world 1 state + wave-packet 2 correlated with world 2 state), brought about by an interaction Hamiltonian. Again, it is due to a unitary evolution of the entire state, since there is no collapse in MWI.
@Patrick Das Gupta
If the two wave-packets are in OUR world (and each one is correlated with another world), then, in which-way experiments, why only one of the wave-packets gives a response? I thought that the MWI explains the fact that only one wave-packet responds, by admitting that one of the wave-packets is in another world.
But, it is not possible that objects belonging to two different wolds, produce interference, because the two worlds are separated.
In standard quantum mechanics, only a single particle interferes with itself. If you are speaking of two particles A and B each described by a wavepacket, |psiA> and |psiB>, respectively, then these two wavepackets can never interfere with each other. This is because |psiA> and |psiB> belong to two different Hilbert space, and hence, |psiA> + |psiB> is not defined. The combined state for the two particles is NOT |psiA> + |psiB> but |psiA>| psiA>.
No, I didn't speak of the wave-packets of two particles, but of two wave-packets of one single particle, as for instance the wave-packets emerging from a particle passing through a beam-splitter,
|ψ> = |ψ>transmitted + |ψ>reflected.
In which-way tests, in a given trial of the experiment only one of the two wave-packets gives a response, fact explained by the MWI as each packet passing to a different world. But, if so, how can we obtain interference? If instead of placing detectors on the two wave-packets we send them to cross one another, how could it be that we observe the interference in our world?
I am sorry that I misunderstood your earlier comment. Even the `which way' combined with a `delayed choice' experiment is not in conflict with MWI. Consider the following simplified version in which a photon described initially by a wavepacket |psi> encounters a beam-splitter that divides the ray into two paths A and B, so that |psi>= |psi A> + |psi A>. Along path A, there is a detector in the middle which changes itself from |0> to |1> when it encounters |psi A>. Hence, if we see the detector state to be |1> then we know that the photon has taken path A. Afterwards, both the paths meet and lead to a photo-detector.
So, the evolution of the combined state goes as follows;
|0> |psi> --> |0> ( |psi A> + |psi B>) --> |1> |psi A> + |0> |psi B> --------- (1)
If we decide not to erase the detector information, then there is no interference since the above state is not proportional to |psi A> + |psi A>. If we erase the detector state back to |0> before the two wavepackets meet, then the final state is,
|0> ( |psi A> + |psi B>) ---------- (2)
that implies interference.
Eq(1) is totally consistent with MWI. The system plus world splits into |1> |psi A> |world A> and |0> |psi B> |world B>, and there is no interference.
In the case of Eq(2), we need to incorporate another system described by a state |S> that erases the state of the detector only if it is in |1>. Now, the time evolution would be:
|world> |S> |0> |psi> --> |world> |S> |0> ( |psi A> + |psi B>) --> |world> |S> (|1> |psi A> + |0> |psi B> ) --> |world> ( |S> |1> |psi A> + |S> |0> |psi B> ) --> |world> ( |S1> |0> |psi A> + |S1> |0> |psi B> ) --------- ---> |world> |S1> |0> ( |psi A> + |psi B> ) ----------- (3)
Eq(3) implies that when erasing happens |S> --> |S1>, so that there is now interference. The assumption here is that during the entire process |world> should remain as it is. That is, rest of the world is not affected by the experiment.
@Patrick,
1. I can't understand your answer because I don't know what is
|psi>= |psi A> + |psi A> .
Is this a mistake? Do you read your answer again, before you press on "Add answer"?
2. "If we erase the detector state back to |0> before the two wavepackets meet, . . . "
You can't do this. Not only that a detector is not a closed system, i.e. it is in permanent contact with the environment. But, more than this, you can't change the density matrix of a system. The system detector + particle is an entanglement. The non-signaling theorem says that you can't change the partial density matrix of one side, by making changes on the other side. Making changes on the detector won't change the state of the particle back into an independent state i.e. won't change the entanglement of the composed system into a product of independent states.
1. The photon described initially by a wavepacket |psi> encounters a beam-splitter that divides the ray into two paths A and B, so that |psi>= |psi A> + |psi B>. (There was a typo earlier, which was obvious as eqs.1, 2, 3 don't have this typo and are correct)
2. See e.g. Article A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explained by the Transaction...
for quantum erasers.A typical eraser that can be used is a polariser.
The quantum eraser can be isolated from the environment, so that there is no decoherence. This is fairly standard.
"The quantum eraser can be isolated from the environment, so that there is no decoherence. This is fairly standard."
a. You can isolate the eraser from the environment, but not the detector. To bring the discussion to reality, the detector is in contact with a whole system of devices, which, as simplest examples, are connected to sources of electricity, to the earth for eliminating external fields, exchange radiation with the environment, etc. No eraser would bring back the energy drawn from the sources, the electrons sent to the earth, the photons lost around, etc.
b. The non-signaling (or non-communication) theorem is even more standard material - see Wikipedia - it is a basic property of our universe.
@Jonah Lissner
"quantum entanglement can work at the microscale and macroscale separately and simultaneously."
Did you ever see a man entangled with an electron? Please just calculate the wavelength of the man movement - here is the formula, λ = 2πh/MV, where M is the mass of the man and V his velocity.
@Jonah Lissner
"Thank you for your fine and important Newtonian equation."
Could it be that you mix between Newton and de Broglie? The de Broglie wavelength λ = 2πh/MV is due to Louis de Broglie. Newton didn't know that a moving body has a wavelength associated, he died 165 years before de Broglie was born.
By the way did you bother to calculate λ as I recommended? It's easier to read articles upon articles.
Then look at this: for a man of, say, 70kg walking with a velocity of, say 1m/s, one gets λ = 0.9x10-33cm, which is 1021 times smaller than the nuclear radius.
Then, which wave-function can have a man? How can one entangle a macroscopic body, unable to have a wavelength, with a microscopic body? People should do simple calculi, just for checking what they talk about.
"The force of that wavelength of the photon"
Wavelength is a length not a field to act with force on something.
"Decoherence = observation"
Observation involves collapse, decoherence is not enough.
@Dear Jonah,
"if photons are superimposed, the mirror “gets kicked” in two ways . . . . . to see the ghostly quantum properties of the photons transferred to a larger object like a mirror, the Harris group focuses on making the mirror smaller and reducing the friction and heat"
The most typical property of quantum objects is that they produce interference. If the mirror can become a quantum object, we should observe INTERFERENCE between the wave-packet kicked in one way and the wave-packet kicked in the other way. Where the interference appears in Harris' experiment?
For interference fringes to be observed, the linear dimensions of the quantum objects have to be by far smaller than the fringe width. The greater the mass of an object, the smaller is the wavelength. For a walking man, you saw what happens.
"So far they have observed that the mirror has discrete “orbitals” for the entire object."
That doesn't make the mirror quantum. Our classical measurement apparatuses also indicate quantized values of discrete observables.
Now, the quantum effects occuring in life processes are no proof that macroscopic objects have wave-functions. A flower doesn't becomes a quantum object. But inside a flower there occur quantum processess. As a simple analogy, in the solar plates used for obtaining electricity, the photo-electric effect occurs which is a quantum effect. But that doesn't make the solar plate, as a whole, a quantum object. Analogously, the flower as a whole doesn't have a wave-function. For having a wave-function, first of all an object has to have a wavelength. The wavelength and the linear dimensions of the object have to be so as to permit interference. You can calculate the wavelength of the flower under different motions of it.
"lowered-resistance state allows the photonic ensembles to move similar to a superconductive state"
What has to do resistance with photons? Maybe you meant electrons?
NOTE: Jonah, please avoid long prose, it's tiresome. Tell me just the experiments.
@Jonah,
"As far as I am concerned there is nothing complicated about macroscopic quantum phenomena, it is a complex and great pheneomena that tells us about the ensemble behavior of photons and their broken symmetry in the electronic wavelets, particles or wave-functions [of which de Broglie's kind, for example in the l = h/p]."
I understand that I wasted time in recommending you to avoid phraseology, but to describe experiments, clearly and precisely. I have no idea of which experiment you talk about and I won't repeat my recommendation.
All the best!
@Jonah,
"As far as I am concerned there is nothing complicated about macroscopic quantum phenomena, it is a complex and great pheneomena . . . . "
This is phraseology and it is extremely abundant in your comments. RG is a reasearch place, it is not for making literature. As to the description of an experiment, you are supposed to describe it in a few lines, not just to pour references. Isn't it known to you that people are busy? Do you believe that if you pour references, somebody would read them just because they were indicated by YOU?
"If you don't enjoy lengthy and thorough writing in English, that is your choice."
Nobody on RG enjoys just literature instead of precise physical description. So, if you write things for not being read, I would prefer you not to do it in my threads. As to the explanations in my answer, the pre-last one, I saw that you totally ignored them "As far as I am concerned there is nothing complicated . . . . . .". I didn't say that things are complicated, I said that you miss the meaning of macroscopic object having a wave-function as a whole, a wave-function of the center-of-mass movement. If you want to entangle a macroscopic object with another object, you entangle them by their centers of mass. You are not aware of this.
Good luck and all the best!
The issues stated by Sofia D. Wechsler are certainly relevant for improving upon the understanding of quantum play of nature, which is not that transparent till now. In attempting to answer the stated issues we find that the delocalized description of matter waves is necessary but not sufficient. The description falls short of pointing out the basic necessity of setting up of the delocalized evolution with non-commuting position and momentum of a particle or correlation among particles that maintain isotropicity of space and homogeniety in time. The behavior in correlated evolution keeping up energy-momentum conservation over space-time speaks for tacit negotiation by the vacuum field, which with its infinite oscillation modes keeps itself neutral. The position-momentum non-commutation and particles' inseparability for individual wave properties are outcome of the negotiation for the neutral pose of the vacuum field. I do not have have comprehension beyond this.
@Dasarathi Das ,
The idea that results of measurements of quantum systems are due to vacuum fluctuations is not new. But it is of no help. Vacuum fluctuations are local in space and time, while entangled particles can be tested in regions separated in space and the measurements can be done at different times (especially if considering different moving frames). There is no correlation between the vacuum fluctuations at different space-time points. However, results of measurements of entangled particles are correlated.
I have heard about macroscopic wave functions in connection with
superfluidity or superconductivity.
I think a few things are agreed, for example the Schrödinger equation is generally followed, but that equation immediately poses a new issue: what exactly is ψ? The usual answer is that there is no actual wave, but ψ.ψ^2 gives a probability. However de Broglie and Bohm argue there is a wave (the pilot wave) and I also follow that with some additions that I have outlined in my ebook "Guidance Waves", referred below as GW Now, your specific questions:
1. In my opinion (GW) the values for the particle is generally unknown within a quantum of action, and a measurement fixes it to a value THEN. The wave always has a defined value, BUT we cannot know the phase, which sort of cancels that as an asset.
2. The collapse of the wave function is a particular problem in the standard interpretation, but less so in the Einstein view, which is, before measurement you don't know, after measurement you do. However, since standard QM argues measurement actually determines it, you need a collapse. As far as I can tell, most people shove this issue under the carpet. In GW, the wave has an energy (a hidden variable, so that has its own issues) and has to reset itself every period to avoid dispersion. The standard theory seems to avoid dispersion.
3. Who says entangled particles are non-local? That is merely a consequence of the Copenhagen interpretation, and alleged violations of Bell's inequalities. In GW, I have a chapter devoted to the rotating polariser experiments, and in my opinion these do NOT show such violations, because there are not enough true variables. One reason that I did not include (forgot!) is this. The spins are entangled because of the law of conservation of angular momentum, which follows from Nöther's theorem and the nature of space. Three determinations are made to obtain the necessary six variables, but one is just the rotation of the equipment by 22.5 degrees from another. To argue that creates two new variables violates Nöther's theorem.
4 There is no agreement what the wave function is. My view is it is a physical entity but you can't detect it. That is because of energy conservation; you can only interact with the wave through the particle or you violate energy conservation.
5. I think most people think there is a connection. I don't. I think entanglement is fixed at the point where the entanglement is created and each particle has its own properties. Entanglement involves some form of conservation law, and creation at origin is as good as any. The reason this is usually rejected is because of violations of Bell's inequalities, but as I argue above, I disagree these have been demonstrated.
Hans, I read your article. It seems to me there are two approaches regarding mathematics. One is that mathematics effectively generates the reality; the other is it describes it. I happen to believe the latter, but there is no way of knowing.
Believing in "function wave" is pecular to the Göttingen-København tribe and their heirs. Nothing such is shared in transactional microphysics.
We recall the six postulates practiced in transactional microphysics:
Then the moral principle: we refrain from censuring the experimental results that embarrass the doctrine in power.
Hiding so many experimental facts to the students is wrong, and it violates the scientific deontology.
Sure, so many experimental results embarrass the copenhaguists:
All the spectral absorptions, all the interferences as the anti-reflective coatings, quarter-wave plates, interferential colors, Goos-Hänchen effect in plane polarization, Imbert-Fedorov in circular polarization, all proofs of the non-negligible width of each photon. A very long list!
They hid from you the transparency effect Ramsauer-Townsend, which is strictly undulatory. But if the electron is strictly undulatory, how will they continue to impress the gullible public, by their mystic “wave-corpuscle dualism”? Many other everyday experimental results are incompatible with the corpuscular ideation of the Göttingen-Københavnists.
The economy of postulates and concepts is on our side. No more need to erect the properties of the Fourier transform as a new postulate: they are simply inherited. The magical concepts of “superposition of (corpuscular) states”, “intrication (of supposed theoretical and corpuscular states), measurement, psychism and consciousness of the observer”, all that is dropped: Your Majesty, I did not need that hypothesis!
Dear Ian,
You write: " what exactly is ψ?"
Schrödinger introduced the wave funtion to represent a resonance volume within which de Broglie had concluded electrons in stable states remained captive into.
This is discussed in this recently published paper:
http://file.scirp.org/Html/17-7503469_84158.htm
What de Broglie named the pilot wave siimply is the electromagnetic carrying energy that sustains the electron motion.
Best Regards
André
Dear Hans,
The first thing to be done is to define what you mean by "foundation". You conflate the "foundation" of theories about physical reality with a supposedly obvious "foundation" of that reality. Theories are human creations "founded" on human intelligence and reasoning often with an underlying "foundation" of mathematics. You seem to imply that the "foundtion" of physical reality is somehow associated with "structures", but please don't forget that the concept of "structure" is a human creation based on human intelligence and reaoning and thus is a "theory" and what you are developing is a "theory" of the "foundation of physical reality" which, to me, means that you are simply going around in a big circle.
Before you launch into "Quantumese" and try to rationalize everything from that point of view, rely on the fact that you understand that you are real and that's the only instrument that you have to make an analysis. I never forget this. I've found that there several things coming from QM that II use subconsciously. I use them when they occur in less than
Dear Hans,
You wrote: "However, the description is incomplete. For example, optics works fine according to the rules laid down in books while the structure of the photons is still unknown. The same situation applies to elementary particles. Their behavior and their properties are accurately known while their structure is a big question mark."
We know that both (photons and elementary particles) are electromagnetic in nature. We may now be able to define their inner electromagnetic structure:
http://file.scirp.org/Html/17-7503469_84158.htm
Best Regards
André
Dear Hans
I absolutely agree with you on all counts.
The fact that photons are made of electromagnetic energy doesn't imply any relation with the concepts of wave packets or waves.
Photons coming from galaxies can be perceived with a human naked eye precisely because they are not "EM waves".
Since the carrying energy of electrons is adiabatically induced in them by very nature, it is perfectly understandable why they raise no EM radiation as they axially resonate when captive in least action electromagnetic equilibrium states in the various atomic orbitals.
Maybe if you had a look at the recent paper I referred, you might find the explanations you are asking me for.
Best Regards
André
" Photons coming from galaxies can be perceived with a human naked eye precisely because they are not "EM waves". "
Precisely the big inherited mistake.
You project the erroneous boundary conditions onto the wave equation.
Standard mistake, but still unexcusable.
Again and again the confusion, we transactional physicists reject:
2.1.13 Confusionist postulate.
To deny the atomic limit in undulatory, prescribe to confuse all kind of “waves”, each individual wave (quantic wave) with any collective of waves, and these collectives with gravity waves or elastic waves in a collective of matter, then mathematically unify all these kinds: the individual waves (quantic ones), the collective, and the waves in a material collectivity. The Born-Heisenberg copenhaguism is founded on this trick, and it is so for ninety years. A hegemonic swindle.
Tip: an individual wave has only one emitter and only one absorber.
This mistake is less dangerous when applied to photons (the smallest quantity of electromagnetic transfer): They are bosons, so they attract each other and pack into herds of same frequency and habitus, especially on astronomical distances.
But this mistake becomes enormous when you apply it to electrons (the smallest quantity of electric charge). On the one hand, their minus charges energetically repel each other, so the collective energetically diverges. On the other hand, they are fermions, so they avoid each other, each in a distinct quantic state.
The teaching and the popularization pull your leg on this matter: they tell you that in an interference experiment, like an Aharonov-Bohm style, the beam of electrons has a common phase!
The fourth of the six transactional postulates:
2.2.4 Every photon has an absorber.
A photon is a successful transaction between three partners: an emitter, an absorber, and space or optical devices between them. This transaction transfers by electromagnetic means, a quantum of looping h, and an energy-momentum whose value depends on the respective frames of the emitter and the absorber.
Corollary. As soon as you admit that the absorbers exist, pffuitt! These “Collapses of the wave-function-spreading-everywhere” lose any interest, and are good for the garbage can of the History.
No: a photon diverges from its emitter, but reconverges onto its absorber.
It is the basis of all spectral absorbance spectrography.
Light is NOT an OBJECT that moves across space as either a Wave or a Particle; this reflects Old Greek thinking about Nouns and Objects when a more fruitful way of viewing EVERYTHING is to see Verbs and Relationships as more fundamental. Change in metaphysical thinking is the hardest change to make.
No, Hans I have described an intra-electron mechanism that returns the answer in one CHRONON (10-24 secs) but this needs a more flexible view of time.
@ Hans van Leunen
We human beings do not live in the appropriate "frame" for describing the photonic handshakes and transactions.
When you diagonalize a Lorentz transform, you see that its proper directions are on the light cone. And we will never live on the light cone.
For 1928, two of the components of the solutions of the Dirac equation of the electron are retrochronous.
So the ground noise, of lapping de-Broglie-Dirac waves is made of both time-sides of unnumerable Broglian waves, bidirectional in micro-times.
The laws of microphysics do not bother of our pride of big animals, human beings.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics
- Quantum Mechanics