Dear Sofia,

yes it is the correct view at least for photons. It is the process which makes a non local entity like a wave-function (emitted photon) to become local (absorbed photon) in the interaction with Fermions. The wave-function is an entity moving at the speed of light which stops in a infinitesimal time (absorbed) by forming a mass Delta E=mc2. Such mass is just the difference between the energy of the higher to lower orbitals . Beside the collapse one should consider the formation of the wave function through the emission...the dual process.

Difficult to chose without experimental evidence... even to comment. Clearly, we can argument about the mathematics "flavours" of each model as well as their "fundamental" interpretations... but this, in my view, is not enough to chose about the possibilities presented today. At the end, we are talking about physics, or?

Dear Sofia,

Einstein's equations describe the curvature of space-time. These equations can be written with the stress-energy tensor or with the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor.

In the case of associating that curvature with mass or gravity it can be done with the stress-energy tensor since using a mass density (volume) fits very well.

But in the case of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor since it does not have any volume, the only way to associate this curvature with mass or gravity is by means of charges.

Massless charges that according to their spin are capable of creating mass and charge with mass.

Those massless charges, by not causing curvature or mass or gravity, it is as if they did not exist. And they are able to make mass charges appear and disappear here and there depending on the field.

I think that in the DISCUSSION section of this preprin is the logical interpretation that you have been looking for for some time:

Preprint ENERGIA FOTÓN, APROXIMACIÓN GRAVEDAD UNIVERSAL DE NEWTON Y L...

Dear friends,

I would like to stress the difference between the CSL model of collapse of wave-functio, and all the other interpretations which became popular, e.g. Bohm's, Griffith's (consistent histories), Crammer's (transactions).

The CSL model of collapse, takes the collapse as a real phenomenon. All the other interpretations didn't. Worse than that, those interpretaion proposed modifications to the QM. The QM formalism seems to have immunity against changes - each interpretation that proposed a change, failed because of that change, predicted for some experiment a prediction different from the quantum prediction. And as we know, the experiment always confirmed QM.

CSL does not try to change the QM formalism. It proposes a modification in the Schrodinger equation that has null effect for quantum systems, i.e. objects with a few number of components. The modifications become influent when the object grows to a very great number of components. For instance, in a macroscopic detector, a very high number of particles are involved in a detection. This is the typical case in which the modifications in the Schrodinger equation become relevant.

As far as I know, the people who deny the collapse did never bring a proof against the existence of the collapse. Of course, neither the opposite was ever proved, i.e. that part of the wave-function can disappear.

Is somebody aware of an experiment that proves that the collapse is true, or, that it is wrong?

Amy, how did you come to such a conclusion? I don't understand what you mean.

The Copenhagen physicists considered that whatever we can know about a microscopic object is the wave-function. But I speak here - maybe I was not clear enough - of the transition from quantum to classical.

All those with the interpretations did not explain this transition, they proposed all sort of substructures of the QM. And these substructures failed at the confrontation with the QM predictions about the outcome of one or another specific experiment.

What I see in CSL is a bridge between quantum and classical, without altering the QM. It's about this that I ask the opinion of the people.

Sofia, back asking these qm questions....?

Interpretations are sort of necesary for the human mind.

Its hard to be totally abstract.

If not the next time you solve a QM question, you would just imitate what others do, or think back to some actual experiment.

Do not know about CSL, but there are a number of known conditions for the transition between QM and Classical.

Action involved much larger than h , limit of large quantum numbers,a gas is not degenerate , wavelengths become very small, etc.

Regards, Juan

Really there is no any principal problems with the standard Copenhagen interpretation of QM:

- changing of states of material objects on the QM level are random; and this randomness of a system of the objects is described by a Ψ-function of the system as that probabilities of the objects’ states, including, say, positions in the 3D space, are equal to squared amplitudes of the function.

That’s all; however, because of that in the mainstream philosophy and science the utmost fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” are principally transcendent/uncertain/irrational, attempts to explain

– why does a rather strange imaginary mathematical function that exists in some imaginary specific space seems is adequate to the reality, including how the random interactions transform into “non-imaginary” and “deterministic” “classical” mechanics, first of all – at experiments with classical instruments?,

- and, besides, - why the interactions on QM scale are random at all?

- in mainstream physics failed.

So in physics some strange “observer problem” appeared, where some observers by some mystic forces determine by some mystic ways “Ψ-functions collapses”. And this problem remains in physics till now, and next and next “QM interpretations” appear, including that are mentioned in this thread. Which correspondingly are rather strange, as, say that

“…The leading idea of the CSL model is that as long as the system under investigation contains only a few microscopic components, the wave-function describing the system cannot undergo collapse. Only when the system increases in size, accumulating more and more components, up to a very big number of them, can the collapse occur ….”

Or, say

“…One of the most remarkable ideas in this theoretical framework is that the definite properties of objects that we associate with classical physics — position and speed, say — are selected from a menu of quantum possibilities in a process loosely analogous to natural selection in evolution… This idea, called quantum Darwinism (QD), explains a lot about why we experience the world the way we do rather than in the peculiar way it manifests at the scale of atoms and fundamental particles.”

Really a system of “microscopic components” fundamentally is only a quantum system, and, again fundamentally, independently on - how many components it contains. The QM uncertainty is fundamentally inevitable because of the logical self-inconsistence of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Change”;

- and that some continuous deterministic changes are logically prohibited, Zeno proved in his Great aporias more 2500 years already, when he predicted QM. Though one limitation seems, as that is suggested in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s the informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, exists:

– all changes happen as sequences of fundamental elementary steps provided that elementary changes of the physical action ΔS=ћ, what changes the information in the system on 1 bit.

As well nothing mystic is in that quantum “collapses” reveal itself in “classical” effects in macro instruments – Matter is rather simple logical system, which is fundamentally universally constructed, exists, and constantly changes, in accordance with a set of universal logical laws/links/constants,

- and so QM is adequate to the reality just because of the used in equations for Ψ-functions operators are some re-formulations of “classical” fundamental parameters of material objects.

That’s practically all, and so, say, some “Darwinian natural selection” [ https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-darwinism-an-idea-to-explain-objective-reality-passes-first-tests-20190722/ ] seems as full stop strange mental construction.

More see the https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/1; this paper is upgraded now, including the file has Russian version, pages 33-66.

In the paper more 30 other fundamental problems are considered as well, though.

Cheers

Amy,

Please do not recommend me articles. I work around the clock on some issue. Please explain yourself with your own words.

Best regards!

Dear Sergey,

It's difficult for me to read long texts. Please be more concise. I have such a busy time that I hardly have time to sleep. Can you pass over your text and shorten it?

I indeed work on the CSL model, and feel that it is better than all the interpretations tried so far. First of all because it does not change the QM formalism. I mean, it introduces changes but not as long as the system under scrutiny is quantum.

But I want to "hear" opinions..

With best regards!

First, CSL does of course make predictions that are different from those of standard QM. It just pushes them into a domain where they are difficult, practically impossible, to verify.

Second, CSL takes the collapse of a wave function, defined on configurational space, as real. If it were right, the space-time symmetry of special relativity could not be upheld. We would have a single time but many spatial coordinates. Our reality would not be spacetime but configurational space plus time.

Therefore, CSL is not a tenable theory, unless we are willing to give up special relativity. One might try to generalize CSL in terms of field operators, which are defined on space (in the Schrödinger picture) or spacetime (in the Heisenberg picture). Wave functions are matrix elements of field operators and the collapse, if it is to be real, would then have to be formulated at the level of the field operators, not by addition of a term to a many-particle Schrödinger equation.

Dear Sofia,

“…It's difficult for me to read long texts. Please be more concise...”

- sorry, but I don’t write in scientific discussions some bare declarations without arguments; and so yeah, as a rule SS posts are rather long. However I write also usually no more one post in a thread, and readers have time enough to attempt successfully to understand what is written.

Returning to this thread question, I can only repeat, that Copenhagen interpretation is common and correct enough to be used without problems at decryptions/interpretations of QM objects/events/processes; with the addition – see the SS post above – really there is no any principal “observer problems” in QM fundamentally. QM describes purely objectively the objectively happening things on its scale.

Real QM problems are pointed in the last link in the SS post above, i.e. in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/1:

- first of all QM should be re-formulated in accordance with the fact that Matter’s spacetime is absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), when, say, it is based on the SR, where, for example, antiparticles don’t exist - but they really exist; and, besides,

- because of in SR/GR - and in the rest of physics - till now the Newton’s definition of “Time”, which “of itself, and from its own nature flows equably”, is postulated [with principally strange and inessential in this case “relativistic corrections”] ,

- when time fundamentally, as that is shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, doesn’t flow to anywhere,

in QM the variable “time” hasn’t corresponding operator, unlike spatial variables, and that holds in spite of evident experimental facts [say, “natural lines width”] that ΔEΔt≥ћ/2, i.e. really time and Hamiltonian practically for sure are non-commutative operators.

Cheers

K. Kassner

You are superficial. It's for months that I work on CSL. How many seconds did you spend on CSL?

It D O E S N O T change the QM formalism, as long as the studied object is a quantum object. It changes the frmalism when the object is no more quantum, but consists in many components and it is not anymore correct to describe it by a wave-function. How could you succeed not to see this L E A D I N G idea of the model?

CSL is a bridge between QM and classical mechanics.

The collase principle is unavoidable. I proved it in base of the QM formalism. If one denies the collapse, one gets absurdities.

I agree that we may have problems with the relativity, but I am not yet there. I insist that CSL has to be tried very seriously on experiments without relativity, and eventually be improved. Only after that go further. One doesn't learn integral calculus without knowing simple algebra.

One does research by examining P R O F O U N D L Y different ideas, by asking whether they can offer advantages that E V E N their authors didn't see, not by briefly looking at them. I'd advise you to follow this way.

K. Kassner

this is quite interesting since it is directly linked with the Lorentz Transformations.

The term relevant to relativity of simultaneity vx/c2 would fail, on the other hand it has never been proven to have a tangible influence.

Stefano, my lovely friend, and Klaus too,

I am not yet there, I don't deal with the relativity for the moment, becase the non-relativistic version was not yet investigated enough thorougly.

Let me remind which modifications makes the CSL in the Schrodinger equation. it introduces two new terms: one term contains the coupling between the measured observable and a misterious "noisy field". It is a stochastic term. The other term is quadratic in the measured observable.

Both these terms depend on the number of components of the system under observation. As long as the studied system is microscopic, i.e. contains only one or a few particles and can be described by a wave-function, the additional terms are practically null. But, when the number of components begins to grow, as for instance happens inside a detector, where the studied system engages more and more particles from the detector material (which for instance may be a gas), the quantum description becomes impossible. It's here that the additional terms added to the Schrodinger equation become significant. And the more particles from the detector are engaged, the additional terms become more dominant.

Now, nobody knows what is that "noisy field". It is not a classical field. The CSL model must be applied to additional experiments, not only to a detector with gas, as I do. The properties of that field have to be clarified. Of course, at some stage the CSL has to be tried on experiments with entanglements. That would introduce relativistic situations. But, as I said, for the moment it is too soon.

With kind regards to both of you :-)

Sofia D. Wechsler " Now, nobody knows what is that "noisy field". It is not a classical field."

It is not a field in the standard sense at all. A field is a property of space. That is, it depends on three spatial variables (any coordinates that describe three-space), not more. If the object depends on more than three variables, it is not a field. At least not a physical field, which should depend on physical space.

Of course, one may generalize the notion to higher-dimensional spaces and call objects defined on these spaces fields, too. But they are not physical fields, because they are not defined on physical spaces. Examples for such non-physical "fields" are joint probability distributions or interaction potentials. A probability distribution obviously is not a physical field. An interaction potential is not a physical field either, but you can compute one from it by taking the gradient at the position where you want to evaluate the force on a test particle. The coordinates of the other (field-generating) particles are then parameters only and the variable making the quantity a field is the position at which you calculate the force on a test particle. This is of course a force field.

Unfortunately, this procedure is not generalizable to relativity in any straightforward way, because interaction potentials of this kind would lead to actions at a distance. You will not normally see interaction potentials in fully relativistic electrodynamic calculations. (In the static limit, yes.) Rather, you have to calculate a time-dependent four-potential via the Maxwell equations from the time-dependent charge and current distribution. And the back action of the electrodynamic field on the charges. Which leads to some kind of iteration. Usually a terribly complicated procedure, but one, in which (if closed-form expressions can be derived at all) only a single three-vector for position remains, all others disappearing via integration over the corresponding particle variables. Lorentz invariance shows up in retardation effects, i.e. the electromagnetic field at one point in space at some time is determined by the positions of charges at earlier times. So in the end the theory is compatible with relativistic symmetries and does not contain any fields on configuration space.

Amy, you called me lazy. How do you know that I am lazy? I work around the clock. What I work on, is the CSL model of collapse. It's for months that I stay with it, it was an enormous amount of material to examinate.

I am willing to read what you say, but after I finish my work. PATIENCE, please!

Amy Johnson

Well, as you insisted so much, I took a look at the article. It is interesting indeed, and I saved it in my database. But some things smell not good theoretically. It seems that what those people did is in disagreement with the "no-cloning" theorem.

Also, decoherence and collapse are different things. Decoherence is a condition for collapse, but is not the same thing as the collapse. Maybe Zurek refuses to accept this fact. All the possible entanglement, no matter how complicated it is, won't trigger collapse. Two more ingredients are missing: stochasticity and non-linearity. (The most regretted) Gian-Carlo Ghirardi together with Angelo Bassi proved that.

So, I do not waste my time with my work. On the other hand, thank you indeed for being so insistent, I have to read attentively those reports. That amounts to do on them theoretical debugging. But that takes time. I suppose that the article I prepare may be useful to those people.

I also invite you to read the last comment I wrote to Klaus Kassner, it is here below.

With thanks again and kind regards,

Sofia

K. Kassner

Dear Klaus,

Please tell me, are you familiar with the Ito calculus and with the CSL equation (so-called modified Schrodinger equation)? I am asking this for knowing how to answer you.

You see, a physicist named Diósi insisted that the noisy field is the gravity field. But Ghirardi criticized him. I hold that there is no chance for that noisy field to be classical, because a classical field can be tested. Thus, we could do our measurement on the quantum system when the noise value imposes a certain result. From this, to super-luminal communication, the path would be short. Unfortunately, some of the CSL supporters still think of a classical field.

My advice is "it's a pity to waste time with thoughts in favor, or against a physical field. It is N O T a classical field." Moreover, as long as we don't know what is this field, the CSL model does not explain the collapse. It just mimics the collapse.

But this dilemma is N O T a ground on which to refute the CS, I claim that it is a challenge to investigate it. Nothing is given to us on a silver tray.

I succeeded to mimic with the CSL the process inside a detector, i.e. when more and more particles from the sensitive material in the detector, are engaged. It works as expected. Reegrettably, it's wasn't done until now, although it is known from experiment that the collapse is triggered by the presence of a macroscopic object.

About relativity, I can't react for the moment, I am not yet there. However, which 4-potential? I repeat, the noise is N O T from a classical field. What I will expect from it, will be to cope with the entanglements. Bedingham tried to mimic the behavior of the polarization singlet, but I am not so pleased with that work.

Amy Johnson

Yes, Amy, I saw this. But, now, please!!!!! PATIENCE! It's for months that I stay on my article, I am willing to finish it as someone is willing to become free.

If you want, you can send me messages, I would answer you. But to read and discuss those experiments, means work to do. I can't now.

Best regards!

What do I think about interpretations of QM? I think they are absolutely necessary, although I suppose I would say that since I have my own one. Do I think the wave function collapse is a real phenomenon. Yes, but not in the way some people think of it. Take the two slit experiment with electrons where you shine light on the emerging electron. The wave function of that electron changes; before it would have diffracted, now it keeps going more or less straight, so the old one had to collapse and a new one be generated.

Other interpretations try to avoid the collapse principle but do that by falsifying the quantum formalism by introducing additional hypotheses. Disagree. Some might, but in the example I gave above, the photon changes the momentum of the electron which, from de Broglie, changes the wave length. Conservation of momentum and the de Broglie relationship are hardly additional hypotheses, bjut more acceptable physics, at least I think so.

And systematically those modifications lead to contradictions with the quantum predictions. They shouldn't, unless the predictions are wrong. I suppose my interpretation leads to atomic orbitals that are different from formal QM predictions, BUT the resultant energies are in good agreement with observation without any assignable constants , screening constants, etc. My view is any interpretation that leads to calculations that agree with observation should at l;east be considered as still in play, and any that don't ar ein real danger of being wrong.

Do you think that it might be possible to change the quantum formalism without comming to a contradiction with its predictions? Of course. The pilot wave, for example, is a totally different interpretation but as far as I know it gives the correct predictions. Similarly, my guidance wave interpretation assumes a real wave that transmits energy. That comes from the standard relationships, and the requirement that the phase velocity of the wave should equal the particle expectation velocity if both are to arrive at the slits at the same time and thus cause diffraction.

So yes, I think interpretations are important, especially if they lead to being able to predict something new, or find an easie3r way to do certain calculations.. But then again, having formulated an interpretation, I must be considered to be biased.

Interpretation of conventional quantum mechanics is big problem since bad mathematical formalism behind it. With appropriate definition of wave functions, observables, measurements (see "Scattering of geometric algebra wave functions and collapse in measurements" in my RG project and references therein) an "interpretation" not necessary, everything has clear geometrical meaning.

Amy Johnson

My guidance waves only carry the energy associated with the particle, and specifically that energy. Bohm's p[ilot wave "quantum potential" is not really well defined. There is an equation for it, but if you look closely, since the same term is in the numerators and denominators (as either the term or as a differential) it cannot have a fixed value. I see the wave energy as precisely defined by the motion of the particle. Of course, there is still the dead rat to swallow as to where that energy is - it essentially requires two domains, one of which is hidden - but equally it avoids the standard dead rat of if the wave function is merely a mathematical artefact, what causes diffraction?

Alexander Soiguine

Would you name one or two bad things in the QM formalism? Proposing another formalism is not a proof that the standard QM formalism is bad.

For claiming that it is bad, one has to offer experimental evidence. You should be aware of the fact that this formalism was never contradicted by the experiment. All the popular interpretations of the QM that introduced modification in the formalism, failed. (Regrettably, some of those interpretations didn't even fail because of modifying the formalism, but because of contradicting themselves.)

Ian Miller

You cannot be 'shovinist'. If a guidance wave carries the energy of a particle, it should carry also the charge, mass, spin, etc. Then, if the wave-function has two wave-packets, e.g. |a> and |b>, you'd come immediately to the problem how many charges carries the so-called "one-particle wave-function", describing an electron? Take for instance as an example

|\psi> = (1/√2) ( |a> + |b>).

Best regards

Sofia D. Wechsler

Existing QM formalism is bad, first of all, because so called entanglement, considered as boundary between classical and quantum mechanics, does not have flawless, logically consistent experimental proof.

Sofia D. Wechsler

You wrote: If a guidance wave carries the energy of a particle, it should carry also the charge, mass, spin, etc. Why? There is no requirement for a wave to carry charge, and the standard wave function does not carry any of those. All that is required is the wave complies with

ψ = Aexp(2πiS/h), and the energy be proportional to A^2, the latter requirement being what standard waves do.

Consider a ship going through water. It generates a wave that transmits the energy lost by the ship, but otherwise it has no properties associated with the ship. You cannot disprove a premise with mathematics dependent on a different premise. State vector formalism has a specific set of assumptions behind it, and you cannot apply it to something that does not have those premises to disprove it.

As an aside, what exactly is a "shovinist"?

Amy Johnson

Mathematics deals with numbers, not physical entities. Quantum particles carry energy, momentum, and in the two-slit experiment, produce a pattern of points that is physically observable. This answer is being written on a computer that works because of quantum mechanics.

Amy Johnson

That every electron is identical to all others is indisputable, but that does not make them numbers. Every benzene molecule is identical to every other one, and I could show you a bottle of benzene, and it is not a bottle of numbers.

You cannot prove physics with mathematics because you can have mathematical relationships that do not apply. Your mentioning of Bell's Inequalities is interesting because they are derivable from simple set theory. The so-called violations, if true, would, from the requirement that you can only violate what is in the relationship, imply all mathematics is wrong. Fortunately, as I have argued elsewhere, there are no such violations properly demonstrated because such experiments are always consistent with wave physics and waves always comply with the conservation laws. If the rotating polarizer experiment really demonstrated violations, it requires a failure of the law of conservation of energy. Fortunately, the result is wrong because you have insufficient true variables. For example, in the rotating p[olariser experiment you cannot generate two new variables just by rotating the apparatus.

Amy Johnson

As the Wikipedia article on Tsirelson's boundary starts, "Given that quantum mechanics is non local".

Sorry, but as Aristotle noted well over two millennia ago, you cannot prove it is non-local by assuming it in the first place.

Ian Miller

I meant by "shovinism" the fact that you admit that the wave-function carries energy, but not the other properties of the type of particle. Why give the energy a priviledged status? That's not fair.

Now, Ian, how well do you know QM? You wrote " ψ = Aexp(2πiS/h), and the energy be proportional to A^2, the latter requirement being what standard waves do." God Allmighty, don't you know Planck's formula? The energy is given by h\nu. You can't speak of QM and work with formulas of classical physics. Please have a look in a book on QM.

With kind regards

To all the participants in this thread,

The principle of collapse of the wave-function cannot be avoided. Denying this principle leads to contradictions with the quantum formalism and with the experimental facts known to us. The proof of the unavoidable of this principle is done in section 3 of

Preprint In Praise and in Criticism of the Model of Continuous Sponta...

This work explains that the CSL model of collapse is much superior to the different so-called 'interpretations' of the quantum mechanics. All the popular 'interpretations' ignore the fact that the (supposed) collapse of the wave-function occurs at the encounter of the microscopic system with a macroscopic object. The CSL model is built on the idea that only the interaction with a macroscopic object can produce the reduction of the wave-function. The model gives the possibility to follow what happens in a macroscopic detector during the detector process, possibility that none of the 'interpretations' can offer.

Sofia D. Wechsler

There is a difference between E and ψ. As for looking at a book on QM, that relationship for ψ is quoted in Schiff, in Landau and Lifshitz, and in others. Exactly why you think that the exponential form of a wave, and thus being complex, is alien to QM I have no idea. What other wave functions are complex? Why you think the period of the wave is defined by the action in terms of units of Planck's quantum of action is classical, again I have no idea. You might care to explain.

Amy Johnson

I never claimed the maths are wrong or anything. I stated that it assumes non-locality. Most involved also believe that, but if it is not non-local it does not apply.

The concept of wave function collapse depends critically on what you think the wave function is. If you think it is not a real wave, but a probability distribution, and the probabilities are physically real as opposed to representing what you don't know yet, then of course it has to collapse. If the wave is something else, then the question is more open.

Ian Miller

Would you care to read my comment before you react? I have nothing against the way you wrote the wave-function for a plane wave, I protested against the way you wrote the energy of a quantum system. It is h\nu, for any quantum system, photon or mass-possessing particle, even for the center-of-mass of an atom, when its movement is describable by the quantum mechanics. I say again, look in a book on quantum mechanics.

The energy of a classical wave, containing a huge number of particles, is proportional with the square of the amplitude of the wave.

Sofia D. Wechsler

Sorry. A^2 represents the energy of a classical wave because it represents the amount of whatever in the distribution. If it were a probability wave, A^2 =1. That is a property of waves, and it has nothing to do with how many particles are there. The Energy is hν, which comes from E/ν = Eτ = S per period, which equals h. For the particle going from A to B, the energy is mv^2/2, and that is the energy of the quantum particle which also equals hν. But the energy of the wave, when it is not a probability wave, does not fit that so I regard it as the amplitude indicates how much energy is in it. It may surprise you, but it opens up a lot of simplifications to calculations of stationary states, particularly of the chemical bond. If nature agrees with my calculations, I tend to think the method has some merit.

I offered a very simple ("childish") interpretation of the principles of superposition and reduction of the wave function. It is presented in a small article (no math)

https://vixra.org/abs/1801.0379

Christian Baumgarten

As Aristotle showed, in logic you can only derive from a more fundamental premise. To derive the meaning of ψ we need something more fundamental. That we have not got something is why we have the various interpretations. Right now quantum mechanics starts with ψ

More or less, all interpretations of quantum mechanics share two qualities:

They interpret a formalism—a set of equations and principles to generate predictions via input of initial conditions

They interpret a phenomenology—a set of observations, including those obtained by empirical research and those obtained informally, such as humans' experience of an unequivocal world

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Two qualities vary among interpretations:

Ontology—claims about what things, such as categories and entities, exist in the world

Epistemology—claims about the possibility, scope, and means toward relevant knowledge of the world

In philosophy of science, the distinction of knowledge versus reality is termed epistemic versus ontic. A general law is a regularity of outcomes (epistemic), whereas a causal mechanism may regulate the outcomes (ontic). A phenomenon can receive interpretation either ontic or epistemic. For instance, indeterminism may be attributed to limitations of human observation and perception (epistemic), or may be explained as a real existing maybe encoded in the universe (ontic). Confusing the epistemic with the ontic, like if one were to presume that a general law actually "governs" outcomes—and that the statement of a regularity has the role of a causal mechanism—is a category mistake.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Interpretive challenges

Abstract, mathematical nature of quantum field theories: the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics is mathematically abstract without clear interpretation of its quantities.

Existence of apparently indeterministic and irreversible processes: in classical field theory, a physical property at a given location in the field is readily derived. In most mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics, measurement is given a special role in the theory, as it is the sole process that can cause a nonunitary, irreversible evolution of the state.

Role of the observer in determining outcomes: the Copenhagen Interpretation implies that the wavefunction is a calculational tool, and represents reality only immediately after a measurement, perhaps performed by an observer; Everettian interpretations grant that all the possibilities can be real, and that the process of measurement-type interactions cause an effective branching process.

Classically unexpected correlations between remote objects: entangled quantum systems, as illustrated in the EPR paradox, obey statistics that seem to violate principles of local causality.

Complementarity of proffered descriptions: complementarity holds that no set of classical physical concepts can simultaneously refer to all properties of a quantum system. For instance, wave description A and particulate description B can each describe quantum system S, but not simultaneously. This implies the composition of physical properties of S does not obey the rules of classical propositional logic when using propositional connectives. Like contextuality, the "origin of complementarity lies in the non-commutativity of operators" that describe quantum objects (Omnès 1999).

Rapidly rising intricacy, far exceeding humans' present calculational capacity, as a system's size increases: since the state space of a quantum system is exponential in the number of subsystems, it is difficult to derive classical approximations.

Contextual behaviour of systems locally: Quantum contextuality demonstrates that classical intuitions in which properties of a system hold definite values, independent of the manner of their measurement, fails even for local systems. Also, physical principles such as Leibniz's Principle of the identity of indiscernibles no longer apply in the quantum domain, signalling that most classical intuitions may be incorrect about the quantum world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) model is the most refined and studied among collapse models. A well-known problem of this model and of similar ones, is the steady and unlimited increase of the energy induced by the collapse noise.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12518

Christian Baumgarten

Dear Christian, are you familiar with the CSL model of collapse?

It is not an interpretation, it mimics the collapse. Unfortunately, the users do not read all my replies. I can understand this, people are busy. But I already explained, in a some longer reply to Klaus Kassner, that CSL is NOT an interpretation. The equation proposed by the model is obtained from basic laws (very rigorous in my opinion). However, the equation contains a noisy field (for obtaining stochastic results), and NOBODY KNOWS what is this field. So, one cannot call CSL an interpretation. Though, it is a good tool for investigating the collapse. None of the interpretations is as useful as CSL.

I would recommend you to invest a few minutes and read my

Preprint In Praise and in Criticism of the Model of Continuous Sponta...

I know that people don't have patience to read one more article. Though, I insist. There are also proofs there, that the collapse principle cannot be denied without quarrelling with the QM. Even the authors of CSL did not prove that the collapse hypothesis is unavoidable. I proved.

Best regards

Amy Johnson

That an electron can be in two places at the same time is merely an assertion for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Every time an electron is observed, it is recorded as a point. If you refer to something like the 2-slit experiment, first all evidence is the electron, or photon for that matter, only goes through one slit. But consider also that C60 molecules (and some even bigger ones) also give the 2-slit response. If you think they go through both slits, how to they divide, how do they know the slits are there before they meet them, how do they recombine, and most importantly why don't we see the huge energy transfer required from each side of the slits? If you think it is due to the electron being an excitation of a field, do you really think there is a field for every molecule? That is an enormous number of fields.

Chinaza Godswill Awuchi

Dear Dr. Awuchi, I congratulate you for the beauty of your comments. In your profile I see that quantum mechanics (QM) is not from your main domains of research, so that I admire your erudition.

I would like to refer to the comment in which you speak of CSL. Yes, it is the best, but it is not an interpretation yet, because the equation the model proposes, contains a noisy (stochastic) pertubation whose nature is not known. What we can say for sure is that it is not a classical field.

I doubt the production of many particles at localization, I am not sure that it has to happen, because the localization itself occurs under a macroscopic measurement. A lot of particles from the detector, or from the macroscopic object, are involved in the detection. The total system transits from the initial microscopic system of one or a few components, to a system with a very big number of components. The latter is a classical system. The transition occurs gradually, more and more particles from the detector are involved.

Can you afford a couple of minutes and read my last preprint? I follow there this process step by step. I show how, with the increase of the number of particles involved, the localization progresses.

Preprint In Praise and in Criticism of the Model of Continuous Sponta...

However, my work is only a beginning, I intend to apply the CSL model to additional types of detection than with a detector. For instance, I'd like to try a photographic plate.

With kindest regards,

Sofia

Amy Johnson

Neither tunnelling nor the two slit experiment prove the particle can be in two places at the same time, because both require the assertion there is no wave. If you assume there is a wave, and the particle has a certain probability of being anywhere within the wave, then there is no observation that is not in accord with that, at least of which I am aware. Tunnelling occurs because no practical barrier offers infinite wave impedance, which is a requirement for 100% reflection of a wave. In the 2-slit experiment, Bohm showed what would result if the photon only went through one slit, and this prediction was exactly confirmed by Kocsis, S. and 6 others. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173. In this case, nature shows that each photon follows one path through one slit. To be in two places at the same time requires either the particle divides into two of half mass (in which the de Broglie wave length would double because the mass of each is half, and the width of the diffraction patterns shows this does not happen) or the law of conservation of energy is broken on one side off the slits and restored on the other, which returns to my question, how can this conceivably work?

Amy Johnson

Ad verecundiam

Christian Baumgarten

I read the abstract of the article you mention, and I read now the experiment. I suppose that there is a mistake in their experiment, but I have to complete the reading.

Anyway, Bohm's mechanics is dead. Trajectories, as a substructure of the QM, contradict the QM predictions, as I proved in a former article.

But, please, I do not want right now do delve in a discussion of other topics than the CSL model. If you read this article - especially the tables in section 5.2, you will see that a measurement on a quantum system cannot be done at half of the evolution of the system.

Also, my article on CSL has nothing to do with 'jumps'. To speak of jumps, I repeat, is to assume a particle that disappears from one place and re-appears in another place. This is not possible, it would contradict the experiment, but again I say that I won't delve in another topic for the moment.

Thanks for the article, I am reading it, but I don't know whether I should complicate my CSL article with reviewing articles not directly connected with the CSL model.

Best regards

Amy Johnson

Dear Amy, there are no Nobel prizes for theoretical physics, unless there is some discovery confirmed by an experiment, as was Higgs' boson. You have to know that people of science would be pleased to get prizes, but what pushes them do hard work is the irresistible desire of understanding things.

With kind regards

My Dear Sofia,

" Dear Amy, there are no Nobel prizes for theoretical physics, unless there is some discovery confirmed by an experiment, as was Higgs' boson. You have to know that people of science would be pleased to get prizes, but what pushes them do hard work is the irresistible desire of understanding things. "

You are amazing!

Amy Johnson

What on earth do you mean by "debunking the double slit experiment"? Of course the double slit experiment gives the well-known diffraction pattern. That, however, does not prove the electron, or the C60 molecule, can be in two places at the same time. In logic, to provide such proof you would have to be able to assert, "only if the particle were in two places at the same time would you see the observed pattern" and you offer no such reason. David Bohm showed why you would get the observed pattern when the particle goes through one slit, and the reference I provided showed that the exact pattern he predicted was observed. Therefor there is an alternative explanation. For what it is worth, since you seem to value Nobel prizes so highly, both David Bohm and Louis de Broglie were awarded such prizes, and Bohm's for the effect that is actually closely associated with his pilot wave.

As an aside, this is one of the very few examples I have found where observational verification of a theoretical prediction has been followed by continual rejection of the theory. Somewhat bizarre, in my opinion.

Amy Johnson

I see that you have a good time together.

But to say that the electron is in two places at once is as wrong as saying the contrary. The electron is a WAVE. Consider the wave-function

(1) |ψ> = (√3/2) |ψa> + (1/2) |ψb>.

Both |ψa> and |ψb> cary all the properties of the type of particle, mass, charge, spin, etc. But, does that mean that |ψ> comprises two electrons? NO! The trick is as follows:

Look at the intensities of |ψa> and of |ψb>. What do you see? Each wave has an intensity less than 1. lf you place detectors Da respectively Db, on these two waves, NEVER both detectors click. However, the detector Da 'feels' |ψa> thrice more frequently than Db feels |ψb>. WHY? Simply, because |ψa> is thrice more intense than |ψb>.

If |ψa> had intensity 1 (one), Da would always feel it, and |ψb> would not exist.

To summarize, the detector is sensitive not only to the properties of the type of particle, as charge, mass, etc., but first of all to the intensity of the wave-packet. If this intensity is less than 1, the detector may fail to feel the other properties at all. However, the closer is the intensity to 1, the more times succeeds the detector to feel the other physical properties. This is a well-known experimental fact.

Please note that I did not use the term 'probability', but 'intensity'. Probability is a mathematical term, it keeps us in the world of formulas, but we try understand the physics beyond the formulas.

Kind regards to you both.

Amy Johnson

Interesting that you argue it is ridiculous to propose "ghost waves" but perfectly sane to propose that a pa3rticle casn be in two places at the same time without doubling the energy required to create the second, or dividing the mass in two.

As for the Penrose article, if you read it, you will see Penrose proposes an experiment to test it. That is a perfectly correct way to go, but it is wrong to assume the answer until the test is carried out.

Given that prunes are totally irrelevant to this discussion, I shall not respond further to you unless you make a logical statement relevant to the issue, or show evidence.

Ian Miller

Please read my comment, it is above your last comment.

There are no ghost waves, all the waves are equal is status. It is also wrong to say that a particle may be simultaneously in two places, because the concept of particle is a false concept in QM. We have waves, not particles. However, these waves carry the properties of the type of particle, charge, mass, spin, etc.

The fact that at a measurement of a wave-function with a couple of wave-packets, only one of the wave-packets triggers a detector, is due to the collapse, which modifies the wave-function. Read my article on the CSL model of collapse, especially subsection 5.2, and you will see how the reduction of the wave-function unfolds, step by step.

Preprint In Praise and in Criticism of the Model of Continuous Sponta...

But first, please read my previous comment .

Best regards

Sofia D. Wechsler

We all agree (I think) that quantum mechanics starts with the Schrödinger equation. Now if you start with the "classical" wave equation (from classical physics) in the chapter on classical mechanics in "Fundamental Formulae of Physics" Zatzkis shows how to transform that to the Schrödinger equation provided you assume the phase of the wave is determined by the classical action that is quantised per period. What we now have is some mathematics that ends up with the main term ψ, but ψ is not properly defined. That started with a differential equation in which the principle term was S, so when we now ask ourselves just what is ψ we have a problem. As you remark, whenever you detect a particle at the quantum level you get one count with the charge, mass, spin, whatever of precisely that expected of one particle, and never half, or any other fraction.

The problem then is, how does that relate to ψ. That is the origin of the various interpretations. If I follow correctly, you assign ALL properties of the particle to a wave until detected and if that is the case, a collapse is inevitable. My point was that IF you accept something like the pilot wave, then it is not inevitable in the way collapse is usually pictured, although it is inevitable in the sense of on detection the wave ceases. So for the two questions in your link, I agree that one way or another, the collapse is inevitable. As for (2), I return with a question: how does your approach address the so-called measurement problem? As I understand it, the measurement problem arises because the detector is not part of the quantum formalism, and hence the process is not described, but if you can address that problem you will be seen as making big progress by many.

In my opinion, "fundamental indeterminism" is not required, and the evidence is that it does not occur. Besides the nature article listed above, in my opinion there is another rather interesting observation, wherein an extremely highly excited state can be prevented from falling to a lower state by microwave tethering. (Maeda, H., Norum, D. U. L., Gallagher, T. F. 2005. Microwave manipulation of an atomic electron in a classical orbit. Science 307:1757-60.) This is conceptually like standing a pencil upright on its point and keeping it there by nudging it back when some vibration tries to disrupt its metastable state. To me, that is equivalent to classical determinism.

Christian Baumgarten

Dear Christian,

For Bohm's mechanics (BM) to fail, it is sufficient for it to contradict the QM predictions. Twice was proved that BM contradicts the quantum theory: 1) Once by sincere Bohm's supporters, who proved that BM disagrees with relativistic QM; 2) by myself - I proved that BM disagrees with the non-relativistic QM, namely with the predictions for a Tan-Wals-Collett type of experiment.

I am NOT delving in this anymore, for the moment. I am interested in reactions, questions, suggestions, to my preprint on CSL. It is VERY serious bussiness, it's NOT more of the same. The section 5.2. in the article describes the evolution of the collapse STEP by STEP. If this description is basically correct, then a lot of experiments done in the last time in connection with the CSL, have to be reconsidered (because theydraw conclusions by disturbing the detection process in the middle. That falsifies the process. The same thing happens with the experiment in the article in 'Nature'. But you didn't read yet subsection 5.2 in my article. After you read it I'll be able to explain more deeply).

The mere fact that CSL allows following the collapse process in detail, places this model ABOVE all the so-called 'interpretations' of QM. The 'interpretations' DENY the collapse principle unjustly and arbitrarily, without proving that this principle is false. You say "science can not be based on unproven assertions of geniuses." Yes, this is my requirement too, things have to be proved.

Amy Johnson

"Studying physics you must have also learned about virtual particles."

Virtual particles can explain the superposition principle? HOW? Take in consideration that interference was obtained even with hudge mollecules as fullerenes, however, there exist no virtual fullerenes.

Amy Johnson

Amy, how do you read an article? Only the title?

I didn't understand in which journal appeared that title. 'Nature' is not supposed to publish such a title which is terribly misleading. Interference does not mean that a particle is at the same time in two places. Interference means that the object is a wave. The word 'particle' has no meaning in QM, because particle is a localized object. We have waves. They are not localized, they may have at once a couple of wave-packets, separated in space. However, the phrase 'type of particle' yes has meaning, it means the mass, charge, spin, internal construction., etc, of the object.

Fluoro-fullerenes are huge molecules with hundreds of atoms. Their wavelengths are extremely small, so that it is VERY difficult to do interference with them. What experimentalists do is to project the linear momentum of these molecules on a direction on which the linear momentum is almost perpendicular. Thus, the projection is VERY small, and the wavelength that corresponds, is enough big for doing interference.

Sofia D. Wechsler

In your criticism of Bohm mechanics, my response would be: (1) True, it does not comply with relativity, but neither does the Schrödinger equation. That it is a non-relativistic description of nature does not preclude it from having value, although most certainly a full relativistic version should be derived. (2) I must confess i don't understand what you meant by the Tan-Wals-Collet type of experiment falsifying BM. I tried to find a reference to their work, and all i could find was an issue relating to momentum transfer in a welcher weg experiment. Could you explain simply?

Amy Johnson

I recognize no super-authority. About QM, I only recognize its formalism.

About editorial boards, I cannot afford to express my opinion so openly. Not editorial boards accept an article: the article should be sent to experts in QM. In short, the title of this article is misleading, and if you would have known the QM formalism you should have noticed immediately that the title does not reflect the described experiments.

The experiments described in the article show that the so-called 'particles' are waves. A quantum system was NEVER detected AT ONCE in two places. You do not distinguish between a wave and a particle? A wave is a distributed object, it may occupy at once several regions. A particle is localized, at one time it may be in a single place.

If you can meke a particle to be in two places at once, you can create a perpetuum mobile.