Dear Sofia,

I didn't understand well your question, can you more clarify it.

With best regards.

Dear Mazen,

Did you read the content of the question? It tries to explain what is the reason for which the macroscopic apparatus is unable to produce deterministically an response, when the intensity of the "thing" that lands on the apparatus is less than 1. Indeed, imagine a heavily misty day, when you can't see clearly at a meter distance. Imagine that you see something but cannot say if it is a man, or a tree, or an illusion, etc. Would you report that you saw a man or would you say that you saw nothing?

A macroscopic apparatus either reports a detection, or doesn't. There is no half way between these two possibilities.

Now, I invite you to read again. If you still have questions please tell me them.

With kind regards

Not only quantum. If one measure velocity by help the Doppler, the one can calculate that this measurement has error: delta V/V= 2*lambda/Length. If you will take radiation with small lambda you will get a bigger momentum of the photon. which will change the value of the measured speed of the micro-object

Sofia D. Wechsler

Dear Sofia,

Thank you for your clarification,

You said:

"the intensity of the wave-packet is now 1/2. It's not an 'entire' electron"

"imagine a heavily misty day"

1-My opinion is No, the problem is not like this, is not like misty day, we have one entire electron comes to the detector,

the 1/2 only mean that the number of electrons comes is half of the numbers of repeated experiments (as the probability meaning say)

2- The 'herald' electron didn't have multiple choices to come on it, but 'signal' electron has two equal choices to come on it.

3- Let me say something:

We usually deal with the motion like it was related only with the particle itself, but in my opinion, this is not true, I think we have two players in the motion: 1- the particle itself, 2- the space-time itself.

at each time space allows the particle to appear in some multiple positions with certain preferences, and the particle chooses randomly between these preferences.

You can imagine this picture:

someone put multiple cups with different sizes (diameters) and we want to throw one ball into these cups randomly, so if we repeat this experiment multiple times we found that the number of balls appears in each cup are based on its sizes.

Why we have two players in the motion?

I think as you know that the motion is, in fact, a series of disappearance and appearance events, so when the particle disappear from space and want to re-appear on it again, therefore space (the second player in motion) give the particle what we can call "space gates" to appear on it, and because space know the particle (from its original position, I mean before it disappears) and know all the forces fields (in the space), so the space can (somehow) did what we did in the path integral formulation (to determine the probability density of existence) to specify the size of each "space gates" for this particle, then the particle itself randomly choose on gate to appear on it.

With best regards.

Mazen Khoder

"I think as you know that the motion is, in fact, a series of disappearance and appearance events, . . ."

No, I do not know such a thing. Please indicate an experiment that proves it.

"the 1/2 only mean that the number of electrons comes is half of the numbers of repeated experiments (as the probability meaning say)"

Mazen, please do the usual 2-slit experiment, but instead of letting each one of the wave-packets ψA and ψB go to a separate detector, bring these two wave-packets to interfere. You'd get an interference pattern. So, it's not that in 1/2 of the cases the electron goes to detector DA and in the other 1/2 to detector DB. In each trial of the experiment, before the measurement you have both path exiting the slits, populated.

" we have one entire electron comes to the detector, "

QM says that the intensity of the beam comming to each one of the detectors is 1/2. So, the beam carries all the properties of the type of particle, charge, mass, spin, etc., but it's not the intensity of the entire electron. The detector reports with certainty a wave-packet of intensity 1.

Probability of a result is a concept fit for what we get after the measurement. Before the measurement we have the wave-packets which impinge on the detectors.

"I think we have two players in the motion: 1- the particle itself, 2- the space-time itself."

And what you think that the space-time does? Does the space-time change stochastically in each trial of the experiment for producing stochastic results?

Sofia D. Wechsler

Dear Sofia,

quick answer,

" No, I do not know such a thing. Please indicate an experiment that proves it. "

No, I mean you know that I say this thing.

:)

Lovely Mazen,

I am displeased by the fact that I disagree with your viewes. Otherwise, I would give you recommendations for all your answers, both for how kind you are, and for courage. You are among the extremely few people that take the responsibility of answering my very difficult questions.

With the best regards

Sofia D. Wechsler

My Dear Sofia,

First, it is my pleasure to hear this from you, and You are among the extremely few scientists that still care about the foundations of quantum mechanics while many others settle for "Shut up and calculate".

You said:

"Mazen, please do the usual 2-slit experiment, but instead of letting each one of the wave-packets ψA and ψB go to a separate detector, bring these two wave-packets to interfere. You'd get an interference pattern. So, it's not that in 1/2

of the cases the electron goes to detector DA and in the other 1/2 to detector DB. In each trial of the experiment, before the measurement you have both path exiting the slits, populated."

In the case of usual 2-slit experiment, for each point on the screen (where we get an interference pattern) we have some number of electrons come to it (when we repeat the experiment), in other words, some points are preferable more from other points.

You said: "And what you think that the space-time does? Does the space-time change stochastically in each trial of the experiment for producing stochastic results?"

No, the "stochastic results" comes from the particle itself when it randomly chooses one gate to appear on it.

And space specifies the size of each "space gate" for this particle in a deterministic way as Schrodinger equation did to give us the probability of existence in each point in space.

With best regards.

Dear Mazen,

Please don't introduce non-standard words without defining them. What is "gate"?

With kind regards

Sofia D. Wechsler

Dear Sofia,

Sorry for the delay in responding,

About: "What is "gate"?"

As you remember I said before that we have two players in the motion: 1- the particle itself, 2- the space-time itself.

the "space gate": is a property for each point in space and time, it allows the particle to can exist in this point of space-time.

The probability of existing for a specific particle is proportional to the size of the gate of this particle, space is responsible to make these gates to guide the particle during its motion based on disappearance and appearance events.

With best regards.

Mazen Khoder

Dear Mazen,

"the "space gate": is a property for each point in space and time, it allows the particle to can exist in this point of space-time."

I have no idea where from you take these things. They are not part of the quantum formalism. This formalism works with the raising and lowering operators. The operator that indicates the presence of a particle at a position r in space is

∑j ψ*j(r)â†j ,

where { ψj(r) } is the set of states in which can be the particle (see page 4 in arXiv:quant-ph/0606147v2 ).

You cannot re-invent the quantum formalism.

With kind regards

Sofia D. Wechsler

Dear Sofia,

First I think we can't found the answers to your deep questions using the current formalism of quantum mechanics, nobody did this before, I think we need to go beyond this formalism, but sure without contradict this formalism!

In other words, we need to found a new interpretation of quantum mechanics that can give us these answers.

First, we know that we have a complex function (in space and time) which the square of the modulus of it give us the probability of finding the particle in space and time, we know also that this function is a deterministic function.

And we know for example when the particle exists in (x0,t0) that the probability of finding the particle in (x1,t1) is related to all forces exist in all space, here we have a big challenge how the particle know all the forces that exist in all space (from its original location (x0,t0))?

Some people (as Hawking) use the path integral formulation to say that the particle itself did what we called sum-over-all-histories and explore all these trajectories, but I think we have always one particle, not infinity, and we have one universe, not infinity...

I think the answer to this question may be:

The particle didn't know all forces exist in space, but space itself know that, and know the particle itself, so when the particle appears at some point, the space (which is the second player that make the motion) can do (based on some internal mechanism) the sum-over-all-trajectories for this particle to give the particle (which is the first player that make the motion) the opportunity to exist in some specific points in space and time with different preferences (and this what I mean by "space gates").

Then the particle itself choose randomly between these points to appear at it by doing the next jump (by disappearing from its original location and appearing in the new location)

With best regards

Sofia D. Wechsler

Dear Sofia,

If you have time. I wait your response.

With best regards.

Mazen Khoder

Dear Mazen,

You wanted me to reply to your question, but I have nothing to say.

"The particle didn't know all forces exist in space, but space itself know that, and know the particle itself, so when the particle appears at some point, the space (which is the second player that make the motion) can do (based on some internal mechanism) the sum-over-all-trajectories for this particle to give the particle (which is the first player that make the motion) the opportunity to exist in some specific points in space and time with different preferences (and this what I mean by "space gates")."

Exactly as you say that the space knows all sort of things, and give the particle the opportunity, and the particle picks one of the opportunities, I can say that between my door and the door of my neighbor, exists a galaxy. One can say whatever one wishes, there is no limitation to that. I don't know how the space "knows" and how a particle picks an opportunity. Only a field can act on the quantum object, the free space has no field. As to the QM, it doesn't know the concept "particle", it knows "wave-function". The localization to a small region, which gives the impression of a particle, occurs not because the space "knows", but in the process of macroscopic measurement on the wave-function. It is the wave-function which carries the density of probability, not the empty space.

Mazen Khoder

Dear and lovely Mazen,

The so-called wave-particle duality belongs to the past century. When a wave-packet of a wave-function consisting in a couple of wave-packets, meets a detector, the detector may respond or remain silent. In my question I presented a model able to explain why one detector responds and another detector remains silent. I don't claim that this model is the only one possible, maybe there are others better than mine.

But I would like to invite you to read how works a standard detector, e.g. an ionization detector. You will see that the wave-packet penetrating the detector involves more and more atoms in the detector material and ionizes them. These ions in turn, accelerated between the plates of a capacitor, ionize other atoms, and in the end there forms an avalanche.

In all this process the concept of particle has no place. All the wave-packets of the wave-function interact with the respective detectors, however, the energy conservation does not permit the avalanche to develop in more than one detector. The energy carried by the wave-function is delivered to only one detector. What forbids to all the detectors, except one, to develop an avalanche is not easy to explain. As I said, I proposed in my question a model, but there may be others too.

With kindest regards

Sofia D. Wechsler

My Dear Sofia,

You said: "In all this process the concept of particle has no place"

No, the place of the particle exists at the start of this process, the existence of particle is the trigger that allows this process to happen.

I think that the detector remains silent as long the particle didn't meet it.

The detector feels the particle only when this particle meets it.

And I think that the detector doesn't feel the wave-packets at all.

And the stochastic responses to measurements come from the particle itself (as a freedom degree) in its decision about which detector the particle wants to meet it.

With best regards.