The wavefunction isn't an observable quantity-it's a means to an end, the calculation of other quantities, that are observables. 

Dear Mr. Nicolis: I am speaking about a reformulation of QM, mind you, happened you be here at our heated discussions about this topics, you would know it, not about how orthodox QM interprets the wavefunction. In the latter, the wavefunction represents the objectivated and deeply repressed wavelike side of reality, not measurable, right, but nonetheless to be liberated and placed back to its just symmetrical place it deserves, as expressed by Planck's constant, that' exactly the point.

The words aren't that important-the calculations matter. If it's a reformulation of quantum mechanics, it's one of many; so what matters is its consistency-that it does lead to the same results as the other formulations. And then the question is, what is gained by using it and not any other. However, in that case, the usual properties of the wavefunction must be recovered-and that it is a physical observable isn't among them. Quantum mechanics can and does describe ``wavelike'' effects, already.

My Dear Sir: As the great Bohr happened to say to the no less great Schrödinger, "I beg to disagree". QM does n o t describe the wave properties at all, it is simply not formulated that way. Look up please Heisenberg's first paper introducing the uncommutability of X and P. It deals with Kramer's work on the dispersion relations, i.e., experiments, and as such, only with the observable particle side. QM is formulated to yield the experimental results and only and only them, nothing else. Real wave properties are n o t observable, they are in fact fully delocalised intermeasurement occurencies, see? That's the real trouble. QM simply disregards this fact, claiming the Newtoinian objectivity always. Maybe that's the thing to suit physics, but lacks full reality of "matter", that's my point. Please accept a simple question from someone from a different discipline: real world occurences not describable by real numbers are simply nonexistent?

Illusion of reality again.

You need a talk with your epistemologist.

For physicists experiment is reality.

Dear All

Self-Field Theory is about just this subject: what is a particle? and what is a wave? Particles are 'self-fields'; matter is divisible into smaller more fundamental subunits we call 'fields'. But when we 'zoom in' (graphically) we find small particles which have their own 'self-field' structure. In other words, reality at all levels is fractal; a recursive physical function, like an infinite series (oscillating or monotonic, etc).

Dear Andras,

You wrote :

"Would you have any idea how to transform the wavefunction as such into an informational onservable in quantum algebraic sense?

I am contemplating about such a formalism as regards to introduce the wave side of the dualism in a much more explicite way than is done in orthodox QM, in which the "informationally" interpretable wavefunction as such is introduced directly as an informational observable, but have less mathemetical skills than a physicist. Could you help?

Would you have any idea how to transform the wavefunction as such into an informational onservable in quantum algebraic sense?"

Here some fundamental questions from an Information Scientist (since 2003).

a) what should be an "informational observable (I suppose you made a tipp-error) in quantum algebraic sense" ?  Every observable object is informational. The wave function is a genuine mathematical formula which does hit reality only to 50%. Do you mean wave function is whole quantum algebra? "Quantum algebra" - if I take your term over - f.i. into quantum computing - needs many other mathematical formalisms (matrices, vector-  or probability formulas,..). It's not only agebra. Perhaps I didn't get your question, please try to be more systematically. As you ask you write down only some terms like biologically sequenced data without any logical relations.

b) "informationally interpretable wavefunction"  is for me  not understandable. Every interpretation is for me genuine informational! If you want interprete the wavefunction you can do it - but by physical facts and not only new undefined words.  

and finally c) "orthodox QM" - may be you know QM better then I, but you define this  term new! What should it be? "Orthodox" is in my knowledge an attribute for "all terms clear defined" like Newtonian Mechanics. QM is far away to be orthodox in that sense. Even the scientific "area" isn't yet clear defined. We only can say we "observe" and think about objects with physical sices smaller then atoms. All possible relations of energy, forces, fields und new defined particles are only in beginning of possible imaginations and probabilities. No fact is even made realiseable by human being. We need complicated instruments (CERN)  to get some lightpoints. We are till now only able to imagine and think theoretically and constuctiv mathematically! We have lost all 100% proofable facts since we started with QM!

Thanks for your answer....   

@ András Balázs: You quote Bohr, Schroedinger and Heisenberg's first paper. Exhilarating and, indeed, very interesting.

But it is history  of science, not science itself. If you wish to know what quantum mechanics is really about, you should read a textbook, not a research article, and a modern one, which will discuss the various issues involved in a well-informed way: there are at least the following points which are fairly recent:

1) Bell's inequalities, and the nonlocality issue, together with Aspect's experiments proving this experimentally

2) Bohm's hidden variable theory: several authors argued earlier that these were impossible: they are now more careful.

3) Everett's ``relative state'' intepretation, somewhat misleadingly called ``many-worlds''

4) the consistent histories framework

5) decoherence, both at the theoretical and experimental level

I am not saying that any of these attempts is a definitive solution. I do argue that starting out without a clear understanding of these various issues is an enormous drawback.

Finally, and this also goes to Franz Plochberger, one should always remember that QM as it stands today, in the non-relativistic realm, provides an unambiguous procedure to compute the answer to almost any problem involving a microscopic system, and that the answer given by that procedure has always been found to coincide with that observed in experiment. Specifically, while the prescription given to describe measurement in QM are not very satisfying, it has definitely been shown that they work.

Dear Andras,

You may want to take a look at this paper for a re-formulation of the quantum wavefunction.

Article Quanto-Geometric Tensors and Operators on Unified Quantum-Re...

Dear Andras

This response is unconventional in that it differs from Shrodinger's wave mechanics.

To answer the question about wavefunctions you should begin BEFORE the advent of quantum theory with the conventional wave functions from classical theory, namely the complex exponential used in solving differential equations.

In the case of Maxwell's Theory the various vector calculus equations depict two rotations, one has no divergence, while the other has non-zero divergence; hence the two curl equations and the two divergence equations. We end up with two complex exponentials that describe two rotations. These turn out to be the orbital and the cyclotron rotations of the electron and the proton in dynamic equilibrium in the hydrogen atom (the simplest case).

As in the usual theory for solving ODE's and PDE's, this provides the complete eigenvalue theory of atomic physics, rather than the very convoluted quantum theory based on statistical mechanics. Fact is we don't need probabilities, rather the solution is deterministic.

Hence I would go back and reread the earliest work in the history of quantum mechanics before venturing into the elaborations of present day quantum theory. For a history of the birth of quantum mechanics see the paper by Luca Nanni at the link below and also http://www.unifiedphysics.com/.

Notice due to its results matching quantum theory, Self-Field Theory can be viewed as a deterministic version of quantum theory.

I'm also very interested in your biology.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1501/1501.05894.pdf

Dear Tony,

One then has to wonder why Maxwell's theory and classical mechanics as a whole had not been able to give any explanation whatsoever of Mendeleev's atomic periodic table well known at the time. Schrodinger's statistical wave mechanics had gained increasing acceptation only on account of QM fundamental contribution to the elucidation of this problem based on the distribution of quantum energy density states. An absolute revolution that is easy to downplay on hindsight.

I agree with you that the Quantum Theory is a convoluted one, especially thanks to Quantum Field Theory. Not so Schroedinger's quantum mechanics.

Dear Joseph

Who knows why history is as it is? I agree that history did approve QM and I have only much respect for all the major researchers including Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Shrodinger, and the many others, including Albert Einstein who was part of the big debate back then. I'm not saying they weren't correct (apart from using an incorrect metric), just convoluted when we look at the theory from the perspective of the present. Note too the solution is far from 'classical' because it is couched in the quantum physics world of photons etc. 

Without it (QM) we would probably not have the computer with its internet and all the numerical methods we know today.  This has been a major plus in the evolution of mathematical physics across the nearly 100 years of quantum theory. 

We note that there has been a hiatus for the past few decades where science has been wondering what comes next?

I think we have time to think about the roles of determinism and probabilities in our every day lives, e.g. the butterfly effect. If we can come to grips with this new found determinism I think we might be able to extend our observations within the cosmos via the telescope, and within  the biological world via the microscope, by modifying the metric being used in these devices. There is much to do.

best regards Tony

Dear Sirs: First off, thanks for at all caring to put anything. Second, as for Schrödinger's wave mechanics, he called it an all resolving one, disregarding the very foundations of (then) new quantum mechanics. Bohr's objection's was exactly, that the wave side is of course OK, and also the very equation of his, but the experiments demand quantal nature, not a continuum mechanics. So it was only in fact about interpretation, nothing else. You know very well that among others, Schrödinger himself proved the mathematical equivalence of "his" and the "Heisenberg-Jordan quantum mechanics" (being the very title of his paper). Excited states are in fact not resonances between atomic waves, but real quantum transitions, he was wrong.

As for probabilities and determinism, I fully agree that there is much to do. I personally do believe, that QM inside living systems is nearly quasiclassical. My other question about DNA there is exactly about this.

Tony,

Can you briefly expose here the main axioms of your Theory?

I do not mean to be critical of it by anticipation. Not my character. Just want a first taste to determine whether I want to further prospect it or not.

Thanks.

Thanks Joseph!

Tony I too would like to get an efficient introduction to your SFT. I must say I am in doubt because normally no single man is able to find such a great new idea - but I am interested ... lets discuss it.

Dear Franz and Joseph

Let me give you a quick run-down

Go to www.unifiedphysics.com for a first-up look at it.  You won't be surprised that this proposed mathematics goes across physics, biophysics, cosmology, high energy physics, gravitation, etc. Above all else it is really a deterministic version of the various quantum theories that we have studied over the past 100 hundred years.

The formulation is posed as two charged particles moving in an EM field in balance with each other (which compares with QM with one particle moving in a field which requires probabilities).

Perhaps the most fundamental issue it finds with quantum theory, GR, and other mathematical physics, is the way fields are measured: the metric used in these older formulations is the Pythagorean metric (and atoms don't move along the hypotenuse, they move along the two directions orthogonal to each other); In SFT we use the taxi-cab metric, for instance, instead of measuring distance directly between two charged particles, we find instead there must be TWO fields electric and magnetic fields, between any two charged particles in dynamic equilibrium and so the fields must be measured between centres of rotation (as is inferred in Bohr's early quantum theory).

It is this new metric that may allow us to re-investigate the design of microscopes and telescopes. I imagine we might be able to observe the actual dynamics in atoms via advanced video systems, or again the actual dynamics of gravitational structures.

Perhaps the most important facts about it are its results: 

(a) At its core it has two equality statements (equations) that are two versions of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which as we all know is one inequality statement.

(b) The Planck's 'constant' turns out to be a variable that comes from the speed of the electron. This infers the energy 'constant' is problem-dependent as appears to be the case in high-energy GR where singularities are encountered (because the wrong metric is being used in GR).

(c) It matches the Bohr  Theory results for the Bohr radius and frequency of the electron.

(d) It extends the Bohr results by giving the radius and speed of the cyclotron motion which balances the orbital motion (of the electron).

I can certainly give you a copy of the first chapter and a paper published in 2005 in Physics Essays; I'm running out of copies but perhaps I can send you a complimentary copy of the book. Go to my profile and send me a message with your address if you want a copy (Ill have to ask the publishing company for a few more copies.

PS I'm working on a second edition of the book: Self-Field Theory: A New Mathematical Description of Physics, 2012 perhaps ready next year.

Also I am honoured by your interest and hope the work lives up to your expectations; the fact that you don't dismiss it out of hand is to your credit; there may still be errors found in its literature but I believe the formulation rests on solid ground; it's been ten years out there so far and apart from two 'typos' there has been nothing major found yet.

https://www.unifiedphysics.com

Tony,

So you start from an ontology of two particles in electromagnetic interaction. I don’t quite understand your metric though, because the metric generally applies to the background spacetime.   I gather that SFT metric applies to the interaction field instead, is this correct? That being the case, how do you treat background space in the theory?  Also if you start out with two particles, you automatically are limiting the theory to the atomic realm up. Further if the basis ontology requires a particle duplet, how can the theory explain unsaturated orbitals in atoms?

I thank you for the offer of the courtesy copy of the publication, which I will take. I can certainly read the first chapter and the paper as well, if you have them readily available in pdf. The discussion here might perhaps contribute to even more improvements for the next edition in the works, if nothing else. I sure have a few more questions from your intro, but let’s do it one question at a time.

Joseph

Joseph

I'm sure you could add heaps to a second edition if you wish so send me your private address via RG. By the way, the book is aimed at undergraduates who might be involved in an EM course, or a physics course that covers radiation, maybe physics, mathematics or engineering bods; I'm going to add a chapter on biology that discusses the cell cycle and how vibrational and EM fields are involved in endogenous fields that build up naturally within a colony of cells so a very strong link to biology also. I am just presenting this cell cycle work this year at St Petersburg in May

Yes you're right about the EM field and two particles, and yes the first application was to the hydrogen atom, so the atom. In this atomic case the permittivity and permeability need to be specified for an atom in 'free-space'.

As we look at other situations we have to change the field parameters to match the circumstances, for instance for a galaxy, we need to add a pressure field; this is a form of the acoustic field (vibrational field becomes an acoustic radiation of phonons, in addition to the photon). Now there are three fields and just like the Lagrangian in QFT, the 'Maxwellian' can change its form when we now have SIX Maxwell's equations to solve finding THREE rotations including the orbital and cycotron rotations within the galaxy; the acoustic field causes an up/down rotation of the Solar systems orbiting about the centre of the Galaxy, so three rotations all up.

Tony,

From your profile, no clickable for messaging.

Joseph

 András Balázs. By the contributions, I measure how much we transactionnists are revolutionnary. We were several to discover or re-discover TIQM, because it was logically unavoidable.

The fifteen postulates we do not more accept :

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/postulates.html

The final text, but in french :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313309517_La_microphysique_que_l'on_vous_conte_est-elle_bien_la_bonne_La_physique_quantique_transactionnelle_expliquee_pour_tous

Up to date version at 

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/Microphysique_contee.pdf

4th of cover :

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/4e_couverture.pdf

Book La microphysique que l'on vous conte est-elle bien la bonne ...

Dear Sir: My dear mother, having died at 95, was an excellent Frech languge teacher, much loved and several times re-read Piaf's biography as told, without holding herself back, by her half-blood sister. Also, the father of one my best friends was a great scientist of the history of the French language, and my mother respected his corresponding book high. -All this is of course is but an excuse I do not possess French, still if much interested in your research, please advice me.  Yours: András

However, the paper from Albert Einstein, in 1916-1917, "On the quantum theory of radiation", is still in german, with an english translation. 

Crossed with the knowledge we have on the directivity of antennas, (See the Wellington with a 1.7 m radar, and with a 9,1 cm radar,  for instance), Einstein had proved that the properties of this fiction "wave function", elaborated by Born and Heisenberg as anti-Schrödinger weapon, have no correspondant in the real world. In the real world, every photon is perfectly directional. So no photon exists without an absorber. Only the couple emitter-absorber can have the required directivity. The remaining of the transactionnal microphysics follows quite naturally.

It was unavoidable.