by SEKI » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:34 am
minkwe wrote:SEKI wrote:[As an example, consider a photon traveling all the way from a far-away star. Without any cohesive force or some sort of cut-off mechanism, the quantum cannot but diffuse, be diluted beyond measure and end up disappearing.]
Why would it diffuse? It is a quantum, it doesn't have sub-parts that need to be kept together with any force. And what would be the mechanism of this force? Not convincing at all.
[Suppose a photon with no cohesive force is traveling in the z-direction. If x and y components of the momentum of the photon are both absolutely zero (xy-spectrum width = 0), the quantum wave of the photon is already unlimitedly spread. Otherwise (xy-spectrum width is not zero), the quantum wave will spread unlimitedly.]
No, no, no. This makes no sense. Do you understand what components in different directions mean? It is an epistemological tool for describing properties relative to a given basis. It is not an absolute property of an object regardless of basis. You pick a basis set and you have to consider the representation in the full set, not a subset of it. Besides, that is not the correct use of the word "spectrum".
[According to the traditional interpretation of quantum physics, one may assume that, as soon as the photon is detected, the existence probability of the photon completely vanishes at all points including those millions or billions of light-years away. However, any theory has its own applicability limit. From a commonsense perspective, the above assumption seems to be well beyond the limit. The problem may be which is acceptable, the above mystical assumption or introduction of unknown cohesive force.]
Where do I start? It is a fact that once the photon is detected, it ceases to exist, which means it's probability of existing at any future time is zero. This is just the mathematical way of stating the simple unquestionable fact that detection of the photon has destroyed it. It is not an assumption. You don't need QM to understand this and there can never be a limit to the validity of this fact. If it ceases to exist then it doesn't exist in every theory that should be taken seriously. I'm not sure what you consider mystical in this.
You seem to be obsessed by the particle model (including string theory).
I already explained why this model is to fail though you quibbled.
I can understand why you can never accept this fact.
I feel sorry for you.
In (4), suppose quantum a is approximately in the form of plane wave and is to go through the slit and quantum b is on the screen.
Of great importance is wave nature, not interference.
Any problem?
Yes, lots of problems. You describe a photon as a plane wave. What is a wave? Too many people make this mistake of taking colloquial language and transferring it directly to physics without thinking. You have good company in this respect. In physics, you have to be precise in your descriptions. So please describe your understanding of what is meant by "a wave".
Secondly you have a plane wave going through "the" slit. By definition, a plane wave is infinitely parallel and thus extends over a large area of space. Then you have another quantum sitting at the screen, waiting for it's friend to arrive in order to obtain the so-called "mutual adsorption", what ever that means. This doesn't make any sense to me.
I wrote "approximately in the form of plane wave".
Your arguments are carping criticism.
A wave is a behavior not an object. Therefore the topic of "particle" or "wave" is severely misguided.
For example, consider a tiny magnetic particle with a N and a S pole that is spinning along an arbitrary axis. Is it a particle or a wave? You see, the question itself makes no sense. It is a particle that is waving.
I wonder if you read the whole sentences in the first posting on this topic.
There are indeed issues with various QM interpretations but your suggested model is just terrible in too many respects and does not solve the problems you think it does.
I wrote:
You may feel that the above quantum model is quite odd and half-baked, though I suppose that my model is leastwise better than that of Copenhagen, many worlds theories and so forth.
Anyway, your arguments are not convincing at all as you don't come up with any mechanism of pattern formation in the experiments of Taylor (1909), Tonomura et al (1989) and the like with the basic model you believe in.
[quote="minkwe"][quote="SEKI"]
[As an example, consider a photon traveling all the way from a far-away star. Without any cohesive force or some sort of cut-off mechanism, the quantum cannot but diffuse, be diluted beyond measure and end up disappearing.][/quote]
Why would it diffuse? It is a quantum, it doesn't have sub-parts that need to be kept together with any force. And what would be the mechanism of this force? Not convincing at all.
[quote][Suppose a photon with no cohesive force is traveling in the z-direction. If x and y components of the momentum of the photon are both absolutely zero (xy-spectrum width = 0), the quantum wave of the photon is already unlimitedly spread. Otherwise (xy-spectrum width is not zero), the quantum wave will spread unlimitedly.][/quote]
No, no, no. This makes no sense. Do you understand what components in different directions mean? It is an epistemological tool for describing properties relative to a given basis. It is not an absolute property of an object regardless of basis. You pick a basis set and you have to consider the representation in the full set, not a subset of it. Besides, that is not the correct use of the word "spectrum".
[quote][According to the traditional interpretation of quantum physics, one may assume that, as soon as the photon is detected, the existence probability of the photon completely vanishes at all points including those millions or billions of light-years away. However, any theory has its own applicability limit. From a commonsense perspective, the above assumption seems to be well beyond the limit. The problem may be which is acceptable, the above mystical assumption or introduction of unknown cohesive force.][/quote]
Where do I start? It is a fact that once the photon is detected, it ceases to exist, which means it's probability of existing at any future time is zero. This is just the mathematical way of stating the simple unquestionable fact that detection of the photon has destroyed it. It is not an assumption. You don't need QM to understand this and there can never be a limit to the validity of this fact. If it ceases to exist then it doesn't exist in every theory that should be taken seriously. I'm not sure what you consider mystical in this.
[/quote]
You seem to be obsessed by the particle model (including string theory).
I already explained why this model is to fail though you quibbled.
I can understand why you can never accept this fact.
I feel sorry for you.
[quote][quote]In (4), suppose quantum a is approximately in the form of plane wave and is to go through the slit and quantum b is on the screen.
Of great importance is wave nature, not interference.
Any problem?[/quote]
Yes, lots of problems. You describe a photon as a plane wave. What is a wave? Too many people make this mistake of taking colloquial language and transferring it directly to physics without thinking. You have good company in this respect. In physics, you have to be precise in your descriptions. So please describe your understanding of what is meant by "a wave".
Secondly you have a plane wave going through "the" slit. By definition, a plane wave is infinitely parallel and thus extends over a large area of space. Then you have another quantum sitting at the screen, waiting for it's friend to arrive in order to obtain the so-called "mutual adsorption", what ever that means. This doesn't make any sense to me.
[/quote]
I wrote "approximately in the form of plane wave".
Your arguments are carping criticism.
[quote]
A wave is a behavior not an object. Therefore the topic of "particle" or "wave" is severely misguided.
For example, consider a tiny magnetic particle with a N and a S pole that is spinning along an arbitrary axis. Is it a particle or a wave? You see, the question itself makes no sense. It is a particle that is waving.
[/quote]
I wonder if you read the whole sentences in the first posting on this topic.
[quote]
There are indeed issues with various QM interpretations but your suggested model is just terrible in too many respects and does not solve the problems you think it does.
[/quote]
I wrote:
[list]You may feel that the above quantum model is quite odd and half-baked, though I suppose that my model is leastwise better than that of Copenhagen, many worlds theories and so forth.[/list]
Anyway, your arguments are not convincing at all as you don't come up with any mechanism of pattern formation in the experiments of Taylor (1909), Tonomura et al (1989) and the like with the basic model you believe in.
