A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduction

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduction

Postby SEKI » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:57 am

In the field of elementary particle physics, the particle model seems to have been widely accepted, in which it is assumed that there exist extremely small elementary particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality, and that the wave function is to give the existence probability of a particle.

By double slit experiments, however, it is indicated that a single quantum can interfere with itself. With the particle model, it seems unreasonable to consider it explicable that interference fringes are to be formed in double slit experiments with flux of quanta that is so sparse that only a single quantum can be present at a time.

    [See, for example,
    Taylor, G.I. (1909).
    "Interference fringes with feeble light"
    Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 15. pp. 114--115.

    A. Tonomura et al. (1989).
    "Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern"
    American Journal of Physics. 57, 117]

So, a quantum cannot but be considered to be more of a wave than a particle. In fact, quantum waves can be so defined as to include particle features. More specifically, quantum waves are assumed to be countable and to be able to be each localized in an area that is so small that the wave can be seen as a particle. Anyway, quantum theories are formulated as theories of waves, and particles appear only in interpretations.

If quanta are waves, it means that quanta are basically considered to be only phenomena in the space-time with quantum fields, which is considered to be the only substance existing in the most extreme sense.
    [Consider a long tape stretched flatly and horizontally. If you pinch the tape at a point and flip upside down, a couple of twisted parts emerge on both sides of the flipped point.
    The long tape is a metaphor for one dimensional space, and the pinch and flip of the tape is that for creation of particle-antiparticle pair.]
In the following, a novel quantum model is to be proposed that has a mechanism for wavepacket reduction.

The features of the proposed model are:

(1)
Though a quantum behaves as a wave, it maintains its oneness while it exists.

(2)
A free quantum carries its energy and momentum as a whole.

(3)
For each quantum not to spread out unlimitedly, a kind of cohesive force, which may be like surface tension, is to be exerted.

    [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.]
    [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.]
    [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.]

By virtue of the cohesive force, each quantum has only a finite size in the space even if it has specific energy and momentum.

    [A free and isolated quantum is considered to be substantialized as a finite-sized wave packet (having finite length and width) and to have specific energy and momentum (if not, conservation laws can never be valid). According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and specific energy-momentum are not compatible. Introduction of the cohesive force makes them compatible.
    So, the Kennard (not Heisenberg) inequality is supposed to fail.]

Considering experiments using half mirrors and mirrors with light that is so feeble that only a single photon can be present at a time, a free quantum wave seems to be able to change shape enormously.

However weak the cohesive force is, Feynman diagrammatic calculation method is to be fundamentally changed and renormalization may get to be needless.

(4)
Let's consider a process, a+b -> c (+d+...), where each of a, b, c, ... stands for a quantum (elementary particle). If a part of quantum a and that of quantum b get to overlap one another in the space, both overlapped parts are to be compressed as their motions are impeded due to interaction between the quantum fields of a and b. Compression of overlapped part of each quantum and the cohesive forces may result in a kind of mutual absorption between the quanta. If the domains of quanta, a and b, both reduce to the same point or extremely small area, the above process is to be able to take place.

Particle-antiparticle pair can be produced when high-energy photon collides with a nucleus or the like. It should be noted that no pair can be produced without a collision with a charged particle, which is to cause a reduction of quantum wave of photon.

The shape of a strongly accelerated quantum with electric charge is to be distorted and intermittently reduce enough to emit a photon due to the cohesive force.

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.
SEKI
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby gill1109 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:10 am

SEKI wrote:...
In the following, a novel quantum model is to be proposed that has a mechanism for wavepacket reduction.
...
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.
...

You say "in the following" but I do not see an explicit proposal. Please give us some literature references to your own work ...
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby SEKI » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:18 am

gill1109 wrote:
SEKI wrote:...
In the following, a novel quantum model is to be proposed that has a mechanism for wavepacket reduction.
...
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.
...

You say "in the following" but I do not see an explicit proposal. Please give us some literature references to your own work ...


Do you read the whole sentences?
SEKI
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby gill1109 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:24 am

Yes. I did read the whole sentences and I did not find references to papers with full details. No peer-reviewed papers. No self-published papers. Perhaps you might like to reveal your real name so that we can do a Google search for your work, as far as it is available on internet.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby SEKI » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:59 am

Though I majored physics about 40 years ago, I am only a layman. So, there is no published paper of mine.
I only presented a set of hypotheses, which is acceptable for me.
Thanks for you interest.
SEKI
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby minkwe » Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:46 pm

There are some severe misunderstandings in your description. Perhaps you have been misled by some popular science representations of existing experimental results which unfortunately are also propagated by another popular so-called "physics" forum.

SEKI wrote:With the particle model, it seems unreasonable to consider it explicable that interference fringes are to be formed in double slit experiments with flux of quanta that is so sparse that only a single quantum can be present at a time.

1. No experiment has ever been performed in which a single quantum/particle produced an "interference" pattern.
2. The speculation that individual particles/quantum interfere with themselves is just wild speculation, not backed by any experimental evidence.
    [See, for example,
    Taylor, G.I. (1909).
    "Interference fringes with feeble light"
    Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 15. pp. 114--115.

    A. Tonomura et al. (1989).
    "Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern"
    American Journal of Physics. 57, 117]


3. Unfortunately, those experiments are terribly misinterpreted. They show that "interference" patterns are formed over time even when particles/quanta are passing through the "slits" slowly one at a time. If anything, they show that "intereference" between quanta are not required for the formation of the patterns, even though multiple particles are required to build up a pattern over time. In fact, this is evidence that "interference" is not the mechanism of formation of the patterns.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby SEKI » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:55 am

minkwe wrote:
    [See, for example,
    Taylor, G.I. (1909).
    "Interference fringes with feeble light"
    Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 15. pp. 114--115.

    A. Tonomura et al. (1989).
    "Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern"
    American Journal of Physics. 57, 117]


3. Unfortunately, those experiments are terribly misinterpreted. They show that "interference" patterns are formed over time even when particles/quanta are passing through the "slits" slowly one at a time. If anything, they show that "intereference" between quanta are not required for the formation of the patterns, even though multiple particles are required to build up a pattern over time. In fact, this is evidence that "interference" is not the mechanism of formation of the patterns.


I cannot understand what you mean.
Anyway, you don't show any mechanism of pattern formation.
SEKI
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby minkwe » Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:32 pm

SEKI wrote:Anyway, you don't show any mechanism of pattern formation.

Yes, I didn't show any mechanism. I wasn't trying to show you how inadequate the current explanations are.

First of all, "Wavepacket Reduction" is a strange name. What do you mean by "wavepacket"?
You have to go back to the basics. Start with a single slit diffraction pattern, and move on to the double and multiple slit diffraction patterns. If you still think "interference" is involved, then please provide the mechanism for the single slit pattern.

Once you understand the conceptual problems with the explanations/mechanisms you are proposing, then it will be meaningful to even discuss alternative explanations. First you have to understand why those explanations do not make sense.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby SEKI » Thu Aug 22, 2019 3:31 pm

minkwe wrote:First of all, "Wavepacket Reduction" is a strange name. What do you mean by "wavepacket"?

Do you read the whole sentences in the first posting on this topic?
If you read (3), isn't what I mean by "wavepacket" apparent?

minkwe wrote:You have to go back to the basics. Start with a single slit diffraction pattern, and move on to the double and multiple slit diffraction patterns. If you still think "interference" is involved, then please provide the mechanism for the single slit pattern.

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?
SEKI
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby minkwe » Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:20 pm

SEKI wrote:
minkwe wrote:First of all, "Wavepacket Reduction" is a strange name. What do you mean by "wavepacket"?

Do you read the whole sentences in the first posting on this topic?
If you read (3), isn't what I mean by "wavepacket" apparent?

Yes I read it, but No it isn't apparent.

[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.

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.

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.

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.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby gill1109 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:08 am

minkwe wrote: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'm getting more and more inquisitive, Michel, what your preferred interpretation is... if you have one.

There is also a big problem "what is an interpretation". See the thread about the MERW (maximal entropy random walk) "interpretation". I wouldn't call it an *interpretation*. But it does seem to me to be a really smart idea which could lead to exciting new physics.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby minkwe » Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:15 am

gill1109 wrote:I'm getting more and more inquisitive, Michel, what your preferred interpretation is... if you have one.

Good question. I never asked myself what interpretation I prefer. But I would say QM is not a physical theory, it is a theory on inference very similar to Probability theory.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby Heinera » Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:52 am

I think Scott Aaronson said that QM is more like an operating system that physical theories run on.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:11 am

Heinera wrote:
I think Scott Aaronson said that QM is more like an operating system that physical theories run on.

That is nonsense. Typical operationalist nonsense. General relativity, for example, does not "run on" quantum mechanics.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby Heinera » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:57 am

He din't say "all" physical theories. We know that GR is incompatible with QM.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:19 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
I think Scott Aaronson said that QM is more like an operating system that physical theories run on.

That is nonsense. Typical operationalist nonsense. General relativity, for example, does not "run on" quantum mechanics.

Heinera wrote:
He didn't say "all" physical theories. We know that GR is incompatible with QM.

But to view all of quantum mechanics as an "operating system" is operationalist nonsense all the same. Much of quantum mechanics is realistic; such as the quantum dynamics governed by the Schrodinger and Dirac equations. These equations govern the behavior of quantum systems quite independently of any "operations." To be sure, there are also operational elements in quantum mechanics, but that is not the whole story. The challenge is to eliminate these operational elements form quantum theory if it is to be rendered a fundamental theory of nature.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby 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.
SEKI
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby Heinera » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:51 am

Joy Christian wrote:But to view all of quantum mechanics as an "operating system" is operationalist nonsense all the same.
***


I think he with "operating system" was alluding to computers, where you have an operating system that is not very useful in itself without application programs that run under this operating system. So QM is a set of mathematical principles that you use to construct physical theories. Much like the principle of least action in classical mechanics, where you additionally need to specify a particular form for the action in order to generate a physical theory (equations of motions) that applies to the specific physical system you want to study.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby gill1109 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:05 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:But to view all of quantum mechanics as an "operating system" is operationalist nonsense all the same.
***


I think he with "operating system" was alluding to computers, where you have an operating system that is not very useful in itself without application programs that run under this operating system. So QM is a set of mathematical principles that you use to construct physical theories. Much like the principle of least action in classical mechanics, where you additionally need to specify a particular form for the action in order to generate a physical theory (equations of motions) that applies to the specific physical system you want to study.

I think that a better analogy is to an abstract mathematical theory, or to a formal language. You have some rules about some objects and relations between them. You have some axioms (some basic sentences which are grammatical) and some production rules telling you how to form new grammatical sentences from old ones. He thinks of QM as talking about states, preparations, measurements, transformations of states. But the abstract rules linking this objects do not tell you what these objects "mean", they don't tell you how to map things in the real world to objects in the theory. Indeed, a lot of people have been trying to find a collection of basic rules which everyone would agree were intuitively appealing, and from which it would mathematically follow that the abstract objects had a unique (up to mathematical isomorphism) representation with the familiar mathematical objects - states are trace one non-negative operators on a Hilbert space, possible transformations of a state are completely positive trace-preserving maps, measurements are normalized positive linear maps from states to probability distributions. A number of solutions have been proposed over the years, especially by the Pavia school (Mauro d'Ariano and his students and followers). But they all sneak in some mathematical restriction which is not intuitive but needed in order to get the right answer. At Vaxjo this summer I heard Lucien Hardy announce that this programme had failed, and was, in his opinion, doomed to failure. He hopes to find a new way to achieve a unification of general relativity and quantum theory. My guess is that anyone who succeeds will only succeed after modification of both. And only after we have figured out the way the standard theories have to be adapted will we succeed in coming up with intuitively appealing axioms of quantum theory, as appealing as the ones which we accept as giving us special relativity.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduct

Postby minkwe » Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:07 pm

SEKI wrote: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.

Well, good luck to you on your adventure. I won't mind if you don't invite me to your Nobel Prize award ceremony.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 88 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library