The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct

Yes. No experimental evidence has contradicted it.
2 (33.3%)
No. Quantum theory is incomplete.
4 (66.7%)

Total Members Voted: 6

Voting closed: 21/11/2015 00:52:59

Author Topic: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?  (Read 10684 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I personally believe it is correct. What do you think?


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured,
No. That is a misleading formulation. It is true that we don't know anything about a particle until it interacts with another particle. The fact that I don't know whether you are wearing a hat until I see you, has nothing to do with whether you are or are not wearng a hat: I can't draw an accurate picture of you until we have met, but that meeting doesn't determine your appearance because you must have put the hat on before we met.

Quote
and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results.
Yes

Quote
The act of measurement affects the system,
Yes

Quote
causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wavefunction collapse.
No. What happened is what you measured. Waveform collapse is a mathematical model of what happens.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 01:07:41 by alancalverd »
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
No. What happened is what you measured. Waveform collapse is a mathematical model of what happens.
Hmmm. The wave function is generally a superposition of several eigenfunctions. Upon taking a measurement the wavefunction is a single eigenfunctions.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
No. What happened is what you measured. Waveform collapse is a mathematical model of what happens.
Hmmm. The wave function is generally a superposition of several eigenfunctions. Upon taking a measurement the wavefunction is a single eigenfunctions.

The act of measurement is the act of defining a wave, if no one asks the question then a wave does not exist. Upon taking a measurement and being the only known animal in the universe that can do this, we are indeed messing with the direct nature and in direct violation of the physical laws of the universe, we were never meant to be, we were never meant to be conscious and have the ability of choice.


I think therefore I am concious...I act so therefore I cause opposite reactions.

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Hmmm. The wave function is generally a superposition of several eigenfunctions. Upon taking a measurement the wavefunction is a single eigenfunctions.

Sure'nuff, pardner, but see here, the wavefunction is a mathematical representation of a cow.

A hamburger is a dead cow, not a singular eigenfunction of the spatial distribution of all live cowons.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 17:26:01 by alancalverd »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
The Copenhagen Interpretation appears to works under the assumption that we do not know why we have a quantum universe. We know it is there, because we can see and measure it, but we don't know why it is there? If you don't know why something does as it does, you can't anticipate before it happens, therefore when you do an experiment, the result can bias how one interprets the phenomena. 

For example, say we didn't know why lightning forms in storm clouds; hypothetically,. All we know is lightning forms because we have seen it, so we know it is there. Since we don't know why, we can't know for sure if we are seeing the lightning in the beginning, middle or end when we measure it. It is not so much our measurement impacting the lightning, but rather the where and when we measure, will bias how we will correlate it.

I have pondered this and have asked myself the ten dollar question, why quanta in the first place?  If you compare a quantum universe to the universe of continuous logical functions that had existed before we discovered quanta, a quantum universe has fewer choices. If you assume both universes work under statistics, the quantum universe loads the dice of the universe, so only a smaller number of sides can appear.

Ironically, when science went from the continuous function universe to the quantum universe, at the time of Einstein and others, the universe of science had actually become more determinant that it had been; fewer choices, yet the universe was now modeled as being random instead of rational. I would guess that had to do with a lack of an answer for why quanta in the first place. Random was are artifact of a poor foundation for this major observation,

What does quantum bring to the table? If A and then B have to happen before the universe can precede to C, a quantum universe saves time, relative to a continuous universe. You do not have to throw the dice as many times to get seven, if the dice are loaded.

If quantum saves time, relative to continuous, the timing of the observation can have an impact on what we think we see, by adding or taking away time. If mentally subtract or add time, the event can appear to be where it should not be in time. This can create the mental image of things being more random that they actually are.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 13:02:50 by puppypower »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Let me continue with why a quantum universe. I did this analysis in another topic, but I will repeat this here since it is how I was able to answer the question in a simple way. In photography there is a affect called motion blur. This happens when the shutter speed is slower than the action speed. Since a still photo stops time, but conserves the difference in speed; ΔV, the time appears as uncertainty distance; motion blur. Motion blur gives the mental impression of motion even though time is stopped in the photo. How can something appear to move without time, unless a time equivalent has been created to allow the impression of motion?

In terms of the quantum universe, I call this, a conversion of time potential into distance potential. The connected space in space-time comes from time potential conversion. As such,  space-time is time discontinuous, leading to a quantum universe. In measurements, if we observe the quanta in the gaps of time; position, we create uncertainty.

« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 13:05:49 by puppypower »
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave in the aether.

"While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored." - John Bell

In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment. In the first article the aether has mass.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it" ...

... and displace it.

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."

In the following articles Louis de Broglie describes wave-particle duality as a moving particle and it's associated wave in a hidden subquantic medium.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.

"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

The particle occupies a very small region of the associated aether wave.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.


 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Aether? No. However, if you have quoted Bell correctly then that is of interest. Where did that quote come from? This then relates to the de broglie-Bohm theory. Which by the way Einstein disagreed with. This theory is deterministic and non-local. I haven't studied this enough to make any determination of how valid it may be.
 

Online Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
 I voted yes because I think the Copenhagen interpretation is probably the best we have to date in terms of working with QM.  Understanding the underlying “why” is another matter, and I’m not sure it is part of quantum theory.
 

Online Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Now I’m confused (more than usually).

Alan, you seem to be saying that physical systems have definite properties and that all a measurement does is give us information about those pre-existing properties.  Is that right?

Would you also apply this to entanglement?
 

Online Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Puppypower, the “motion” in your picture has nothing to do with change continuing when time is stopped.  Taking the picture stops both change and time.  The motion you see is simply the result of your brain’s interpretation of the scene.
 

Online Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Not surprisingly the double slit experiment finds its way into almost any discussion of wave/particle duality.  The part that seems often to be overlooked is the question: Should we consider this duality to imply wave or particle, wave and particle or neither wave nor particle?

I’m going to opt for the third.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Aether? No. However, if you have quoted Bell correctly then that is of interest. Where did that quote come from? This then relates to the de broglie-Bohm theory. Which by the way Einstein disagreed with. This theory is deterministic and non-local. I haven't studied this enough to make any determination of how valid it may be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

"Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell

'John S. Bell on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics  By J. S. Bell, Mary Bell, Kurt Gottfried, Martinus Veltman' - Page 199

"While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored."

De Broglie-Bohm theory should be called Bohmian mechanics as de Broglie disagreed with it.

'NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE'

"During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeared subsequently in The Physical Review [3]. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of the pilot-wave, considering the W wave as a physical reality* He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927.3 My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de VAcademic des Sciences [4], the objections, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the W wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory."

I am discussing de Broglie's double solution theory. In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is also a physical wave in a "hidden subquantic medium" which guides the particle.

I recommend watching all of the following video. The part having to do with the double slit experiment is at the 2:43 mark.


In order for there to be conservation of momentum a downconverted photon pair are created with opposite angular momentums.

Each of the pair can determine the position and momentum of the other based upon their own position and momentum.

Entanglement is each of the pair being able to determine the state of the other.

Their ability to determine each other's state is non-local.

Their states are exposed to one another.

I recommend watching all of the following video. de Broglie's double solution theory is referred to as an exposed variable theory at the 2:10 mark .

 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Not surprisingly the double slit experiment finds its way into almost any discussion of wave/particle duality.  The part that seems often to be overlooked is the question: Should we consider this duality to imply wave or particle, wave and particle or neither wave nor particle?

I’m going to opt for the third.

Physics is incorrect in terms of its notions about dark matter. Dark matter is not weakly interacting. Dark matter is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark matter.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave in the dark matter.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter that passes through both.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
liquidspacetime I have simply ignored your last two posts as this thread has nothing to do with Aether. It was simply stated and had two choices. An Aether has nothing to do with the initial poll. It clouds the issue. The de Broglie-Bohm theory that you referred me to indirectly is pertinent.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
liquidspacetime I have simply ignored your last two posts as this thread has nothing to do with Aether. It was simply stated and had two choices. An Aether has nothing to do with the initial poll. It clouds the issue. The de Broglie-Bohm theory that you referred me to indirectly is pertinent.

The space unoccupied by particles of matter has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. In a double slit experiment it is the mass which fills 'empty' space that waves.

If the problem is the term 'aether' then call it dark matter.

Dark matter fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the dark matter.

If you want to correctly understand wave-particle duality then you will understand it is the mass which fills 'empty' space that waves.

De Broglie-Bohm theory is incorrectly named as de Broglie disagreed with it. See my previous de Broglie quote. I am discussing de Broglie's double solution theory. In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is also a physical wave in a "hidden subquantic medium" which guides the particle.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 15:36:39 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
alancalverd's viewpoint is one that should be given careful consideration. While the philosophical debates may be interesting they often don't lead anywhere useful.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Understanding the space unoccupied by particles of matter has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it and is what waves in a double slit experiment leads to correctly understanding what occurs physically in nature in terms of wave-particle duality.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
As far as I can tell Bohm modified the original theory. Hence de Broglie-Bohm theory.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
As far as I can tell Bohm modified the original theory. Hence de Broglie-Bohm theory.

De Broglie realized his pilot-wave theory was incorrect and abandoned it. That is why he went back to his original idea of the double solution theory. The pilot-wave was the wave-function wave and thought to exist over all of configuration space. De Broglie realized configuration space was a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist. He then realized the pilot-wave as the wave-function wave was also a mathematical construct only.

'NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE'

"During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeared subsequently in The Physical Review [3]. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of the pilot-wave, considering the W wave as a physical reality* He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927.3 My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de VAcademic des Sciences [4], the objections, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the W wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory."

In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is also a physical wave in a hidden subquantic medium which guides the particle.

The hidden subquantic medium is the dark matter.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 17:03:44 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
An electron changed state in a hydrogen atom in a star two thousand light years away, and emitted a photon when Jesus was born. If you look up tonight, you will see that photon. Now how did the atom know that you, and you alone, would be around to measure it? And why did it care?

There is no doubt that the electron changed state, because the photon you saw has exactly the properties and direction of every hydrogen line from that region of space, and it is absurd to propose that its wavefunction collapsed 2000 years after the photon was emitted: all the photons we observe in the laboratory seem to have been generated by very recent quantum events.   
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
As for the poll, no experiment has contradicted my statement that 47 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Doesn't make it true, though, or even useful.

And there ain't no "why" in physics - or indeed in any proper science. We start with the hypothesis that the laws of physics have not changed and will not change, therefore there is no "purpose" in any interaction: stuff happens the way it does, and our job is to explain and predict what happens. We deal with "how", not "why".
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 17:42:15 by alancalverd »
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The "how' in terms of the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment is that the particle traveled through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passed through both. If you strongly detect the particle it destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the dark matter and the particle no longer creates an interference pattern.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Why bring dark matter into it. What benefit does that give us? I really don't understand why these philosophical issues cloud quantum mechanics. No one knows why things happen the way they do. They just do. The phrase shut up and calculate likely arises from the frustration felt by a lot of scientists with the arguments.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums