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 10762 times)

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The dark matter is what waves. The associated wave in the dark matter is the wave of wave-particle duality.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
A quantum universe, in general terms, limits the options that are possible relative to a continuous universe defined by continuous functions. For example, the hydrogen spectrum has five energy levels and not an infinite number a continuous universe might have assumed before one was able to measure it.

When science began to think in terms of a quantum universe, the dice of the classical universe became loaded and far more deterministic. The continuous models went from infinite energy levels for the hydrogen atom to only five quantum levels. This meant most of the random has gone, since the dice were so loaded.  But since nobody asked why quanta, the universe became more random. This was not even rational from 20/20 hindsight. The tradition continues so it is time to ask why?

There is no rule in science that say the scientific mind has to be calibrated, even though it is the most important tool in science. Say convention says we need to calibrate the mind so we can see  randomness in loaded dice. As we throw the dice, the bias of the calibration will cause the dice to appear to beat the odds, thereby needing to add another layer of explanation to make this possible. It is time to ask why quanta in the first place?

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.

You are correct, the brain is interpreting the Δd of the blur as connected to motion or d/t, thereby adding virtual time for motion. This natural brain interpretation may be the same unconscious affect that connected space and time into space-time. This will make sense to us, since the brain already will make this connection as proven my motion blur. Motion blur caused this brain affect in 1850's, decades before relativity. The mind already had a precedent in terms of a tangible affect in photography.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 22:50:59 by puppypower »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • 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.

But you detect the particle after it has gone through the slit, so the act of measurement cannot determine which slit it will go through. 
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
But you detect the particle after it has gone through the slit, so the act of measurement cannot determine which slit it will go through.

No one is saying anything about having to predict the future. This is about understanding the particle always travels through a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the associated wave in the dark matter which passes through both.

You perform a boat double slit experiment a million times. On the millionth and first time you close your eyes. When you open your eyes you see the boat exiting one of the slits. Are you able to deduce which slit the boat entered?

In a boat double slit experiment you are capable of understanding the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both whether you detect the boat or not?

The path the boat travels is deterministic whether you closed your eyes and did not know what the path was, or not.

The particle in a double slit experiment travels a well defined path whether you detect the particle or not.

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

“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”

The “subquantic medium” is the dark matter.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”

A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the dark matter.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.”

What waves in a double slit experiment is the dark matter.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 23:17:41 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
No one is saying anything about having to predict the future. This is about understanding the particle always travels through a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the associated wave in the dark matter which passes through both.
You are now saying that observing the particle affects the wave, but you began by asserting that the wave precedes and determines the position of the particle (that's why you called it a pilot wave). You can't have it both ways.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
You are now saying that observing the particle affects the wave, but you began by asserting that the wave precedes and determines the position of the particle (that's why you called it a pilot wave). You can't have it both ways.

The particle is guided by its associated wave. When you strongly detect the particle you destroy the coherence between the particle and its associated wave. When you strongly detect the particle prior to entering or when it is exiting the slit you destroy the coherence between the particle exiting a slit and the associated wave exiting both slits, the particle is no longer guided by its wave and it does not create an interference pattern.

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

« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 23:58:26 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
When you strongly detect the particle you destroy the coherence between the particle and its associated wave.
You said that before, but it is a circular argument. Either the pilot wave determnes where the particle will be, in which case detecting the particle cannot alter anything, or it isn't a pilot wave. Just calling  it "coherence" doesn't change the fact that you are hypothesising a cause (wave) and effect (position of particle), and in this universe, causes precede effects.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
You said that before, but it is a circular argument. Either the pilot wave determnes where the particle will be, in which case detecting the particle cannot alter anything, or it isn't a pilot wave. Just calling  it "coherence" doesn't change the fact that you are hypothesising a cause (wave) and effect (position of particle), and in this universe, causes precede effects.

If you place a bunch of pilings in front of a boat in order to detect it, while it is getting knocked around by the pilings it's not going to be in sync with its bow wave.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 00:18:36 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I want to ask a question here because I am not sure what the answer will be. If we fired 1 photon every minute in the double slit experiment would we still get the interference fringes? That is it is not a continuous stream of photons.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
You would still get an interference pattern.

The following image shows the interference pattern build up over time for electons.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I had read that in various texts but I wanted to get my ducks in order before proceeding. This then means that the interference is not dependent upon more than 1 particle being present at the same time. It will 'interfere' with itself. Does this mean that it does in fact pass through both slits? It would appear so. The 'pilot wave' approach appears seductive. It looks like it can explain the effect. However this should indicate that a particle is an expanding sphere that will ultimately expand to infinity. If we were to construct a spherical style multiple slit experiment would we see a 3 dimensional interference pattern? It may be that this pattern may likely mimic the profile of the magnetic field. If it does then the magnetic field may play the role of the wave. If this experiment is not done then no one will know. This should dispel the idea of an ongoing spherical expansion of the wave.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 16:53:46 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If you place a bunch of pilings in front of a boat in order to detect it, while it is getting knocked around by the pilings it's not going to be in sync with its bow wave.

It's a bad analogy.

1. The reason a boat has a bow wave is because it is moving through an effectively incompressible medium. Photon or electron diffraction occurs in the absence of a medium (double slit in vacuo) or a dense medium (x-ray and electron diffraction in crystals).

2. The bow wave moves ahead of the boat but doesn't determine the path of the boat.

3. You can see the diffraction of a bow wave as a boat approaches a row of stanchions or a harbor entrance, but the boat doesn't diffract!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
3 We see wave on screen because  ( WAVE IS FASTER )
You might get away with that explanation in the case of an electron, but what wave is faster than a photon?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The following image shows the interference pattern build up over time for electons.
The key here is "build up over time". A single electron can't provide an interference pattern because, unlike a wave, it is indivisible. What we actually detect, whether electrons or photons, is individual particles hitting the detector with a spatial distribution that looks like wave interference. 
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I see that yet again we are moving away from reasonable debate and learning opportunities. I have picked up some useful information from reliable sources so I am officially abandoning this thread. Since I started it I don't mind if the mods lock it.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1826
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Jeffrey
I see that yet again we are moving away from reasonable debate and learning opportunities.

Perhaps we could arrange for Marosz to get the Nobel he keeps on about; he might not then need to keep trolling the forums from which he has not yet been banned.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I had read that in various texts but I wanted to get my ducks in order before proceeding. This then means that the interference is not dependent upon more than 1 particle being present at the same time. It will 'interfere' with itself. Does this mean that it does in fact pass through both slits? It would appear so. The 'pilot wave' approach appears seductive. It looks like it can explain the effect. However this should indicate that a particle is an expanding sphere that will ultimately expand to infinity. If we were to construct a spherical style multiple slit experiment would we see a 3 dimensional interference pattern? It may be that this pattern may likely mimic the profile of the magnetic field. If it does then the magnetic field may play the role of the wave. If this experiment is not done then no one will know. This should dispel the idea of an ongoing spherical expansion of the wave.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave.

The particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through both.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
If you place a bunch of pilings in front of a boat in order to detect it, while it is getting knocked around by the pilings it's not going to be in sync with its bow wave.

It's a bad analogy.

1. The reason a boat has a bow wave is because it is moving through an effectively incompressible medium. Photon or electron diffraction occurs in the absence of a medium (double slit in vacuo) or a dense medium (x-ray and electron diffraction in crystals).

2. The bow wave moves ahead of the boat but doesn't determine the path of the boat.

3. You can see the diffraction of a bow wave as a boat approaches a row of stanchions or a harbor entrance, but the boat doesn't diffract!

Dark matter is not a clump of stuff that travels with the matter.  The matter moves through and displaces the dark matter.

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.

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

« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 20:42:44 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Having now watched the video, it is exactly as I expected. They have generated a wave train which has a central singularity, and demonstrated that (a) waves diffract and (b) a singularity can bounce a globule.

Nothing new in either case (the classic demonstrations used milk, and were filmed in the 1940s), but by clever choice of material and experimental conditions they have managed to sustain the globule by resonance.

But they have not demonstrated a single globule interfering with itself. There is no suggestion of duality here, only that if you preserve the central singularity of the wave, the globule moves with it. As I said some posts ago, the wave directs the particle, just as happens with a surfboard, dust floating on a bucket of water, or a charged particle in a linear accelerator. The wave is not identical with the particle, any more than the surfboard or dust is identical with the water, and detecting the particle (or removing the surfboard) has no effect on the behavior of the wave.     

Macroscopic plane resonance has many interesting applications, from violin making through SAW delay lines to the formation of snowflakes and the sounds of a cymbal, but it doesn't explain or even adequately model the diffraction of electrons. 
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The singularity passes through one slit. The associated wave passes through both.

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

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

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

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 23:32:31 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
So you say the wave is in the dark matter. If the dark matter is composed of WIMPS and said WIMPS are black holes that have evaporated until the size of the Planck mass. So in effect you are saying the universe if full of these micro black holes and they are all waving about. I would like to find the force that would make a sea of micro black holes wave around. It must be enormous in magnitude. That is just one of the things that dark matter could be. You need a rethink.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 23:39:47 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
So you say the wave is in the dark matter. If the dark matter is composed of WIMPS and said WIMPS are black holes that have evaporated until the size of the Planck mass. So in effect you are saying the universe if full of these micro black holes and they are all waving about. I would like to find the force that would make a sea of micro black holes wave around. It must be enormous in magnitude. That is just one of the things that dark matter could be. You need a rethink.

The dark matter is not weakly interacting. The dark matter is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The dark matter is not a clump of stuff that travels with the matter. Matter moves through and displaces the dark matter.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the dark amtter as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that dark matter consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
You have a vague and woolly definition of dark matter upon which you wish to build a speculative hypothesis. Until you know what dark matter is and how it operates you cannot say that it is responsible for the wave nature of particles. The most important question is why would dark matter be needed to explain particle wave like nature in the first place? What are you gaining by introducing it? I would say that the wave 'belongs' to the particle. It is not separate from it. Do I have dark matter in my coffee when I drink it? Am I consuming dark matter with my food? That is what happens from your point of view. We are all full of dark matter. In which case gravity is even weaker than we think since dark matter is said to contribute to the gravitational field. If it is everywhere then gravity is actually far weaker than we think. No wonder no one has detected gravitational waves. But wait! If there is a sea of dark matter everywhere then what is its density? Is it constant throughout the universe or does clump more around massive objects? You need to answer these questions and make the answers match observation.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The most important question is why would dark matter be needed to explain particle wave like nature in the first place?

In terms of wave-particle duality it is the dark matter that waves.

A moving boat has a bow wave. There is a boat and a bow wave.

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

You need dark matter to explain particle wave like nature because it is the dark matter that waves.
 

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Quote
The particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through both.
I believe this to be in error, and that a quantum object is not a wave paired with an associated particle, these two things being thought of as associated but distinct objects; but rather a quantum object is one indivisible reality that can exhibit wavelike or particlelike properties depending upon circumstances.  The widely accepted view that a quantum object is a "wave associated with a particle" seems to explain a number of observations but runs into significant conceptual problems if taken literally. Among these is the fact that if there is a distinct particle which moves in a manner defined by the separate wave so that the probabilities turn out the way they should, then that motion must be in principle be position as a function of time, and as such must have certain mathematical properties. For example, the X component of the function will of necessity have some frequency spectrum , as will the Y and Z. Such a spectrum must have a mean.  But no one has ever to my knowledge has any clue as to how to calculate it. Another problem is that if the quantum object is emitted and absorbed only with respect to its particulate nature, then there must be some mechanism showing how the particle interacts at these times, and a theory to this effect is altogether lacking.

We can discard this entire picture if we adopt the following ideas:  First, discard the idea that when a blip is recorded in an instrument (e.g., Geiger counter), that a little hard ball, the classical sense, has collided with something.  We need to recognize the crudity of observational processes.  They simply do not have enough precision and finesse to actually show us in detail what has happened. Second, we must understand that this crudity is not simply a matter of limited technology, but is actually inherent in the order of things -- we must observe quantum objects by using instruments that are themselves composed of quantum objects, and it appears that there exists as a fundamental property of the order of things that an instrument composed of quantum objects is incapable of establishing its state with sufficient precision that the exact state of another quantum object can be fully examined. Thirdly:  we must reunderstand the concept of a wave as it applies to this situation.  We toss out the classical concept of a wave (a field that varies according to a differential equation, such that when boundary conditions are imposed as by spatial confinement, only certain modes are possible but amplitudes remain arbitrary), and replace it with one in which amplitude itself  becomes one of the coordinates in which the function exists, and, as such, when limited by boundaries, limits the function to discreet modes as pertains to amplitude.  This is what is known as quantization of the radiation field, and has the interesting effect that it automatically creates "particles" which consist in the differences in energy between different possible amplitude modes.  Thus, with this revised understanding of wave properties, "particles" follow automatically and do not have to be added as an addendum.  The quantum object we thus end up with is neither a classical wave nor a classical particle, but a different animal than both.

With this understanding, the whole way many people look at quantum experiments can be revised.  One consequence is that in the double slit experiment, both the "wave" and the "particle" travel through both slits, because the "wave" and the "particle" are in fact the same thing.  When it hits the screen, only one "particle" is detected because it corresponds to the transition of the state from one energy level to the one below it, which, because the function is quantized not only spatially but also amplitudinally, is necessarily a discrete transition. Remaining to be understood is why, then, the "particle" shows up at only one location.  I believe the answer to that is that the nature of the screen is such that only localized reception is possible (mainly because of the way it is composed of localized molecules), and that if the screen were not so constituted ,  the arriving "particle" could indeed be detected impacting in several places at once or over a wide area; but that such an occurrence would not constitute detecting several particles because the nature of such a screen would have to be such that such a possibility is excluded. It is still only one "particle".  To make such a screen, one needs to overcome the conventional realities of material structure, and that may be possible by using a Bose-Einstein condensate.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2015 04:39:12 by Atomic-S »
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length