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 10838 times)

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The singularity passes through one slit. The associated wave passes through both.
There's the problem with the analogy. The quantum particle passes through both.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The singularity passes through one slit. The associated wave passes through both.
There's the problem with the analogy. The quantum particle passes through both.

The particle passes through one slit. The wave passes through both.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Couder's experiment still depends on the wave train leading the particle. You might consider this to be valid where the particle speed in less than c, as you could indeed propagate a pilot wave ahead of it. But by how much?

Couder's particle is constrained to move at the wave phase velocity, but the direction of movement after diffraction is a function of group velocity. So, applying Couder's model to your concept of (compression? transverse? you choose!) waves in dark matter, please calculate the diffraction pattern of 1 keV electrons, 1 MeV electrons, and 2 eV photons through the same double slit, and compare with experiment. And you might also ask how neutron and proton diffraction will compare. It would be interesting indeed if all particles, regardless of mass or charge, had exactly the same interaction with dark matter. 
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The wave out ahead of the particle is traveling at the same speed as the particle. If the wave were traveling faster than the particle it would leave the particle behind.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So the wave speed depends on the particle speed, not on the propagation medium. But Couder's model shows that the particle speed depends on the wave speed, which is dependent on the propagation medium. You can't have it both ways!

The problem with attempting any classical analogy with quantum mechanics is that you simply can't do it, because it's the wrong way round. If you start with quantum mechanics, i.e. a mathematical description of what we actually observe on a very small scale, and scale it up to several billion particles, you get something that looks increasingly like classical mechanics as the sample gets bigger.

Classical observation: dog bites man. You cannot possibly derive the structure of canine DNA from that observation. But if you study canine DNA and its microscopic antecedents, you might be able to work out how a quadruped carnivore evolved from the primordial slime.

Physics: this is how I observe the world works

Philosophy: this is how I think it should work.

« Last Edit: 09/11/2015 12:57:48 by alancalverd »
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Boats travel at different speeds. Their bow wave travels with the boat.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
Bow wave,
bow wave [Credit: Arnold Paul]
progressive disturbance propagated through a fluid such as water or air as the result of displacement by the foremost point of an object moving through it at a speed greater than the speed of a wave moving across the water.

Not a good choice of analogy. Obviously the bow wave cannot precede the particle since the group velocity is less than the phase velocity. But your pilot wave must precede the particle if it is to determine the particle's diffraction.

Try learning some elementary physics - or even looking at a boat - before promulgating obvious nonsense.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Not a good choice of analogy. Obviously the bow wave cannot precede the particle since the group velocity is less than the phase velocity. But your pilot wave must precede the particle if it is to determine the particle's diffraction.

Try learning some elementary physics - or even looking at a boat - before promulgating obvious nonsense.

Boats are made to cut through the water. Particles are not.

I recommend watching all of the following video. The part having to do with the double slit experiment is at the 2:43 mark to see the wave out ahead of the particle moving at the same speed as the particle.

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I have watched it 3 times. It doesn't get any better.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
It shows the particle moving with the wave. If the particle was moving faster its wave would be moving faster. If the particle is moving slower the wave moves slower. Look at the particle as it gets knocked around while interacting with the slits. It's wave also slows down. The medium does not determine the speed at which the particle propagates. The particle determines the speed at which the wave propagates.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1832
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
I am afraid I have paid scant attention to this thread, but perhaps that is an advantage, because I can now post my reaction to the Couder video before reading the comments, erudite or otherwise, of others.

My reaction is that it says no more about QM than the ball and sheet demonstration says about gravity.  Possibly it says less.

The action of the droplets and waves is maintained by the vibration of the underlying plate.  We are not told if this vibration is constant, or varied.  If it is constant, why would patterns of  movement not develop?

If the waves are generated by the presence and bouncing of the particles, why would the two not move together?

Saying that the waves appear to guide the particles is just a matter of interpretation; it could as well be the other way round; or neither could be guiding the other.

I see no indication of interference patterns developing when a particle passes through a slit.  In fact the wave always seems to go through the same slit as the particle.


 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
When they get the particle to move faster the associated wave will be visible going through both slits.

In a double slit experiment with a particle the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through both.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
They can't "get the particle to move faster" because the Couder particle is constrained by the wave.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
They could put a fan behind it and it, and its wave, will move faster.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Calm down, dear. Einstein's formula for radiation pressure is well known.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
They could put a fan behind it and it, and its wave, will move faster.
The more you try to make this demonstration of macroscopic fluid mechanics look like quantum physics, the more bizarre and unlikely it becomes. 
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The particle and wave move in sync. The faster the particle moves through the fluid the.faster the associated wave in the fluid propagates.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So now you are saying that the particle speed determines the wave speed, because I can make a charged particle move at any speed I choose (up to about 0.9999c).

But the video demonstration shows exactly the opposite - the wave speed determines the particle speed.

Now if your waves apply equally to photons as to charged particles, the wave speed must be c for all particles because it is c for photons, and only zero-mass objects can travel at c, and zero mass objects can only travel at c. So now you are telling us that all particles travel at c, which we know to be untrue.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
So now you are saying that the particle speed determines the wave speed, because I can make a charged particle move at any speed I choose (up to about 0.9999c).

But the video demonstration shows exactly the opposite - the wave speed determines the particle speed.

Now if your waves apply equally to photons as to charged particles, the wave speed must be c for all particles because it is c for photons, and only zero-mass objects can travel at c, and zero mass objects can only travel at c. So now you are telling us that all particles travel at c, which we know to be untrue.

I have been saying the particle speed determines the wave speed all along.

If you watch the video, while the particle is interacting with the slits the wave slows down.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Utter nonsense. The wave behavior is independent of the particle - there is a wavefront ahead of the particle so the wave had no way of knowing what the particle is going to do. The reason the wave train appears to slow down is because the singularity that traps the particle has a larger amplitude than the rest of the wave train, so more material has to pass through the slit in order to create a singularity on the downstream side, but the flow rate is restricted by the slit.

If you don't believe me, try doing the same experiment without the particle. It's pretty standard school physics.

Anyway, as I pointed out, if the particle speed determined the wave speed, all quantum particles would have to travel at the same speed, which they can't and don't.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2015 19:09:49 by alancalverd »
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
In the video it's obvious the wave slows down as the particle interacts with the slits.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Before I started studying quantum mechanics and reading up on the history of development of the theory I too thought that some of it had to be wrong. When I read up on the history and found how people used quite strong persuasion to push their point of view I felt a little more strongly that maybe a wrong turn was taken. Then once I had actually appreciated what the steps and considerations in the development of the theory were I was convinced that everything that was done was right. There is no get out clause. The imagined loopholes have all been closed so far. There may be some hidden variable theories left that may be valid, I don't know, but it seems like classical realists are fighting a losing battle. Determinism looks dead in the water at this point. The particle looks like it really does go through both slits. I have no problem with that. It is just the way it is. It is actually quite a cool thing that the universe isn't mundane.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2015 02:50:19 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
If you place detectors at the entrances to the slits, within the slits and at the exits to the slits the particle is detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit. It looks like the particle traveled through a single slit because that is what it does.

 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The particle has to interfere with itself otherwise time separated events would not lead to fringes. You can get interference with a single slit. You then have no ability to get two interacting waves as there is only one slit. So your idea falls down.

What I don't know is if single particle events separated by time will still produce this effect for a single slit. So that two particles cannot interact simultaneously.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2015 03:41:55 by jeffreyH »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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