# Naked Science Forum

## Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2015 00:52:59

Title: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2015 00:52:59
I personally believe it is correct. What do you think?
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/11/2015 01:00:29
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: PmbPhy on 07/11/2015 04:53:52
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: Thebox on 07/11/2015 11:25:34
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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/11/2015 12:08:40
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: puppypower on 07/11/2015 12:42:14
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: puppypower on 07/11/2015 13:00:46
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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 13:01:24
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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2015 14:39:00
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2015 14:44:26
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2015 14:54:48
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?
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2015 15:00:22
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: Bill S on 07/11/2015 15:10:46
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 15:14:15
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 .

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 15:17:40
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2015 15:28:05
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 15:32:56
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2015 15:42:58
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 15:48:47
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2015 16:13:35
As far as I can tell Bohm modified the original theory. Hence de Broglie-Bohm theory.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 16:40:17
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/11/2015 17:36:26
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/11/2015 17:38:16
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".
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 17:51:44
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/11/2015 18:35:40
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 19:16:39
The dark matter is what waves. The associated wave in the dark matter is the wave of wave-particle duality.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: puppypower on 07/11/2015 22:47:52
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/11/2015 23:05:52
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 23:11:37
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/11/2015 23:45:41
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 07/11/2015 23:53:24
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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/11/2015 00:04:14
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 08/11/2015 00:07:37
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/11/2015 00:49:26
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 08/11/2015 01:32:50
You would still get an interference pattern.

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

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/11/2015 16:51:58
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/11/2015 17:47:43
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.

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!
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/11/2015 18:24:48
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?
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/11/2015 18:30:12
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/11/2015 19:14:41
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: Bill S on 08/11/2015 20:01:11
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 08/11/2015 20:33:32
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 08/11/2015 20:41:02
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.

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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/11/2015 22:02:24
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 08/11/2015 22:18:57
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/11/2015 23:37:50
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 00:46:45
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/11/2015 01:04:54
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 02:15:08
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: Atomic-S on 09/11/2015 04:37:38
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 05:06:54
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/11/2015 08:29:38
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 11:27:36
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/11/2015 11:53:51
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 12:07:49
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/11/2015 12:35:35
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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 13:16:18
Boats travel at different speeds. Their bow wave travels with the boat.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/11/2015 17:25:53
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 17:53:40
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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/11/2015 17:56:13
I have watched it 3 times. It doesn't get any better.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 21:02:44
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: Bill S on 09/11/2015 22:36:49
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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 09/11/2015 22:55:36
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/11/2015 23:11:06
They can't "get the particle to move faster" because the Couder particle is constrained by the wave.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 10/11/2015 01:34:14
They could put a fan behind it and it, and its wave, will move faster.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/11/2015 08:09:16
Calm down, dear. Einstein's formula for radiation pressure is well known.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/11/2015 08:11:06
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 10/11/2015 11:32:44
The particle and wave move in sync. The faster the particle moves through the fluid the.faster the associated wave in the fluid propagates.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/11/2015 12:06:53
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 10/11/2015 14:52:19
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/11/2015 19:08:02
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 10/11/2015 19:19:21
In the video it's obvious the wave slows down as the particle interacts with the slits.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/11/2015 02:46:27
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 11/11/2015 03:05:33
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.

Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/11/2015 03:38:45
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.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 11/11/2015 03:46:53
It's the associated wave which creates the wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/11/2015 00:01:31
In the video it's obvious the wave slows down as the particle interacts with the slits.

In the video, the particle does not "interact" with the slits - it just passes through, carried by the wave. If you remove the particle, you will find that the wave behaves in exactly the same way. Try it!
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 12/11/2015 01:10:10
The particle often runs into the divider between the slits. When it does it and its associated wave slow down.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/11/2015 09:40:42
Try full screen and freeze frame. You will see that the particle never touches the divider. Indeed it can't, because it is being carried by the wave, not the other way around, and if the wave amplitude was zero between the particle and the divider, the particle would fall into the "soup".

It's very pretty, but it's just mesoscopic fluid dynamics and nothing to do with quantum physics.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 12/11/2015 12:51:46
As the particle interacts with the divider it slows down and so does its associated wave.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/11/2015 13:41:10
I can do no more than advise you to repeat the experiment without the particle. You will find that the wave behaves in exactly the same way. The particle is irrelevant to the wave. Fluid dynamics is not magic.
Title: Re: Is the Copenhagen Interpretation correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Post by: liquidspacetime on 12/11/2015 20:37:13
I can advise you to watch the video and notice when the particle encounters the divider it slows down which causes its associated wave to slow down.