Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #574907

Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Show all headers | View raw

SEKI wrote:

> 2016年5月2日月曜日 19時39分21秒 UTC+9 7:
>> SEKI wrote:
>> 
>> > We usually learned quantum physics with the Copenhagen interpretation,
>> > in which the existence probability of a particle is presented by the
>> > square of the absolute value of the wave function.
>> > 
>> > I could never accept this interpretation and others.
>> > Then, I would like to present an alternative.
>> > My basic outlook is as follows:
>> > 
>> > Though a quantum behaves as a wave, it maintains its oneness while it
>> > exists. A free quantum carries its energy and momentum as a whole.
>> > A quantum can assume the character of a particle, which is extremely
>> > small, only momentarily.
>> > [I consider that the assumption that there exist extremely small
>> > [elementary
>> > particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is
>> > false and is the root of quantum paradoxes such as instantaneous wave
>> > function collapse,
>> > and single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit experiment.
>> > And, quanta are basically considered to be only phenomena in the
>> > space-time with fields, which is considered to be the only substance
>> > existing in the most extreme sense.]
>> > 
>> > In each quantum field, a kind of cohesive force like surface tension or
>> > some
>> > sort of cut-off mechanism is considered to be essential.  As an
>> > example,
>> > consider a photon traveling all the way from a far-away star.  Without
>> > any cohesive force or some sort of cut-off mechanism, the quantum
>> > cannot but diffuse, be diluted beyond measure and end up disappearing.
>> > [Suppose a photon is traveling in the z-direction.  If x and y
>> > [components of
>> > the momentum of the photon are both absolutely zero (xy-spectrum width
>> > = 0), the wave packet of the photon is already unlimitedly spread
>> > (plane wave). Otherwise (xy-spectrum width is not zero), the wave
>> > packet will spread even further.]
>> > Unlike the four fundamental forces, this kind of cohesive force is to
>> > work only in each field.
>> > On the above assumption, each quantum has only a finite size in the
>> > space even if it has specific energy and momentum.
>> > [So, in my perspective, the Kennard (not Heisenberg) inequality fails,
>> > [and
>> > theories related to renormalization should be revised.]
>> > 
>> > Let's consider a process, a+b -> c(+d+...), where each of a, b, c, ...
>> > stands for a quantum (elementary particle) which is real, not virtual.
>> > If a part of quantum a and that of b overlap one another in the space,
>> > both
>> > parts are assumed to reduce.  Reductions of overlapped parts of quantum
>> > waves and above-mentioned cohesive force result in a kind of mutual
>> > attraction between the quanta.  If the domains of quanta, a and b, both
>> > reduce to the same point or extremely small area, the above process can
>> > take place.
>> > As for quanta, among which no interaction is possible, no reduction of
>> > overlapped part of quantum wave is to occur.
>> > 
>> > Particle-antiparticle pair can be produced when high-energy photon
>> > collides
>> > with a nucleus or the like.  It should be noted that no pair can be
>> > produced without a collision with a charged particle, which is to cause
>> > a reduction of quantum wave of photon.
>> > 
>> > In case of being subjected to enough acceleration, a charged quantum
>> > gets compressed in the direction of the acceleration, reduced in the
>> > two remaining dimensions of the space by the cohesive force, and then
>> > gets to be able to emit a photon.
>> > 
>> > Though I suppose that my interpretation of quantum mechanics is
>> > leastwise better than that of Copenhagen, many worlds theories and so
>> > forth, I'm not quite sure.
>> > It is appreciated very much if you would point out my misconception if
>> > any.
>> > 
>> > Thank you.
>> > 
>> > SEKI Hajime
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Interpretations are important.
>> 
>> The more important thing is to make predictions with it
>> that separates one interpretation from another.
>> 
>> So what do you think will happen if a photon goes through
>> double slit 1 mile away from source and 100 miles from source?
>> There must be some difference you can predict with
>> a different interpretation?
> 
> At present, I have no intention of making predictions.
> As I wrote, I could never accept Copenhagen interpretation and others.
> Is there any interpretation convincing you?


Without predictions, none of us can
compare it with anything other than what we know
(even if it is wrong).

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 01:20 -0700
  Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-02 10:39 +0000
    Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 07:18 -0700
      Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-02 18:12 +0000
        Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:24 -0700
          Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-04 07:15 +0000
  Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 06:01 -0700
  Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 08:07 -0700
    Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-05-05 09:27 -0700
      Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 01:13 -0700
  Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 10:33 -0700
    Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-07 16:51 -0500
    Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 15:16 -0700
      Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 08:04 -0700

csiph-web