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

Groups > sci.physics > #575386

Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Show all headers | View raw

SEKI wrote:

> 2016年5月3日火曜日 3時12分16秒 UTC+9 7:
>> 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).
> 
> Then, tell me what Copenhagen interpretation or many worlds theories
> predicted.

You told us already before you proposed alternative:

"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.
"

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