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

Groups > sci.physics > #574777 > unrolled thread

My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

#574777 — My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#574781

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574815

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?

Anyway, thank you for your comment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574907

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).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574946

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#575386

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.
"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#575429

2016年5月2日月曜日 17時20分54秒 UTC+9 SEKI:
> 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

?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#575741

It is appreciated very much if you would answer the following questions.

1)Physical possibility and logical consistency
Up to now, no one has pointed out any fatal flaw in the model that I presented.
Don't you think the model is physically impossible or logically inconsistent?

2)Resolving quantum paradoxes
I devised the model in order to resolve quantum paradoxes.
Though the model cannot explain Bell's Inequality, I consider it can resolve 
the other paradoxes.
Do you agree?

Best Regards,

SEKI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#575785

SEKI wrote, " 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. "

Your belief in photon momentum is a flaw. Photons are not understood properly if you expect energy and momentum in a photon. My theory gives a photon only a length and time, and the atoms it starts and stops on are what have momentum and energy. All photons come from atoms, taking a length and time away. The energy levels of electrons have a different momentum and energy after losing a time and a length with the departing photon. A loop of space and time is a photon. When it hits an atom, the atom's momentum changes due to the inserted length and time that is put on the wavefunction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#575958

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 1:27:47 AM UTC+9, omni...@gmail.com wrote:
> SEKI wrote, " 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. "
> 
> Your belief in photon momentum is a flaw. Photons are not understood properly if you expect energy and momentum in a photon. My theory gives a photon only a length and time, and the atoms it starts and stops on are what have momentum and energy. All photons come from atoms, taking a length and time away. The energy levels of electrons have a different momentum and energy after losing a time and a length with the departing photon. A loop of space and time is a photon. When it hits an atom, the atom's momentum changes due to the inserted length and time that is put on the wavefunction.


Of course, according to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or more 
precisely, the Kennard inequality, a free photon with finite length and width 
can never have a specific energy and momentum.
I think this is false.  Then, I came up with the cohesive force.
If you disagree, it is no use discussing with you.

If interested, please refer to the discussion held about a year ago 
at the newsgroup of sci.physics.research under the title of "Basic Questions 
concerning Quantum and Gravitation Theories".

Thanks for your comment.

SEKI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576232

Several days ago, I started the topic of "A Better Interpretation of Quantum 
Mechanics?" in the newsgroup of sci.physics.research, which is moderated.

My new posting was rejected by the moderators.
The following is the rejected post.

=================================================================
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:02:14 AM UTC+9, Gregor Scholten wrote:
> SEKI wrote:
> 
> > We usually learned quantum physics with the Copenhagen interpretation
> 
> Do we? AFAIK most of today's physicists prefer the minimal statistical 
> interpretation.
> 
> [Moderator's note:  I've seen polls which suggest that the MWI is now 
> the most common.  Penrose pointed out, though, that one has to be 
> careful with such polls because some physicists are in a mixed state and 
> hold more than one interpretation at the same time.  -P.H.]
> 
> > in which the existence probability of a particle is presented by
> > the square of the absolute value of the wave function.
> 
> That's wrong. |psi(x)|^2 indicates the probability to find the particle 
> at position x when doing a position measurement, not an "existence 
> probability".
> 

Though I am impressed by high stringency of your argument, I don't think 
it is productive to discuss traditional interpretations.


> > 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.
> 
> Do you maybe misinterpret that fact that a particle's way function is 
> distributed over some regions in space as the particle itself being 
> extended about that region? Such an interpretation of the wave function 
> can quite easily been seen to be wrong: take e.g. the charge density 
> operator of an electrically charged particle, or take two charged 
> particles that are interacting. That interaction is described by a 
> two-particles potential operator
> 
> W(x1,x2) = q1 q2 / |x1 - x2|
> 
> that is based on the assumption that both particles are point-like, no 
> matter how their wave functions are distributed. So, a better 
> understanding of the wave function is that a particle if point-like (or 
> of very small size) and that the wave function does not indicate an 
> extent of the particle, but an uncertainty in position of the point-like 
> particle.
> 

Your allegation that the charge density operator of an electrically charged 
particle authorizes point-like particles is not convincing for me.  You 
seem to have confused a premise of calculus with physical reality.
I understand you just stated your belief.  Anyway, as I wrote, "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".


> > 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.
> 
> That is wrong. Since the phase velocity of electromagnetic waves in 
> vacuum is independent from frequency, electromagnetic wave packes do not 
> disperge (unlike wave packets that are e.g. solutions of Schroedinger 
> equation). The intensity of electromagnetic waves decays with the square 
> of the inverse distance to the source only (1/r^2), keeping the insity 
> high enough to measure the light of e.g. galaxies even in several 
> billion light years distance.
> 
> > [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.]
> 
> Suppose a photon that is emitted from a point source. In great distance 
> from the source, one can show that the average energy density of the 
> photon decays with 1/r^2, not faster.
> 

Any theory has its own applicability limit.
I cannot but judge your argument ignores the limit.


> > 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.
> 
> What does "reduce" mean here? A reduction of quantum state, i.e. a 
> collaps of wave function, like in Copenhagen interpretation? I supposed 
> you would reject such a concept.
> 

If you like, substitute "reduce" with "shrink".  Probably, you will ask why 
"shrink".  It's just a hypothesis.  I cannot, however, rule out the possibility 
that interaction between the fields strengthens the cohesive force.  Anyway, 
I consider this hypothesis is more acceptable than that on which traditional 
theories are based.


> > Reductions of
> > overlapped parts of quantum waves and above-mentioned cohesive force
> > result in a kind of mutual attraction between the quanta.
> 
> You should explain this more in detail.
> 
> And what exactly does "overlapped parts" mean? For two wave functions, 
> there is no strict distinction between overlapping und non-overlapping, 
> one can only distinguish between higher and lower degrees of 
> overlapping. Take e.g. the 1s wave functions of two atoms. The more the 
> atoms are close to each other, the higher is the degree of overlap, but 
> there is no distance above which the overlap is exact zero. So, one 
> cannot strictly distinguish between overlapping and non-overlapping parts.
> 

On the assumption of "cohesive force" or "cut-off mechanism", isn't it 
apparent?  In fact, I wrote "On the above assumption, each quantum has 
only a finite size in the space even if it has specific energy and momentum".


> > Particle-antiparticle pair can be produced when high-energy photon
> > collides with a nucleus or the like.
> 
> What does "collide" mean here? In conventional quantum theory, the 
> photon does not "touch" the nucleus in a mechanical sense, there is 
> rather an interaction between the electromagnetic field and the nucleus. 
> Is that different in your imagination?
> 

Refer to the paragraph starting with "Let's consider a process, a+b -> 
c(+d+...), ...".


> > It should be noted that no
> > pair can be produced without a collision with a charged particle
> 
> In conventional quantum theory, it can, since there is also a process in 
> which a particle-antiparticle pair is produced from a pair of photons. 

Are you sure that only a pair of photons can actually produce a 
particle-antiparticle pair?  I suppose it is impossible.


> The inverse process, the production of two photons from a 
> particle-antiparticle pair, has already been observed.
> 

I understand this is true.


> > In case of being subjected to enough acceleration, a charged quantum
> > gets compressed in the direction of the acceleration
> 
> It is very doubtful that such a process could be possible. Even if we 
> imagine a quantum mechanical particle as some kind of extended cloud, it 
> surely wouldn't be correct to imagine an external force acting on one 
> part of the cloud and pushing that part towards the other parts. To 
> accelerate a quantum mechanical particle, there should be some kind of 
> field (e.g. electric field) to which the particle is exposed, resulting 
> in all parts of the cloud being accelerated in the same way.

I should have written:
The shape of an accelerated quantum is to be distorted and intermittently 
shrink enough to emit a photon due to the cohesive force.
By the way, I don't know how the traditional theory explains the emission of 
a photon by accelerated charged particle.  It is appreciated very much if you 
would tell me how.

Thank you very much for your comments.

SEKI


=================================================================

And, the following is the email message from one of the moderators.

=================================================================
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is 
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is too speculative.  You 
dispute well known results (e.g. particle-antiparticle pair production 
from a pair of photons) with no evidence other than your own 
supposition.  You also make claims with no evidence to support them and 
not explanation of how to test them, e.g. the idea that point particles 
are the cause of quantum paradoxes.

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and 
was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup.  If you want to 
post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding
any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
co-moderators.  At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive.
If you email a moderator directly, your message might arrive while he is
inactive, causing an unnecessary delay. 

Normally, you should not email a moderator directly.  In no case do so 
if resubmitting a modified version of a post, for the reason mentioned 
above.  If you submit a modified post, then submit it in the usual way.

If you think a post has been lost, even after waiting 2--3 days so that
it has had a chance to be moderated, DO NOT just resubmit it.  Rather,
send email to *******-********-*******@*****.*******.** (this will
reach all active moderators) and resubmit only when asked (after it is
clear that no moderator has it in his queue) and then in the normal way.

See http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html for more information


Sincerely,

******* ******, sci.physics.research co-moderator

=================================================================

Don't you think it's quite odd?

Thank you.

SEKI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576278

On Sat, 7 May 2016 10:33:31 -0700 (PDT), SEKI wrote:

> Don't you think it's quite odd?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> SEKI

Do you have a Babadook?
-- 
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
     your face."
                            - Bert

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576286

SEKI
Several days ago, I started the topic of "A Better Interpretation of Quantum 
Mechanics?" in the newsgroup of sci.physics.research, which is moderated. 

My new posting was rejected by the moderators. 
The following is the rejected post. 
-------------

As moderator of sci.physics we have no such totalitarian rules here. I pretty much approve everything unless it is a physical threat, and then I step in and maintain order.

HVAC
Moderator
sci.physics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#576484

This newsgroup is so hectic.

Then, I got a mirror spot.
If interested, go to: 

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=ja#!forum/physicslacrescenta

Thank you.

SEKI

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web