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

Groups > sci.physics > #574781

Re: My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Show all headers | View raw

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?

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