Quantum Mechanics: Two Rules and No Math

Not hard to grasp at all. The title is taken from this first video, which is succinct and to the point.



Notice how simple it becomes when you drop all of the technical jargon, and focus on the aspect that we are mathematically describing observations of waves.



A standing wave has simultaneous 'points' of value, or density - called nodes and anti-nodes. In quantum mechanics, we refer to this as the phenomenon of 'superposition'.

. . . a standing wave pattern is an interference phenomenon. It is formed as the result of the perfectly timed interference of two waves passing through the same medium. A standing wave pattern is not actually a wave; rather it is the pattern resulting from the presence of two waves of the same frequency with different directions of travel within the same medium.
Standing Waves

The second rule, is that when we interfere, or 'touch' a standing wave structure - these simultaneous 'points' of value are 'interrupted' or 'collapsed'. This is what is referred to generally as the 'observer effect'.

All further qualitative and quantitative aspects of physics can be easily inferred through a clear understanding of these simple concepts in wave mechanics.

First video, describes the quantum world beautifully

Thank you for sharing this, I love the concept that there are multiple possiblities before they are observed. Will be showing this to my 8 year old son

S+F

Originally posted by beebs
All further qualitative and quantitative aspects of physics can be easily inferred through a clear understanding of these simple concepts in wave mechanics.

Really?

Want to take a stab at applying it to entanglement? How do two particles, separated at birth (theoretically by any distance), manage to always maintain an identical state instantaneously? That one gives me fits.

I don't really mean how, I mean how can it be demonstrated to occur by the behavior of waves.

reply to post by solargeddon


Thats the nuanced part of the discussion - I tend to argue away from the idea that there are 'multiple possibilities'.

Rather, I think we are dealing with real, simultaneous values (or density) of wave structures, and the statistical or probabilistic attributes are a limiting factor of our observation techniques - and an unnecessary artifact of theory according to certain interpretations.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by beebs
All further qualitative and quantitative aspects of physics can be easily inferred through a clear understanding of these simple concepts in wave mechanics.

Really?

Want to take a stab at applying it to entanglement? How do two particles, separated at birth (theoretically by any distance), manage to always maintain an identical state instantaneously? That one gives me fits.

I don't really mean how, I mean how can it be demonstrated to occur by the behavior of waves.

edit on 5/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

As the name implies... Binding. The equivalent of taking two twist-ties and entwining them.

reply to post by Phage


You bring up a good point, but I'm not sure its entirely relevant to my argument. It is unclear to me how another interpretation explains entanglement any better.

Obviously entanglement and the EPR paradox is a problematic quality that any model or interpretation of the atom will have to account for.

What particular objection do you have of the inability to explain entanglement through the above means?

ETA: And of course the implicit inference to my above argument is that Born's particle solutions are not physically real, but only represent an interpretation of data.

Thanks for posting that. I really appreciate how clear and concise this comes off. I have become fascinated with these types of concepts lately. I ran across a u-tube video recently that showed some guy exposing salt to high frequency sound waves and the patterns that resulted as the frequency increased seriously resembled some of the crop circles that have popped up over the past few years. I don't know how to embed yet so here is the link:

www.youtube.com...

Then I ran into a video where this guy (can't remember who!) is passionately talking about how, and this is all I remember from it "Sound gives form to substance." It made me think of the salt/sound demonstration. And I started to wonder if other things could give form to substance as well. And if maybe the entire universe and every substance in it is held together by a series of frequencies -like in a song!

Where I am going with this is that it seems like different people have discovered different pieces of a puzzle - the puzzle that once it is finally put together will result in the kinds of breakthroughs that so many people intuitively feel are just around the corner. Like, once we are able to find a way to isolate and harness those waves that seem to be so resistant to even our most casual observation of them...huge breakthroughs will result.

It would be cool if people would post the kinds of different ways of thinking that they have been running across on this thread. How many more different ways of looking at all of those things everyone has always told us were "done and settled" have other people been runnung across? I'm super curious to know.

That was a great video on quantum mechanics.

So that means that we are every where in the universe as well since we are a sing wave as well.

That means that I can pick a spot in the universe that I want to be at, and co laps the wave and appear at the other point and come back again. Wow that is easy stuff I'm going to try to do it.

B.............

Originally posted by beebs

What particular objection do you have of the inability to explain entanglement through the above means?

No objection. Disappointment.
Since I don't have the math I was hoping for an easy way to get a better handle on a concept I find very slippery. I need a shortcut. The statement of yours which I quoted made it seem like I was missing something obvious.

I know this is way too simple but what if we thought of entanglement using a wave model.
Perhaps we could describe the entanglement process as a wave resonance.
Once the particles resonate together like a pair of tuning forks, observing one will always give information about the other because they are in tune?

This does not explain the claims of action at a distance other than to suggest that action at a distance might be an illusion.

reply to post by Phage


Strings or M theory gets into entanglement, but we are talking heavy math. Entanglement is one of those damned things that can kill other theories in a heartbeat. The idea going in string theory is that there is a sting connecting the two, in M theory it is that the string is resting on the membrane of whatever the p-brand it is on, physicists have no idea if the strings can go into other branes as well.

I studied a bit of string theory (we don't know much about it) so what is said is a very basic idea, as visualization is hard in these situations, if not impossible.

Pred...

Originally posted by Bordon81
I know this is way too simple but what if we thought of entanglement using a wave model.
Perhaps we could describe the entanglement process as a wave resonance.
Once the particles resonate together like a pair of tuning forks, observing one will always give information about the other because they are in tune?

This does not explain the claims of action at a distance other than to suggest that action at a distance might be an illusion.

edit on 6-5-2011 by Bordon81 because: (no reason given)

Simple is good, buddy.

The idea of tuning forks is a good one, and physicists say that is what the strings are doing, vibrating. Nothing break the tunes between the particles (we are not sure about them being on other branes) as they will always react with one another.

I like the idea of M-theory but it is still in it's infancy. We do not even understand the beginning stages of the math yet. We need another Newton to progress us into a new form of math.

Pred...

reply to post by Bordon81

I can visualize the particles being nodes of the same waveform and thus exhibit the same properties. The problem is the simultaneous change of state which the math says occurs and has been experimentally demonstrated to some degree. Even in a standing wave there is transverse movement which is limited by the speed of light. The nodes stay put but the waves travel through them.

Maybe the problem is that it takes the math to even describe the state of the particles.

reply to post by Phage


Stop being so straight lined ,, everyone knows that the universe was created with a spiral wave,, you can sea it in the sea shells,, get it sea it in the ,, geez feel like sponge bob lol

reply to post by Phage

Even in a standing wave there is transverse movement which is limited by the speed of light. The nodes stay put but the waves travel through them.

Sounds like the scissors illusion where a node occurs at the blade intersection.
Theoretically the node could travel faster than light, but even that proof takes some simple angular motion geometry.

If there is some dimensional shortcut that allows super luminal communication its not particularly intuitive.

And what does Phi have to do with this Bob?

This?
www.freerepublic.com...

reply to post by beebs


There is an old theory that all matter is the interference pattern of standing matter waves. If one wave is disrupted or phase shifted, matter can then disappear from one place and appear in another. Matter from the same waves would appear to be "entangled."

reply to post by Bordon81

reply to post by pteridine


Yes, I am thinking along those lines myself. I like the term 'sympathetic' also. It is my understanding that a system is together, and then split or moved apart across a distance, and then a measurement is made on one of the separate pieces of the system. We call the immediate knowledge of the other non-observed part 'entanglement'.

So, perhaps there is a certain sympathetic wave structure between shared aspects of a system, which even when separated (but still isolated and coherent) still have simultaneous characteristics with each other.

reply to post by anywho


Cymatics is a crucial element in the interpretation of QM described in my OP.

Instead of organizations of 'point-like' objects or 'particles', we are literally dealing with organizations of wave structures in/of space.

Whether space is the medium and the substance, or there is a substance and a quantum space medium is debatable.

I tend towards the idea that space is the medium and the substance(or rather there is no distinction), but then there is the problem of what creates the vibrations and standing wave structures.

This is all further speculation, and not directly related to the interpretation of QM models, but they are relevant discussions in the wake of a wave only model.

reply to post by Phage


Of course you are right to question every aspect of this theory! I would like to see someone such as yourself take a serious look at it (don't listen to us too much, since (most) of us are not Physicists we would only discredit it with inadequate answers when questions like that are thrown.)

Spherical Standing Wave Theory seems more palatable than "virtual particles" or "wave particle duality" where they are both but neither until you look at one and it decides to be one or the other, depending on how you look at it.

SSWT does a much better job of addressing the measurement problem as they are standing waves on their own until another hits it an a "particle" is seen where the waveforms meet. Entanglement is explained by DeBroglie waves (from memory) where information travels at CxC, which is such a large figure, it would appear all but instant except over very large distances.

Is this really so outlandish? Einstein envisaged spherical fields so spherical waves aren't that much of a deviation when you look at it. It deserves a serious look at least.

The most prevalent interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists today, is the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). This interpretation treats nature, and fundamental constituents of matter, as both particulate and energetic. In other words the behavior, properties, and qualities are considered to function both like waves in a medium and also like grains of sand in ‘space’. These behaviors are contradictory in both logical and empirical contexts. Wave propagation requires a medium, whereas classical ideas of separate fundamental particles apparently do not. Depending on our method of probing or measuring a natural system, we ‘observe’ either the wave behavior or the particle behavior.

We do not actually see with our own eyes wave behavior or particle behavior. What we are doing, is interpreting the observations from the experiment as either wave or particle behavior in a useful mathematical model, as we see fit. We have a hard time imagining things which we cannot see, and which we do not have adequate visual representations for - namely a quantum wave of space, or what we call ‘particles,’ ‘matter,’ or ‘substance.’

My prominent detractors will see this as arbitrary philosophical speculation, especially those whose careers are firmly entrenched in the area of high-energy particle and nuclear physics, such as the ATLAS team and various international coalitions of particle accelerator experiments. They will say that since I have never participated in multi-billion dollar experiments with the ‘particles’, that I cannot possibly have a better (or even competent) understanding of the complexities of what the ‘particle’ actually is.

My response, is that we must address the philosophical roots and logical deductions of the previous scientific developments of their field. Separate, grain-like elementary ‘particles’ forming a ‘statistical probability cloud’(proposed as solutions to Schrodinger’s equations by Max Born) that behave according to wave mechanics is not inherently the best interpretation of the experiments, nor are they a priori truths. Schrodinger’s quantum wave equations do not explicitly tell us what nature is, they model behavior which we choose to interpret in a specific way.

The reason the CI incorporates wave behavior of matter, is because it is supported by experimental evidence in such famous cases as the Wave-Particle Duality (WPD). The CI introduces the concept of ‘complementarity’ which allows this demonstrated wave behavior to co-exist with the previous notion of separate and discrete ‘particles’ in a mathematical model. In no way do the mathematical formulations of the CI have the authority to say that nature is actually existing in this complementary way outside the confines of certain observations, but the CI asserts they are empirically equivalent to each other for mathematical purposes.

It is debatable whether the discrete material particle aspect is functionally necessary, if it is just an illusory artifact of imperfect observations, or if it is just an old friend tagging along for the ride. I opt for the middle option, as it is an option considered by a few prominent figures whom it is now appropriate to appeal to - for appeasing my skeptical colleagues. If they won’t listen to the philosopher of physics, perhaps they will heed a physicist’s philosophy:

“Maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities,
but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of
positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.” (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988)

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen [lit. ‘foam coming’].” (Erwin Schrodinger)

Think of a rope being oscillated up and down in a wave pattern, which is then interrupted by a hand touching the rope which stops or ‘collapses’ the wave. This hand is the observation equipment, while the rope is the natural quantum system. The energetic values of the whole rope are observed by the hand and appear discrete, but the physical contact destroys the oscillating wave structure as it was before the observation.

This analogy is helpful in understanding that Schrodinger’s equations were intended to describe a real physical density wave in space, and Schrodinger himself disagreed with the statistical probability solution based on the discrete particle interpretation in the Copenhagen Interpretation as was proposed by Max Born. The final ‘nail in the coffin’ is that we have experimental confirmation of a quantum wave medium in space. Seen in demonstrations of ‘zero-point energy’, or ‘vacuum energy density’, this means there is no such thing as ‘empty space’ or a literal ‘vacuum’ in nature. This follows logically if we know that all matter in the universe is waves propagating in a medium, rather than discrete ‘particles’ in empty space.