Quantum Mechanics: Two Rules and No Math

So basically it's dot-dot-dash-dot- and dot dash is word or + - reality as we understand it,, simple, been around forever it's called the unified field theory,, been done already.

Originally posted by beebs
Standing Waves

From the above link, I think this video is particularly helpful:

"A physics instructor demonstrates and explains the formation of a longitudinal standing wave in a spring."

reply to post by beebs
Here's a link explaining the wave nature of matter;

The Wave Nature of Matter

There's even a java applet that lets you demonstrate how only integer quantities of wavelengths form (when they turn green), and this has all been backed up by experimental evidence.

However I don't think the experimental evidence supports your version (or should I say Wolff's version?) which is different than what's in that link.

Originally posted by beebs
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.

A surreptitious path back to an old idea...

They used to call it "Aether".

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Hey, thanks for the link.

Wasn't going to read it but glad I did! The explanation given is probably the best I have seen. I highly recommend anyone still not quite grasping wave particle duality read it as it's laid out simply enough for just about anyone to understand without sacrificing accuracy.

Also helps join the dots(/waves) for those without a clear picture of String Theory (the connection made sense to me anyway).

Originally posted by OZtracized
Hey, thanks for the link.

Wasn't going to read it but glad I did! The explanation given is probably the best I have seen. I highly recommend anyone still not quite grasping wave particle duality read it as it's laid out simply enough for just about anyone to understand without sacrificing accuracy.

You're welcome, glad you liked it. It was actually one of the goals of that site to present physics which is often over the heads of laypeople and simplify it so most people can understand it. I think they did a decent job of it and apparently you agree. And the next two pages if you click "next" at the bottom are also relevant to the topic, and they aren't as long. It gets into wave-particle duality.

Also helps join the dots(/waves) for those without a clear picture of String Theory (the connection made sense to me anyway).

Even string theorists aren't really sure what string theory is...I'm serious! Here's a slide from a video on string theory by a string theorist:

www.youtube.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e651576dc6cc.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Phage


If we assume the fluid as noncompressible, then this is exactly what happens in fluids. The ether where this quantum wave would be traveling is perfectly rigid and therefore interactions travel instantaneously anywhere in it. Think consciousness, entanglement, faster than light phenomena in general.

Originally posted by dbove
Think consciousness, entanglement, faster than light phenomena in general.

I thought we were talking quantum mechanics...how did we get on the topic of consciousness?

In science, you have to do more than just think about something...you have to prove it. Got any proof?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Great link there. In fact, Milo Wolff is saying the exact same thing as the discussion in that link. The only thing that is different, is that the CI tends to lead to the controversial conclusion that nature is fundamentally and inherently contradictory. He interprets the situation differently, just as Schrodinger, De Broglie, and Bohm did.

Well, it's both--or it's neither. Sometimes light displays particle-like behavior, and sometimes it acts like a wave; it all depends on what sort of experiment you're doing. This is known as wave/particle duality, and, like it or not, physicists have just been forced to accept it.

Just because the experiment shows us wave behavior, or particle behavior, does not mean that nature is existing as both (or neither) prior to the experiment. Rather, it hints that a coherent nature will display different 'behavior'(or data) based on the method of experimentation, or our observing interaction with it.

In this quote from the article we can clearly see the momentary lapse of clarity due to the contradictory assumption of the CI in the WPD:

If electrons are waves, then it kind of makes sense that they don't give off or absorb photons unless they change energy levels. If it stays in the same energy level, the wave isn't really orbiting or "vibrating" the way an electron does in Rutherford's model, so there's no reason for it to emit any radiation. And if it drops to a lower energy level... let's see, the wavelength would be longer, which means the frequency would decrease, so the electron would have less energy. Then it makes sense that the extra energy would have to go someplace, so it would escape as a photon--and the opposite would happen if a photon came in with the right amount of energy to bump the electron up to a higher level.

As soon as she brings the term 'photon' back into the scene, it is unclear if the photon is intended to be a 'particle' or if it is supposed to be qualitatively the same as the wave system that it came from. In the beginning of the paragraph she clearly postulates "If electrons are waves, THEN . . . "

If instead we regard the whole system as differentiations in and quantizations of wave structures('wave packets), and let loose of the 'particle' baggage which gives rise to the logical inconsistencies of the WPD, we end up with a more coherent and comprehensive idea of what is actually going on.

reply to post by Version100


Right, now we more precisely call it 'quantized energy density of space', or 'vacuum energy', or 'zero point energy'.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I thought we were talking quantum mechanics...how did we get on the topic of consciousness?

While I don't perhaps agree with you on the topic of all the "What the Bleep" stuff, and whether quantum mechanics has anything to do with consciousness etc.... I do agree that we should try to avoid the topic of consciousness in this thread as it will only distract from the more meaningful issues. There are plenty of other threads on the topic in the philosophy/metaphysics board.

Thats also not to say that this isn't a philosophical thread per se, but it is philosophy of physics in particular - so we should focus on concepts such as entanglement and interpretation of experiments etc. rather than lumping in concepts such as 'consciousness' into the mix.

So while I do enjoy the discussion of consciousness etc., I respectfully ask that both the protagonists and antagonists refrain from digressing in that direction for this thread.

Originally posted by beebs
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.

You are confusing the zero point energy of a quantum field with the interpretation of the probability amplitude in Schrodinger's equation as some kind of wave in a physical, aether-like medium, which few physicists now accept, to whatever school of interpretation of quantum theory they belong. In the philosophical world, this is called making a "category error". The two are NOT the same. Every quantum field, such as the electromagnetic field, has a wave-like aspect and a particle-like aspect. Its ground state is called the "zero-point state". Yes, there is no such thing as empty space because a multitude of virtual processes constantly take place that are disallowed by the laws of conservation of energy and momentum but which are consistent with the Uncertainty Principle. But it does NOT follow from this experimentally well-established idea that all kinds of matter can be reduced to waves that actually propagate in some medium. The zero-point state of the quanta of these matter fields is not a fundamental vibration in some kind of aether. Philosopher and scientists Ervin Lazlo made that fundamental mistake in his book "Science and the Akashic Field" and he was heavily criticized for it. You are making the same error.

reply to post by micpsi


Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more, and give me some links to check out? I of course disagree with Born's probabilistic interpretation/solutions of the wave equations. Consequently, I also disagree with the idea that there are such things as 'virtual particles'.

I rather think we should take another look at Schrodinger's original intentions, just as Bohm did with de Broglie.

Can't a propertied space be considered a medium? How are gravitational waves supposed to propagate?

Thanks for posting, and bringing a new angle to the discussion.

reply to post by Phage


I think there is no time just a sequence of "slides". So time is just space changing. The non-locality then is simply "how it is". I wouldn't be surprised if this discreet slide show we call reality is proved by the grittiness of space-time that was recently measured in I guess Germany.

No math here, just an idea.

reply to post by beebs


The physics of our universe is the same throughout. However 2 civilizations could develop drastically different. Maybe another civilization began with string theory before they came to relativity. On Earth we came to understand relativity first before we moved we moved onto things like QM and ST. Likewise, while the physics are the same, one civilzation might develop to be cooperative and peaceful. Or they could develop like mankind to be mistrustful and violent.

I think we will likely have answers sooner than we realize. I personally don't believe that life is designed to be so hard to figure out. I think people make everything more difficult on themselves.

Nice video though, thanks.

Originally posted by beebs
Great link there.

Glad you like it.

In fact, Milo Wolff is saying the exact same thing as the discussion in that link.

There may be some overlap but it's not the same.

The only thing that is different, is that the CI tends to lead to the controversial conclusion that nature is fundamentally and inherently contradictory.

Didn't you see where it says physicists have been "forced" to accept it? They don't like it and if they could interpret it in a simpler way like Wolff does, they would, that's what's implied in that "forced" comment. They would prefer a simpler explanation, but nature doesn't always cooperate with that desire. It seems to me like Wolff's interpretation is even more contradictory.

In this quote from the article we can clearly see the momentary lapse of clarity due to the contradictory assumption of the CI in the WPD:... "If electrons are waves, THEN . . . "

For the quote you cited it, makes no difference if the photons are particles or waves, so there's no lack of clarity.

If instead we ... let loose of the 'particle' baggage.

You keep claiming it's interpretation, but it's not, it's experimental result. And experimental results are not the type of things we let go of.

When I look into the wave/particle duality of photons, one thing becomes apparent, and that how we define a particle is relevant. You may be able to come up with some definitions of particle where perhaps the photon in fact is NOT a particle according to that specific definition, but the way we define a particle, it does happen to display particle properties. I think the root of many perception issues of the general public can be traced back to a dictionary. This is probably one of those cases. Try this:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Particle...
3. Physics
a. A body whose spatial extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are irrelevant in a specific problem.
b. An elementary particle.
c. A subatomic particle. See Table at subatomic particle.

3a is the definition of a particle I am forced to use when referring to particle properties of a photon. It displays particle properties even if the internal structure is wavelike, and the internal structure becomes irrelevant to calling it a particle according to that definition, which is a concept I didn't understand myself at first, and I don't think you've grasped that concept yet based on your posts. Paying more attention to dictionary definitions is something you could benefit from, and it would help here, I think.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

3. Physics
a. A body whose spatial extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are irrelevant in a specific problem.

Are you sure this is the definition you use? I'm pretty sure spatial extent, internal motion, and structure are all extremely relevant factors towards our understanding of 'particles'.

Quarks represent internal motion and structure of protons, and a proton is spatially extended.

Why would that be irrelevant?

To me, its pretty clear we have to alter our language, or else our dictionary, if we are to coherently argue this time around. Let us try to establish common ground before we go any further.

I try to interpret everything with wave terminology, for example referring to a 'wave packet' or quantum(corpuscle) of standing waves rather than a 'particle'.:



Are you arguing for a discrete, physical 'part' of matter? Are you arguing for Born's interpretation?

Or are you assuming a protagonist role at all?

If you refer me to standard answers, I will assume you are arguing for them.

ETA:

particle properties of a photon. It displays particle properties even if the internal structure is wavelike

Could those 'particle properties' be elaborated upon? Are they the same properties as implied by the terms 'corpuscular', 'quantum', or 'wave packet'?

Why must we use the word particle at all, if the internal structure is wavelike? If the 'internal structure' is wavelike, what is the 'external structure'? Is there really reason to distinguish between in and out in the first place, in a photon? If not for the photon, why the need to distinguish between a proton - and its 'internal' quarks?

Is the whole merely the sum of its parts? Or is it more than the sum of its parts? Quarks are never found alone, are they?

Originally posted by beebs
Why would that be irrelevant?

Those things are relevant. But they don't determine whether you define what you observe as having wave-like or particle-like properties.

To me, its pretty clear we have to alter our language, or else our dictionary, if we are to coherently argue this time around.

The expression "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" might be true, but if you decide to use your own words with different meanings than those defined, you could also refer to a rose as a skunk. Then if you say "that's a sweet smelling skunk", you're the only person who understands what you're talking about. Everyone else is calling it a rose and you're calling it skunk. That's not communication, and that's why we have dictionaries, so we all use the same definitions. Hey I'm not crazy about some definitions myself. You could also ask why we call it an "electron orbital" when we now know the electron doesn't really orbit the nucleus like the Earth orbits the sun. But that's what I'm stuck with using if I want to communicate and I don't try to rewrite the dictionary. Perhaps if you were an influential scientist you could get away with coining new terms, but I'm not one so I'm stuck with the dictionary and I suspect you are too, or at least you should be. You don't HAVE to use accepted terminology, but then don't be surprised when other people disagree with you or don't understand you.

I try to interpret everything with wave terminology, for example referring to a 'wave packet' or quantum(corpuscle) of standing waves rather than a 'particle'...

Could those 'particle properties' be elaborated upon? Are they the same properties as implied by the terms 'corpuscular', 'quantum', or 'wave packet'?

Why must we use the word particle at all, if the internal structure is wavelike?

Now you're asking the right question! And I didn't write the dictionary, so I don't have an answer to that. You only have to use the same words as everyone else if you want other people to understand you. That's a goal for me since I want people to understand me, is it a goal for you? If so, then don't rewrite your own personal dictionary, when you're the only one who knows your new definitions.

Here's a pdf file explaining the answer to that question in more detail:
PHOTON PARTICLE - WAVE DUALITY by R. Spital

This unit therefore is concerned with the evidence for particle-like behavior.
The three major pieces of evidence are:

1. The failure of classical physics to explain the spectrum of blackbody ra-
diation (the ultraviolet catastrophe"), and the successful explanation
given by Planck based on a picture in which electromagnetic radiation
is carried in particle-like bunches called photons."
2. The failure of classical physics to adequately describe the photoelectric
effect, and the subsequent successful treatment given by Einstein based
on the photon picture.
3. The successful explanation by Compton of the increase in the wave-
length of light scattered from matter, by treating the incident light as
a beam of photons.

The fact that electromagnetic radiation has both particle and wave-
like properties forces us to think of photons as "wave packets," i.e. lo-
calizations of energy due to the superposition of many plane waves of
different wavelengths. Thus the photon is in a sense both a particle and
a wave at the same time a notion known as particle-wave duality."

The wave-packet model of the photon has profound implications
for the measurement process because of the way wave-packets are con-
structed. It turns out that the smaller the wave-packet (the more localized
the photon), the larger the spread of wavelengths needed to construct the
packet.

So yes, a photon can be called a "wave-packet" and as you can see that source references specific particle-like behavior that can be attributed to such wave-packets.

Great Thread,
Some really good inputs by members. I dont always agree with Phage, though I do on this subject, I find to understanding the Non Locality or entangelement aspects difficult to bring together with the theories and models so far postulated.

The speed of light paradox is one imho that even the latest theories and research seem to be unable to explain in a acceptable manner, that is in traditional scientific explanations.

The results seen as Phage points out seem to prove that both time (distance) and speed (being an known upper limit to movement of energy/information) have no relevance. No affect on what we can infer from the results so far obtained at this quantum level.

Now I dont have an issue with the fact of this happening, it is sciences current framework of the descriptions and understanding of the Universe and all Phenomina that is lacking, that leaves this gap in our "understanding" of what is happening.

Over the last few years realising that this recorded phenomina is operating outside of our current framework of understanding, and certainly seems to break all the laws of 3d world as such, of distance, seperation. That these results bring into sharp focus the facts that the results can only be explained if we assume the old wisdoms, traditions of the earth of "oneness" no seperation that infact we are all connected with no distance or seperation to evrything else have been right all along.

From an scientific/logical point of view though even accepting that their is in those traditions an unversal truth being explored by modern sciience, no models or actual explantions that can be "worked" or "do the maths" from this wisdom can be applied and added to the current models to to fill in the "missing Link" if you like.

I have come to see it the same as an cell in our bodies, that is an individual humans experience of this all now. The Cell is part of the body is not seperate, but has a differant and seperate type of activity and such like a flavor or personality. Now from the cells point of view the Brain mind could be seen as the "god" the universal mind, all other cells would seem seperate and different to that one cell and from its point of view not part of the same "one thing" as such though it is, to the cells point of view it would see that one body as the entire universe and be unaware of anything outside of it.

The more I try and see it like this the more I can accept the paradox we see, now my silly little anology is just that a way for me to try and accept the reality we are uncovering. The more I look at this the more it seems apparent we are all cells as such in the same body the universe all that is.

Now this is just a philosophical mind trip as if the brain instructs a cell to do something time and space and traditional scientific models of casual effect etc come into play, ie non locality is not shown on this level.

IMHO the next defining part of this realm of study will not be further refinement of the theories and models, further Gluons or even more minute wave form possibilty, but when further results keep on showing this Oneness or lack of seperation, this is the way our understanding will go to the next level as such. Though it will be a long time, it took a long time between Celsius and getting very close to absolute zero in modern labs.

We are seeing the traces of the ultimate fabric of everything, the "ground" of being if you like, when we will be able to truly understand that and explain that in the traditionalsense will be many many many years ahead.

Humanity is peeking behind the door though and it fascinates me.

We need the healthy discource of personality types like Phage to insist on the validity of things, to get to the nuts and boolts as such of phenomina, mixed with the non logical inclusive mind sets on the other side, which over many many generations probably will eventually sort the whaet from the chaff and a more accurate and complete understanding shown.

I feel almost like science is like a teenager in its life history, and is realising as its matures that what the "old man" said had some validity, that in fact it wasnt "right" about everything and hopefully enough risks have been taking so that the dangerous without fear actions of that part of devolopment are being learned, hopefully will learn from its mistakes and merge its understading and evolutionary knowledge with the "old mans" wisdom.

We are very lucky in a way to be alive at this point in time to be part of this change and synthesis of understanding and worldpoints, and surely when science truly explains this oneness which in my mind is the only explaantion for non locality from this understanding socity will have to take on the more compassionatte and inclusive aspects of human nature.

If all is actually one and we perceive it in a very limited way, how can one hurt another, because surely as the "Old Man" said in many traditions at different times, you would actually be hurting hitting yourself.

Science that has done so much to seperate measure define divide will ultimately bring all together as one in understanding.

That is if the teenager does not get drunk on the invincibility and disregard for danger of teenagers, egged on by others and peers and drink drives a suv into a packed street mounting the pavement.

Just my ramblings

Elf

Not a scientist but quantum mechanics has interested me but I have a guess and was wondering if there was anything more official that has the similar idea.

What if the manifestation of wave particle duality’s that these particles are moving faster the observer can detect. We all seen how people could create solid appearing trails by slowing the shutter speed of a camera. It appears to be a uniform wave because it’s perception is controlled buy the shutter speed of the camera. Not saying it’s an illusion just saying that some particles in the universe move so fast it may take up more empty space so they stretch in our perceived reality.

Imagine a universe existed in a small black hole. And that small black hole got swallowed by a lager black hole. Since gravity is a weak force, lets pretend the universe in the small black hole was still intact but expanding at the edges due to the force of gravity of the lager black hole. As the mater stretches in the small black hole a wave pattern would form.

The denser matter of the smaller black hole would stretch at a similar rate because it would maintain some form of gravitational force of the small black hole but smaller particles, say quantum in size, would stretch further because gravitational force in the larger black hole would have a stronger effect on it than gravitational resistance produced by the smaller black hole. The smaller particles would have a longer wave pattern because it stretches further.

No imagine being placed on the dense matter of the smaller black hole and trying to observe the smaller particles that is getting stretched by the lager black hole. The fact that you observation is from a denser wave pattern it would produce a barrier that the smaller particles would avoid because of the momentum of it’s wave pattern that is pushing out of the small black hole and into the big black hole. Like a fast moving river going around a bolder.