
#37
Oct711, 09:34 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,496





#38
Oct711, 09:44 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,496

To see why BM involves a preferred reference frame, and how that problem can be avoided, see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1002.3226 [Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9 (2011) 367377] 



#39
Oct711, 09:50 AM

PF Gold
P: 670





#40
Oct711, 12:32 PM

P: 1,414

I don't know exactly how Shroedinger came up with his wave equation, but maybe somebody here does. You can treat the wave function as a mathematical probability wave because that's all that can be known for sure that it is. However, the fact that it actually works as well as it does seems to suggest that there's some more or less familiar wave mechanics happening in the underlying reality. But that might be misleading. I don't know. Anyway, probability distributions are waves, and the wave functions of QM are probability distributions. Probability amplitude Probability density function I don't think I've read the Fuchs article that I think you're referring to. Maybe I'll get to it this afternoon. 



#41
Oct711, 02:51 PM

PF Gold
P: 670

Schrodinger started out trying to interpret the wave function realistically. For example, in an early paper on wave mechanics, he writes: The true mechanical process is realised or represented in a fitting way by the wave processes in qspace, and not by the motion of image points in this space. Schrodinger considers a twoparticle system late in the paper but has only one sentence about the physical representation of the sixdimensional wave function: The direct interpretation of this wave function of six variables in threedimensional space meets, at any rate initially, with difficulties of an abstract nature. Schrodinger wants to interpret the mechanical processes realized or represented by the wave function as taking place in threedimensional space, but he does not see how this can be done. Lorentz picks up on this problem with multiparticle systems. In 1926, Lorentz wrote a letter to Schrodinger, in which he says: If I had to choose now between your wave mechanics and the matrix mechanics, I would give the preference to the former, because of its greater intuitive clarity, so long as one only has to deal with the three coordinates x, y, z. If, however, there are more degrees of freedom, then I cannot interpret the waves and vibrations physically, and I must therefore decide in favor of matrix mechanics. http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/Bra...ce%20final.pdf I'm not sure but it seems this wave is somewhere between a mathematical probability wave and some sort of weird "physicallike" wave existing in 3N dimentional space? What's interesting, is if you assume a realistic interpretation and try to map the 3N configuration space into 3dimensional space, so that the 3dimensional world is something that emerges from this 3N configuration space you get more than one set of emergent 3spaces. That's one reason why Monton argues against treating the 3 Ndimensional space in QM as "fundamental". 



#42
Oct711, 05:14 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

And does this approach really hinge on allowing particles to have velocities greater than c? I found the paper's insistence on superdeterminism and no room for freewill rather too implausible as a motivation. The arguments against experiments to test the ontology  such as systems set up to destroy themselves with retrocausal signals  seem arbitrary. Then the argument to justify accepting superluminal action.... Relativistic effects arise for matter because they effectively lag behind the natural speed of action/equilibration which is c. They can fall all the way down to the limit which is "rest" in some inertial frame which minimises their "massiveness". So if it is nonsensical to think a massive particle can go "slower than rest", then by the same argument, it is nosensical to suggest it can go faster than c. 



#43
Oct711, 06:30 PM

P: 1,414

Seems like you're making progress, insofar as broadening and deepening your knowledge, in your quest to understand this. 



#44
Oct1111, 04:14 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,496





#45
Oct1111, 05:24 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,432





#46
Oct1111, 10:27 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,496

First one takes some specific reference frame with coordinates x^\mu, \mu=0,1,2,3. Then one assigns both time position x^0 and space position x^1, x^2, x^3 of an individual particle. Finally one writes all equations involving x^\mu in a manifestly covariant form, which provides that physical results will not depend on the choice of reference frame. For more details see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1006.1986 



#47
Oct1111, 10:49 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,496





#49
Oct1111, 04:08 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

Or is this where the further requirement for FTL particle velocities comes in? 



#50
Oct1111, 04:15 PM

P: 1,414

@ Demystifier,
You haven't replied to my post #27 which was in response to your post #19. Do you agree/disagree with it? Also: In Aspect et al. 1982 the analyzer settings are varied randomly and so, apparently, have nothing to do with 'free will'. The term 'superdeterminism' is simply a superfluous extension of the term 'determinism'. Considerations like 'going back in time' make no sense at all to me. Am I actually missing something here? Or is it possible that none of this is relevant to anything? 



#51
Oct1211, 06:18 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,496





#52
Oct1211, 06:23 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,496





#53
Oct1211, 06:31 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,496





#54
Oct1311, 02:33 AM

P: 1,414

So, we choose the former view, the view that we're part of an evolving universe, and in that view it's impossible to send messages back in time or to revisit the past, even if we could send messages or transport ourselves instantaneously to any part of the universe. Properly interpreted, in an evolving universe which we're a part of, there's no frame of reference wrt which even a FTL signal is actually travelling backward in time. Thus, 'free will' has nothing to do with it. 'Superdeterminism' is a superfluous extension of determinism, because if the universe is evolving deterministically, then free will (in the sense of choices being independent of prior conditions/configurations) is ruled out anyway. In your paper you say that "By assumption, superluminal signals are inherently quantum phenomena responsible for nonlocal correlations between entangled particles ..." . But this assumption isn't necessary for a certain understanding of the correlations between the angular difference of polarizer settings and coincidental photon flux, and in fact posits the existence of an entirely new class of physical (or nonphysical in the case of instantaneous actionatadistance) phenomena for which there's absolutely no physical evidence. You say that, "The Bell theorem [1] shows that quantum mechanics (QM) is not compatible with local reality.", which isn't precisely correct. Bell's theorem shows that QM is not compatible with LRHV models of quantum entanglement (ie., coincidental photon flux). QM is quite compatible with LRHV models of photon flux at the individual detectors. In general, standard QM is essentially nonrealistic and so is not incompatible with an understanding of quantum entanglement via purely local transmissions and interactions. You further say that, "This suggests that reality might be nonlocal." . But this isn't at all what's suggested if one looks at the correlations wrt established optics principles, and if one evaluates the meaning of Bell's theorem wrt the formal constraints on LRHV models of entanglement. In this view, LRHV models of entanglement are ruled out even if the universe is evolving strictly in accordance with local determinism. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Spherical Harmonic Wave Function =? 3D Wave Function  Advanced Physics Homework  1  
calculating the momentum of a debroglie wave from its wave function  Quantum Physics  12  
Wave packet momentum wave function  Advanced Physics Homework  6  
Wave Particle Duality and its relation to the Wave Function  Quantum Physics  2  
Given a wave function at t=0, how do you find the wave function at time t?  Advanced Physics Homework  2 