Share this thread: 
#19
Dec212, 03:50 PM

P: 597




#20
Dec212, 09:02 PM

P: 597




#21
Dec212, 10:26 PM

P: 597




#22
Dec312, 06:44 AM

P: 669




#23
Dec312, 08:39 PM

P: 597




#24
Dec412, 08:37 AM

P: 669

The experiment you allude to will not explain the interference of amplitudes in QM or QFT, nor does it map onto the SE, since the particle can only receive updates for changing boundary conditions at the finite wave speed of the vibrating liquid. In that sense it has less explanatory power than DBB (admittedly a relatively popular interpretation of QM). 


#25
Dec412, 09:40 PM

P: 597




#26
Dec412, 10:13 PM

PF Gold
P: 691

http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1210.4406.pdf 


#27
Dec512, 10:50 AM

P: 7

Could you explain with a few words or in a nutshell what the "gauge mechanism" is?



#28
Dec512, 11:28 AM

P: 669

(1) The probability of an event in an ideal experiment is given by the square of the absolute value of a complex number phi which is called the probability amplitude. (2) When an event can occur in several alternative ways, the probability amplitude for the event is the sum of the probability amplitudes for each way considered separately. (3) If an experiment is performed so that it's possible to determine which alternative is actually taken, the probability of the event is the sum of the probabilities for each alternative. The interference is lost. 


#29
Dec512, 11:30 AM

P: 669




#30
Dec512, 10:17 PM

P: 597




#31
Dec612, 10:15 AM

P: 669

I could be wrong. Perhaps there is a large or growing subset of foundationalists who want to see quantum physics replaced by classical methods. Do you believe this to be the case? 


#32
Dec612, 09:57 PM

P: 597




#33
Dec712, 02:25 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,816

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quantph/0101012v4.pdf Still doesn't really make it less weird and its not my personal approach which is based on invariance but does seem to capture quite a bit of its essence. Thanks Bill 


#34
Dec712, 04:04 AM

P: 580

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. Here's the original question in case anyone forgot...
Upon reviewing the solutions to the SE that manifested these wave functions, everyone was puzzled as to what they meant. It was only when Max Born came along and said, hey, if we multiply this wave function by its complex conjugate, it looks like we can use this to determine the probability of the particle or "system" being at some small interval of space dtau. This method has worked for 80 years so why do we want to change it now? It's kind of like asking the Swanson company why they cook their frozen dinners before they package them. We could try to make the argument to them that they could save time by simply packaging them while they cook them at the same time. That might not come out so well, though. Squaring the result is one more step in equations that can run many pages long. Why not play it safe and cook the meal before you package it? 


#35
Dec712, 01:36 PM

P: 669




#36
Dec712, 01:43 PM

P: 669




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Difference between classical wave function and quantum wave function  Quantum Physics  12  
Free particle has a Gaussian wave packet wave function.  Advanced Physics Homework  2  
Finding the wave function squared given an integral wave function  Advanced Physics Homework  0  
Spherical Harmonic Wave Function =? 3D Wave Function  Advanced Physics Homework  1  
Given a wave function at t=0, how do you find the wave function at time t?  Advanced Physics Homework  2 