# An Idea I've been Thinking of

1. May 9, 2010

### prodygi

When talking about classical probabilities, like whether the ball is in one of two boxes, with 1/2 probability for the ball to be under either box, we see that the probability and the ball are two separate things. The probability is just based on how much you knowledge you have about the ball. But with, say, the wavefunction of an electron, and waviness in that wavefunction, some say that's the probability of finding the electron in that location. But unlike in classical probabilities, the wavefunction is the electron. There is no electron in addition to the wavefunction of the electron. Right?

One of the things I always thought about when thinking of wave-particle duality, is what does the 'waving'. What material does the wave propagate through. I know that's sort of silly and I understand why you don't need anything to 'wave' it just a way of thinking...

My idea is that, what we perceive to be 'real' things, are actually just representations of the 'state' of that point in the universe, or that point in the "Fabric of Space-Time".

Take this ball sitting on my table. The ball is stationary but it's still moving through/with time. So it could basically be a wave that is only traveling at the same rate that time travels. And if I move the ball, the (atoms, molecules, all that) stuff that makes up ball, doesn't necessarily 'move.' It's the 'states of the points in Space-Time' that the ball seems to move through, that change. And that motion could be said to be travelling like a wave.

Everything we define as 'real' (objects, things like that) are caused by the interplay of the correlates of the different fields (where fields could still be a wave) and the other 'waves' (light waves, radio waves, etc.). These fields, waves, define the state of each position in space-time.

So what we see really is an illusion. The objects that we see, the way we perceive them, is just the way our brain represents the real world to our minds. And that real world is a world of interacting wavefunctions.

And then, doing away with the assumption that we have free will, then quantum mechanics loses some of it's mystery.

What I'm thinking now is that what is 'waving' is the states of each point in space-time.

Does any of this make any sense? I'm having a hard time putting it into words...

2. May 9, 2010

### LukeD

Maybe, but if we just have interacting wave functions (that's a bit unclear. We only ever have 1 wave function for an entire system, not one for each "component"), then the wave function does not describe what happens. It describes everything that could happen, and it gives you probabilities for each of those possibilities.

So if you have just wave functions, you still need a way of going from "all of these things can happen" to "one of these things happens".
We're still working on how to actually do that if we have just wave functions and nothing else.

It's like this: the wave function of an electron is very spread out and occupies a large amount of space. However, if you try to catch an electron, it is only ever at exactly 1 point.

3. May 9, 2010

### Dmitry67

No, MWI is a perfect example
Just wavefunctions and nothing else.

4. May 9, 2010

### haael

Not necessarily. You can make an experiment to test whether an electron is at some finite region. So you can multiply an electron by any observable, not just exact position.

Perhaps only our senses are always performing exact position measurements. Or even our conciousness extracts only "position" part from our bodies, so we perceive classical world. But in experimental physics, you can construct any device to calculate any observable, even the most abstract one.

It's not known yet, but I bet it's the spacetime itself waving. If we really find gravitons some day, we will have the greatest evidence - the same numbers will describe quantum wavefunction and spacetime deformation.

Alas, I could be banned from this forum for saying this, so I won't say any more.

5. May 9, 2010

### prodygi

Another thing: Do the "delayed choice experiments" that I've heard about from others actually "disprove" determinism as they've told me? In my mind it would seem that they are strong evidence for determinism. Not that the experiments outcomes depend on the observer's choice, but, the observer's choice depends on the experimental outcome. The observer doesn't really have a choice. The free will they seemingly invoke when making a choice is the illusion.

6. May 9, 2010

### LukeD

The measurement problem still exists in MWI though.

7. May 10, 2010

### Dmitry67

No.
In all non-collapse interpretations, it is solved by Quantum Decoherence

8. May 11, 2010

### haael

It depends. What we are sure, that you can't have all of these principles in one theory:
- Localism
- Determinism
- Special relativity
- Local realism.
I personally throw out local realism.