Are all quantum fields coherent?

[Wave Packets]

TL;DR

Is coherence the language of the unobservable?

Is coherence the medium in which quantum waves propagate? Does coherence also exist in the future to flag decoherence events?

 

[PeterDonis]

Is coherence the medium in which quantum waves propagate? Does coherence also exist in the future to flag decoherence events?

Neither of these questions make any sense. Where are you getting this from?

 

[weirdoguy]

I would explain, but you like to delete everything I write

Then stop writing things that are against the rules of PF. It's as simple as that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

@Wave Packets , if you have a question, please restate it. What you wrote makes no sense. If you're just ehre to annoy the staff, please don't.

 

[PeterDonis]

I would explain, but you like to delete everything I write.

You have received three warnings because you posted three threads that were obvious personal speculation, none of which contained an actual question.

This thread is still open because you at least asked questions instead of just making statements of your personal speculations. Now you just need to ask a question that makes sense. Can you?

 

[PeterDonis]

I wasn't allowed to ask "Are all quantum fields coherent?"

You never asked that in your previous threads. You made a bunch of statements.

If you are asking that now, the response is the same as the one I gave in post #2: the question doesn't make sense. Can you ask one that does?

 

[hutchphd]

No.

 

[PeterDonis]

Are superposition, entanglement, and tunneling events only performed by coherent waves?

What do you mean by "coherent waves"?

 

[PeterDonis]

the opposite of decoherent

Then what do you mean by "decoherent waves"?

You keep throwing around these terms as though you think they mean something the way you're using them. They don't. If you could express what you're trying to ask in math instead of vague ordinary language, it would help a lot. Or if you could describe specific experiments that illustrate what you mean by "coherent" and "decoherent" waves, that would help a lot.

 

[PeterDonis]

coherent waves show fringes in the doubles slit, decohered waves do not.

Where are you getting this from? It's nonsense.

Whether or not interference fringes are observed in the double slit experiment depends on how you set up the experiment. It has nothing to do with anything that could be called "coherent waves" or "decoherent waves".

 

[PeterDonis]

Decoherence is achieved by a measurement in the path before the final panel.

Meaning, at the slits? Yes, this at least is correct. But that does not mean the quantum objects turn into "decoherent waves" after the slits in this case.

The wave will be decohered.

No, it won't. Decoherence means that the quantum object's wave function becomes entangled with the detector and the environment. It is meaningless to talk of the quantum object's wave function by itself as being "decohered".

Also see further comments below.

It will be condensed.

"Condensed" is not even a meaningful term in this context.

It will not be in superposition

This is interpretation dependent. On a collapse interpretation, the measurement at the slits will leave only one "branch" remaining of the quantum object's wave function, the one coming from the slit it was measured to pass through. But on a no collapse interpretation like the MWI, both "branches" are still there and the full wave function is a superposition of both of them (more precisely, an entangled superposition of "branches" in which each "branch" of the quantum object's wave function is entangled with the corresponding "branch" of the detector's and environment's wave function).

Discussion of interpretations of QM is off topic here; if you have further questions about how particular interpretations handle this experiment, please start a new thread in the QM foundations and interpretations forum.

will not tunnel

Wrong. It can't tunnel in the particular experiment you describe, but that's because you set up the experiment to not make tunneling possible. But you could change the experimental setup to make it possible, and if you did, the quantum object could tunnel after being measured at the slits.

and will not entangle

This is obviously false; see how many times I used the word "entangled" to describe what happens when the quantum object is measured at the slits.

You seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of how QM works. Have you studied any basic QM textbooks?

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm proud of you for not closing the thread and actually letting me respond.

Thank you.

The math says if a decoherence event is going to occur the wave will be decohered before it starts moving.

What math? Please show your work or give a reference.

yeah, uhhh, I don't care. They didn't understand it when claiming that.

Who is "they"? What are you talking about?

A condensed wave packet is a like a collapsed slinky. This is the best analogy I can do, sorry.

It's nonsense. If that's the best you can do, you really, really need to take the time to learn QM from a textbook.

Don't come at me with "superposition of states". I meant being in more that one place at a time.

Which is still nonsense. Also, you need to lose the attitude. So far you have shown zero understanding of how QM works in your posts.

I guess an open question is if a condensed wave packet can tunnel or not. That would be interesting.

You haven't even shown that the term "condensed wave packet" means anything.

The only entanglement happening in the double slit is a wave going through both slits.

No, that's not entanglement and has nothing to do with it.

 

[PeterDonis]

Could this decohered-condensed wave packet be a new state of matter? Is the cutoff a specific number or pattern of molecules? Is this the quantum/classical boundary?

Stop right there. "Decohered-condensed wave packet" is nonsense. I don't know what you mean by it and I don't think you do either. The way to convince me otherwise is to show me the actual math or give me a reference. Those are your only options. Continuing to speculate based on this meaningless jumble of words will only get you another warning and a closed thread.

I'm glad that you recognized that I am giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean. But so far you have wasted it. If your next post does not either show me math or give me a reference, your opportunity will be gone. Please take heed.

 

[PeterDonis]

A wave packet is decohered

Wrong. Decoherence has nothing to do with wave functions being wave packets vs. plane waves.

 

[PeterDonis]

Since the OP is either unwilling or unable to provide valid math or references that support his claims, this thread is closed.