Does the New Quantization Method Redefine Time Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics?

[naturale]

Seems like you are simply using some 'vibe words' out of their proper context. I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

If a field has a give frequency-wavevector f_\mu, then its quanta have energy-momentum p_\mu = h f_\mu. If you says that two of them can have different directions, then one of two has different fourmometum w.r.t p_\mu, i.e. it is off-shell.

 

[naturale]

If it's mathematically identical to quantum mechanics in all situations, then it's just another interpretation, and I'm not too interested in those, since those are a dime a dozen.

If it's mathematically identical to quantum mechanics in all situations, that it is not only an interpretation but a new formulation which is based only on deterministic physics (classical variational principle, energy conservation, etc). This would imply an unbelievable simplification in solving complicated problems, or even simple conceptual interpretations. If you are not interested on this it means that you think that physicists "should shut up and calculate".

The more general quantum formulations of QM is the "ordinary axiomatic formulation" (in field theory is the second quantization) and Feynman formulation. The theory reproduces surprisingly both of them. If as Feynman says "same equation, same physics" (or something similar), then that theory can provide a correct formulation of the EPR-Bell experiment, as well.

I could add the Wigner formulation which however doesn't reproduce relativistic quantum mechanics.

The others:
5.3 Many worlds
5.4 Consistent histories
5.5 Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation
5.6 de Broglie–Bohm theory
5.7 Relational quantum mechanics
5.8 Transactional interpretation
5.9 Stochastic mechanics
5.10 Objective collapse theories
5.11 The decoherence approach
5.12 von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse
5.13 Many minds
5.14 Quantum logic
5.15 Modal interpretations of quantum theory
5.16 Other interpretations

are mainly speculations, or in the best cases interpretations which only match partially aspects of quantum mechanics and give disasters for other aspects.

Peer reviewers are human and make mistakes. The threshold for passing peer review in these sorts of papers isn't very high (and that's a good thing IMHO).

IMHO the publication treshold is too law for that papers which:
don't say nothing new, or
are based on ambiguous definitions/hypothesis, or
because they are just speculations, or
predict results which can't be confuted on a period of time longer that the estimated life time of the referees/editor/readers (string theory or similar) or
no results at all.
In all these situations to have papers published is extremely simple. This is the drama of modern physics: a huge number of papers with really too few original ideas or concrete applications. When you have a paper with something new, concrete, which implies a redefinition of well assumed concepts and which (the most heretic fact) really works, you are in serious troubles with referees.

If it's thermal noise, then we know that there is some mechanism involving thermal noise that can cause things to happen on small fractions of the deBroglie period. Once we isolated whatever that is, we can change it to see if it affects quantum probabilities. For example, if it's thermal noise that cases things to decoher, then you can think of an experiment to see of temperature affects quantum probabilities.

To observe a single photon it is necessary that the thermal noise is small w.r.t its energy. This is an experimental fact.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This non-lacality (periodic boundary conditions) actually is why the field can self-interferes. Moreover the probability of an observable eqn.41 is given by a field (the Born rule is mentioned in footnote n.16, is this your problem with the wave function?).

Thanks for your answers naturale. The problems I have are most likely my own fault = a lack of understanding. (but I’m working on it)

I interpret the "new quantization method" as it goes 'beyond' regular QM and gives us a hope to really understand what goes on at the microscopic level. Afaict you "give up" the wavefunction, and instead use the fields of QFT to obtain the same "results", right? This causes some conflicts in my brain... afaict QFT combines SR & QM, thus QFT must obey SR, right? But this seems not to be the case...?

A massive periodic field turns out to be localized inside the Compton wavelength. In fact, the non-relativistic limit corresponds to a low intensity massive field where only the first energy level is largely populated. In this way we obtain the usual non-relativistic free particle distribution (modulo the de broglie internal clock). This gives a consistent interpretation of the dualism between waves and particles and also of the double slit experiment.

If we take the double-slit experiment, there are claims that this "can easily be reformulated". Now, I presume that this means that the "schizophrenic" wave–particle duality is substituted by something more "natural" and "logical"? And I want to know what it is and how it works?

As a consequence of the periodic nature of the fields, typical quantum phenomena such as black body radiation, the double slit experiment, Schrödinger problems, superconductivity, and many others can easily be reformulated.

Can the de Broglie internal clock, inside a single electron, really explain easily what goes on here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="505">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FCoiyhC30bc&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FCoiyhC30bc&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed>
</object>

(but I fear that to have that bottle of champagne you what something more than a formal description, something like an intuitive example, isn't it?).

Yes please! Honestly, if this new theory is going to open the "Black Box" of QM and show us what really is inside, I sure hope it is possible to talk about, in some way... If it’s not – what have we really gained? Another mathematical "Black Box"?? As you know, there are some scientist who prefer the "shut up and calculate" approach, and this is understandable if Bohr was right "There is no quantum world". But now you say that this world do exist, and at the fundamental level is deterministic. If we still can’t talk about this real world, it’s real gloomy...

At this point I have a request to you all: I would like that this tread is focused on the results discussed on that paper, which (IMHO) are extremely ex exciting.

I agree, and I understand. To me it looks like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the strongest candidate for "easy explanation" by this new theory. The microscopic world is not uncertain; it’s just a matter of really good measurements, right? In this demonstration, the opening is 1/100th of an inch wide (or 0.25 mm), when the HUP becomes noticeable. Can this be explained by the de Broglie internal clock of 10^-20 s?

Walter Lewin MIT – The Uncertainty Principle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="505">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KT7xJ0tjB4A&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KT7xJ0tjB4A&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed>
</object>

As long as someone of you do not prove that the Bell theorem can be adapted to rule out the case of intrinsic periodicity of the fields, the theory must be considered compatible with quantum mechanics (the Bell's hypothesis of local hidden variable can't be used in our case).

You are probably right, but personally I think you do have a problem. If your theory is deterministic, then we know what’s "wrong" in Local Realism – its locality. The best test of non-locality (afaict) is EPR-Bell experiments, thus: you must provide a reasonable explanation for how "relativistic causality" and determinism can be compatible and how this works in EPR-Bell experiment.

If you can’t – I personally think you have a serious problem in your theory...

(Unless you are talking about super-determinism, where not only the particles but the apparatus and humans are predetermined... which to me is totally depressing and uninteresting...)

 

[naturale]

Thanks for your answers naturale. The problems I have are most likely my own fault = a lack of understanding. (but I’m working on it)

I interpret the "new quantization method" as it goes 'beyond' regular QM and gives us a hope to really understand what goes on at the microscopic level. Afaict you "give up" the wavefunction, and instead use the fields of QFT to obtain the same "results", right? This causes some conflicts in my brain... afaict QFT combines SR & QM, thus QFT must obey SR, right? But this seems not to be the case...?

QFT is, so to say, the "evolution" of the matter wavefunction of QM introduced by de Broglie. It is fundamental when you want to include SR. Periodic fields are kinds of relativistic fields. Therefore that theory absolutely don't "give up" the wavefunction. The periodic fields describes probabilities as in QFT and absolutely respect SR in all its aspects (lorentz invariance, relativistic causality, ...)! Look to the above posts or read the first section of the paper. One can say that such a theory unifies SR with QM, I believe.

If we take the double-slit experiment, there are claims that this "can easily be reformulated". Now, I presume that this means that the "schizophrenic" wave–particle duality is substituted by something more "natural" and "logical"? And I want to know what it is and how it works?

The answer is: a periodic field with periodicity T=h/E. It gives a particle description in the non relativistic case (end of the end of par.1.2). The arXiv paper version4 have two section of the appendix dedicated to the wave/particle dualism and double slits experiment.

Can the de Broglie internal clock, inside a single electron, really explain easily what goes on here?

You have a field theory (or wave theory if you like) which in the no-quantum limit (h-> 0 or M -> \infty) describe a particle. If M is infinite, " In the non relativistic limit, matter fields can be approximated as with infinite spatial periodicity and microscopic time compactification proportional to its Compton wavelengths. Hence they can be regarded as nearly three spatial dimensional objects. Furthermore, since they are spatially localized inside their microscopical Compton wavelengths, they can be effectively regarded as non-relativistic point-like particles."

Yes please! Honestly, if this new theory is going to open the "Black Box" of QM and show us what really is inside, I sure hope it is possible to talk about, in some way... If it’s not – what have we really gained? Another mathematical "Black Box"?? As you know, there are some scientist who prefer the "shut up and calculate" approach, and this is understandable if Bohr was right "There is no quantum world". But now you say that this world do exist, and at the fundamental level is deterministic. If we still can’t talk about this real world, it’s real gloomy...

You are pretending too much. There will always be "Black Boxes" in physics I fear. As you give an answer you rise new questions. In this case you pass from a "Black Box" to a " little less Black Box": it is ruled by classical and deterministic laws. Since I read that paper I can't avoid to think QM in that way.

The language of physics is mathematics and the first think a physicist should do is to have theories mathematically well formulated and consistent. This is not "shut up and calculate". Once that mathematics works, you can even try to interpret your results by word. But you have always to bearing in mind that translating physics into words inevitably generates misunderstandings. In that theory mathematics really works and you obtaining, as far as I can see, the very same laws of QM. This can't be by chance! I can't help to explain it by words if the mathematics behind that theory is not known.

I agree, and I understand. To me it looks like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the strongest candidate for "easy explanation" by this new theory. The microscopic world is not uncertain; it’s just a matter of really good measurements, right? In this demonstration, the opening is 1/100th of an inch wide (or 0.25 mm), when the HUP becomes noticeable. Can this be explained by the de Broglie internal clock of 10^-20 s?Walter Lewin MIT – The Uncertainty Principle

The par.2.4 is Heisenberg uncertainty relation. Have you read it?
"Mathematically we can see this by noting that the phase E t / \hbar is defined modulo factors 2 \pi n . Supposing for simplicity n = 1 , we can reabsorb this factor either as a variation of the time variable \Delta t = 2 \pi \hbar / E or of the energy \Delta E = 2 \pi \hbar /t , so that \Delta E * \Delta t = (2 \pi \hbar )^2 /E t , which is minimized by the largest value of the time in the denominator t -&gt; T_t . Finally, we recover the Heisenberg uncertainty relation[14].
\Delta E * \Delta t &gt;= 2\pi \hbar = h." In this case you must consider the intrinsic spatial periodicity (transverse w.r.t the propagation direction) of the photons (not the periodicity of electrons) inside the laser beam, i.e. you must think them as objects with compact spatial dimension of length \lambda = 0.55 mm. In a laser the all photons "want" to have the same periodicity of \lambda. If you want a bar of length \lamnda to pass through a hole of diameter d < \lambda you have to incline it of an angle cos \theta = \lambda/ d. Right? When the laser beam is inside the slit, the photons are like particles on a box and the wall of the slit tries to force the field to a shorter spatial periodicity \lambda. The only way the photons have to preserve the same compactification length is to bend as they pass through the slit, so that some of them have a deviation \theta (of course, not all the photons, because possible scatterings...). If you write the variations of the components of their momentum whose modulo is |p| = h \lamnda and you multiply it by the variation of direction of the wavelength you will see that they are related by the Heisenberg relation.
This again is only my guess! There are an infinite number of experiments that are related to the HUP. But at this point it is not necessary to explain them on by one. Since the theory has an underling Heisenberg relation all this kind or experiment should be consistently interpreted in that theory ("same equation, same physics"!).

You are probably right, but personally I think you do have a problem. If your theory is deterministic, then we know what’s "wrong" in Local Realism – its locality. The best test of non-locality (afaict) is EPR-Bell experiments, thus: you must provide a reasonable explanation for how "relativistic causality" and determinism can be compatible and how this works in EPR-Bell experiment.

If you can’t – I personally think you have a serious problem in your theory...

(Unless you are talking about super-determinism, where not only the particles but the apparatus and humans are predetermined... which to me is totally depressing and uninteresting...)

You are still applied a theorem based on local hidden variable to a theory without hidden variables. Maybe, the non-lacality has an intuitive interpretation in this case (probably arising from the periodic condition).