Particle picture is misleading. True?

  • Thread starter Varon
  • Start date
  • #1
548
1
Do you agree that the development of Quantum field theory has totally outdated the concepts of particles? How come we still talk about particle wave duality? If you use this concept to explain the double slit experiment. Endless debates arise as to whether the electron pass thru the left or right slit. But if you consider it as pure quantum field and wave. There is no longer any mystery.

First of all. "Most electrons in a real material are there smeared out in a way that the particle picture is misleading. Chemists use electron densities, not electron positions to describe things. Thus a newly arriving delocalized electron is nothing very special to the detector." do you agree?

So what happens in the double slit experiment is simply this. Quantum electron field is emitted... and after reaching the slits... the quantum field is splitted and pure field or wave hit the detectors. Now why do we only detect one electron?

Note the detector has existing millions of electrons which compose the detector. Only one of these are triggered. You may ask how the wave select that particular one.

"The wave selects nothing. It arrives at the various places of detector with different intensities, and these intensities stimulate all the electrons. But because of conservation of energy, only one can fire since the first one that fires uses up all the energy available for ionization (resp. jumping to the conduction band), and none is left for the others." (Neumaier)

Do all agree that the double slit experiment is finally solved? Any counterarguments or refutations?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
33
0
What?

1. Mathematics that solves the double slit was done quite a bit ago.
2. The wave/particle duality refers to particles having wave like properties and particle like properties (like momentum).
3. Who's "Neumaier"?
4. Why does a search for this guy return religious poetry?
5. What were you saying about chemistry?
6. What specifically about quantum field theory is "solving" something?
7. What exactly is being "solved"?

So...what do you mean?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
548
1
What?

1. Mathematics that solves the double slit was done quite a bit ago.
2. The wave/particle duality refers to particles having wave like properties and particle like properties (like momentum).
3. Who's "Neumaier"?
4. Why does a search for this guy return religious poetry?
5. What were you saying about chemistry?
6. What specifically about quantum field theory is "solving" something?
7. What exactly is being "solved"?

So...what do you mean?


For ages. Man wonders whether the electron passes thru the left or right slit.
Countless conflicts ensued. World wars come and go.
Then from the darkness lurks a slit of light and hope.
Dawn is come.
Electrons don't pass left or right slit or even both. There is no electron as particle.
It's all quantum field.

The electron quantum field is a uniform wave that passes thru the slit uniformly.
The measurement problem is solved. There is no collapse. There is no many worlds.
There is no instantanous wave function. No Bohmian to spoil the day. It is all quantum waves.
There is no measurement problem. Because collapse is just an illusion. The determinate
properties are due to existing electrons in the detectors. There is only all quantum field
wave that uniformly hit the detector and one electron in the detector with millions of
electrons just get triggered at random and when one rises up, all the energy for the
others are used up.. hence one electron fires and we mistaken thought it was the same
electron sent from the screen. I think this is a Nobel calibre idea. Have you or anyone has
ever thought of this yourself?
 
  • #4
173
0
You are simply too arrogant.
2 weeks ago you knew nothing about the measurement problem, then you log on to a website, find a random guy who has claimed he has solved the measurement problem.
Then you act as if the rest of the physics community in the world just haven't seen the light that you've seen?

get real
 
  • #5
548
1
You are simply too arrogant.
2 weeks ago you knew nothing about the measurement problem, then you log on to a website, find a random guy who has claimed he has solved the measurement problem.
Then you act as if the rest of the physics community in the world just haven't seen the light that you've seen?

get real

I'm the village idiot.. lol...

no... I just want it to be refuted as soon as possible because I want to be fully immersed in the Many Worlds...

The consequences of Many worlds is that in some worlds your copies have shot Obama and this is a big psychological weight to carry.. and one has to be ready for such a responsibility to be a bonafide Many Worlder....
 
  • #6
173
0
I'm the village idiot.. lol...

no... I just want it to be refuted as soon as possible because I want to be fully immersed in the Many Worlds...

The consequences of Many worlds is that in some worlds your copies have shot Obama and this is a big psychological weight to carry.. and one has to be ready for such a responsibility to be a bonafide Many Worlder....

What do you even mean?
You want to be fully immersed in MWI because then you can have this psychological weight on top of you? For what?
 
  • #7
173
0
the pure MWI where you "branch off" into infinite worlds is 100% likely to be wrong.
It can't make sense of Born Rule (main principle of QM) and it has ontological issues, decoherence/emergence is not enough.

so it definately requires additional postulates, most likely (if you still want to believe in MWI) particles, Many Bohmian Worlds.
In this scenario the worlds are always seperate and doesn't branch off from eachother.

However most likely none of the current nterpretations are correct.
There may come new discoveries etc.
 
  • #8
548
1
the pure MWI where you "branch off" into infinite worlds is 100% likely to be wrong.
It can't make sense of Born Rule (main principle of QM) and it has ontological issues, decoherence/emergence is not enough.

so it definately requires additional postulates, most likely (if you still want to believe in MWI) particles, Many Bohmian Worlds.
In this scenario the worlds are always seperate and doesn't branch off from eachother.

However most likely none of the current nterpretations are correct.
There may come new discoveries etc.

I'm simultaneously reading many Many world references now. There seem to be a lot of variants too from Everett, Dewitt, Deutch, Albert and Loewer and Woodlock's Many Minds, Barbour's etc. And I'm trying to select which makes more sense.

Yes, the pure MWI where one branch off into infinite worlds seems not right. Here Everett relative state makes more sense. Also I read in Woodlock book that it's more like the world splitting you instead of you splitting of worlds.

Also I'm comparing all these to the many variants of Copenhagen. All these can make for sleepless nights.

If Neumaeir was right. All of these endless search can be done away with. But Neumaier can't seem to answer what happens to the buckyball which turn he believes into pure quantum wave.. it's like he said the wave gets lost amongst the detector. But we know the buckyball should still be whole. Here if he can make convincing answer. It ups his hypothesis more.
 
  • #9
173
0
I'm simultaneously reading many Many world references now. There seem to be a lot of variants too from Everett, Dewitt, Deutch, Albert and Loewer and Woodlock's Many Minds, Barbour's etc. And I'm trying to select which makes more sense.

Yes, the pure MWI where one branch off into infinite worlds seems not right. Here Everett relative state makes more sense. Also I read in Woodlock book that it's more like the world splitting you instead of you splitting of worlds.

Relative state has the exact same problem though, it needs additional assumption to get probabiity right and it needs a mechanism for why you get determinate outcomes in these worlds...
Decoherence is not sufficient.

Now, why did you WANT to immerse your self into this?
What sort of SCI FI fantasy is it you are trying to achieve?
 
  • #10
548
1
Relative state has the exact same problem though, it needs additional assumption to get probabiity right and it needs a mechanism for why you get determinate outcomes in these worlds...
Decoherence is not sufficient.

Now, why did you WANT to immerse your self into this?
What sort of SCI FI fantasy is it you are trying to achieve?

Just want to see solution of the measurement problems.. maybe this is related to uniting QM with General Relativity.. and finally a clue to Quantum Gravity.
 
  • #11
173
0
well from what I can tell, MWI does not help in this regard at all...

What is the difference between Woodlock and Deutsch/wallace approach?
 
  • #12
548
1
well from what I can tell, MWI does not help in this regard at all...

What is the difference between Woodlock and Deutsch/wallace approach?

In Lockwood view. Each of the worlds has part of our mind in it. So all the minds in those worlds are composed of one Mind. Although I just read his book yesterday called Mind, Brain and the Quantum: The Compound "I" published in 1989 but his main thought is in his 1996 paper called "The Many Minds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics". I'm still looking for a copy of this paper although it can be accessed with $25 one time payment.. (so if there is 5 of us here who want to take a look at it.. maybe we can each contribute $5 and buy the paper.. I just feel it's too expensive for a paper of few pages at $25).

About Deutsch/Wallace. I also have the book Schrodinger Rabbits: Many World of Quantum. It says in page 178: "What is now called the Deutsch-Wallace program extracts Everett's artifical postulate of measure naturally from the quantum rules, just as it has been found that decoherence does the work once attributed to the artificial concept of splitting worlds, and entanglement does the work once attributed to the artificial concept of quantum collapse".
This has to do with the measure problem shown in the nice drawing in page 172.

I'm also reading Barrett "The Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds". You should read it if you still haven't. All of these very interesting and my head already spinning.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
33
0
Many worlds

"Hilbert space" if you please.
 
  • #14
548
1
In de Broglie/Bohm mechanics. Position is made determinate. In Many Minds variant of Many worlds, mental states are made determinate. Do you believe this is possible at all?
It seems Many Worlds have to produce more arbitrariness than the collapse postulate in Copenhagen. I sometimes wonder if Copenhagen or one world based stuff has more ring of truth. Fyzix, Dimitry, Fredrik and other potential Many world supporters. What do you think of the following anti Many-worlder's general statement?:

“The only possible reason for accepting the many-worlds formulation, with its absurd extravagance of universes, is its economy of assumptions compared to other explanations of quantum theory. OK, we can interpret Occam’s razor to say that we should go primarily for economy of assumptions. Avoiding the need for any new laws of physics is therefore the first priority; ontological economy, postulating the minimum number of worlds, galaxies, universes, or whatever is secondary. So if many-worlds can really explain things with no extra physical rules needed, it wins. But if we do, after all, need some new physical assumptions—postulating a kind of extra depth of dimension to reality, for goodness sake!—then the advantage of many-worlds vanishes. In that case it is much more sensible to choose some other interpretation that might need an extra physical postulate but does not also imply an infinity (or at any rate a vast number) of extra universes.” (-Colin Bruce, Schroedinger Rabbit)
 
  • #15
33
0
In de Broglie/Bohm mechanics.

Things also go faster than the speed of light. You know: from a contradiction, you can get anything.

Best of luck.
 
  • #16
548
1
Things also go faster than the speed of light. You know: from a contradiction, you can get anything.

Best of luck.

I think Fra Observer Invariant stuff in one world is more like it. But then... what if many worlds are the normal and it works in combination with Copenhagen or even de Broglie-Bohm mechanics. Then you have Hybrid Interpretation... that is, you have to combine them, and nature is not only more complicated than we think.. but more complex than we can imagine or think.
 
  • #17
1,654
579
Electrons don't pass left or right slit or even both. There is no electron as particle.
It's all quantum field.

The electron quantum field is a uniform wave that passes thru the slit uniformly.

Wave goes through both slits, maybe?

The measurement problem is solved. There is no collapse. There is no many worlds.
If there were no collapse, there'd be no measurement problem. But it is clear as day there is the additional 'projection postulate' that is needed.
 
  • #18
548
1
Wave goes through both slits, maybe?


If there were no collapse, there'd be no measurement problem. But it is clear as day there is the additional 'projection postulate' that is needed.

Isn't it that collapse of the state vector is the same as "projection postulate"? If there is no collapse.. no basis is required to be chosen. Maybe position in macroscopic object is because we are seeing it from macroscale.. if we can go internally into the molecules.. there would be no particles like electrons or quarks.. these are just smeared waves... according to Neumaier (the new von Neumann).
 
  • #19
911
1
Do you agree that the development of Quantum field theory has totally outdated the concepts of particles? How come we still talk about particle wave duality? If you use this concept to explain the double slit experiment. Endless debates arise as to whether the electron pass thru the left or right slit. But if you consider it as pure quantum field and wave. There is no longer any mystery.

First of all. "Most electrons in a real material are there smeared out in a way that the particle picture is misleading. Chemists use electron densities, not electron positions to describe things. Thus a newly arriving delocalized electron is nothing very special to the detector." do you agree?

So what happens in the double slit experiment is simply this. Quantum electron field is emitted... and after reaching the slits... the quantum field is splitted and pure field or wave hit the detectors. Now why do we only detect one electron?

Note the detector has existing millions of electrons which compose the detector. Only one of these are triggered. You may ask how the wave select that particular one.

"The wave selects nothing. It arrives at the various places of detector with different intensities, and these intensities stimulate all the electrons. But because of conservation of energy, only one can fire since the first one that fires uses up all the energy available for ionization (resp. jumping to the conduction band), and none is left for the others." (Neumaier)

Do all agree that the double slit experiment is finally solved? Any counterarguments or refutations?

Varon, how about the below hypothesis:

The particle (as well as the wave associated with it) pass through the slit.

The particle passes through one slit and the wave passes through both slits...when "unobserved".

thus there are three things happening:

1. the particle that goes through one of the slits (left or right)
2. a) the part of the split wave that goes through right slit
2. b) the part of the split wave that goes through left slit

When we try to find out which slit the particle passes through, we cause some sort of entanglement between the particle and the instrument/technique (being used for which-way info).

This entanglement results in "pinning" down the location of the particle, which results in collapse of the waves.

You can also have a mixture, where ....you observe the location of buckyball "partially" and have a interference pattern "partially"

i.e. an experiment where .....we know with X probability that BuckyBall passed through right slit and a "vague" interference pattern.

- All existence has wave associated with it....however for large objects its effect becomes negligible

- when small particles travel (unobserved/undisturbed) they travel as both particle and wave...however we cannot pin the location of the particle...without collapsing the waves.
 
  • #20
548
1
Varon, how about the below hypothesis:

The particle (as well as the wave associated with it) pass through the slit.

The particle passes through one slit and the wave passes through both slits...when "unobserved".

thus there are three things happening:

1. the particle that goes through one of the slits (left or right)
2. a) the part of the split wave that goes through right slit
2. b) the part of the split wave that goes through left slit

When we try to find out which slit the particle passes through, we cause some sort of entanglement between the particle and the instrument/technique (being used for which-way info).

This entanglement results in "pinning" down the location of the particle, which results in collapse of the waves.

You can also have a mixture, where ....you observe the location of buckyball "partially" and have a interference pattern "partially"

i.e. an experiment where .....we know with X probability that BuckyBall passed through right slit and a "vague" interference pattern.

- All existence has wave associated with it....however for large objects its effect becomes negligible

- when small particles travel (unobserved/undisturbed) they travel as both particle and wave...however we cannot pin the location of the particle...without collapsing the waves.

Where did you hear about this "i.e. an experiment where .....we know with X probability that BuckyBall passed through right slit and a "vague" interference pattern."

I think it's all or none. If the slit is known, there collapse, if not known, no collapse. But partially??
 
  • #21
911
1
Where did you hear about this "i.e. an experiment where .....we know with X probability that BuckyBall passed through right slit and a "vague" interference pattern."

I think it's all or none. If the slit is known, there collapse, if not known, no collapse. But partially??

From Dr Chinese....."it's not all or none"....and I agree with him.
 
  • #22
1,654
579
Absolutely, San K.
Varon, see pgs 110-111 of The Quantum Challenge (2nd edition) - might be on Google Books.
 

Related Threads on Particle picture is misleading. True?

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
590
Replies
37
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
866
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
Top