The key to unifying the theories of the very large and the very small

[physical]

TL;DR

The key to unifying the theories of the very large and the very small is asking if the object in question is physical

Summary: The key to unifying the theories of the very large and the very small is asking if the object in question is physical

Uncollapsed(stateless | unphysical) Quantum Waves + State(Matter Field or wave collapse) = Physical Matter

Is a Matter Field state change the same thing as wave collapse? We know the state is decided before the particle even starts to travel. And when a which way eraser is used in the path, the state is set back to default ..so the wave collapse is uncollapsing? Or that's where state recycling occurs ..at the beginning.
Or Or, the decision to collapse the wave is left until after the particles life path is analysed.

Maybe wave collapse from a state change is different from a wave collapse from a dead end.

The delayed choice quantum eraser says they are different because a wave collapse from a dead end doesn't effect the particle in flight. The state change is causing a wave collapse though, telling us there doesn't have to be anything magical about setting a state change.

Observation/measurement is dead ..the question is if you caused a wave collapse or not. Nature doesn't care if we know anything.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Is there a question in there?

 

[physical]

There are question marks

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes there are. But it seems like you are making a statement more than asking a question. If this is a question, you will get better answers if you ask it more clearly.

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Thread moved to Quantum Foundations and Interpretations forum since it appears to be a question about the meaning of "wave collapse".

 

[PeterDonis]

Is a Matter Field state change the same thing as wave collapse?

It depends on what you mean by "matter field state change" and "wave collapse". I'm not sure what you mean by either of those terms. For example:

The delayed choice quantum eraser says they are different because a wave collapse from a dead end doesn't effect the particle in flight. The state change is causing a wave collapse though, telling us there doesn't have to be anything magical about setting a state change.

I can't translate this into anything meaningful about a DCQE experiment because I can't figure out what you mean by "wave collapse" and "state change" here. I think you need to clarify what you mean by those terms.

 

[PGaccount]

The large-scale conformal structure of spacetime is a 'Poincare disk'. This disk has a singularity on its boundary. In complex analysis, there is a disk of convergence. On the boundary of this disk, there may be isolated points where there is no convergence. These are singularities. The non-convergence outside the disk must be attributed to the presence of these singularities. These singularities are 'charges' which create a field which satisfies the Laplace equation. The real and imaginary parts of analytic or holomorphic functions satisfy the Laplace equation.

If f = u + iv, then the cauchy-riemann equations

du/dx = dv/dy

du/dy = -dv/dx

imply that u and v satisfy

d²u/dx² + d²u/dy² = 0

which is the Laplace equation.

 

[physical]

Somewhere around 1 x 10-18g in a vacuum is a new constant.

The diffraction gets too small to identify fringes. It's a natural size for the object to be physical and to never be in superposition.

Uncollapsed(stateless | unphysical | virtual) Quantum Waves + State(Matter Field or wave collapse or decoherence) + zero Diffraction showing fringes = Physical Matter (Real)

If an object is too large to display fringes, it is automatically physical. The question now is if auto-physical objects have a physical state or maybe being naturally physical doesn't require it.

Do I need to claim there is a physical state in the first place for even quantum sized objects if it is the same thing as: wave collapse, decoherence, and zero diffraction?

There has to be something that causes a particle to be physical or not before it even starts moving. If it is to only be a wave in flight, duality doesn't apply. But if physical, duality is allowed. Maybe I need a different term for "physical state".

If I started using "Real" instead of "physical state" would that get physicists off my back about mass meaning a physical property?

GR deals with what is Real.
Wave Collapse, Decoherence, and Zero Diffraction cause something to be Real.

We just need GR to handle duality for Unification.
GR for reality
QM wave function for unreal (only probabilities)

Does this mean Diffraction is directly related to Superposition?

 

[PeterDonis]

Somewhere around 1 x 10-18g in a vacuum is a new constant.

The diffraction gets too small to identify fringes. It's a natural size for the object to be physical and to never be in superposition.

Where are you getting this from? Do you have a reference?

 

[physical]

It is the minimum amount of mass necessary to Automatically have a physical state in a vacuum. Of course objects smaller can be physical/real, but only after they have a physical state (real).

The size is around the size of virus, we can't detect fringes using viruses in a double slit. I don't have an exact number of atoms, I just know I'm close.

 

[weirdoguy]

I don't have an exact number of atoms, I just know I'm close.

So this is your personal speculation?

 

[PeterDonis]

It is the minimum amount of mass necessary to Automatically have a physical state in a vacuum.

I have never heard of such a thing. I asked you for a reference--a textbook or peer-reviewed paper. Since you have not provided one, this is personal speculation and is off limits for PF discussion. Thread closed.