Wave Particle Interpretation

Jun 2016
1,351
683
England
To continue the thoughts that I (inappropriately) started in the Relativity Forum....
The physical interpretation of QM particles always causes difficulty
A non-dimensional point particle has its own conceptual difficulty, being fundamentally a singularity.
By Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, its position and momentum cannot both be (simultaneously) precisely determined.
As a probability wave, the physical interpretation is perhaps even more problematic.
One interpretation is the combination of of all the possible paths of infinite point like particles in a multiverse scenario.
This obviously has conceptual difficulties.

I personally am trying out the idea of a QM object actually being its probability function,
rather than the probability function being some kind of emergent property of some other (more physical) thing.

The probability functions of different QM objects can interact, overlap and combine (as in electron orbitals or a Bose-Einstein condensate).
I am suggesting that an isolated QM object has a very broad probability function,
but that interactions with the probability functions of other QM objects will cause the probability functions of the interacting QM objects to be more tightly defined.
The more tightly defined the probability function, the more particle like the object becomes.

Obviously this has its own conceptual issues, what does it actually mean to say that a QM object is its probability function.
 
Aug 2018
109
4
Neural Network of the Universe
I would say, that because you are not afraid to question the official narrative, you already know more, than others. Generally, you're going into right direction. Just keep in mind, that in it's natural state, reality is never determined in 100% until it won't be observed and become a definitive history. By collapsing the probability distribution of an electron or photon to a single state, scientists are 'hacking' the code of physical reality - electrons and photons remain in superposition, when observer is interacting with the environment at the level of macroscale objects.

Think about the reality, as about a virtual probability, which is observed by multiple observers simultaneusly. Imagine all the properties of an apple and think, that by tasting and smelling it, you receive all this information from atoms. Superposition of states becomes an obvious solution, when you think, that exchange of information is the process, which defines existence. You're correct, it's the "virtual" probability, that is the "real" state of reality - what we observe, is just an impression of the objective state, which remains beyond any kind of physical perception. Each observer is surrounded by a finite field, where waves at specific frequencies interfere with each other allowing the information exchange in the process known as observation

What differs such model of reality from SR, is the understanding of time. "Virtual" probability allows active interaction between the observer and the "digital" code of Universe. Observer is no longer just a passive viewer of a determined storyline, but becomes a game player, which influences the virtual environment through his actions - only here we can't make a backup save of physical reality. Sadly, such interpretation doesn't work well with Lorent's transformation of coordinates and I will show you why in another post...
 
Mar 2019
921
50
cosmos
@ Woody;
I would rather say uncertainty and certainty.
 
Aug 2018
109
4
Neural Network of the Universe
A non-dimensional point particle has its own conceptual difficulty, being fundamentally a singularity.
Only there's no such thing in observed universe. At the current level of knowledge, Planck's lenght gets as close as it can, to be considered a "point" - but it still has a measurable distance in space and can be divided further into smaller "bits"...
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
1,351
683
England
I have come across articles reporting discrepancies in the results of two different types of experiment designed to determine the "size" of a proton.
A couple of points occur to me about this;
What is defined as identifying inside verses outside the proton?
Is this an example of the precise nature of QM objects depending on the precise nature of the QM enverionment they are interacting with?
 
Apr 2015
1,219
349
Somerset, England
I have come across articles reporting discrepancies in the results of two different types of experiment designed to determine the "size" of a proton.
A couple of points occur to me about this;
What is defined as identifying inside verses outside the proton?
Is this an example of the precise nature of QM objects depending on the precise nature of the QM enverionment they are interacting with?
It is a question of whether the effect is small enough to be ignored or not.

Classical Physics had the advantage of being able to say for instance
" Compared to the distance from the Sun, the Earth can be considered as a point mass"
Thus the issue was neatly sidestepped.
But it was still there at a fine enough resolution.

QM on the other hand shows up most in the realm of the already very small.
So the question of just how small becomes more of an issue.

The effect of different interactions yielding different measures is not confined to protons, but applies to all small particles.
Molecules, atoms, ion, electrons etc.

There used to be a unit in particle collision physics called the 'barn' which was the effective cross sectional area of a target particle.
This would be one example of an interaction yielding a different measure from say the figure implied by the spin.

But no the size would be attributed solely to the proton or other particle, not to the interacting environment.
 
Mar 2019
921
50
cosmos
@ Woody:
"probability function" is just something mathematical. Fortunately, it works well and Duck de Brogiel deserved Oscar...
If someone drunk in math game, he will consider that himself understand QM very well. That's enough. If someone want to find out what's the physical meaning, it will be a tough struggle.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: Woody
Jun 2016
1,351
683
England
Did you mean Oscar or Nobel prize?
An Oscar is given for a brilliant portrayal of fiction
A Nobel for a brilliant portrayal of a scientific idea

Perhaps they aren't that different after all...;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: neila9876
Mar 2019
921
50
cosmos
This tramp in cosmos still retains a bit humor although some of his former classmates of middle schools have nailed a coffin for him long long ago. haha...
 
Oct 2017
676
348
Glasgow
The concept of shape or size doesn't exist for fundamental particles, like leptons, because those properties imply constituents, but fundamental particles have no constituents. QM and particle physics doesn't require them either because it's all interaction cross-sections and interaction probabilities.

There's always the view that "technology isn't good enough yet", but that's true for everything. There's also no existing problems afaik that could motivate the search for something like shapes or sizes of fundamental particles.