SEKI

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to go back and read where this has been done. If you don't understand it, ask a question. If you continue to ignore replies that are doing exactly as you ask here, I'm going to have to close this thread. 

 

I have already admitted that introduction of cohesive force is not compatible with the framework of traditional quantum theories.
This fact does not mean introduction of cohesive force is false.
Rather, it means that traditional quantum theories are only approximately true.
Can't he understand this simple logic?

I am tired of discussing with persons without intellectual honesty.
Considering their difficult conditions, however, I cannot but feel sympathy.

So, I would like to say goodbye.

Thanks a lot.
I wish all of you good luck.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

It's already been pointed out that QM (Schrödinger's equation) deals with energy and not forces - we deal with interactions.

One of the issues here is that it's not clear whether the wave packet being referenced is a wave function, or the deBroglie wave. Some statements imply one, and some imply the other. They are not the same thing.

How can a wave function feel a force? How does a deBroglie wave have an internal force? One of these, at least, must be addressed.

Please point out a defect in the arguments of (3).

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Before I get more heavily involved in this thread... Could you please clarify these points?: If you want to make a wavepacket reduction possible, you must make the Schrödinger equation either non-linear or non-unitary.

Which one is it?

It's been tried before in a linear and unitary way: Coleman-Hepp. Criticised by John Bell, very eloquently I think.

Weinberg also tried to generalise quantum mechanics to a non-linear dynamical theory. Without much success.

I wrote many times that cohesive force is like surface tension.

How can equation with cohesive force be linear/unitary?

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

But it's not negligible. Schrödinger predicts an infinite-extent spatial wave function for a single-valued momentum, and you say this isn't true for your idea, but give no information about what the wave function would look like.

Plus you haven't made any connection to Feynman diagrams, AFAICT. (Which work exceedingly well, BTW)

I meant it is negligible from an experimental perspective.

Feynman's calculation method adopts ~exp(ikx) for each free-quantum wavefunction.
I have no clue about how to reform Feynman's calculation method.
If you come up with one, I admit you are a genius.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

You haven't presented a way to test the idea of a cohesive force. You are claiming it without evidence. It's too vague. I can't point out what's wrong if there's nothing to point at.

You give an example of a particle with a specific momentum, and point out that "According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and specific energy-momentum are not compatible." which is true. So if the spatial wave function is not of infinite size, as QM says it is, you are discarding Schrödinger's wave mechanics. And not replacing it. 

You own the burden of proof here. Demonstrate that you are right. Come up with evidence and/or testable predictions. 

Introduction of cohesive force is my logical consequence.
Impact to Schrödinger's system is considered to be negligible.
The problem is that to Feynman diagrammatic calculation method, renormalization and the like.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It's unfortunate that you are seemingly throwing out Schrödinger's formulation and have nothing to replace it with. Do you have anything that would allow your idea to be tested and falsified?

You should read (3) carefully and point out what is wrong.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

I think Phi has made a generous offer that other members may help you recover some of your lost knowledge and perhaps even add something you missed out on in the last 40 years.

In order to follow this offer I suggest we step aside for a moment to discuss 'surface tension' , which is not actually a conventional force at all.
It is indeed the result of the balance of cohesive and/or dispersive forces which produces that remarkable phenomenon we call surface tension.

Discussing the model of how surface tension comes about may help your understanding of what a scientific model is and the grades of model that might be offered (again as Phi noted).

But until you understand surface tension, I don't see how you can say it is or is not an appropropriate basis for you proposal.

I am sorry, I have neither ability nor intention to develop a mathematical model.
I can only come up with a schematic model.
If someone develop a mathematical model, I am very thankful.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your kind suggestion.

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

I see no equations. You have no model.

You don’t have a model, and haven’t presented enough to be able to point out more flaws than have already been identified. 

You don’t have a model.

Copenhagen and many worlds are interpretations of QM, not QM itself.

It seems that what the word 'model' means is different between you and me.

In fact, expressions such as 'schema model' are generally used.
I didn't know the word 'model' means for physics professionals.  Sorry.

25 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

A scientific model is the representation of a phenomenon, rather than a verbal explanation. You could use visual models like charts, or a computer simulation, for example. Building a physical model is difficult at the levels you're discussing, but that's another example of a model. Using maths to represent how the phenomenon is calculated is the perfect tool at the quantum level. Without any of these, you don't have a model. This is an hypothesis at best, and several members are trying to help you shore it up where it's falling apart, despite your best efforts to ignore them.

 

I am only an amateur who majored in physics for 6 years about 40 years ago.
So, if no fatal flaw is pointed out in my model/hypothesis, I am greatly satisfied.

I am so sorry for those who posted from a professional perspective.
Please ignore this topic if you do not find a fatal flaw.

Thank you very much.

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Please stop posting just to tell people to read what you wrote. Everyone has read it, and they're asking for clarity about the parts that are unclear or observably untrue. Focus on answering the very valid questions being posed to you.

And you keep mentioning a model but we've seen no maths.

 

OK.

And, yes, no math is presented.

Cohesive force is considered to be like surface tension.
I am sorry, I don't know how to deal with surface tension mathematically.

I wrote in the first posting on this topic: "You may feel that the above quantum model is quite odd and half-baked, though I suppose that my model is leastwise better than that of Copenhagen, many worlds theories and so forth".

I have never asserted my model is fine great theory.
I just presented a rough tentative model.

So, I hope that any fatal flaw of my model is pointed out, if any.

Thanks.

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

As the first sentence represents a direct refusal to obey the site rules I have reported it as such.

The second sentence refers to the introduction of a force into QM.

But it is provided with no more support or mathematics than your other claims.

QM is energy based, not force based. So where exactly does does force fit into QM and how does this force act and interact with other variables in QM ?

 

Cohesive force is considered to be like surface tension.
It is to dirty the traditional mathematically beautiful theory, which is to be only approximately true.

I think the reality is not necessarily beautiful after all.  I am sorry.

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Predictions of this model should then differ from QM, and this difference should be testable experimentally. What are such predictions?

Sorry, I have no idea.

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

When are you going to present a model of it? When do we get testable predictions?

Have you read the whole sentences of my first posting?

17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I have, and I'm struggling to understand what you are on about. You make what looks like a silly assertion, viz. that a photon cannot but diffuse and thereby ends up "disappearing". That is obviously rubbish, so I am paying you the compliment of not jumping to the conclusion that you don't know what you are talking about. I am trying to see if I can make what you have written align with my own understanding. This is that a wave packet indeed tends to disperse, so that the wave function becomes spread out in space. But that does not mean it eventually "disappears", merely that its position becomes less and less well defined.

However, If your response is going to be merely: "Please read", that is unhelpful and I won't waste any more time on your ideas. 

I wrote:
>>Sorry, I am not interested in discussing (1) and (2).
>>Cardinal points of my model is (3)-(6).

You wrote:
>Is this all about wave packet dispersion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet#Dispersive

(3) is about wave packet dispersion.
(4)-(6) are not.

So, your question was not appropriate.
If you are not interested in the cohesive force, I recommend you to quit.

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Is this all about wave packet dispersion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet#Dispersive 

No.

Please read.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Violation of conservation of energy is not part of “traditional theory” Photons don’t just disappear in QM

 

Reading your comments, I think that your reading haven't reached to the end of (3) yet, or that you have a  problem in reading comprehension.

Please read enough before commenting.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Well I am not going to ignore (1) and I repeat genady's valid question since you are trying to change your claim to avoid it.

 

Your reply, in particular in relation to the electron to genady requires an astounding modification to quantum theory and you have offered absolutely zero support for such a claim.

I would expect some exceptional mathematical and observational support for the astounding claim that the waveform of a free electron changes over time.

Sorry, I am not interested in discussing (1) and (2).

Cardinal points of my model is (3)-(6).

56 minutes ago, Genady said:

Is it unitary?

This is a good question.
The most important point of my model is introduction of cohesive force.
I am sorry, it is to dirty the traditional mathematically beautiful theory, which is to be only approximately true.

24 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, the traditional theory does not have this problem. Maybe this quote and this website will help:

"It so often happens that I receive mail - well-intended but totally useless - by amateur physicists who believe to have solved the world. They believe this, only because they understand totally nothing about the real way problems are solved in Modern Physics. If you really want to contribute to our theoretical understanding of physical laws - and it is an exciting experience if you succeed! - there are many things you need to know."

How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist (uu.nl)

 

I found no substance in your posts.
Why don't you just ignore this topic?
Does my model harm you?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

That would violate conservation of energy, so no, that’s not a possible result.

Yes.

So,  the traditional theory has a  fatal problem.

My model is proposed to resolve this problem.

5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Can you define anti-quantum?

quantum + anti-quantum -> none (vacuum)

Anyway, I only proposed a hypothetical model.

9 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

How does your model describe entanglement?

My present model does not explain entanglement.

I have a hypothesis that entanglement is concerned with zero-point oscillation in quantum field.  Are you interested?

16 minutes ago, Genady said:

OK, ignoring (1) and moving over to (2). What does it mean to carry energy and momentum as a whole? As oppose to carrying them piece by piece?

(2) is also only a traditional premise of quantum theory.
You can ignore (2) too.

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

What does it mean? I didn't see this traditional premise of quantum theory  

For example, consider a free electron whose quantum-wave form changes as time proceeds.

The electron is considered to continue to be the same electron.

Anyway, you can ignore (1).  No problem.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Define “oneness” please 

I wrote "Though a quantum behaves as a wave, it maintains its oneness while it exists".

I meant that each quantum remains to be the same quantum  while it exists.

It is only a traditional premise of quantum theory.  Nothing new.

In the field of elementary particle physics, the particle model seems to have been widely accepted, in which it is assumed that there exist extremely small elementary particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality, and that the wave function is to give the existence probability of a particle.

By double slit experiments, however, it is indicated that a single quantum can interfere with itself.  With the particle model, it seems unreasonable to consider it explicable that interference fringes are to be formed in double slit experiments with flux of quanta that is so sparse that only a single quantum can be present at a time.

[See, for example,
  Taylor, G.I. (1909).
  "Interference fringes with feeble light"
  Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 15. pp. 114--115.

  A. Tonomura et al. (1989).
  "Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern"
  American Journal of Physics. 57, 117]

So, a quantum cannot but be considered to be more of a wave than a particle.  In fact, quantum waves can be so defined as to include particle features.  More specifically, quantum waves are assumed to be countable and to be able to be each localized in an area that is so small that the wave can be seen as a particle.  Anyway, quantum theories are formulated as theories of waves, and particles appear only in interpretations.

If quanta are waves, it means that quanta are basically considered to be only phenomena in the space-time with quantum fields, which is considered to be the only substance existing in the most extreme sense.
[Consider a long tape stretched flatly and horizontally.  If you pinch the tape at a point and flip upside down, a couple of twisted parts emerge on both sides of the flipped point.
The long tape is a metaphor for one dimensional space, and the pinch and flip of the tape is that for creation of particle-antiparticle pair.]

In the following, a novel quantum model is to be proposed that has a mechanism for wavepacket reduction.

The features of the proposed model are:

(1)
Though a quantum behaves as a wave, it maintains its oneness while it exists.

(2)
A free quantum carries its energy and momentum as a whole.

(3)
For each quantum not to spread out unlimitedly, a kind of cohesive force, which may be like surface tension, is to be exerted.

[As an example, consider a photon traveling all the way from a far-away star.  Without any cohesive force or some sort of cut-off mechanism, the quantum cannot but diffuse, be diluted beyond measure and end up disappearing.]
[Suppose a photon with no cohesive force is traveling in the z-direction.  If x and y components of the momentum of the photon are both absolutely zero (xy-spectrum width = 0), the quantum wave of the photon is already unlimitedly spread.  Otherwise (xy-spectrum width is not zero), the quantum wave will spread unlimitedly.]
[According to the traditional interpretation of quantum physics, one may assume that, as soon as the photon is detected, the existence probability of the photon completely vanishes at all points including those millions or billions of light-years away.  However, any theory has its own applicability limit.  From a commonsense perspective, the above assumption seems to be well beyond the limit.  The problem may be which is acceptable, the above mystical assumption or introduction of unknown cohesive force.]

By virtue of the cohesive force, each quantum has only a finite size in the space even if it has specific energy and momentum.

[A free and isolated quantum is considered to be substantialized as a finite-sized wave packet (having finite length and width) and to have specific energy and momentum (if not, conservation laws can never be valid).  According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and specific energy-momentum are not compatible.  Introduction of the cohesive force makes them compatible.
So, the Kennard (not Heisenberg) inequality is supposed to fail.]

Considering experiments using half mirrors and mirrors with light that is so feeble that only a single photon can be present at a time, a free quantum wave seems to be able to change shape enormously.

However weak the cohesive force is, Feynman diagrammatic calculation method is to be fundamentally changed and renormalization may get to be needless.

(4)
Let's consider a process, A+B -> C, where each of A, B and C stands for a quantum (elementary particle).
If a part of wavepacket of quantum A and that of quantum B get to overlap one another in the space, both overlapped parts are to be compressed as their motions are impeded due to interaction between the quantum fields of A and B.  Compression of overlapped part of each quantum wavepacket and the cohesive forces may result in a kind of mutual absorption between the quanta.  If the domains of quanta, A and B, both reduce to the same point or extremely small area, the above process is to be able to take place.

In the case of a single-quantum double-slit experiment, A is a single quantum that is to interfere with itself, and B is on the screen.

(5)
What is acknowledged as an interaction through so-called virtual particle is actually an interaction with a kind of polarization which can transform into a set of quantum and anti-quantum.

The vacuum space fluctuates so that, in each quantum field, polarizations can occur at any time and place.  Each polarization can transform into a set of quantum and anti-quantum, whose total energy and momentum are both zero.
What is acknowledged as an interaction between particle D and particle E through so-called virtual particle F is actually an interaction among quantum D, quantum E and a polarization in the quantum field of F, which is to transform into a set of quantum F and its corresponding anti-quantum whose energy and momentum are to cancel those of quantum F.  If quanta D and F are to interact in the manner described in (4), quantum E and anti-quantum corresponding to quantum F are to interact in the same manner.

For example, let us consider electron-electron scattering.
If an electron is to absorb a virtual photon that is paired with a virtual anti-photon, which has negative energy, in the manner described in (4), the other electron is to absorb the virtual anti-photon in the same manner.

(6)
Then, Let's consider a process, G -> H+I.
This process is actually an interaction between quantum G and a polarization in the quantum field of H, which is to transform into a set of quantum H and its corresponding anti-quantum whose energy and momentum are to cancel those of quantum H.  If quantum G interacts with anti-quantum corresponding to quantum H in the manner described in (4), quantum I is created and quantum H is substantialized.

Particle-antiparticle pair can be produced when high-energy photon collides with a nucleus or the like.  In this case, G is 'high-energy photon', H is 'particle', and I is 'antiparticle' that is created by exciting the anti-quantum corresponding to 'particle' by means of part of energy of 'high-energy photon'.  It should be noted that no pair can be produced without a collision with a charged particle, which is to cause a reduction of quantum wave of photon.

A strongly accelerated particle with electric charge emits a photon.  In this case, photon is created by direct stirring of the photon field.  It should be noted that the shape of wavepacket of a strongly accelerated quantum with electric charge is to be distorted and intermittently reduce enough to emit a photon due to the cohesive force.

You may feel that the above quantum model is quite odd and half-baked, though I suppose that my model is leastwise better than that of Copenhagen, many worlds theories and so forth.