Jump to content

A Quantum Model having a Mechanism for Wavepacket Reduction (Revised)


SEKI

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, SEKI said:

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.

 

That’s a tautology. If it ceases to exist as that quantum particle it’s no longer that quantum quantum particle. Hardly illuminating.

 

Quote

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

Not with that phrasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, (3). I don't see any commonsense issue at all. This is how probability works. When I throw a dice, there are probabilities to get anything from 1 to 6. But as soon as I get 4, all other possibilities vanish at once.

Edited by Genady
minor grammar correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SEKI said:

 [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.]

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SEKI said:

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.

Can you define anti-quantum? 

 

(I'm vaguely familiar with the the term from cryptography but that is not applicable to this discussion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SEKI said:

Yes.

So,  the traditional theory has a  fatal problem.

My model is proposed to resolve this problem.

 

quantum + anti-quantum -> none (vacuum)

Anyway, I only proposed a hypothetical model.

 

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)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SEKI said:

Yes.

So,  the traditional theory has a  fatal problem.

My model is proposed to resolve this problem.

 

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

2 hours ago, SEKI said:

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

If you don’t want feedback you shouldn’t have posted. Assuming you understand the point of a science discussion board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SEKI said:

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.

 

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.

 

19 hours ago, Genady said:
19 hours ago, SEKI said:

... each quantum remains to be the same quantum while it exists ...

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes 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.

I'm wondering if this could be a rather garbled reference to wave packet dissipation. That could be described as a wave form that changes with time, couldn't it? 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

I'm wondering if this could be a rather garbled reference to wave packet dissipation. That could be described as a wave form that changes with time, couldn't it? 

Sorry I mean dispersion. 

31 minutes ago, SEKI said:

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.

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

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SEKI said:

No.

Please read.

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 rude and unhelpful and I won't waste any more time on your ideas. 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SEKI said:

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.

You’re referencing standard QM, so your own speculation is moot. Why would I have to read more?

1 hour ago, SEKI said:

The most important point of my model is introduction of cohesive force.

Which you haven’t modeled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.