# Could the assumption that the quantum double slit being described by interference like water waves be completely wrong?

#### pittsburghjoe

Are there two waves in the double slit experiment or is the diffraction pattern simply the quantum field (medium) causing a single cohered wave to land where it does?

This ends all other interpretations.

If a wave is going through both slits ..it is the same wave, not two separate waves. Interference isn't happening. It's just the path the quantum field assigns when there is a double slit.

The bare vertical gaps are a shadow of the sliver between the double slits. A path of diffraction is much stronger for a coherent wave. The gaps in the pattern is repeating the use of the sliver several times.

The physical water waves doing a double slit was just a coincidence.

#### sarajo

If only time travel were possible

#### pittsburghjoe

Can we prove the sliver between slits in the double slit is projected onto the final panel by changing the slivers shape? I know the distance between slits is important but is there any wiggle room? Would this kill the idea of wave interference?

#### write4u

If a wave is going through both slits ..it is the same wave, not two separate waves.
The wave becomes separated by the slits and becomes 2 waves which interfere with each other.

View: https://youtu.be/MDX3qb_BMs4

Where I am confused is the assumption that the "observation" collapses the wave function at the source. But the observer can only observe the wave after it has been emitted and is looking back into the past (however short).

So how can the observer affect an event that occurred in the past?

Does the wave function collapse at the point of observation? Seems to me that it is the observer (point of observation) that is causal to collapse of the wave function.

But that would not affect the original event .

Last edited:

#### Hartmann352

Do we have an answer to why the wave function collapses when observed?

That’s because we don’t really know what’s real.

Let’s assume that the wave function is real, then we have the conundrum of wave function collapse. Some evidence for the reality of the wave function is through the observation of quantum interference, which is exemplified in the Young’s double slit experiment with single quanta. Here the collapse is represented by a single quantum interacting with a single atom on a screen, whereas the interference pattern is nonlocal, occurring across the screen. So we assume that the interference pattern that we accumulate after detecting some millions of single quanta represents the modulus squared of the wavefunction, indicating that the wavefunction is some nonlocal or spatially distributed function, yet each detection is point-like.

Feynman said that quantum mechanics can be understood in the double slit experiment.

Empirically, there you have it; an interference pattern builds up from single point detections.
Mathematically, you can build a wave theory to explain the interference, but you have to also adopt a quantum hypothesis, which is a transactional hypothesis, whereby a single quantum can only make a single transaction. Thus a single photon can only be absorbed by a single atom, which explains the point-like detections on the screen.

The problem is that now you have this strange mathematical framework that describes the experiment perfectly, but is not so easily conceptualised.

This is where the interpretations fit in.

Interpretations try to fit the mathematical description with a physical reality. Ultimately you have to choose the one that you like the most, because there is ultimately no way to distinguish which is the correct interpretation.

So to the wavefunction collapse, and why; that’s an interpretation, commonly called the Copenhagen interpretation. It is fraught with conceptual difficulties, such as a local measurement causing instantaneous nonlocal collapse. This is at odds with the theory of relativity and cause and effect. It seems crazy.

Alternatively, we can accept that the wavefunction is real and that observation is not some different process, but somehow an integral part of the theory. Then you’re adopting the Everett (many worlds) interpretation, where the wavefunction doesn’t collapse, but observation brings us into a local branch. The Everett interpretation is actually simpler than the Copenhagen interpretation, but it still fails to distinguish itself from the Copenhagen interpretation in terms of execution.

Then there is the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation where the wavefunction isn’t real, but particles are, yet they are guided to their detection by a pilot wave. Once more, the ultimate results are the same, but the details on how to get there are different. This is another interpretation that cannot be distinguished from the crowd.

Ultimately we have a few simple observations: Quantum objects can self-interfere, but a single quantum can only undertake a single transaction. That is observational reality. We can describe those behavioural characteristics perfectly with a mathematical formalism. What we can’t peer any deeper to see more of the underlying machinery of reality, which is why we can’t completely understand wave function collapse as anything more than just guesses.

The wavefunction of a particle changes discontinuously (in time) whenever a measurement is made. We conclude that there are two types of time evolution of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. First, there is a smooth evolution which is governed by Schrödinger's equation. This evolution takes place between measurements. Second, there is a discontinuous* evolution which takes place each time a measurement is made.

Observables are mathematically described by operators, things which do something to the wave function. The average value of the observable is the expectation of the operator for a given wavefunction, ⟨O⟩=⟨ψ|O|ψ⟩⟨O⟩=⟨ψ|O|ψ⟩. However, in terms of individual experiments the action of the operator is to project out a particular eigenfunction component of the wave function. This makes sure (via the fact the matrix representation for the operator is Hermitian) that the observable you measure is an eigenvalue of the operator and real.

For instance, energy is the expectation of the Hamiltonian operator** and is a real quantity, in that you can have 1 Joule of energy, but not 3i Joules. So doing that projection is 'collapsing' the wavefunction from a sum of many different possible states to a single one. To then describe the system afterwards you use this 'pure state' as your initial condition when doing the Schrodinger equation, which then results in the mixing of states and so the collapse is smeared back out and after enough time it's like it never happened (usually).
Hartmann352

* discontinuous and discontinuity - A discontinuous function is a function in algebra that has a point where either the function is not defined at the point or the left-hand limit and right-hand limit of the function are equal but not equal to the value of the function at that point or the limit of the function does not exist at the given point. Discontinuous functions can have different types of discontinuities, namely removable, essential, and jump discontinuities. A discontinuous function has gaps along with its graph. In other words, we can say that if a function is not continuous, then it is called a discontinuous function. Discontinuous functions have holes or jumps in their graphs.

A function f is said to be a discontinuous function at a point x = a in the following cases:

The left-hand limit and right-hand limit of the function at x = a exist but are not equal.
• The left-hand limit and right-hand limit of the function at x = a exist and are equal but are not equal to f(a).
• f(a) is not defined.
The graph of a discontinuous function has at least one jump or a hole or a gap. Some of the examples of a discontinuous function are:
• f(x) = 1/(x - 2)
• f(x) = tan x
• f(x) = x2 - 1, for x < 1 and f(x) = x3 - 5 for 1 < x < 2
See: https://www.cuemath.com/algebra/discontinuous-function/

Hamiltonian operator - the Hamiltonian is equal to the total energy T+UT+U, and indeed the eigen values of the quantum Hamiltonian operator are the energy of the system EE. A generic Hamiltonian for a single particle of mass mm moving in some potential V(x)V(x)is:

H^=p^22m+V(x^).H^=2mp^2+V(x^).
For an eigenstate of energy, by definition the Hamiltonian satisfies the equation
H^∣E⟩=E∣E⟩.H^∣E⟩=E∣E⟩.

#### write4u

How does that answer the problem that when we (or any observer) receives the wave the emission has already occurred and cannot be changed?
Even if entanglement plays a role, the fact remains that any observation is always of a past event.

Could we change a photon's behavior by observing a double slit placed 1/2 way between the sun and the observer? The wave function would be some 4 minutes old by the time we receive it, no?

Why can it not be that the wave function collapses at the observer's POV, not at the point being observed?

#### Hayseed

The dynamics of the 2 slit experiment depends on what you are using as the propagated entity. Using sound, using particles, using light.......ALL have a different dynamic. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME DYNAMIC!! ONLY the detector is the same dynamic.

The superposition of sound waves and the superposition of light......is DIFFERENT. Sound is a wave superposition, while light is an intermittence superposition.

But the resulting pattern is very similar. Light is not a wave, it is an intermittence. If you use particles, the particles can not superposition, but particles are intermittent too. The superposition of intermittence can give the same pattern at the detector.

The "wave" function of the experiment only happens at the detector...at the end of the experiment. ALL absorption.........has a "wave" function......from the reactance of the absorber. This absorber/detector wave function has fooled men for over one hundred years.

In other words.......whether the propagation is a wave.....or an intermittence(particle,light), the detection dynamic.....is the same. Because of the reactance(inertia) of the detector.

And there is one other characteristic that is not taken into account. Light is a flux. This is the most important thing.......and no one pays any attention to it. FLUX is a collective dynamic, not a singular dynamic. This confusion/misunderstanding about detection, and about flux, has hidden nature from man.....for over one hundred years.

It's silly.

#### write4u

I was addressing the concept of wave function collapse at the double slit , when the observer only receives the information after the fact.
How can that be explained?

The observer cannot cause a wavefunction collapse at the point of the event when it takes time for the observer to even receive the information at point of the observer.

The event will already be in the past and the past cannot be reversed.

Perhaps I am looking at this incorrectly but I have never seen this question raised before.

Last edited:

#### Hayseed

It depends of your concept of wave function collapse. What do you think it means?

#### Hayseed

What are you observing?

#### Hartmann352

write4u said, "The event will already be in the past and the past cannot be reversed."

Remember, that every observed event will have occurred in the past. The speed of light dictates that.

It takes a finite amount of time for any event to reach the eyes of or equipment utilized by the observer.

As for the present, if you want to be very precise, you are not seeing it at all, because it always takes time to reach your senses. Sorry for the bad news, but all you can know is already past.

Actually, if the sun were to disappear, you would not know it for another 8.3 minutes, as it takes light that much time to cover the distance. We are not seing the present very far away is an understatement.

The geometric relation (separation) between a pair of events is called "interval", "𝐬s". These separations are broadly classified (by their magnitude) as either "time-like", or "light-like" or "space-like"; and a space-like separation of magnitude "10 light years" is strictly unequal to a time-like separation of magnitude "10 years", for instance.

The two events 𝒜A and ℬB which are (apparently) described in your question are neither space-like nor time-like to each other, but instead light-like; accordingly the magnitude |𝐬[𝒜ℬ]|=0|s[AB]|=0.

Due to the phenomenon of space expanding, the light from a point 10 light years away will actually take more than 10 years to get here. Therefore, you will actually see the object as it was much longer than 10 years ago. So if the star exploded as a nebula 10 light years away right now, you would see it not after 10 years, but a little after 10 years.

it is very important to distinguish geometric relations between events (expressed and quantified through intervals) and geometric relations between participants (expressed and quantified through distances; at least if the participants under consideration are at rest to each other).

Interestingly, measurements have also demonstrated the equivalence between the speed of light and the speed of gravity. In 2002, chance coincidence caused the Earth, Jupiter, and a very strong radio quasar (known as QSO J0842+1835) to all align. As Jupiter passed between the Earth and the quasar, its gravitational effects caused the starlight to bend in a fashion that was speed-of-gravity dependent.

Jupiter did, in fact, bend the light from the quasar, enabling us to rule out an infinite speed for the speed of gravity and determine that it was actually between 255 million and 381 million meters-per-second, consistent with the exact value for the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s) and also with Einstein's predictions. Even more recently, the first observations of gravitational waves brought us even tighter constraints.

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ust-equal-the-speed-of-light/?sh=274f31af2fc0

Hartmann352

#### write4u

As for the present, if you want to be very precise, you are not seeing it at all, because it always takes time to reach your senses. Sorry for the bad news, but all you can know is already past.
I understand that and is the reason for my question.

Does observation cause wave function collapse?
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

But is that not a misleading statement?

If interaction with the slits caused the wave function collapse it would be simple, but it doesn't as evidenced by the wave interference behind the slits.
Thus the observer is an independent event recorder (observation) and that is supposed to be causal to collapse and the disappearance of the wave interference patterns behind the slits.

Note that the Photoelectric photon detector is a distance removed from the slits and apparetly makes its observation being removed from the slits.

But that means the information that the detector "observes" is already in the past.

How then can the detector affect the event at the slits before it actually receives the information from the slits?

How can the wave function even be tested and recorded without wave function collapse?

Is the detector attached to the slits?
Entanglement?

p.s. I recall seeing a similar illustration with a recorder (observer) actually placed some distance away from the slits. Perhaps that may have been an incorrect illustration?

Last edited:

#### Hayseed

Superposition is greatly mis-understood. It's conditional. There are two types and they are very different.

Superposition is the concept of two physical entities occupying the same space at the same time. Particles can not do this, but it comes close in the form of a neutron.

There are two types of EM fields. A connected field and a propagated field. Only certain superpositions are permitted with connected fields. There is an EM field that emerges from and occupies a region of space around the particle. The field has one electric pole and field and two magnetic pole field. This E and M field is physically connected to the charge, and rotates with the charge. This E field will not superposition with another like E field. It will repel, and reject any superposition. A N magnetic pole of the particle will not superposition with another N pole. These conditional superpositions, give the particles....handedness. And these conditional superpositions gives us bonding of the particles. This gives the universe a constant and stable structural frame to build upon. So superposition of connected mass fields is conditional.

Not so with propagated fields. Once disconnected from their source, all fields superposition. This gives our universe and the area around it, static. This simple static is the so called quantum foam from creation, whatever that was. Another thing about propagated superposition. When two "waves" collide in space, they continue on their path, unheeded and will superposition with other waves. These waves never know the other waves are there. Only a charge can interact with a "wave" But the most important thing is that EM propagation is not a wave. It's an intermittence. Light is a superposition of intermittence. It's a flux. A flux of intermittence.

What about a water wave or a sound wave, any media wave, they are mass and matter like charge, can they superposition? YES. Because it's not the mass that is in superposition, it's the vibration of it. The shaking disturbance of mass can be a superposition. Almost all are!

What portion of the source light is being reflected from the slit? Light travels in straight lines. Does any direct source light hit the receiver? What is the slit edge width, in reference to the wavelength? That edge angle to the source will provide a phase shift all along that edge reflection. Is it a huge reflector, compared to the WL? The edge on the source side will reflect before the edge on the receiver side. i.e....phase spectrum.
These intermittent phases will add and subtract all along the receiver distance, until detected.

And I'll bet, once you set up all the equipment up, one would have to tinker and adjust the components to get the pattern you want .Move the receiver back and forth and watch the axial superposition. It's not magic.

With all of these variables..........what can we say we are proving? I think what we are proving is that science does not know the difference between an emission and a reflection.

A photon detector is absorbing the flux. It's being sprayed with a shower head of flux from the slits. It is not one entity going thru the slit......it is billions of entities going thru at the same time. Even if the entities have the same length(color) they will have different reflection times, because of the different angle and distance from the source.

We you use the word observe, are you using your eyes or reading a sensor? Have you ever seen a wave collapse?

If I add a positive electric field to an equal negative electric field, the result is a zero electrical field. Are the fields still there? A sensor "wave collapse" would appear with the addition of an opposite field.

#### Hartmann352

Write4u might be interested in the following musing on the two slit experiments and the effects of observation and decoherence.

In science, this observation of a phenomenon refers to particles existing in a state of probability until measured. This effect of quantum particles is best understood by the dual-slit experiment explained below, and through the understanding of concepts like quantum field theory, “superposition“, and “the uncertainty principle“.

Some with a metaphysical curiosity debate whether the observer effect is a problem with the measurement process, or simply a behavior of quantum mechanics that we don’t understand yet.

That said, today most respected scientists would likely err on the idea that the observer effect is a result of the measurement process (as the tools we use to measure are cumbersome on a quantum level; or that the measuring process is part of quantum entanglement, as we, the photon, and the measuring device are all at our core, quantum).

No one knows exactly what the effect is, but the answer will likely be no more mystical than quantum physics itself.

This video from PBS Space Time is the truest answer on how to understand the double slit experiments and observer effect. That said, it is heady.

Generally, the answer (from what I gather) is “uncertainty” and “quantum entanglement” AKA “Copenhagen interpretation*“. In other words, the photon (or given quantum particle) essentially retroactively decides what state it is in, but not because it is weird or there is no free will, but because it is entangled with another photon (not just in space, but in space time). This makes sense when you consider the photon is actually a wave form of possible excitations in a quantum field traveling at light speed, and experiencing phenomena like superposition and entanglement, while everything else experiences relative time.

So can a photon in the past be entangled with a future photon and react to the future photon based on observation and measurement? Certainly that is the sort of questions the data seems to lead to…. With that said, the only true answer is that we don’t know what the observer effect is exactly. All we do know is that the underlying theories of quantum physics seem to be in play. That said, watch the PBS video on Youtube.

* Copenhagen interpretation - was the first general attempt to understand the world of atoms as represented by quantum mechanics. The founding father was mainly the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, but also Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and other physicists made important contributions to the overall understanding of the atomic world that is associated with the name of the capital of Denmark.

In fact Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on how to understand the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, and neither of them ever used the term “the Copenhagen interpretation” as a joint name for their ideas. In fact, Bohr once distanced himself from what he considered to be Heisenberg’s more subjective interpretation. The term is rather a label introduced by people opposing Bohr’s idea of complementarity, to identify what they saw as the common features behind the Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation as it emerged in the late 1920s.

Today the Copenhagen interpretation is mostly regarded as synonymous with indeterminism, Bohr’s correspondence principle, Born’s statistical interpretation of the wave function, and Bohr’s complementarity interpretation of certain atomic phenomena.

Because of the imaginary quantities in quantum mechanics (where the commutation rule for canonically conjugate variable, p and q, introduces Planck’s constant into the formalism by qp − pq = ih/2π that quantum mechanics does not give us a ‘pictorial’ representation of the world. Neither does the theory of relativity, Bohr argued, provide us with a literal representation, since the velocity of light is introduced with a factor of i in the definition of the fourth coordinate in a four-dimensional manifold. Instead these theories can only be used symbolically to predict observations under well-defined conditions. Therefore, many philosophers have interpreted Bohr as an antirealist or an instrumentalist when it comes to theories. However, Bohr’s reference to the use of imaginary number in quantum mechanics as an argument for his rejection of a pictoral representation may seem misplaced. The use of imaginary numbers is more a question about the conventional choice of scale whether measurements should be represented in terms of imaginary or real number than an indication of a certain magnitude expressed in terms of these numbers is not real. Dieks (2017) gives a nuanced discussion of Bohr’s argument, and he concludes that in the context of quantrum mechanics Bohr saw imaginary numbers to be associated with incompatible physical quantities.

In general, Bohr considered the demands of complementarity in quantum mechanics to be logically on a par with the requirements of relativity in the theory of relativity. He believed that both theories were a result of novel aspects of the observation problem, namely the fact that observation in physics is context-dependent. This again is due to the existence of a maximum velocity of propagation of all actions in the domain of relativity and a minimum of any action in the domain of quantum mechanics. And it is because of these universal limits that it is impossible in the theory of relativity to make an unambiguous separation between time and space without reference to the observer (the context) and impossible in quantum mechanics to make a sharp distinction between the behavior of the object and its interaction with the means of observation.

Complementarity is first and foremost a semantic and epistemological reading of quantum mechanics that carries certain ontological implications. Bohr’s view was, to phrase it in a modern philosophical jargon, that the truth conditions of sentences ascribing a certain kinematic or dynamic value to an atomic object are dependent on the apparatus involved, in such a way that these truth conditions have to include reference to the experimental setup as well as the actual outcome of the experiment. This claim is called Bohr’s indefinability thesis (Murdoch 1987; Faye 1991). Hence, those physicists who accuse this interpretation of operating with a mysterious collapse of the wave function during measurements haven’t got it right. Bohr accepted the Born statistical interpretation because he believed that the ψ-function has only a symbolic meaning and does not represent anything real.

See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

See: http://factmyth.com/factoids/observing-a-phenomenon-affects-its-outcome/

It makes sense to talk about a collapse of the wave function only if, as Bohr put it, the ψ-function can be given a pictorial representation, something he strongly denied.

The failure of the wave function to describe what happens when the photon interacts with the physical universe and is detected is called the “Measurement Problem.”

The Measurement Problem has additional aspects including an inability to rigorously define “measurement.” In the Copenhagen Interpretation, measurement is defined in a general way as the quantum particle interacting with a macroscopic object. The Copenhagen Interpretation, itself, provides no mathematical description of this interaction. And the theory of decoherence ( the loss of quantum coherence. Quantum coherence is the idea that an individual particle or object has wave functions that can be split into two separate waves. When the waves operate together in a coherent way, that's referred to as quantum coherence) when added to the Copenhagen Interpretation also provides a mathematical description of the interaction.
Hartmann352

#### write4u

We you use the word observe, are you using your eyes or reading a sensor? Have you ever seen a wave collapse?
Yes, all day long when I look at the world aroumd me. The wave collapse happens on the eye's retina. that responds to the different wave lenghts.

Apparently this is how it works

The argument for an objective wave function collapse: Why spontaneous localization collapse or no-collapse decoherence cannot solve the measurement problem in a subjective fashion

Analysis
Each mammalian retina (~250 µm thick) contains 108 photoreceptor rods, and each rod contains ~108 rhodopsin molecules of a mesoscopic size (9). Rhodopsin, the visual pigment in rod cells, is the covalent complex of a large protein opsin, and a small lightabsorbing compound retinal (10).
The absorption of light by retinal causes a change in the three-dimensional structure of rhodopsin. The rods are 100 µm in length x 10 µm in dia, with an active outer segment 50 µm long, containing the 108 rhodopsin molecules. The rest of the 50 µm length of the rod is taken up by the inner segment which contains the cell’s nucleus and most of its biosynthetic machinery, and by the synaptic terminal which makes contact with the photoreceptor’s target cells (10). One photon can activate only one rhodopsin molecule / rod each time.
Thus, the two branches of the wave functions of a superposed photon state cannot simultaneously activate a single rhodopsin molecule in a single rod, nor can they simultaneously activate two rhodopsin molecules in a single rod. Each rod has a minimum quantum detection efficiency of 25% and a maximum quantum detection efficiency of 36%. I.e., only 25%- 36% of photons incident on the rods are absorbed. In addition, these absorbed photons produce detectable electrical output signals with a quantum efficiency of 65% for isomerization of retinal in the rhodopsin molecule (9,10).
To help put this in perspective, ~50% of all the photons initially incident upon the cornea are lost through environmental decoherence, up to the point where the retina begins, with ~80% of the remaining photons being lost within the retina.

#### Hayseed

There is without question, a measurement error. Always has been. But now, with high repeating rates of measurements, these errors can produce effects of their own. It's because of inertia reaction. And no one seems to notice it. When a cue ball hits the 8 ball, the 8 ball hits back. When a field or stimulus hits a charge, the charge will react and electrically hit back at the field. This is called reactance, and it's really charge inertia expression. This reaction is included in the measurement result. All of our detectors use charge to detect. So when we measure, we measure the stimulus plus the reaction. This reaction limits the speed of detection. AND this reaction can also interfere with the next measurement, because the sensor, is not in the same state for each measurement. This reaction can distort phase and F measurements. They even believe this distortion is a part of physics. Think about that! This is why we can't chop and DSP a light wave, like we can a sound wave or low F radio wave. Even our new quantum detectors use net charge, and depend on chopping for measurement.

We need a non reacting detector. A passive detector.

Stand up and look north. Extend arms east and west. A photon with F of x, hits you from the north. As it strikes, one arm will rotate toward the source, the other arm will rotate away from source. This rotation will continue as long as the photon is striking you. It's duration is 1/2 period of x F. After it passes. your arms and body will torque back to it's original position. This is inertia. And it takes, you guessed it, 1/2 period, the same duration as the stimulus. And we think that the stimulus was a wave.....but it was not. It was a strobe. An intermittent half "wave". A blink.

And we base all of our scientific standards and terms on a false wave. The detector is the only thing that waved.

We need a detector that will not react and reset. So the arms stay where they were, after stimulus. When we can do this, the "observable" universe will change.

The UFO images are from a composite of sensor measurements and calculations at a very fast rate, all networked together. And with all those velocities, how can one insure that every measurement was made from a neutral sensor state?

There is another aspect to these UFO images that no none speaks of. With the US military, our offensive precision and power is unbeatable. BUT....when it comes to defense, we are very UN-protected. This has been demonstrated many times during the past few decades. We have BIG TIME trouble detecting a missile threat to our ships and planes. This is one of the reasons for stealth research. In real time combat.....not the salesman's demonstrations, ships have been hit and planes have been downed. They can not discern a threat from noise, local reflections and radio traffic. And when it does detect a threat, it can't respond in time or precision. A ship or plane is a large target for another offensive missile.

Missile defense is still the major problem, and not talked about. With this past history with electronic sensors, I wouldn't get excited over sensor UFO images.

Oh my goodness, they are calling absorption......wave function collapse? That's funny. The reaction you see in the eye is not from a photon reaction........it's from a FLUX reaction. It's a reaction to billions of photons. All light sources, even laser, has multiple emitters that are emitting at different times. It's a stream of blinks, appearing to be continuous. Current appears to be continuous, but it's actuality a flux of intermittences. The charge only moves in intervals, then collides and bounces. It only appears to be continuous. A flux has a different character than the single components that make it. A collective behavior. Gravity is another collective behavior. A flux.

To study and discern the dynamic of light......you need one photon. Not a shower of them. Use a radio wave. One emitter. One phase. One frequency. And if you are interested, I'll show you how to emit one photon from an antenna.

I believe you are more interested in the quantum aspect. Maybe for school. My explanations would get you in trouble. I'll retire from this thread, unless prompted not to.

Good luck with studies.

write4u

#### write4u

Please, stay with it if it pleases you. I am but a novice trying to absorb it all.

Oh my goodness, they are calling absorption......wave function collapse? That's funny. The reaction you see in the eye is not from a photon reaction........it's from a FLUX reaction. It's a reaction to billions of photons. All light sources, even laser, has multiple emitters that are emitting at different times. It's a stream of blinks, appearing to be continuous.

Are you saying that a single photon does not exhibit wave function?

When I posit that a wave function collapses in the eye, how can that be wrong when the definition of "observation" is ;
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Why should that change when there are many photons, each with their own wave function, collapsing on impact and becoming expressed as a particle.

Personally, I really like David Bohm's interpretation that a particle is always a particle , riding the universal Pilot Wave. This concept yields the exact same predictions but requires a slightly difference interpretation.
A benefit is that it does away with this duality altogether.

Even taking that interpretation, when a wave function (any wave function) encounters an obstacle it collapse in a burst of energy, no?

#### Hartmann352

Write4u, here are a few more thoughts on wave function collapse.

Wavefunction collapse is an explicitly non-unitary time evolution of whatever wavefunction is under consideration and that is what is sometimes controversial. Schrodinger's equation tells us that systems evolve unitarily and wavefunction collapse tells us that systems evolve non-unitarily.

One major criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation is that it doesn't clearly explain when the universe follows the unitary evolution and when it follows non-unitary evolution. That makes it an incomplete theory at best.

Anyways, only unitary evolution --- often goes under the name the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. However I think this is a pretty bad misnomer as it gets pretty scifi pretty quick and people start talking about divergent universes etc. when what is going on is really just as you describe, the universe is just undergoing unitary evolution which leads to entanglement and superposition states.

As far as we* know the universe has subjective components as well. For example, I have a feeling or experience what it feels like to observe an electron in the spin up state (perhaps I have an apparatus that lights up a different colored light depending on the spin state measured by some spin measuring apparatus).

Suppose we have a pair of totally anticorrelated photons. You measure one of them, then you'll know the outcome of the other one. The phrase "the measurement simultaneously affects the other particle" is not physical, because until you actually measure the other particle, you can't even notice anything different. There is no "effect". The only thing we can meaningfully talk about is the two measurements of the two particles. Now, depending on the reference frame, one will come before the other (or they are simultaneous) and whatever we measure, one result will imply the other.

Bell's theorem explains that if you try to simulate an entangled quantum system by modelling a quantum system with a classical stochastic variable the result has to be non-local. However, quantum systems described by Heisenberg picture observables, which are represented by Hermitian operators, not classical stochastic variables. The particles each exist in multiple versions that can interact with one another in interference experiments, which is why they can't be described by classical variables. Each particle's observables describe quantum information about the relations between the different versions of each particle, but this information can't be revealed by measurements on either particle alone.

This is why I think that the term "the particle simultaneously affects the other particle" is not very good, because it implies something like an active link - but depending on the reference frame particle A would affect particle B or the other way round. There is no "one particle affecting the other". Only if you are in a specified reference frame, it looks like there is an immediate influence of one particle on another.

I think most modern physicists would probably subscribe to the idea that our subjective thoughts are correlated with the physical state of our brains and bodies. In fact, we might go so far as to suppose that mental states a one to one with physical states.

Your interpretation is not compatible with this naive dualist perspective. Concerning the interpretation that a person's body would be in a superposition of having experienced both a spin up and spin down electron. What mental state would they be in? You could say it is random at the end of the measurement. Say the person's mind experiences spin up right after the measurement. But what about 10 seconds after the measurement? Supposing the wave function should still be a superposition of the person's body having seen up and down. So do the dice get rolled again to determine what the person experiences in this new instant? Is it random from instant to instant which experience we have?

Is there a rule that says if your mental state experiences spin down at the end of the experiment it will also experience spin down 10 seconds later despite the wavefunction having equal weight for both probabilities? If so our theory should probably be able to describe that rule.

Or is it somehow possible for a person to have multiple simultaneous, and contradictory experiences? This has implications for what is meant by one's personal identity.

What the many worlds interpretation fails to do is provide any account whatsoever for how physical states are correlated with subjective experience. This comes for free in classical physical theories so we typically don't think of this as being a desiderata for physical theories. This comes in classical theories because we can say the E&M fields which hit our eyeballs move charges in our optical nerves which affect the neurons in our brain, and because our mental states are correlated with the physical state of our bodies (possibly in a 1:1 way) it is clear that measurement results should cause us to experience particular things. It is not so clear quantum mechanically however. What the Copenhagen interpretation, or spontaneous collapse, does is to basically jam this correlation between mental and physical states back into the theory by hand by demanding that the system collapses into one state or the other so that we can avoid the conundrum of people having manifold simultaneous experiences.

In any case, there are many philosophical issues here that I'm not able to present in a very coherent way but I did want to share some of my thoughts and some references.

See: Decoherence and the Quantum to Classical Transition by Maximilian Schlosshauer, © 2007. A great intro to decoherence that can help you avoid some traps that come with thinking about decoherence in the context of unitary evolution and the many worlds interpretation generally.

See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6223

See: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104033.

See: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906007

See: .https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-...quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/

*Or at least I

The second proposed solution to the measurement problem, affirms that wave functions are complete representations of physical systems but denies that they are always governed by the linear differential equations of motion. The strategy behind this approach is to alter the equations of motion so as to guarantee that the kind of superposition that figures in the measurement problem does not arise. The most fully developed theory along these lines was put forward in the 1980s by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber and is referred to as “GRW”; it was subsequently developed by Philip Pearle and John Stewart Bell (1928–90).

According to GRW, the wave function of any single particle almost always evolves in accordance with the linear deterministic equations of motion, but every now and then—roughly once every 109 years—the particle’s wave function is randomly multiplied by a narrow bell-shaped curve whose width is comparable to the diameter of a single atom of one of the lighter elements. This has the effect of “localizing” the wave function—i.e., of setting its value at zero everywhere in space except within a certain small region. The probability of the bell curve’s being centred at any particular point x depends (in accordance with a precise mathematical rule) on the wave function of the particle at the moment just prior to the multiplication. Then, until the next such jump, everything proceeds as before, in accordance with the deterministic differential equations.

For isolated microscopic systems—those consisting of small numbers of particles—jumps will be so rare as to be completely unobservable. On the other hand, for macroscopic systems—which contain astronomical numbers of particles—the effects of jumps on the evolutions of wave functions can be dramatic. Indeed, a reasonably good argument can be made to the effect that jumps will almost instantaneously convert superpositions of macroscopically different states like particle found in A + particle found in B into either particle found in A or particle found in B.

A third tradition of attempts to solve the measurement problem originated in a proposal by the American physicist Hugh Everett (1930–82) in 1957. According to the so-called “many worldshypothesis, the measurement of a particle that is in a superposition of being in region A and being in region B results in the instantaneous “branching” of the universe into two distinct, noninteracting universes, in one of which the particle is observed to be in region A and in the other of which it is observed to be in region B; the universes are otherwise identical to each other. Although these theories have generated a great deal of interest in recent years, it remains unclear whether they are consistent with the probabilistic character of quantum mechanical descriptions of physical systems.
One of the important consequences of attempts at solving the measurement problem for the philosophy of science in general has to do with the general problem of the underdetermination of theory by evidence. Although the various noncollapse proposals, including Bohm’s, differ from each other on questions as profound as whether the fundamental laws of physics are deterministic, it can be shown that they do not differ in ways that could ever be detected experimentally, even in principle. It is thus a real question whether the noncollapse theories differ from each other in any meaningful way.

In a famous paper published in 1935, Einstein, Boris Podolsky (1896–1966), and Nathan Rosen (1909–95) argued that, if the predictions of quantum mechanics about the outcomes of experiments are correct, then the quantum mechanical description of the world is necessarily incomplete.
A description of the world is “complete,” according to the authors (EPR), just in case it leaves out nothing that is true about the world—nothing that is an “element of the reality” of the world. This entails that one cannot determine whether a certain description of the world is complete without first finding out what all the elements of the reality of the world are. Although EPR do not offer any method of doing that, they do provide a criterion for determining whether a measurable property of a physical system at a certain moment is an element of the reality of the system at that moment:
If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that physical quantity.
This condition has come to be known as the “criterion of reality.”

Suppose that someone proposes to measure a particular observable property P of a particular physical system S at a certain future time T. Suppose further that there is a method whereby one could determine with certainty, prior to T, what the outcome of the measurement would be, without causing any physical disturbance of S whatsoever. Then, according to EPR, there must now be some matter of fact about S—some element of reality about S—by virtue of which the future measurement will come out in this way.

EPR’s argument involves a certain physically possible state of a pair of electrons that has since come to be referred to in the literature as a “singlet” state or an “EPR” state. Whenever a pair of electrons is in an EPR state, the standard version of quantummechanics entails that the value of the x-spin of each electron will be equal and opposite to the value of the x-spin of the other, and likewise for the values of the y-spins of the two electrons.

Assume that there is no such thing as action at a distance: nothing that happens in one place can cause anything to happen in another place without mediation—without the occurrence of a series of events at contiguous points between the first location and the second. (Thus, the flipping of a switch in one room can cause the lights to come on in another room, but not without the occurrence of a series of events consisting of the propagation of an electric current through a wire.) If this assumption of “locality” is true, then it must be possible to design a situation in which the pair of electrons in the ERP state cannot interact with each other and in which, therefore, any measurement of one electron would cause no disturbance to the other. For example, the electrons could be separated by a great distance, or an impenetrable wall could be inserted between them.

Suppose then that a pair of electrons in an EPR state, e1 and e2, are placed at an immensedistance from each other. Because the electrons are in an EPR state, the x-spin of e1 will always be equal and opposite to the x-spin of e2, and the y-spin of e1 will always be equal and opposite to the y-spin of e2. Then there must be a means of determining, with certainty, the value of the x-spin of e2 at some future time T without causing a disturbance to e2—namely, by measuring the x-spin of e1 at T. Likewise, it must be possible to determine with certainty the value of the y-spin of e2 at T, without causing a disturbance to e2, by measuring the y-spin of e1 at T. By the criterion of reality above, therefore, there is an “element of reality” corresponding to the x-spin and y-spin of e2 at T; that is, there is a matter of fact about what the values of e2’s x-spin and y-spin are. But, as discussed earlier, it is a feature of the standard version of quantum mechanics that it is impossible to determine the simultaneous values of the x-spin and y-spin of a single electron, because the measurement of one always uncontrollably disrupts the other (see above The principle of superposition). Hence, the standard version of quantum mechanics is incomplete. Parallel arguments can be constructed by using other pairs of distinct but mutually incompatible observable properties of electrons, of which there are literally an infinitenumber.

If the existence of an EPR state entails an infinity of distinct and mutually incompatible observable properties of the electrons in the pair, then the statement that the EPR state obtains—because the EPR state does not specify a value for any such property—necessarily constitutes a very incomplete description of the state of the pair of electrons. The statement is compatible with an infinity of different “true” states of such a pair, in each of which the observable properties assume a distinct combination of values.

Nevertheless, the information that the EPR state obtains must certainly constrain the true state of a pair of electrons in a number of ways, since the outcomes of spin measurements on such pairs of electrons are determined by what their true states are. Consider what sorts of constraints arise. First of all, if the EPR state obtains, then the outcome of a measurement of any of the above-mentioned observable properties of e1 will necessarily be equal and opposite to the outcome of any measurement of the same observable property of e2. In other words, whenever the EPR state obtains, the true state of the pair of electrons in question is constrained, with certainty, to be one in which the value of every such observable property of e1 is the equal and opposite of the value of the same observable property of e2.

There are statistical sorts of constraints as well. There are, in particular, three observable properties of these electrons—one of them is the x-spin, and the others may be called the k-spin and the l-spin—that are such that, if any one of them is measured on e1 and any other on e2, the values will be opposite one-fourth of the time and equal three-fourths of the time.

At this point a well-defined question can be posed as to whether these two constraints—the deterministic constraint about the values of identical observable properties and the statistical constraint about the values of different observable properties—are mathematically consistent with each other. In 1964, 29 years after the publication of the EPR argument, the British physicist John Bell showed that the answer to this question is “no.”

Thus, the EPR state implies a mathematical contradiction. The conclusion of the EPR argument, therefore, is logically impossible. It follows that one of the two assumptions on which the EPR argument depends—that locality is true (there is no action at a distance) and that the predictions of quantum mechanics regarding spin measurements on EPR states are correct—must be false. Since the predictions of quantum mechanics regarding spin measurements are now experimentally known to be true, there must be a genuine nonlocality in the workings of the universe. Bell’s conclusion, now known as Bell’s inequality or Bell’s theorem, amounts to a proof that nonlocality is a necessary feature of quantum mechanics—unless, which at this writing seems unlikely, one of the “many worlds” interpretations of quantum mechanics should turn out to be correct.

See: https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-physics/The-theory-of-Bohm

See: https://infogalactic.com/info/Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber_theory

GRW, the Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber theory, originated as an attempt to get away from the imprecise talk of "measurement" that plagues the orthodox interpretation.

GRW and all collapse theories want to reconcile the mathematics of quantum mechanics, which suggests that subatomic particles exist in a superposition of two or more states, with the measured results, which only ever give us one state. We can easily prepare an electron to have a spin that is mathematically both up and down, for example, but any experimental result will yield either up or down and never a superposition of both states. The orthodox interpretation, or the famous Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, posits a wave-function collapse every time one measures any feature of a subatomic particle. This would explain why we only get one value when we measure, but it doesn't explain why measurement itself is such a special act.

GRW escapes the ideas that measurement is a special act or that some specific part of measuring a subatomic particle causes the particle's wave function to collapse. At the same time, GRW theory is compatible with single-particle experiments that do not observe spontaneous wave-function collapses; this is because spontaneous collapse is posited to be extremely rare. However, since measurement entails quantum entanglement, GRW still describes the observed phenomenon of quantum collapses whenever we measure subatomic particles. This is because the measured particle becomes entangled with the very large number of particles that make up the measuring device.
Hartmann352

write4u

#### write4u

I think most modern physicists would probably subscribe to the idea that our subjective thoughts are correlated with the physical state of our brains and bodies. In fact, we might go so far as to suppose that mental states a one to one with physical states.
I understand that concept.
Your interpretation is not compatible with this naive dualist perspective.
I subscribe to Max Tegmark's concept of consciousness being an emergent property of certain patterns.

Concerning the interpretation that a person's body would be in a superposition of having experienced both a spin up and spin down electron. What mental state would they be in? You could say it is random at the end of the measurement. Say the person's mind experiences spin up right after the measurement. But what about 10 seconds after
I believe all EM information is controlled by the microtubule network of the brain and body.
Is there a rule that says if your mental state experiences spin down at the end of the experiment it will also experience spin down 10 seconds later despite the wavefunction having equal weight for both probabilities? If so our theory should probably be able to describe that rule.
You just did, no? We do know how oceans work without knowing the exact position of every H2O molecule. I believe Chaos Theory explains this;
Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary scientific theory and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws, of dynamical systems, that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, that were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.
Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness,
constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2]
Wikipedia
Or is it somehow possible for a person to have multiple simultaneous, and contradictory experiences? This has implications for what is meant by one's personal identity.
Is that necessarily a single person's experience. Any group of persons will experience an event differently and sometime contradictory.
OTOH, a group of people may experience a shared emotional experience facilitated by the "mirror neural network" ( a microtubule function).
One of the important consequences of attempts at solving the measurement problem for the philosophy of science in general has to do with the general problem of the underdetermination of theory by evidence.
But is that necessary? If we have confidence in the logic of Universal (not human) mathematics, is there reason to doubt the deterministic chronologies. Are Universal mathematics not consistent everywhere?
Although the various noncollapse proposals, including Bohm’s, differ from each other on questions as profound as whether the fundamental laws of physics are deterministic, it can be shown that they do not differ in ways that could ever be detected experimentally, even in principle. It is thus a real question whether the noncollapse theories differ from each other in any meaningful way.
There you have it.
A description of the world is “complete,” according to the authors (EPR), just in case it leaves out nothing that is true about the world—nothing that is an “element of the reality” of the world. This entails that one cannot determine whether a certain description of the world is complete without first finding out what all the elements of the reality of the world are.
I disagree with that. I don't need to inspect all apples in the world to know that apples exist.
Although EPR do not offer any method of doing that, they do provide a criterion for determining whether a measurable property of a physical system at a certain moment is an element of the reality of the system at that moment: This condition has come to be known as the “criterion of reality.”
Thank you for that term.
In its definition are the following:
Here, then, are the key features of EPR.
• EPR is about the interpretation of state vectors (“wave functions”) and employs the standard state vector reduction formalism (von Neumann’s “projection postulate”).
• The Criterion of Reality affirms that the eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenstate of a system is a value determined by the real physical state of that system. (This is the Criterion’s only use.)
• (Separability) Spatially separated systems have real physical states.
• (Locality) If systems are spatially separate, the measurement (or absence of measurement) of one system does not directly affect the reality that pertains to the others.
• (EPR Lemma) If quantities on separated systems have strictly correlated values, those quantities are definite (i.e., have definite values). This follows from separability, locality and the Criterion. No actual measurements are required.
• (Completeness) If the description of systems by state vectors were complete, then definite values of quantities (values determined by the real state of a system) could be inferred from a state vector for the system itself or from a state vector for a composite of which the system is a part.
• In summary, separated systems as described by EPR have definite position and momentum values simultaneously. Since this cannot be inferred from any state vector, the quantum mechanical description of systems by means state vectors is incomplete.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/# [/quote] But does that make it impossible for us to predict the future with some accuracy.
Higgs made a prediction about the existence of a boson and managed to tease it into existence for an instant. Did that require absolute mathematical precision or was there some minor inaccuracy allowed.

I remember the head technician on the Mars Rover project saying after the Mars landing; " We do not have to do this just right, we only have to do it right enough"
Supposing the wave function should still be a superposition of the person's body having seen up and down. So do the dice get rolled again to determine what the person experiences in this new instant? Is it random from instant to instant which experience we have?
AFAIK, no. The state is controlled by the variable resistance in microtubules. MT are natural potentiometers.

And for some reason Bohm's "enfolded implicate (potential) order" becoming expressed in the "unfolded explicate (manifest) order, i.e. "reality", resonates with me as an important philosophical perspective.

Potential = That which may become reality.

Last edited:

#### Hayseed

"Are you saying that a single photon does not exhibit wave function?"

It depends on what you are calling a wave function. Do you believe a wave function contains an alternating E polarity, like a sine wave? Then YES, there is no wave function. But if you believe that a intermittent series of one E polarity, with a duty cycle alternation(blinking on and off), instead of a polarity alternation, is a wave function, then yes, it has a wave function.

Are you confused? If you want to understand physicality, modern science will only confuse you. All of our science is based on a false concept. A math concept. Physicality only uses force and the reaction to force......there is NEVER any math or information used.

A wave form is nothing more than a stimulus intensity plot, on the Y axis, against time on the x axis. It's like watching the level of intensity with the duration of the intensity.

Are you with me? In theory, any physical dynamic(motion) can be plotted as a "wave function". ANY non wave function(any and all) can still be plotted as a wave function, because it's just intensity(or any measurement value) verses time. ANY motion plotted with time.........is a math wave function. Some values stay positive above the x axis and some stay below. Some swing up and down thru a zero value. Turning a switch on, can be called a wave function. Some values alternate polarity or direction with time, this would be the common "wave function". These are like media waves. Other functions turn on then turn off.....this is a duty cycle "wave function". This is light, it does not alternate....it blinks. On and off. And for every point plot of a wave form, one or multiple components can superposition for the value of the point. Spectrum components. Patterns within patterns.

A particle can not change into an emitted propagation, and then change back into a particle. That's nuts. It takes a particle to convert an angular EM field into a linear EM field. That's emission, it only takes an instant to do this. And it takes a particle to convert a linear field into an angular field, but it takes a full period to do this. A particle has angular field momentum at a velocity of c. For emission, all that is needed is to convert that angular velocity into linear velocity......and that just takes a turn......and it happens in an instant, because the field has no inertia. We are not turning the charge, we are only turning a portion of the outside area of that charge field. Without inertia, instant square turns can occur. Think of reflection.

Direct charge absorption is very hard to fathom without a structure. And the dynamic of the structure takes some time to explain. But lucky for us, absorption is not necessary for sensing and measuring. Only a tilt, or an re-orientation of charge is needed for detection. Think radio antenna. The photons are not absorbed by the free charge in the antenna. The free charge is only torqued and tilted and physically moved a short distance.......no absorption here. True charge absorption is conditional and a precise event. You can also have half absorption events. It takes a set amount of energy to be absorbed. If that amount is under that set point, it will reject what was absorbed and return to it's previous state by re-emitting. This is where most of the static in the universe comes from. There is an ancient under lying blanket of static in space. Due to "short" absorption. Think of a ratchet spring. If you push down, but not enough to ratchet, is springs back to the previous ratchet point.

#### write4u

Are you confused? If you want to understand physicality, modern science will only confuse you. All of our science is based on a false concept. A math concept.
Well, I am sure other scientists will be thrilled to hear that .
Let's do away with the maths and see where that leads us.
Physicality only uses force and the reaction to force......there is NEVER any math or information used.
I never claimed different!

But you just posited a mathematical equation.
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
An equation is a mathematical object, no?

Humans use symbolized and codified mathematics to describe the generic mathematical regularities by which the physical reality can become explicated and is expressed as atomic and molecular patterns of various densities.

You are only addressing the human interpretative anthropomorphization of human mathematics.

Can you make a single statement about universal constants that does not require a mathematical analogy?

I am serious, so far no one has been able to present a mathematics -free description of a regularly occurring physical expression.

The term "regularity" itself suggests a mathematical pattern.

I have never seen any description of reality that does not contain sets of values being processed via mathematical functions.

Value in --> mathematical function --> value out.

Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a "machine" or "black box" that for each input yields a corresponding output

Simply put, if an action is mathematically permitted it may become reality, if an action is not mathematically permitted , it cannot become reality.

All physics occurs via generic mathematical guiding equations that have nothing to do with human mathematics which is only interpretative of generic mathematical functions and chronologies.

If that is wrong, what then is the answer to this question ; Is Time a causal force or a passive mathematical chronology?

#### Hayseed

Well, one can spend years and years learning thousands of equations and then try to composite them in the concept of reality.

Or one can spend a few months learning a few principles, and then discern how all this "stuff" we live in, works. It does not require a degree. Any 16 year old can understand it. There is no better model. The model changes properties with all the correct ratios and proportions as all the measurements of the periodic table. And shows the physical cause for all the properties. This alone makes it a superior model over the standard QM model. One doesn't need to know the diameter of an electron in order to understand why it works like it does. One doesn't need to know the quantum lengths of dipoles, to understand why a dipole behaves as it does. Only a chemist does for the table. But all can basically understand how the physical universe works. Without any star trek magic.

And it is not hard. It's all classical electro-mechanical principles. Which can be easily demonstrated. Atomic structure and chemistry can be explained electronically. Because that what it is. A nucleus is an electronic circuit. It's all electronic. The only un-familiar thing about it, is the rotational resonance. And the quantum steps from it.

#### write4u

"Are you saying that a single photon does not exhibit wave function?"
If a particle "rides" a wave does it have a wavefunction or is it just a particle bobbing up and down on the wave?

That is Bohmian Mechanics, if I understand it correctly.
It does away with the duality contradiction.

Mind, I am only asking the question and I have read that Bohmian Mechanics are gaining in popularity in physics. All of my statements are "probative".

#### Hayseed

I don't know how a particle could "ride" a wave. A wave travels at c, too fast for a particle. However a field can steer and propel or repel a charge in any direction. Or to any position, if your good at it. An E field pushes and pulls, the magnetic steers. The M field flows thru the center of the charge and can steer it. Like a bead on a string. The M field flux flowing thru the center of particles, is the rope that ties the particles together to form a nucleus. And gives all the particles a common M field. But it's field flux, not wave flux.

I have not heard of Bohmian Mechanics. I'll look it up when I get a chance.

What do you think my icon represents?

#### write4u

I have not heard of Bohmian Mechanics. I'll look it up when I get a chance.

and

Here is link to David Bohm's famous work ; "Wholeness and the Implicate order"

Replies
0
Views
960
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
5K