The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics

[CptBork]

I would say I am into it for 14 years so far. But I'm old, so I'll have to get to it. I've been leaning toward the hidden variables interpretation that you are so adamant against. I'll have to see if pilot waves can be the answer, but I did look at the interpretation before and it didn't seem consistent with other things I have been invoking. But the answer is out there, so I keep looking and hypothesizing. It is hard to get any intelligent discussion because everyone is so much smarter than me when they are on line.

I think this post clearly demonstrates the distinction between mainstream and fringe science/pseudoscience. If we just based our present understanding on what Einstein personally liked, we wouldn't even bother discussing quantum particles or any other form of "godly dice-throwing", and yet lo and behold, these concepts are indeed fundamental to modern research. We seem to have plenty of folks around here lately who can agree that they disagree vehemently with the present-day picture (usually on "logical" grounds a deaf, blind person could presumably argue with equal validity), but there doesn't seem to be much consensus on what the "really true, absolutely correct" picture is supposed to be to take its place.

As to the article cav755 vandalized on Wikipedia, the usual editors were slow to respond to my concerns (indeed, for all I know they never even bothered to read them), but if you check the article's discussion page, they're finally smelling the bullshit too now and starting to retch. I don't think they'll have quite the same patience for this crap once they've been through the cycle a few times like we're all used to here at sciforums.

 

[cav755]

I think this post clearly demonstrates the distinction between mainstream and fringe science/pseudoscience. If we just based our present understanding on what Einstein personally liked, we wouldn't even bother discussing quantum particles or any other form of "godly dice-throwing", and yet lo and behold, these concepts are indeed fundamental to modern research. We seem to have plenty of folks around here lately who can agree that they disagree vehemently with the present-day picture (usually on "logical" grounds a deaf, blind person could presumably argue with equal validity), but there doesn't seem to be much consensus on what the "really true, absolutely correct" picture is supposed to be to take its place.

As to the article cav755 vandalized on Wikipedia, the usual editors were slow to respond to my concerns (indeed, for all I know they never even bothered to read them), but if you check the article's discussion page, they're finally smelling the bullshit too now and starting to retch. I don't think they'll have quite the same patience for this crap once they've been through the cycle a few times like we're all used to here at sciforums.

And now you're the one stuck in the past.

'When fluid dynamics mimic quantum mechanics - MIT researchers expand the range of quantum behaviors that can be replicated in fluidic systems, offering a new perspective on wave-particle duality.'
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/when-fluid-dynamics-mimic-quantum-mechanics-0729

"“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.”"

 

[CptBork]

And now you're the one stuck in the past.

'When fluid dynamics mimic quantum mechanics - MIT researchers expand the range of quantum behaviors that can be replicated in fluidic systems, offering a new perspective on wave-particle duality.'
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/when-fluid-dynamics-mimic-quantum-mechanics-0729

"“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.”"

I don't see anything in there putting so much as a dent in the good 'ole Copenhagen Interpretation. A physicist getting excited over prospects and speculating is not the same thing as a physical fact that has been tested and beaten to death. As one of the Wikipedia editors told you just a couple of days ago, Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for you to go about preaching your "idiosyncracies". Any physicist worth their salt will openly admit that the Copenhagen Interpretation is only one of many ways of viewing quantum mechanics and its underlying postulates, but any physicist worth their salt won't pretend that there's any meaningful evidence pointing away from it either.

 

[BlackHoley]

I don't see anything in there putting so much as a dent in the good 'ole Copenhagen Interpretation. ...

It's interesting, because while most physicists would agree with the interpretation, I doubt it is because they are fully satisfied with it and also keeping in mind what the second most popular alternative is... parallel universes.

I doubt Copenhagen is correct in thinking that particles don't exist before they are observed, that's just as absurd to think that there are an infinite amount of potential universes that can spring into action at any moment due to any action made in this universe.

 

[CptBork]

I doubt Copenhagen is correct in thinking that particles don't exist before they are observed, that's just as absurd to think that there are an infinite amount of potential universes that can spring into action at any moment due to any action made in this universe.

I doubt the mayor of Copenhagen thinks much of anything about particles whatsoever. In any case, the Copenhagen Interpretation most definitely does not say "particles don't exist until they're observed".

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't see anything in there putting so much as a dent in the good 'ole Copenhagen Interpretation.

If the current debate about the various interpretations had anything to do with the current equations and tools used to in quantifying experimental results, then you might have a point. But all of the interpretations acknowledge the same tools and equations of QM, they differ as to how the results of the application of those equations is interpreted, as I understand it.

 

[BlackHoley]

In any case, the Copenhagen Interpretation most definitely does not say "particles don't exist until they're observed".

??

Yes it does, the whole thing was originally created by Bohr who, was well aware that systems in this theory didn't have any defined configuration before the collapse. Hence why Einstein abhorred the Copenhagen interpretation! He even created a funny thought experiment, how he challenged that systems where not there when not being watched, he asked if the moon was there if no one was watching it and... can a mouse collapse the wave function?

So of course, in Copenhagen, we are led to believe that before the wave function collapse, there is no way to say the system is even there. Instead we adopted the more popular terminology, it existed in a slur of states or probabilities which where not real until something disturbed that wave function.

 

[cav755]

I don't see anything in there putting so much as a dent in the good 'ole Copenhagen Interpretation. A physicist getting excited over prospects and speculating is not the same thing as a physical fact that has been tested and beaten to death. As one of the Wikipedia editors told you just a couple of days ago, Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for you to go about preaching your "idiosyncracies". Any physicist worth their salt will openly admit that the Copenhagen Interpretation is only one of many ways of viewing quantum mechanics and its underlying postulates, but any physicist worth their salt won't pretend that there's any meaningful evidence pointing away from it either.

"Physicists’ inability to detect de Broglie’s posited waves led them, for the most part, to abandon pilot-wave theory. Recently, however, a real pilot-wave system has been discovered, in which a drop of fluid bounces across a vibrating fluid bath, propelled by waves produced by its own collisions."

 

[BlackHoley]

But you know... systems are still there when not being watched. It just goes to reason or you are met with a paradox I mentioned the other day, how can a system be observed which isn't there?

 

[cav755]

I doubt the mayor of Copenhagen thinks much of anything about particles whatsoever. In any case, the Copenhagen Interpretation most definitely does not say "particles don't exist until they're observed".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Copenhagen_interpretation

"One cannot speak of the location of any particle such as a photon between the time it is emitted and the time it is detected simply because in order to say that something is located somewhere at a certain time one has to detect it."

You can't say the particle travels through one slit or the other. If you can't say the particle physically travels through one slit or the other you aren't doing physics.

 

[CptBork]

If you can't say the particle physically travels through one slit or the other you aren't doing physics.

How are you not doing physics, if treating the particle as a wave while in motion leads to the correct predictions, and all attempts over the last 100 years to circumvent this wavelike nature have failed? You can't say the Copenhagen Interpretation is unphysical and then fail to produce a single physical example where it falls flat. Even with the examples you keep citing as evidence for de Broglie's interpretation, they can still be taken as evidence for the Copenhagen Interpretation with equal validity, since they still match its predictions.

 

[CptBork]

If the current debate about the various interpretations had anything to do with the current equations and tools used to in quantifying experimental results, then you might have a point. But all of the interpretations acknowledge the same tools and equations of QM, they differ as to how the results of the application of those equations is interpreted, as I understand it.

Not necessarily so. Many proposed alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation have already been ruled out by experimental tests of Bell's inequalities. To be specific, local hidden variable theories have been completely crossed off the list, and it would be conceivably extremely difficult if not impossible to define a nonlocal hidden variable theory that didn't break the rules of Relativity.

 

[BlackHoley]

Not necessarily so. Many proposed alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation have already been ruled out by experimental tests of Bell's inequalities. To be specific, local hidden variable theories have been completely crossed off the list, and it would be conceivably extremely difficult if not impossible to define a nonlocal hidden variable theory that didn't break the rules of Relativity.

Almost ruled off the list. Bell himself admitted there could be a superdeterminism about the universe.

 

[cav755]

How are you not doing physics, if treating the particle as a wave while in motion leads to the correct predictions, and all attempts over the last 100 years to circumvent this wavelike nature have failed? You can't say the Copenhagen Interpretation is unphysical and then fail to produce a single physical example where it falls flat. Even with the examples you keep citing as evidence for de Broglie's interpretation, they can still be taken as evidence for the Copenhagen Interpretation with equal validity, since they still match its predictions.

The Copenhagen interpretation fails because it doesn't allow you to say where the particle is during the experiment.

If the C60 molecule waves in a double slit experiment and atom detectors are placed in the slits then why aren't atoms detected in both slits? Why is the C60 molecule always detected as a single entity, as 60 interconnected atoms, in one of the slits?

In every double slit experiment ever performed the particle has always been detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit.

This is physical evidence the particle travels through a single slit.

Now, you will say when you don't detect the particle something else occurs. When I ask you what that something else is you start making stuff up.

Particles are particles and waves are waves.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

 

[CptBork]

The Copenhagen interpretation fails because it doesn't allow you to say where the particle is during the experiment.

You have no evidence to show that a particle has a well-defined position when it's not being measured. Since the experiments you cite can be completely explained with the Copenhagen Interpretation, you can't cite those as proof of well-defined positions either.

If the C60 molecule waves in a double slit experiment and atom detectors are placed in the slits then why aren't atoms detected in both slits? Why is the C60 molecule always detected as a single entity, as a C60 molecule, in one of the slits?

Because, as is taught in virtually every basic intro to quantum mechanics, any attempt to detect particles passing through one slit or the other interferes with their wave function and causes it to collapse, making it practically impossible to be detected at both slits (however, I actually have heard of recent direct evidence for photons existing and being detected simultaneously in two places at once).

In every double slit experiment ever performed the particle has always been detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit.

For someone who professes to possess such expertise in quantum mechanics, it's seriously disappointing that you neglect how every attempt to detect particles going through one slit or another also kills the interference pattern on the screen. If a particle only travels through one slit or the other, and doing so one by one leads to an interference pattern, then why does that pattern completely disappear when you only attempt to detect particles passing through one of the slits and leave the other completely untouched?

 

[cav755]

Because, as is taught in virtually every basic intro to quantum mechanics, any attempt to detect particles passing through one slit or the other interferes with their wave function and causes it to collapse, making it practically impossible to be detected at both slits.

Are you saying portions of the C60 molecule waves through both slits, for example 20 atoms travel through one slit and 40 through the other, or are you saying the C60 molecule itself is waving through both slits simultaneously? If the C60 molecule itself is waving through both slits, how does it pass through the divider in order to travel through both slits?

How do the atoms travel through the divider? Why is it if you fire single atoms at the divider they never pass through it? Why isn't the atom able to wave through it? If you fire a C60 molecule at the material the divider is made of the C60 molecule never waves through the material. How do you explain what occurs physically in nature so that the C60 molecule is always detected as a single entity when detectors are placed within the slits if the C60 molecule is waving through both slits?

For someone who professes to possess such expertise in quantum mechanics, it's seriously disappointing that you neglect how every attempt to detect particles going through one slit or another also kills the interference pattern on the screen. If a particle only travels through one slit or the other, and doing so one by one leads to an interference pattern, then why does that pattern completely disappear when you only attempt to detect particles passing through one of the slits and leave the other completely untouched?

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path that takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave and the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling.

Particles are particles and waves are waves.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

 

[CptBork]

How do the atoms travel through the divider? Why is it if you fire single atoms at the divider they never pass through it? Why isn't the atom able to wave through it? If you fire a C60 molecule at the material the divider is made of the C60 molecule never waves through the material.

I'm not even sure you're aware of how these experiments are done in practise, because the double slit picture is only a simplified idealization of far more complicated diffractive behaviour in general. You're also completely wrong- C60 has been shown to possess wavelike properties when in motion, albeit on a much smaller wavelength scale than what you'd see with electrons and photons.

Are you saying portions of the C60 molecule waves through both slits or the C60 molecule itself is waving through both slits simultaneously?

You could say either, or even both. The fact is that all possible paths contribute to the interference pattern at the screen, and any attempt to detect particles going through only one slit or the other kills that interference pattern.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path that takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the hidden medium passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave and the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm not asking you to give your personal explanation for the results of the double slit experiment when attempting to block or monitor one of the slits. I'm asking you how you can conclusively deduce that a particle travels only through one slit or the other, when it's impossible to test this claim without destroying the interference pattern.

 

[cav755]

I'm not even sure you're aware of how these experiments are done in practise, because the double slit picture is only a simplified idealization of far more complicated diffractive behaviour in general. You're also completely wrong- C60 has been shown to possess wavelike properties when in motion, albeit on a much smaller wavelength scale than what you'd see with electrons and photons.



You could say either, or even both. The fact is that all possible paths contribute to the interference pattern at the screen, and any attempt to detect particles going through only one slit or the other kills that interference pattern.

Thinking a C60 molecule is traveling all possible paths simultaneously is absurd nonsense.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm not asking you to give your personal explanation for the results of the double slit experiment when attempting to block or monitor one of the slits. I'm asking you how you can conclusively deduce that a particle travels only through one slit or the other, when it's impossible to test this claim without destroying the interference pattern.

In every double slit experiment ever performed the particle is always detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit. This is physical evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

In a boat double slit experiment are you able to understand the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both whether you detect the boat or not?

 

[CptBork]

Almost ruled off the list. Bell himself admitted there could be a superdeterminism about the universe.

In other words, either local hidden variables are either completely off the list, or else every single consistent physical pattern in the entire universe is part of one big giant flukey coincidence.

 

[CptBork]

Thinking a C60 molecule is traveling all possible paths simultaneously is absurd nonsense.

If it's such an absurd notion, then why can't you find a single experiment disproving it?

In every double slit experiment ever performed the particle is always detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit. This is physical evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

*Sigh* No, every single double slit experiment ever performed shows that you only get an interference pattern when you lack any specific info on the particle's trajectory, and never under any other circumstances.

In a boat double slit experiment are you able to understand the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both whether you detect the boat or not?

Boats are not atoms, molecules or subatomic particles.