Colllapse of the wave equation - not!

This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual problems of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a superposition of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow collapse to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus. This is another
simple example of how a faulty point of view fails despite the application
of any form of math used to describe it. So, it is called a 'mystery', or
even worse, a question that doesn't even belong to physics since we can't
answer it quantatively. This is a particularly sad conclusion since the
entirety of physics we know today rests on knowing how this can happen.
Instead we simply resort to 'cookbook' solutions that the maths can yield
answers to. It works after a fashion, yet we are still no closer to a
conceptual understanding of this most fundamental process as were the
founders of quantum theory were when they cobbled together the math we are
still using today. This is an untenable position, and it reveals its faults
when we try to apply the quantum theory cosmologically - gravity bluntly
showing us we had better be thinking about a better path...

One way out of this dilemma is to realize that the actual Schrödinger
equation is imaginary. We must apply 'math tricks' to get real probability
amplitudes out of it - we square its absolute magnitude. This gives us a
"real" solution, but doesn't tell us anything more about the nature of
reality, and why this process works. With an imaginary quantity, is it even
a fair assumption to say any process can yield a 'real' solution? And if so,
then what we call reality must be given a closer look. What is a real
solution in practice? A blip on a phosphor screen? An event? How do these
phenomena relate to the imaginary equation?

One answer is to say that the equation never collapses. It remains
imaginary, and what we can call an event is only a static representation of
an imaginary process. If, for example an electron is detected at the screen
of a double slit experiment, what we see is something static, unchanging. A
recording device will make its record - and this is a static, unchanging
thing. The wave equation that created the event hasn't collapsed any more
than a water wave disappears once it breaks against a boat dock. It changes
as we record the event of a vertical rise in water level as the wave reaches
the pier, but 'passes on', changed by its interaction with the pier but not
destroyed by it.

An imaginary wave makes a disturbance in much the same way. It passes a
sensor which records the event, and passes on, changed by the interaction
but not destroyed by it. How it changes is the answer for another post. If
it has deposited all of its ability to interact with other complex objects,
we can say the event recorded is also a measure of the waves potential to
create further change. We can call this potential the 'real' observables of
a wave i.e. a particle. But, remember all we really have is a static
representation of what the matter wave did during a particular space-time
interval. This real observable by no means relates to the actual collapse of
the imaginary wave itself. Apply energy either through a real or a virtual
process, and the wave equation can make another 'event'. The only thing that
is actually conserved in any particular collapse, which also is
relativistically invariant, is the conservation of probability.

Any further understanding of what we call quantum theory will not be done by
math, but by humanity's ability to conceptualize processes, the math will
then follow.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

"Greysky" wrote in message m...
This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual problems of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a superposition of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow collapse to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus.

You have a wave function that can be used to calculate the
probabilities of the various outcomes of some experiment.
After the experiment the outcome is known and you have
another wave function.
Someone decided to call this "the collapse of the wavefunction".

Dirk Vdm

nightbat wrote

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Greysky" wrote in message m...
This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual problems of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a superposition of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow collapse to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus.

You have a wave function that can be used to calculate the
probabilities of the various outcomes of some experiment.
After the experiment the outcome is known and you have
another wave function.
Someone decided to call this "the collapse of the wavefunction".

Dirk Vdm

nightbat

Gentlemen, with no personal disrespect, you two however are
beginning to sound like elusive mystical guru's instead of profound
scientific regular posting investigators. There is a difference between
imaginary and physical reactions, that which is real from that which is
virtual or imagined. One can collapse to self deduced mental
observations or desires as perceived reality or experience and note, if
wise, submit to peer process for ascertaining possible real ones from
purely illusory ones and, if not objective peer correlated, perhaps
confuse or not always be able to distinguish between real. Pull back,
one must learn to pull back from the mental deep, and total simple self
reliance on purely theoretical or exacting higher level mathematics,
even initial face observations, as no safe harbor. There is no
substitute, however, for actual working model. Surety of fact is
sometimes fleeting, an imagined lover is never equal to a real one, but
some say can come very close. Are we made of imagined or observed
deduced collapsed stars as real physical processes or virtual energy
wave functions in condensed matter form that can be truly measured and
perceived, and can they be one and the same? Is the presented quantum
reality too intricate for present mortal full understanding, Einstein's
pointing deducing that human intuitiveness is not enough? Are we
therefore, in examination of the ever further Planck length sub energy
fields, left with only more questions and doubt then understandable
logic or proof? If there are germs so micro invisible and undetectable,
but that can physically sicken or kill us, then why doubt? Can we ever
fully understand the eternal energy well from which all things
apparently come? What then is considered real, the temporary impulse
wave front, or its collapsed reactive ongoing effects? Are both not
needed and critical to our discovery of what is, visible or invisible,
or is only, ultimately, and therefore the physical understanding of wave
function what really matters? Can we distance and logically separate,
even for a moment, energy and mass dual understanding preoccupation from
full background spectral analysis, for fundamental understanding the
overlapping wave field as or from a disturbed uniform one?

In order for light to be self sustained photonic or reflected light, as
energy based bundled particle quanta or group wave, it requires counter
resistance, pressure, and or apparent nuclear non degenerating
preserving cohesive force. And additionally, if there is no perceived or
detectable medium presenting or resupplying same, then what is causing
light's relative invariant fixed momentum in space vacuum? Even, for
argument sake, if Greysky has truly found FTL and a way for non
resistive transmission of energy in vacuum, then that too however would
not prove absence of medium. For this would not negate actual observed
upper limit of renormalization of fields to base uniformity.

Perhaps Mr. Greysky can lend some theoretical or practical model insight
as to what energy supplying process is presented to permit faster then
light, but lower then total equalized field upper limit possibility, and
its sustainment in an present no medium needed field premise.


the nightbat

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Greysky" wrote in message m...
This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual problems of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a superposition of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow collapse to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus.

You have a wave function that can be used to calculate the
probabilities of the various outcomes of some experiment.
After the experiment the outcome is known and you have
another wave function.
Someone decided to call this "the collapse of the wavefunction".

Dirk Vdm

Well put Dirk!

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual problems
of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a superposition
of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow collapse
to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus.

You have a wave function that can be used to calculate the
probabilities of the various outcomes of some experiment.
After the experiment the outcome is known and you have
another wave function.
Do you? What you have may be a bright spot on a phosphor screen, or a stream
of binary digits indicating some quantity. Does the bright spot on a
photographic plate have a wave function? It is static, unchanging. It is
'real' and has no wave function associated with it. Probability no longer is
a rlevant feature of the dataset.

Someone decided to call this "the collapse of the wavefunction".
Because they were being lazy. Just because a datset is created from a
particular superposition doesn't mean anything has happened to the
wavefunction that has generated it.


Dirk Vdm


Greysky

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
[snip}
One way out of this dilemma is to realize that the actual Schrödinger
equation is imaginary. We must apply 'math tricks' to get real
probability
amplitudes out of it - we square its absolute magnitude. This gives us a

It is not a 'math trick'. It is due to the fundamental theorems of quantum
mechanics that the square absolute value of say the wavefunction in the
position representation yields the probability of a particle being at a
specific point in space. No trick. A physical model at work. It is not done
just because 'it works', but because it follows from the theory.

[snip]
One answer is to say that the equation never collapses. It remains
imaginary, and what we can call an event is only a static representation
of
an imaginary process. If, for example an electron is detected at the
screen
of a double slit experiment, what we see is something static, unchanging.
A
recording device will make its record - and this is a static, unchanging
thing. The wave equation that created the event hasn't collapsed any more
than a water wave disappears once it breaks against a boat dock. It
changes
as we record the event of a vertical rise in water level as the wave
reaches
the pier, but 'passes on', changed by its interaction with the pier but
not
destroyed by it.

The wavefunction for the electron isn't 'destroyed' either. It is just
changed. The 'collapse of the wavefunction' doesn't mean that it is
destroyed. Seems like you misunderstood that.

[snip]

/ Jesper P

"Greysky" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual problems
of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a superposition
of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow collapse
to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus.

You have a wave function that can be used to calculate the
probabilities of the various outcomes of some experiment.
After the experiment the outcome is known and you have
another wave function.
Do you? What you have may be a bright spot on a phosphor screen, or a stream
of binary digits indicating some quantity. Does the bright spot on a
photographic plate have a wave function? It is static, unchanging.

And it is a wave function.

It is
'real' and has no wave function associated with it. Probability no longer is
a rlevant feature of the dataset.

So probability 1 is not a probability?


Someone decided to call this "the collapse of the wavefunction".
Because they were being lazy. Just because a datset is created from a
particular superposition doesn't mean anything has happened to the
wavefunction that has generated it.

You don't need it anymore.
You can write down a trivial wave function now.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Greysky" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual
problems
of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a
superposition
of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow
collapse
to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus.

You have a wave function that can be used to calculate the
probabilities of the various outcomes of some experiment.
After the experiment the outcome is known and you have
another wave function.
Do you? What you have may be a bright spot on a phosphor screen, or a
stream
of binary digits indicating some quantity. Does the bright spot on a
photographic plate have a wave function? It is static, unchanging.

And it is a wave function.
Well, in the sense that we need to 'see' it, I suppose you are right. But it
is a mistake to say that the bright spot (which was crated by the coollapse
of the wave function, or conversly, the appearance of a particle) is still
the same wavefunction... it is a product of the original wavefunction, but
that is as far as you can go.


It is
'real' and has no wave function associated with it. Probability no
longer is
a rlevant feature of the dataset.

So probability 1 is not a probability?
Probability 1 is the original superposition that collapsed into the
observable. What you are talking about now is th result of the collapse- our
record of the event. Unless I missed your meaning... what is the wave
equation of a non-relativistic particle that has zero velocity?



Someone decided to call this "the collapse of the wavefunction".
Because they were being lazy. Just because a datset is created from a
particular superposition doesn't mean anything has happened to the
wavefunction that has generated it.

You don't need it anymore.
You can write down a trivial wave function now.
Ah... now that is where the heart and soul of my original question. Why so
we somehow think that once a wavefunction has collapsed, it is no longer
there? Yes, it no longer has any energy with which to make another event. If
it did, we'd be seeing many events arising from one wave equation and that
would tatter the Copenhagen interpretation of QM a bit. But, just because we
can no longer see a real event coming from this original superposition
doesn't seem to me enough evidence to just write it off. It may have been
complex before observing the event, but after the event it could still be
there as an imaginary, we would just no longer be able to detect it under
normal circumstances. To a physicist, this may be a proper reply: "If I
can't see it, it is no longer a valid subject for physics." But this view
does a disservice because it limits our knowledge, especially future
knowledge. What is trivial in one century, becomes the next century's
mainline physics


Dirk Vdm


Greysky

"Greysky" wrote in message .. .

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Greysky" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual
problems
of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a
superposition
of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow
collapse
to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus.

You have a wave function that can be used to calculate the
probabilities of the various outcomes of some experiment.
After the experiment the outcome is known and you have
another wave function.
Do you? What you have may be a bright spot on a phosphor screen,
or a stream
of binary digits indicating some quantity. Does the bright spot on a
photographic plate have a wave function? It is static, unchanging.

And it is a wave function.
Well, in the sense that we need to 'see' it, I suppose you are right. But it
is a mistake to say that the bright spot (which was crated by the coollapse
of the wave function

How silly.
The bright spot was created by a physical process.

As I said befo
"Someone decided to call this "the collapse of the wavefunction",
.... and by doing so caused some people to waste huge amounts
of time."

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Greysky" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
This problem has been seemingly one of the largest conceptual problems
of
the quantum physics. How a 'probability wave' can be in a superposition
of
states, essentially an infinite number of states, yet somehow collapse
to
only one outcome when observed with our various apparatus.

You have a wave function that can be used to calculate the
probabilities of the various outcomes of some experiment.
After the experiment the outcome is known and you have
another wave function.
Do you? What you have may be a bright spot on a phosphor screen, or a stream
of binary digits indicating some quantity. Does the bright spot on a
photographic plate have a wave function? It is static, unchanging.

And it is a wave function.

It is
'real' and has no wave function associated with it. Probability no longer is
a rlevant feature of the dataset.

So probability 1 is not a probability?


Someone decided to call this "the collapse of the wavefunction".
Because they were being lazy. Just because a datset is created from a
particular superposition doesn't mean anything has happened to the
wavefunction that has generated it.

You don't need it anymore.
You can write down a trivial wave function now.

Dirk Vdm

Vergon:

The wave function lives in the realm of pure mathematics so when you
have an outcome it dissappears (collapses).

A rough analogy would be the algebra word problems we did in
highschool. The equations were pure math but they dealt with real
objects.

So what's the problem?

Another thing. I attended a lecture by Gell-Mann at Caltech years ago
-- and he admitted that what he attempted to do was find a common
denominator to the atomic zoo. His approach was mathematical. At first
he came up with three results -- then six -- then more. He didn't know
what they were cause they were basically mathematical so he called
them quarks -- and gave them attributes he couldn't describe in real
terms so he labeled them with colors -- and up and down and backwards
and inside out and quivering.

Then the idiots took over and claimed particles were made of quarks.
Couldn't isolate any so they claimed they were locked in the nuclei.
HOW CONVENIENT.