QM randomness...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Seattle, Jun 2, 2017.

  1. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    You know fine well the article hinted at there being underlying structure to the wave function - it doesn't need to be random, like it was implied by some here.

    I really hoped that point would have got through.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    Interesting

    What motion of what system ? To your last statement .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    ... Of any charged particle - its purely speculative though on my part to say it is due to some motion in the system, but it does make sense.

    I found the references to varying the radioactive decay of particles much more interesting though. If you can dynamically change the rate at which a system decays, then you are physically altering something at the fundamental level.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162

    Yes , but what system ?

    I have also wondered about RDOP . Of course .

    But why can we not anaylize the last particle to decay , its position ?
     
  8. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    I'm being vague because this is a really deep subject. You are asking, the motion of what system?

    Well, consider the decay of an atom - in quantum mechanics and those who do not care so much for deterministic systems, have a buzz word for the decay of an electron from one level to another, called spontaneous emission. There is no reason given in the Schrodinger equation for an atom - even the classical Bohr model postulated there are ''special orbits'' in which an electron will lose radiation and fall to a new energy level (energy cannot decay below the ground state). The Schrodinger equation coupled with quantum uncertainty, provided a model in which atomic orbits were replaced with the concept of stationary orbits: That is, a phenomenon in which we can consider the electron having an orbit without acceleration.

    However, this isn't the whole picture, because we don't actually have a mechanism for the special orbits that may release radiation. That is certainly the key problem in my mind, when it comes to the problem of why an atom will decay due to radiation. There are of course, loads of situations atoms can decay and different types of decay as well, I am just working from a simple model in which a heavy atom will decay energy into a lighter atom, or a more stable atom.
     
  9. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    What do you picture ? What dynamics in the sub-atomics do you vision happening , in nuclear decay ?

    I'm not trapping you Geon , into answer , just fascinated by this discussion . Well until yourself nobody has discussed this before . So please continue .
     
  10. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    What do I picture?

    Difficult to say. When Bohr said there are special orbits, he was vague enough that he postulated such orbits existed, but didn't know how. With quantum mechanics, it's impossible to deny, that most of the time the electron will be behaving like a wave around a nucleus - are there some cases it is behaving like a particle? For a particle to give up radiation, it has to become localised - so there may have to be some revelation here.

    There is also an interesting effect, in which you can halt the decay of an atom indefinitely by a phenomenon called the zeno effect. This is because you can alter the evolution of the wave function of system, simply by measuring it. The reason why this is an interesting effect, because for this to happen, the very act of measuring the system ''weakly'' seems to cancel out those special orbits we have been talking about.
     
  11. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    I get what saying , Geon

    That the radioactive decay is the consequence of a system inbeded in the atom .
     
  12. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    Yes, I would suspect it is.
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    Okay , you got me on both statements .

    Localized

    Measuring , cancels .

    Your not making sense yet .
     
  14. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162

    Wouldn't surprise that this is true .

    So how do we go about proving this ?
     
  15. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    When an electron is orbiting an atom, in the quantum picture, the electron orbits as a cloud of probability, or simply as a wave around the nucleus of atoms. It will not give up radiation in this state, because the electron is not localised!

    A true local electron, making a true classical orbit around an electron was already investigated - these kinds of theories led to an electron giving up its radiation and falling into the nucleus of the atom. This is why, technically speaking, the wave function and uncertainty principle gave a wave-nature to an electron to allow stable orbits.

    In the case of spontaneous decay however, an electron will give up radiation and fall to a lower energy level. Bohr called these, ''the special orbits'' in which an electron can give up radiation. Now, the zeno effect, is a special effect on the atom itself, not the dynamics inside of it. If you measure an atom, you will effect the evolution of its wave function - it will not be able to decay. That is like as if the measurement cancels the ''special orbits'' out that allows the atom to lose energy through the electron ejecting a photon and falling to a lower energy state.
     
  16. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    A big study into it all and careful consideration for a working model. Wouldn't be easy.
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    When I was taking a non-destructive test course , several yrs. ago , one of the puzzling things was that electron would suddenly just dive towards the nucleaus of the atom . They had a small collider at the time .

    So are you saying that we could stop the nuclear decay simply by observation of the atom ?

    If not I don't get you .
     
  18. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    So what
     
  19. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    Yes it might sound strange, but it is true. We can make an atom, theoretically, infinitely-stable just by measuring it.
     
  20. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    Interesting

    But we measure the rate of decay ......
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    And how would that work?
    An atom is either in a stable state or in an unstable state, such as when it carries too many electrons.
    How does observation (measurement) stabilize this state, indefinitely, unless we strictly control the stability of its environment?
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,041
    "You are attempting to "speak about" the underlying reality that your author as quoted by you states is not spoken about by this "reconstruction from first principles".

    So what are the "hints"?"
    I'm sure that any wave function can describe non-random events, events describable as "cause and effect" without large error. So?
    No, you can't.
     
  23. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    Yes... we ... can.

    Have you never heard of the zeno effect? It would do you good to learn about it, because you act like you don't know very much.
     

Share This Page