Spooky or not spooky, that is the question.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by quantum_wave, Jan 27, 2016.

  1. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    I think I understand the gist. There are a bunch of energy waves crisscrossing every which way, and each intersection of waves not only leads to interference phenomena, but also can generate more waves. Is that a fair (if oversimplified) summary? Assuming my understanding is roughly accurate, I'm curious how you think this model can get around Bell's theorem, since it seems like the result of any measurement could be predicted if one knew the states of all nearby energy waves to sufficient accuracy.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Good; the waves are part of it, but the high energy density spots at each wave intersection are the other part. The waves converge to form spots, and tiny spherical waves emerge from the spots and intersect with other waves, forming new spots.
    I can't answer that. I'm still thinking about it though. Where I think I am with the description of an oscillating background that advances wave energy fronts as they traverse it, is that everything occurs locally, increment by increment, as the "meaningful" waves pass through the oscillating foundational background.

    Can I get some comments on the conclusion that every action would be local?

    To add some more to the idea, the oscillations of the background govern the speed of light and gravity, and so there is no FTL in this brainstorming idea.

    Note that the nature of particles I have in mind are composed of "meaningful" wave energy imposed "on top" of the background, a layer upon a layer, so to speak. A single low energy photon particle, for example, might be a complex "standing wave pattern" that conceivably could consist of millions of tiny wave intersections and their associated spherical waves, at any given point in time. Each internal wave that makes up the internal composition of that photon, would be advanced through space by the oscillating background that exists everywhere, within the particle's space, and surrounding it. I would, by definition, differentiate between the (almost meaningless) sub-quanta background waves, and the meaningful waves that make up particles.

    Just thinking about your question ... Keeping a tab on states of any measurements that individually might (or might not be predictable given various "layers" of wave action), even if one knew the states of all nearby energy waves to sufficient accuracy, would bring us to the same problem that already exists in quantum mechanics, i.e., knowing both location and momentum at any given moment. You can't know that information, and I don't see how you could say what the sum of the states of wave/spot/wave action of a tiny patch of oscillating background might be, let alone the information associated with even a tiny particle. And yet what I envision is a mechanistic explanation down at that tiniest level of wave/spot/wave interaction.

    Any comments are appreciated.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    609
    The basic 'problem' in quantum mechanics is that the 'wave' is quantized - if it is detected at one point then the wave isntantly vanishes from the rest of the Universe. I'm not seeing how your structure could do this.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I'd put that in as another of the mysteries of QM. The waves I am envisioning don't instantly vanish; wave energy being conserved would seem to preclude that. You might have noted that I referred to the wave/spot/wave action at the foundational background level as sub-quantum, but I do refer to particles as being composed of wave energy in quantum increments. I won't go into all the gorie detail right now, but I have pages of word salad on the subject out in the fringe, some of which may fit in with the brainstorming here, later.
     
  8. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    609
    There's a guy who writes applets - the ripple tank seems very much like what you are suggesting.
    Try:-
    http://www.falstad.com/ripple/
    He gives the source code.
     
  9. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725

    I agree; even if the waves themselves are extensive and complicated, as long as the dynamics are governed by the way waves interact as they overlap, everything is local in the Bell sense.
    Fair enough that you're still thinking through it; here's my main concern so far. Whether a person can know the full information about the local wave configuration is kind of beside the point. As long as it's a well-defined quantity, Bell's theorem applies. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics gets around Bell's theorem because (for instance) an electron in an up-spin state doesn't even have a specific value for its left/right spin until it is measured along that axis. In your model, the outcome of every measurement can be predicted from the precise configuration of the waves and background, whether or not that information can be known in practice.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    In a post from June 29, 2015, as I was contemplating the nature of particles, in the thread, "Fleshing Out Wave-Particle Duality in the ISU", I was considering the uncertainty about knowing both the location and momentum of a particle, in the light of the structure and composition of particles as I had come to describe them, i.e., complex standing wave patterns, encompassing maybe millions to billions of wave intersections (high energy density spots), that moved through the oscillating background in the direction of the highest net inflowing wave energy density source.

    As a result of that contemplation, I concluded that not only can't we know both location and momentum at the same time, but maybe we could not know either the location or the momentum precisely. Particles in my model are not tight solid little units, but instead are frothing with internal activity, and directional inflow of wave energy, and spherical out flow; quantum action as I call it. Therefore, the internal action is not symmetrical and consistent, but instead, is oscillations between waves and high density spots, and the high density spots have a proclivity to form in the direction of motion, since that is where the highest inflowing wave energy density is coming from, giving the complex standing wave pattern an off center leaning, not the spherical shape I often like to talk about for convenience. I would say a moving particle's complex wave pattern has a "bulge" pointing in the direction of motion, and a fuzziness when it comes to knowing the precise location and momentum at any point of measurement or moment in time.

    You can read that whole post where it sits out in the Fringe.

    That is where I stand now as to the nature of particles, and the fuzziness of their location and momentum at any given instant. Not only might we not be able to have enough information to predict the next action without knowing the surrounding gradient of the medium of space, but maybe particles don't even have the well defined nature and quantities that can be established by the conventional means of quantification or measurement.

    I add this content to the brainstorming, for discussion and thought, and look for other views and ideas toward the objective of describing particles and mechanics that could give alternative ideas to explain the spookiness of QM.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2016
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I do like those simulations. Though I haven't gone to a PC to view them properly, I have been familiar with various simulations over the years, and they keep getting better. The oscillating background, without the presence of matter, is much easier to program, but the nature of any given patch of space that contains matter, EM, gravitational waves, and large scale structure then must also contain waves of various magnitudes traversing the same space. Each wave of whatever magnitude, must pass through the same space as waves of all magnitudes, and that presents a circumstance where the advance of each individual wave is assisted by the same oscillating background. That compounds the work of the oscillations, and the energy density present in the background, adding to the local, point by point fluctuations in density. The fluctuating energy density of the local background has an impact on the efficiency of the background, and that causes a local slowing of the rate of advance of the waves that are layered together. I know, too much information, lol.

    If you think about it for awhile, you see the intricate advance of multiple waves through the same background as quite a complex "set of instructions" for a programer to simulate. Never the less, simulations get better and better over time, and it is certainly an interesting and exciting field of work.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Help me grasp what the implications would be, re. Bell, if everything was local. If the oscillating wave/spot/wave action of the foundational background was in effect, and if that meant that there is locality in all events, and no non-locality, and no faster-than-light communication, where does that leave us in regard to the conclusions of Bell's theorem?
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Is it true, that given a speculated reality such as the "brainstorming" idea of complete locality without FTL communication, the Bell conclusion would that there must therefore be super-determinism, meaning there is no random chance of anything, no free will, no action or outcome that isn't already determined by an endless string of unavoidable results, suggesting that what will happen in the future cannot be altered?

    I doubt if anyone would believe that could ever be the case, even if the speculative "complete locality" was shown to be true.
     
  14. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    In short, Bell's theorem would hold under those conditions, meaning we would never see long-distance correlations stronger than the ones predicted by classical mechanics.

    I think that's correct. Without any FTL influence of any kind, super-determinism is pretty much the only way out. Note that what you're talking about, where every future event is predictable based on the current state of the universe, is just regular determinism; it's gone out of fashion since the advent of quantum mechanics, but it still has some adherents. Super-determinism is much more contrived. It states that not only are our future choices pre-determined, they are pre-determined in such a way that the measurements we choose will always give us false violations of Bell's inequalities! In my opinion, super-determinism crosses the line from a rigidly-structured model of the universe to a flat-out cosmic conspiracy theory, so it's not a reasonable option.
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I'll start my reply philosophically, and then fall back into my "brainstorming" speculation.

    Philosophically, speaking of defying logic, either regular or super-determinism fills the bill for me. To me, the human mind is the current height of a continuing evolution on Earth. With that high evolution seems to come a proclivity to believe that the human mind can somehow come to understand the universe through scientific discovery. The default position would be, "who says human's should be able to understand".

    I think the answer to those conflicting ideas is in which view is scientifically motivating. Hands down, it is the thought that we can discover and understand more and more about the universe that motivates the efforts for scientific advancement.

    Speculatively, advancing toward quantifying the ideas of "complete locality" with no FTL, and without determinism, is in line with the goal of scientific advancement to support the interpretation that QM is incomplete, and in need of modification based on new discovery. Right now the postulates of QM cannot define a realty that features complete locality that isn't super-deterministic, but determinism would seem to require forces that are far more unimaginable, scientifically, than the idea that QM is somehow incomplete.

    I hope you will address the fallacy in that thinking.
     
  16. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    Oh, I agree. And there are a lot of people who would be very happy if someone could put together a working interpretation of QM that didn't fly in the face of how we think natural laws are supposed to work. But that task is hard. Harder than a lot of people realize. I think that's the main reason I post on threads like this; as a quantum physicist, I feel like it's part of my job to spread the word about just how deep quantum weirdness goes.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I consider it grand to have a thread that you find a reasonable vehicle for expressing just how deep quantum weirdness goes. If I didn't fully appreciate that depth, I do now, hearing it from you. But I have known for a long time that the answer to the weirdness is unsatisfying if it is based on the premise that "who says human's should be able to understand".

    ...So here I am, a layman science enthusiast, brainstorming the idea of complete locality without FTL, lol.

    Let me add some brainstorming ideas about how particles and waves are superimposed on the oscillating background medium, characterized by wave/spot/wave action.

    Those particles have a continual presence in the sense that they have a physical location, relative to all other particles and waves, and move around along a single path within the oscillating background. A meaningful particle doesn't normally pop in and out of existence, or take multiple paths in a background that is generally in the process of equalizing locally, but can pop in and out under certain unusual circumstances.

    However, there are so many wave/spot/wave intersection events related to the presence of even a single sub-atomic particle, and any motion of that particle relative to the oscillating foundational background, that it is beyond expectations of our precise knowledge to consider that system would allow any predictable determination of anything that approaches the interplay of trillions of such events that characterize the most insignificant macro level action of a specific particle or wave.

    So, for consideration as part of the brainstorming, in the quantum realm, event by event may be predictable under close enough examination, but there isn't any means for such close examination or knowledge, and so events have an apartment randomness in the quantum realm that doesn't become predictable until and when atomic particles are examined under controlled circumstances as we move up the scale toward the macro level.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2016
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Once we can observe particles, particle interactions, location or momentum, charge, spin, energy, etc., scientists can postulate quantum actions that we can't yet observe, and from the postulates we move to predictions. We can test predictions; even collide a stream of particles and see what comes out. Scientists continue to learn about particles and their energies, their composition, and they continue to predict and investigate, and consequently science advances.

    My prediction is that someday there won't be anything spooky about quantum mechanics; everything will make sense mechanistically. That is if mankind has long enough to work on it. Give us another hundred years before we drive ourselves into another dark age.

    Brainstorming on a generally layman level forum like SciForums is a layman hobby, and I don't expect much participation since there are as many different possibilities for the mechanics of "spookiness" as there are thoughtful interested individuals to do the speculating. But if you are contemplative, and if you follow the slowing growing evidence, maybe you will, like me, conclude that everything is connected and follows invariant natural laws. Anyone disagree?
     

Share This Page