Why I Like The Transactional Interpretation

I'd just like to see an example - so I thought you could talk me through a simple one (i.e the QHO). Does this sound ok?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, you're not.

Now...

''If you want critical analysis of your ideas, then I will start by taking exception to your very first sentence in the OP. The reason we don't observe quantum effects on a large scale is the result of statistical averaging, no further explanation is required. The quantum decoherence model doesn't add anything to this; on large scales both the Copenhagen and quantum decoherence interpretations give the same results, namely Newtonian physics (for non-relativistic quantum mechanics) or Special Relativity (for relativistic quantum mechanics).''

You're right that it doesn't add anything, if you where not intentionally missing out the relations between how our universe would look like, than what it is observed today, so the superpositioning theory states that we are adding details to the universe, or universes, everytime we make an observation.

As for the latter here, this is more or less what i was saying. Copenhagen has it's problems when accounting for the infinitesimally-small behaviour when in contrast with the large, which is why i started this thread to begin with. To show that current logic in physics today, is telling us that the Transactional Interpretation can add new variables onto the Copenhagen Interpretation, when strangely enough, a multiverse interpretation stands better hope.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QHO?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Harmonic Oscillator.

 

Right. So let' first ask again, what is it you are wanting to know about oscillatory systems?

 

I would like you to give an explicit example of the path integral approach to QM! The simplest (non-trivial) quantum system I know of is that of the QHO. Can you show the working of how the path integral approach is applied to this system.

Is this ok?

 

Then let's work with a wick rotations first.

Considering only the paths of a system which begin and end in the same configuration, perform the Wick rotation \(t->it\) where we are adding imaginable variables, and integrate the sums over all possible beginnings and endings so that they match equivilant conversional factors.

This is as simple as i can put it the now. I need to head out for an hour, so if you have any more questions, you'll have to wait the now.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Can you just outline the path integral approach for the QHO? I.e, start by writing down the relevant Hamiltonian and work from there?

Your last post has confused me.

 

I am back, but not for long... so i will quicly surmize our misunderstandings. Perhaps from my view, or yours. Who knows?

Right, the above works i quickly gave are related to temperature equations and we relate temperature to the known \(\beta\) symbol, as most of us will know here, are related to the thermodynamical law, where entropy is an increasing value from the past cone, and where systems do have wavelike structures, then the system is undefined, and takes out all possible paths it can take.

But we need to remember about the statistics here. A wave forward without a collapse, is like a wave backwards, so temperature is involved in the Hamiltonian workings. So, if we took the Schrodinger Equation as an example, and even the Heat equations, are in fact primary examples of a Wick Rotation.

In a heat equation, we find that even for macroscopic systems, like an ice cube in a glass, the ice cube will displace more as time passes. If you have three spatial dimensions, and one time, usually the heat equation yields a zero value.

In a single dimension, the derivation of such a single point like configuration, now yields the equation, \(q=-k \nabla u\) so that the reduction of the equation using the Fourier Law yields \(q=-ku_{x}\). This means that the k is an acting thermal variable of conductivity, so in only one dimension, the gradient produces what we have seen.

This means, that there is an inverse law in which the equations are held, when \(<\psi \psi>< \psi* \psi*>\) are the functions of inverse conjugates. In other words, the process forward, is NEVER seen the same way, unless, mind the pun, it is seen from some observational point of view, where the wave duration of the system yields \(\psi \psi*= \pm 1\), and we say \(\pm\) because it is representing the temperature, \(\beta\), or if you like, the wave vector as being non-biased about any eigentstate it can have, when considered over a sum of its histories.

I cannot make it any more simpler than that I am afraid. You’ll just need to accept that these functions operate together in this way, and with the understanding of Generalized Absorber Theory, can one see a particle in imaginary time, taking all of it’s actions and non-actions into consideration, so the wave fields have no problem in defining a specific path, so long as relativity takes hold of it, and allows it to manifest as some kind of Least Action at very small values.

We link the time variable as an imaginary vector, and this creates rotations in spacetime where the beginning and end play the same roles. Of course, this statistically is very improbable, when taking a large clump of defined matter, so it’s not easy to see it from that point of view. Instead, we have resolved the work down to simple deduction.

\(x- \Delta x \le \xi \le x + \Delta x\)

because the time variable exists as a mathematical discipline that is a conjecture made by Einsteins teacher Minkowski… given as \(–ds^2+ds^2+ds^2=ds^2\) where the \(-ds^2\) is the acting time variable, whilst the other dimensions remain as spatial dimensions, but they switch roles all the time, according to relativity in strange gravitational singular area’s of spacetime.

 

None of this makes any sense - I just want you to start from the Hamiltonian for the quantum system we've mentioned, and use the path integral approach to describe it! Your last post has confused me even more! I know you're trying to help, but please could you just concentrate on the one thing I've asked?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Again, you missed the point. You said there's no real explanation for why the statistical processes at the quantum level aren't observed on large scales. I just told you that they are, and statistics itself is the reason. You flip a coin a billion times, you will get almost exactly 50/50 heads/tails. You put a billion atoms together, and the quantum strangeness almost entirely cancels out. There's no need to invoke String Theory or other advanced topics you don't understand in the slightest, so just stick to basics.

 

Well, from a oscillatory view, and from what I know, the Hamiltonian makes scetches of a systems ‘’flow’’. I don’t know a great deal about them, but Euler-Lagrange equations derive the same variables as I have been showing above. From what I recall, we use a single coordinate, like \(x\), as seen in light from the spatial equations we covered, a one-way ticket down dimension land, is not allowed in all cases, because \(\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=0\) so the derivative becomes a constant.

This is why, a thing can oscillate, so long as the system worked with, \(x\), is not invariably connected to \(L\). So because of this, there is a work of superpositioning values, where 0.50/0.50 can describe a photon take two different angles off a spacetime map, at the same time, so long as it’s beginning of its path IS NOT defined, or collapsed.


Did i miss a point CPT? Or is it more like impatience from you and your inheedy little bloodsucking sock-puppet...? And it's not very attractive. So let's try and keep this civil. Please.

 

I can't get the equation to come out right... gggrrrr

 

\(\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=0\)

 

That's better. lol

 

Sorry, but this still isn't making any sense - you're just confusing me! Could you just do the following:

1) Write down the relevant action for the QHO.
2) Use the Feynman path integral approach to derive the equations governing the dynamics.

If you don't actually know how to do these things, please just say. Otherwise you're just confusing the issue, and it isn't really fair on me!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reiku, for once put your physics where your mouth is :

One line answer required

Half a dozen lines required.

No BS, no words, just equations. I bet you don't do it. I bet you prove to everyone yet again that you're a pathetic, lying BS'ing idiotic faker.

 

If you want to keep this civil, don't call me a bloodsucking sock-puppet, you moronic lunatic. And yes you're missing pretty much everything. You haven't even written down what the Lagrangian for a QHO actually is, I want to see the equation expressing \(L\) before you even begin to proceed.

 

Now, hand on heart, and i say this very respectively, is that i don't mind doing what is required. But, i noticed Guest is definately someones sockpuppet. If it wasn't yours, then it was i am sure to nearly 99% is a sockpuppet for Alphanumeric, so... you stupid little girl, or boy, or whatever you are, don't talk down to me like i am gonna take it like a good bitch.

Enough of targeting me, and actually analyze the theory for yourself. I am here to display work, not to answer every bloody question, because none of us have 100% information on any theory; that's how big the physics is, and you if you have studied it to the degree you say you have, will know this. It's a big arena, and i admit not to know everything behind it. That's why my studies goes on.

I actually had a lot more to say on this. What i find interesting now is that any integrity has been lost on this thread. And i am not so sure any mod is moderating any flaming behaviour.

Guest245... i made a thread not long ago, you may well have read it, where people like you are the manifest of cowerdly. So before you say things like:

''If you don't actually know how to do these things, please just say. Otherwise you're just confusing the issue, and it isn't really fair on me!''

I showed you. If anyone other than any sock-puppets have anything to say, then please do. Either, i simply won't entertain.

 

Don't talk down to us by making accusations about us that you can't prove. Correcting your mistakes is not talking down to you, but the opposite- you are talking down to us if you expect us to accept your mistakes and not correct them.

We did analyze your "theory", and it's wrong. It's not science. This is a science board. Go make your own board on your own website if you want to make up your own facts. If you don't want to be targetted, then stop posting falsehoods in the math & physics section.

The problem isn't that the arena is big, you haven't even entered it. Who do you think you're kidding? Certainly not anyone who's actually studied the physics of which you speak. Writing down the Lagrangian of a classical SHO or the Hamiltonian for a nonrelativistic QHO is the first step in solving the problem. You understand? It's not an advanced concept, it's the very fundamental beginnings. You can't talk about any results or more advanced stuff until you can first write down the Lagrangians or Hamiltonians for these systems. I'm asking you to do that, give me the Lagrangian for a classical harmonic oscillator of mass \(m\), or the Hamiltonian of a nonrelativistic QHO with canonical momentum \(p\). Here, I'll even start you off, go ahead and fill in the blanks for me:

\(L=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2-\)__________________
\(\hat{H}=\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}+\)__________________

Then once you've done that, we can discuss the Klein-Gordon equation and its harmonic oscillator solutions.

Your posts in this thread never had any integrity to begin with. The only one who thinks so is you, not one single person who studies actual physics has agreed with you, aside from Guest254, who was f*cking with you. You've always been the one to flame, you've always been the first one to start the personal attacks and accusations. You should be amazed you're even still allowed to come here and troll despite repeated warnings and bans.

You haven't shown anyone anything, just flooded the thread with white noise in an attempt to evade the questions we ask you. Go ahead, fill in the blanks.