Particle Waves, Born vs. Einstein, Seasnakes and Little Ants

[Stella]

I confess, I do not know how to manipulate the mathematics of quantum theory. All I have done is read Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe”. In fact, I am concerned only with an argument presented in Chapter 4 of that book.

In it, Greene points out a gaping disparity between intuitive grasp of quantum mechanics vs. relativity. It is the failure to grasp – non-mathematically - particles which are also waves that creates this problem. Greene rightly notes this is an oxymoron and furthermore defies the human instinct that something in the microcosm of quantum mechanics should be analogous to the macrocosm in our lexicon of physical experience. Nonetheless, it is proved in the two-slit experiment that particles are also waves by the formation of an interference pattern after passing through the slits (rather than continuing in a straight path). Presently, the best attempt to cope with these matters is Max Born's position that the path particles take is based on probability. Though he has introduced the pesky involvement of entropy, mathematically, probability is discernable and calculable. Einstein’s disagreement with Born gave rise to his comment that God does not play dice with the universe. But the mathematics involved like Feynman's sum-over-paths confirm that Einstein was wrong to expect pattern and not probability.

So, here I will present an idea that comes to mind when thinking of particles as waves which tend to an interference pattern that is intuitively sensible. As experts and mathematicians, I hope that you can either shoot it down in flames or confirm there may be mathematical justification agreeing with Born and Feynman's calculations.

Imagine you are a photon, or an electron. No more are you unique, with choice of motion. Motion is the point of your existence; moreover, your predetermined motion behavior depends upon identical particles to form a chain. Not a problem as in your world, as there are always identical particles nearby. To move, you must sniff out the closest particle and form a snakelike pattern that undulates left and right. This is because without undulating your group would form a straight line. Like a seasnake, you could not be in motion if straight, so you must undulate as a wave, collectively. As it is, according to general relativity, space itself distorts in curvature to facilitate movement of bodies therein. The motion of a group of tiny ants demonstrates this ability in nature of identical “particles” to move collectively in such a manner. They do not merely march individually of their own volition, but constantly check the location of the adjacent ants to ensure formation of a chain, which determines their collective path. Incidentally, cursory observation shows they do move in a wavy pattern. If nature presents these abilities of collective movement to form chains, and chains to undulate rather than form lines (DNA?), it appears to me this can form the basis for particles moving as waves. So if photons that pass through two slits form an interference pattern rather than going straight, it’s because they are contacting each other on the left and right of the other side to regain their wave pattern as a whole group from two groups. Two groups would be an impossible state, forced by the experiment, and they simply rejoin in undulating chains; the rejoining after separation is the interference pattern. If this is true, we would expect them to behave exactly as they do when coming from two groups as opposed to one. Also, the interference pattern is geometrically perfect, so it would seem that the point is for particles to have predetermined behavior to form snakelike waves for motion than to follow laws of probability. However, mathematically, the probability laws would NOT be invalidated by this view. The particles would still be “likely” to take the path that they do. The only difference would be the "why" is explained; even when it comes to playing dice, probability, without a behavioral pattern as its basis, cannot be calculated.

As a footnote to all this, seasnake behavior formed by a chain of particles might just as well be called “strings”.

Thoughts?

[austintorn@aol.com]

I think that particle behavior has got to be determined, because it and the energy supporting it has an infinite history, and so this even suggest an infinite precision to its doings, plus, the conservation laws also make it so, not to even mention that the universe must sum to zero since it's made of a distributed form of nothing, for there is certainly nothing else to make things out of. Note the positive/negative opposite pair emission of electrons and positrons from the vacuum everywhere.

Yes, Stella, stay away from gambling houses.

And enjoy the big beach where you are working.

[Stella]

Thanks for your enjoyable response. I do see your point that much of what the two-slit experiment proves about particle behavior fails to take into account the ultimate balancing act carried out by the universe.
My point is that patterns are found there, and underlying patterns ought to be identifiable behavior. Why the tendency to form waves if not for the purpose of motion? Probability forms the basis of calculation but does not seem a satisfactory explanation for patterned behavior. Is chance/probability the underlying principle, or is it applicable with the principle of behavior absent of explanation?

At any rate, there are no gambling houses on this beach And a big beach it is. If only the particles of sand could organize themselves as well as subatomic particles and photons in the two-slit experiment...although they do seem capable of tunneling as well.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Two-Slit Experiment

In the case of one electron
Interfering with itself
In the two-slit experiment,
Modern physics has unhinged itself
From causal reality by having it
That electrons do not exist
Until they are observed at the phosphor screen,
The pattern being caused by
The superposition of all possible paths
The electron might take to the screen,
Yet, it happens,
And even electrons hundreds of kilometers apart
Will form an interference pattern
That accurately corresponds
To the source’s diameter.


The Two-Slits Mystery Revealed

In the two-slit experiment,
In which one photon (or electron)
Is sent through one at a time,
Still forming an interference pattern,
The solution to the mystery
Is that any given photon
Sets the aperture’s state
Based on its exit trajectory,
For it has a particular momentum
And energy based on the aperture’s state
And the incident photon’s momentum;
The next photon to follow
Encounters this set state,
Which is that casual relationship
Between the two,
Although widely separated in time.

The material of which
The aperture is composed
Is a system with an existing quantum
That that interacts with an incoming photon.

The three states
That the aperture must occupy are
1) Photon is incident,
2) Photon merges with aperture, and
3) Photon is transmitted.

Since energy and momentum
Are always conserved
And there is angular variance
Caused by the width and spacing of the slits,
The aperture’s quantum state changes
Depending on the direction
Of the transmitted photon.
The aperture, although macroscopic,
Still exists in only one state at a time,
And charts the path for the next incident photon.
The results of the photon passages,
Due to the conversation of momentum
(To infinitely fine resolution),
Must be preserved in
The aperture’s current state
As a complimentary response.

So, there is no observer-created reality
With none before it.

Heisenberg was wrong to say
That “atoms are not things”.

Reality remains intact.

[Stella]

The Two-Slit Experiment
The pattern being caused by
The superposition of all possible paths
The electron might take to the screen,
Yet, it happens,
And even electrons hundreds of kilometers apart
Will form an interference pattern
That accurately corresponds
To the source’s diameter.

Fantastic post. Point well taken.

[austintorn@aol.com]

What about this?

RECENTLY, AT BOLTZMANNGASSE 3 IN VIENNA

Institut für Quantenoptik und Quanteninformation
(IQOQI)

Does the moon still exist
When we aren’t looking at it?

Yes.


LOCALITY AND/OR REALISM
(AND ‘IT FROM BIT’?)

One (or both) of these assumptions is
Inadequate to describe the physical world;
However, Bell’s theorem
Does not say which to abandon.

However, lately it has been confirmed
Even more conclusively
By Ziellinger and associates
That entangled particles do not have
Preexisting properties,
Such as polarization,
That are independent
Of any observation.

So, there goes naive realism.

Now, what about at the classical level?
Well, although there, too,
We transform reality, or I could even say,

Create reality, although it’s consistent
Among all individuals,
For we see the same trees
And buildings, for example.

Two particles are called entangled
If they share the same fuzzy quantum state,
Meaning neither of them begins
With definite properties
Such as location or polarization
(Which can be thought of
As a particle’s spatial orientation).

Measure the polarization of one photon,
And it randomly adopts a certain value,
Say, horizontal or vertical;
Oddly, the polarization of the other photon
Will always correlate to that of its partner.

Zeilinger, whose group invented
A common tool for entangling polarization,
Likes to illustrate the idea
By imagining a pair of dice
That always land on matching numbers.

Equally mysterious,
The act of measuring one photon’s polarization
Immediately forces the second photon
To adopt a complementary value.

This change happens instantaneously,
Even if the photons are across the galaxy;
The light-speed limit obeyed
By the rest of the world
Can take a leap,
For all that quantum physics cares.

I’d like to come to the second freedom:
The freedom of nature.
You said that for example
The velocity or the location of a particle
Are only determined at the moment
Of the measurement, and entirely at random.

I maintain: it is so random
That not even God knows the answer.

For me the concept of “information”
Is at the basis of everything we call “nature”.
The moon, the chair, the equation of states,
Anything and everything,
Because we can’t talk about anything
Without de facto speaking about the information
We have of these things;
In this sense the information
Is the basic building block of our world.

In your last book you wrote:
“Laws of nature should make no distinction
Between reality and information.” Why?

We’ve learnt in the natural sciences
That the key to understanding can often be found
If we lift certain dividing lines in our minds.

Newton showed that the apple falls to the ground
According to the same laws
That govern the Moon’s orbit of the Earth.
And with this he made the old differentiation
Between earthly and heavenly phenomena obsolete.

Darwin showed that there is no dividing line
Between man and animal.

And Einstein lifted the line
Dividing space and time.

But in our heads,
We still draw a dividing line
Between “reality” and “knowledge about reality”,
In other words between reality and information.
And you cannot draw this line;
There is no recipe, no process for distinguishing
Between reality and information.

All this thinking and talking about reality
Is about information,
Which is why one should not make a distinction
In the formulation of laws of nature;
Quantum theory, correctly interpreted,
Is information theory.

And can you explain
All these strange quantum phenomena
Conclusively with your information concept?

Not all of them yet, but we’re working on it;
With limitation it works excellently.

How?

I imagine that a quantum system
Can carry only a limited amount of information,
Which is sufficient only for a single measurement.

Let’s come back to the situation of two particles
Colliding like billiard balls,
And in so doing entering a state of limitation.

In terms of information theory that means
That after the collision the entire information
Is smeared over both particles,
Rather than the individual particles
Carrying the information.
And that means the entire information we have
Pertains to the relationship
Between both particles;
For that reason, by measuring the first particle
I can anticipate the speed of the second,
But the speed of the first particle is entirely random.

Because the information isn’t sufficient.

Exactly. Its randomness is ultimately
A consequence of the
Finiteness of the information.

Quantum Breakdown

To investigate where quantum mechanics
Breaks down and classical mechanics begins,
The team is investigating
Two weird quantum properties:
Entanglement and superposition.
When two particles become entangled,
They become inextricably intertwined,
So that changing the properties of one
Has an immediate effect
On the properties of its partner

Superposition is another feature
That is peculiar to quantum systems;
Before a quantum object is measured,
It does not have definite characteristics;
Instead, it exists in a superposition
Of multiple mutually contradictory states—
Allowing it to be in two places at once, for example.

Thus, if information is the
Most fundamental notion
In quantum physics,
A very natural understanding of phenomena
Like quantum decoherence
Or quantum teleportation emerges.

And, so, quantum entanglement
Is then nothing else
Than the property of subsystems
Of a composed quantum systems
To carry information jointly,
Independent of space and time;
And the randomness of
Individual quantum events
Is a consequence of
The finiteness of information.

The reduction of the wave packet
Is just a reflection of the fact
That the representation of our information
Has to change whenever the information itself
Changes as a consequence of an observation.
…

A few months ago Zeilinger reported
Implementing a new kind
Of statistical Bell test,
Devised by Leggett,
That pits quantum mechanics
Against a category of theories
In which entangled photons
Have real polarizations
But exchange hidden particles
That travel faster than light.

In principle,
Such faster-than-light theories
Might have perfectly
Mimicked quantum strangeness
And let realism go unmolested.
Not so, according to the experiment:
The results could be explained
Only by quantum unreality.

So what idea replaces realism?
The situation calls to mind
One of Zeilinger’s favorite books,
The humorous novel
‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’,
By Douglas Adams,
In which a mighty computer
Crunches the meaning of life,
The universe and everything
And spits out the number 42.

So its creators build a bigger computer
To discover the question.

If quantum indeterminacy
Is like the number 42,
Then what idea makes it intelligible?

Zeilinger’s guess is information,
Just like a bit, can be 0 or 1;
A measured particle ends up
Either here or there;
But if a particle carries only
That one bit of information,
It will have none left over
To specify its location
Before the measurement.

Unlike Einstein, Zeilinger accepts
That randomness is reality’s bedrock.

Still, “I can’t believe that quantum mechanics
Is the final word,” he says.
“I have a feeling that if we get really deep insight
Into why the world has quantum mechanics”—
Where the 42 comes from—“we might go beyond.
That’s what I hope.”

“Then, finally, would come understanding.”

42

[Stella]

Very much food for thought, Austin!

I'm sort of hanging on the thoughts about Newton's gravity findings because they were as near mathematically accurate as we could tell and yet Einstein overturned that. Newton came out with the caveat that it was inconceivable for gravity to be acting without an agent, and wrote that he left what that was, material or immaterial, to the consideration of his readers. What Einstein found was the agent. The way Greene presents the story about quantum mechanics is to say that we can't find a similar why & wherefore for particle behavior because: there is nothing we can relate to in our own minds from our experience to imagine it. That is what I'm not sure I agree with.

"To investigate where quantum mechanics
Breaks down and classical mechanics begins,
The team is investigating
Two weird quantum properties:
Entanglement and superposition.
When two particles become entangled,
They become inextricably intertwined,
So that changing the properties of one
Has an immediate effect
On the properties of its partner"

Exactly. Are we so ingrained in our individuality and mobility that we cannot conceive of being in a dependent system which would dictate our movement? Granted, that should not be difficult. But just because it is a dependent system where a partner is influenced by the foregoing photon does not mean that randomness is not at play. It just means that there is dependency within randomness...

[austintorn@aol.com]

ZERO?

How could a random event manifest itself
With no conception of it somewhere else?
Wouldn’t this be something become of nothing?

[Graybeard]

Greene points out a gaping disparity between intuitive grasp of quantum mechanics vs. relativity. It is the failure to grasp – non-mathematically - particles which are also waves that creates this problem. Greene rightly notes this is an oxymoron and furthermore defies the human instinct that something in the microcosm of quantum mechanics should be analogous to the macrocosm in our lexicon of physical experience.

Hi Stella ... If it is an oxymoron ... ok ... but if its not an oxymoron would it make a difference to the sea-snake behaviour ?

Newton came out with the caveat that it was inconceivable for gravity to be acting without an agent

Thoughts?

My first thought is that Newton didn't come out with that caveat ... but on second thought, he may have, I don't know. But I do know that he said he found no cause, but it must have certain attributes that made it discrete ??

cool bananas ... greg

[Stella]

ZERO?

How could a random event manifest itself
With no conception of it somewhere else?
Wouldn’t this be something become of nothing?

That's a darn good question. I have rationalized that away - which is certainly what I have done - by imagining that the 'conception of it somewhere else' may be possible due to dependent behavior that is somehow ingrained in the particles. It isn't something that I can argue cohesively for or against. It is more or a perception that I do not seem to find any arguments for or against...